00474
905R91100
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments
1991 Work Plan
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
Chicago, Illinois
-------
'( '
Foreword
On November 16, 1990, President Bush signed into law the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990
(GLCPA). The GLCPA extends the ARCS program by one year, and stipulates a number of activities to
be conducted immediately. As I/7/s Work Plan was prepared prior to the passage of this Act, it does not
reflect the changes mandated in the Act. Future revisions of the ARCS Work Plan will reflect these
changes.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PI.-".?\) fnof
n Wc-.t Jackson Boulevard, 12th Flan
Cnicago, IL 60604-3590 ^
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Overall Program Scope j
1.0 Introduction /
2.0 Objectives 1
3.0 Activities 4
4.0 Products 6
5.0 Timeline 6
6.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 6
7.0 Data Management 10
8.0 Publication Policy 10
II. Toxicity/Chemisiry Work Group Work Plan 11
1.0 Introduction 11
2.0 Objectives 11
3.0 Activities 11
3.1 General Characterization, Sampling and Mapping of Sediment Deposits 11
3.1.1 Pre-Survey Phase 12
3.1.2 Reconnaissance Survey Phase 14
3.1.3 Inter-Survey Phase 14
3.1.4 Supplemental Survey 14
3.1.5 Post-Survey Phase 17
3.2 Sediment Biological Assessment 17
3.3 Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Fish Samples 17
3.4 Broader Spectrum Toxicity Testing of Selected Sediment Samples T8
3.5 Fish Tumor and External Abnormality Survey 18
3.6 Fish Bioaccumulation Assays 18
4.0 Products 20
5.0 Progress on .Assessment Surveys 20
6.0 Timeline 21
III. Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group Work Plan 22
1.0 Introduction 22
2.0 Objectives 22
3.0 Activities 22
3.1 Hazard Evaluation 23
3.1.1 Exposure Assessment. 23
3.1.1.1 Exposure Modeling 25
3.1.1.2 Synoptic Surveys 28
3.1.2 Risk and Hazard Assessments 30
3.1.2.1 Human Health Risk Assessment 30
3.1.2.2 Aquatic Life Hazard Assessment 3)
3. J.2.3 Wildlife Hazard Assessment 31
3.2 Site Prioritization for Remedial Action and Development
of Decision Support Tools 32
4.0 Products 33
5.0 Accomplishments in Fiscal Year 1990 33
6.0 Timeline 34
IV. EngineeringfTechnology Work Group Work Plan 35
1.0 Introduction 35
2.0 Objectives 35
3.0 Activities 35
3.1 Review of Technical Literature 36
3.2 Evaluation of Applicability 36
3.3 Develop Recommendations for Pilot-Scale Demonstrations 36
3.4 Estimate Contaminant Losses During Remediation 37
3.5 Collection of Sediments for Bench-Scale Testing 37
-------
3.6 Sediment Storage and Analysis 38
3.7 Bench-Scale Tests of Selected Treatment
Technologies 38
3.8 Evaluation of Chemical Solidrfication/Stabilizatbn
Technologies 39
3.9 Workshop on Bioremediation. 39
3.10 Evaluatbn of Chemical Solidification/Stabilization Technologies 39
3.11 Pilot-Scale Demonstration Projects. 40
3.12 Development of Options for Priority Consideration Areas 40
3.13 Summaries of Treatment Technologies 40
4.0 Products 43
5.0 Accomplishments in Fiscal Year 1990 43
6.0 Timeliness 45
V. Communication/Liaison Work Group Work Plan 46
1.0 Introduction 46
2.0 Objectives 46
3.0 Activities 46
3. / Work Group Interaction 47
3.2 Preparation of Information Materials 47
3.3 Mailing List Compilation 47
3.4 Soliciting Public Input 48
3.5 Development and Maintenance of Library Repositories 48
3.6 On-site Coordination and Public Meetings 50
3.7 Slide Show Preparation 50
3.8 Video Preparation 50
3.9 Guidelines for Public Participation 50
4.0 Products 50
5.0 Accomplishments in Fiscal 1990 50
6.0 Timeliness 51
ARCS PROGRAM COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP 52
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE. 52
ACTIVITIES INTEGRATION COMMITTEE 53
TOXICITY/CHEMISTRY WORKGROUP. 54
RISK ASSESSMENT/MODELING WORKGROUP 55
ENGINEERING/TECHNOLOGY WORK GROUP 56
COMMUNICATIONS/LIAISON WORKGROUP 57
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Toxicrty/Chemistry Analysis Matrix. 13
Table2. ARCS Biological Test Matrix 19
Table 3. Hazard Evaluations to be Performed. 24
Table 4. Components of Phase I and Phase II Exposure Modeling Efforts 24
Table 5. Treatment Technologies. 41
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Map of ARCS Priority Areas of Concern 2
Figure 2. ARCS Management Structure 3
Figure 3. Relative Resource Allocations for Work Groups 7
Figure 4. Sediment Sample Analysis Schematic. 15
Figure 5. Process of Mapping Sediment Contamination and Toxicity 16
ii
-------
MAPS
Indiana Harbor. 58
Indiana Harbor. 55
Buffalo River 60
Buffalo River 61
Saginaw River 62
Saginaw River 63
Saginaw River 64
Ashtabula River 65
Sheboygan River 66
111
Recycled Paper
-------
Overall Program Scope
1.0 Introduction
The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act, in Section 118(c)(3), authorize the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) to coordinate and
conduct a 5-year study and demonstration project relating to the control and removal of toxic pollutants in
the Great Lakes, with emphasis on removal of toxic pollutants from bottom sediments. Five areas were
specified in the Clean Water Act as requiring priority consideration in locating and conducting demonstration
projects: SaginawBay, Michigan; Sheboygan Harbor, Wisconsin; Grand Calumet River, Indiana; Ashtabula
River, Ohio; and Buffalo River, New York (Figure 1). In response, GLNPO has initiated the Assessment and
Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) program. ARCS is an integrated program for the
development and testing of assessment and remedial action alternatives for contaminated sediments.
Information from ARCS program activities will be used to guide the development of Remedial Action Plans
(RAPs) for the 42 Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs, as identified by the International Joint
Commission), as well as Lakewide Management Plans.
Although GLNPO is responsible for administering the ARCS Program, it is a multi-organization
endeavor. Other participants in ARCS include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), EPA headquarters
offices, EPA Regions II, III and V, Great Lakes State Agencies, numerous universities, and public interest
groups.
The management framework for the ARCS Program is depicted in Figure 2. The Management
Advisory Committee provides overall advice on ARCS Program activities. The Management Advisory
Committee is made up of representatives from the organizations noted above. Three technical Work Groups
identify and prioritize tasks to be accomplished in their areas of expertise. These are the Toxidty/Chemistry,
Risk Assessment/Modeling, and the EngineeringfTechnology Work Groups. The Communication/Liaison
Work Group oversees technology transfer, public information, and public participation activities. The Activi-
ties Integration Committee coordinates the technical aspects of the work groups' activities.
2.0 Objectives
The overall objectives of the ARCS program are:
• To assess the nature and extent of bottom sediment contamination at selected Great
Lakes Areas of Concern,
• To evaluate and demonstrate remedial options, including removal, immobilization and
advanced treatment technologies, as well as the "no action" alternative, and
• To provide guidance on the assessment of contaminated sediment problems and the
selection and implementation of necessary remedial actions in the Areas of Concern and
other locations in the Great Lakes.
The primary aim of the ARCS Program is to develop guidelines that can be used at sites throughout
the Great Lakes. Site-specific factors at the five priority consideration areas will need to be considered in
-------
Figure 1. Map of ARCS Priority Areas of Concern
-------
Figure 2. ARCS Management Structure
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Chaired by GLNPO Director
ACTIVITIES INTEGRATION COMMITTEE
Chaired by GLA/PO Staff Chief
TOXICITY/
CHEMISTRY
WORKGROUP
RISK
ASSESSMENT/
MODELING
WORKGROUP
ENGINEERING/
TECHNOLOGY
WORKGROUP
COMMUNICATION/
LIAISON
WORKGROUP
-------
conducting assessments and choosing appropriate remedial alternatives for those locations. The varying
characteristics at the five areas should provide a range of conditions applicable to other sites. The five sites
are to be viewed as case studies of the application of the procedures developed under ARCS.
Another important aim of the ARCS Program is that the procedures developed and demonstrated
be scientifically sound, and technologically and economically practical. The intent is to provide the
environmental manager with methods for making cost-effective, environmentally sound decisions. As a
result, application of existing techniques is stressed over basic research into new ones. Some develop-
mental work is, however, being undertaken.
To completely assess the causes and effects of contaminated sediments and to fully evaluate tfie
remedial options available, a mass balance of each of the priority areas, including quantification of
contaminant loadings from point and non-point sources, would be desirable. Unfortunately, such
characterizatbns could cost several millions of dollars for each priority area. The ARCS Program intends
to use the available resources to develop a basic framework for site characterization. More in-depth evalua-
tions could be performed if additional funds became available.
It is important to stress at the outset that ARCS is not a cleanup program, and will not solve the
contaminated sediment problems at the five priority consideration areas. The Program will, however, provide
valuable experience, methods, and guidance that could be used by other programs to actually solve the
identified problems.
There are several important aspects of the management of contaminated sediments that will not
be fully addressed by the ARCS Program because they were felt to be outside the main objectives of the
study. Regulatory requirements and socioeconomic factors in decision-making are two such aspects that
will be critical in the choice of a remedial alternative (or whether to remediate at all). While not addressing
such issues in depth, the ARCS Program will identify issues that need to be resolved before sediment
cleanups can go forward.
3.0 Activities
Many complicated issues need to be addressed in order to accomplish the objectives of this
Program. These include:
Are the sediments contaminated with substances that are impairing or injuring biota
(aquatic, mammalian, avian or human)?
Is the injury of such magnitude or quality that remedial action is needed?
Will remedial actions be effective in reducing or eliminating the impairment or injury?
What remedial action alternatives are available, what are their limitations and how
effective are they likely to be?
What are the possible adverse impacts of the remedial action itself?
What are the costs of taking remedial action?
-------
The three technical Work Groups are responsible for answering these questions. The genera!
responsibilities of the Work Groups are as follows:
Toxicity/Chemistrv Work Group. To assess the current nature and extent of contaminated sediment
problems by studying the chemical, physical and biological characteristics of contaminated sediments and
their biotic communities, to demonstrate cost-effective assessment techniques at the priority consideration
areas that can be used at other Great Lakes Areas of Concern, and to produce three dimensional maps
showing the distribution of contaminated sediments in the priority areas.
Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group. To assess the current and future hazards presented by the
contaminated sediments to all biota (aquatic, terrestrial and human) under the "no action" alternative and
other remedial alternatives at the priority consideration areas, and to develop a ranking scheme for inter-
site comparison.
Engineering/Technology Work Group. To evaluate and test available removal and remedial technologies
for contaminated sediments, to select promising technologies for further testing, and to perform field
demonstrations of as many of the promising technologies as possible.
Communication/Liaison Work Group. To facilitate the flow of information from the technical Work Groups
and the overall ARCS Program to the interested public and to provide feedback from the public to the
ARCS Program on needs, expectations and perceived problems.
Activities Integration Committee. The Activities Integration Committee has oversight over the ARCS
Program, including the activities of each of the Work Groups. To aid in consistency in Program activities,
Vie Activities Integration Committee is responsible for coordinating Quality Assurance/Quality Control
(QA/QC) and data management activities of the ARCS Program. This involves ensuring that proper
QA/QC measures are integrated into Work Group activities through the development and peer review of
quality assurance and sampling and analysis plans.
More detailed descriptions of each Work Group's objectives and activities are provided in
individual Work Group work plans presented in the following chapters.
Many of the activities performed by one work group will be useful to, or needed by, the other
work groups. For example, physical, chemical and biological information obtained by the
Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group wilt be needed by both the Risk Assessment/Modeling and the Engineer-
ing/Technology Work Groups. The Work Groups will interact with each other on a regular basis to ensure
that needed informatbn is obtained in a timefy manner. The work plan identifies where information
exchanges are expected.
While the Clean Water Act specifies that priority consideration should be given to the Ashtabula
River, Buffalo River, Grand Calumet River, Saginaw Bay and Sheboygan Harbor, it does not preclude
considering other areas in the Great Lakes. The ARCS Program will take advantage of ongoing
sediment-related activities in these other locations where it would be beneficial. Some of the priority
consideration areas are the sites of intensive work by other programs. Both the Ashtabula River and the
Sheboygan River are being addressed under the U.S. EPA Superfund Program. Rather than duplicate
efforts in these areas, ARCS will follow these activities to utilize the information gained, and will focus
-------
its resources only on factors that are not being addressed by Superfund activities. This is felt
to be the most cost-effective way to utilize ARCS funds.
4.0 Products
Ten documents are foreseen as products of the ARCS Program. The tentative title of each
document and a brief description of its anticipated focus are given below:
Volume I Executive Summary Document. A comprehensive overview of the ARCS Program, its
objectives, activities and outcome.
Volume II Layman's Guide to Contaminated Sediments. A non-technical overview of the
contaminated sediments problem, which would focus on education of the public to
enable their effective participation in local sediment-related issues.
Volume III Contaminated Sediments Assessment Guidance. The primary technical document
discussing techniques forthe assessment of contaminated sediments, as demonstrated
in the ARCS Program.
Volume IV Contaminated Sediments Remediation Guidance. The primary technical document
discussing techniques for the remediation of contaminated sediments, as demonstrated
in the ARCS Program.
Volume V Contaminated Sediments Management Document. A management document
discussing how to deal with contaminated sediment issues from cleanup of existing
contaminated sediments problems to preventing problems from developing in the first
place. This document would discuss non-technical issues that need to be addressed
in managing sediments, including socioeconomic factors and regulatory requirements.
Much of this document will be developed by EPA Headquarters as part of the national
contaminated sediment program.
Volumes Each of the five priority consideration areas will be presented as a case study in the VI-
VI-X implementation of the guidance contained in Volumes III through V.
In addition to these products, each individual study funded by will be written up as a technical
document.
5.0 Timeline
Summary schedules of the activities for each of the work groups are presented within the
chapters for the respective Work Groups. Figure 3 depicts the overall key activities and the level of effort
and funding required by the Work Groups for the duration of the Program.
6.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
It is U.S. EPA policy that all environmental sampling and testing be done in accordance with a
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). Therefore, all participating laboratories and investigators are
-------
Figure 3. Relative Resource Allocations for Each of Four Work Groups
V)
c
03
o
o
o
o
o
V)
-------
required to comply with strict quality assurance requirements through compliance with quality assurance special
conditions in grants and Interagency Agreements (IAG). The purpose of the QAPP is to specify the policies,
organization, objectives, and the quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) activities needed to achieve
data of a "known and acceptable" quality for the ARCS project and that meets the overall ARCS objectives.
These specifications are used to assess and control measurement errors that may enter the system at various
phases of the project, e.g., during sediment sampling, preparation, and analysis. Adherence to an overall
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) program is essential fora large, multi-participant program such as
ARCS, to ensure that the data collected by individual investigators will be comparable and congruous.
To achieve the goal of obtaining data of "known and acceptable" quality for the ARCS Program the
ARCS Activities Integration Committee (AIC) has oversight responsibility for the ARCS QA/QC program. The
EPA Environmental Monitoring and Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada (EMSL-LV), which is supported
by Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company (Lockheed-ESC), is responsible for the implementation and
daily operation of the ARCS QA/QC program. The primary tasks of EMSL-LV and Lockheed-ESC are to: 1)
assist in the development of program and project Data Quality Objectives (DQOs); 2) review QAPPs submitted
by the principal investigators (PI); 3) develop a laboratory and field audit program; 4) develop a QA/QC
evaluation scale for historical datasets; 5) prepare a Quality Assurance Management Program (QAMP); 6) act
as an intermediate data repository for the ARCS program; and 7) prepare a final QA report. Each of these tasks
will be discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs.
Upon initial entry into the ARCS program, a list of pertinent questions relating to the DQOs of the
ARCS project was developed and distributed to the ARCS management and each of the technical work groups.
The DQO questions were formulated to stimulate the program participants into thinking about the objectives of
the ARCS Program and how their individual projects would fit in. The questions also made the Pis think about
what type of data would be generated, whether it is relevant to the ARCS Program, and how much error was
allowable in their measurements (i.e., develop Measurement Quality Objectives - MQOs) such that their data
would not compromise the objectives of the ARCS Program.
Once the DQOs are established, the participating Pis are required to prepare QAPPs for their projects
to satisfy the DQOs and have their QAPPs reviewed and approved by the QA staff at EMSL-LV prior to starting
sample analysis. At EMSL-LV, the review process consists of the following steps:
1) Initial review by three scientists with at least one specializing in the area of quality assurance and
one in the area of the principal type of analyses tat are being performed (i.e., inorganic or organic
chemistry, bioassay, etc.).
2) Return of review comments to the PI for QAPP revision, if necessary.
3) Additional reviews by the same three scientists to ensure appropriate modifications and
clarifications have been made.
4) If acceptable, the QAPP is then reviewed by the EMSL-LV QA officer for compliance with U.S. EPA
policy and for completeness of the document.
5) If approved by the EMSL-LV QA officer, the document is started through the approval signature
cycle.
6) Upon receipt of the completely signed QAPP, copies are made and distributed to the PI, ARCS
Program Manager, EMSL, and Lockheed-ESC.
-------
The review of the QAPP includes checking for the inclusion and discussion of the sixteen general
requirements of a QAPP as specified by Stanley and Verner (1985). Specific checking for conformity of
the laboratory-specified MQOs to the ARCS-defined MQOs is also performed. This review includes
checking for acceptable instrument detection limits, appropriate acceptance limits and frequency of use
of accuracy, precision, blank, and spiked samples, suitable calibration procedures, initial and on-going
comparable analytical methodology, viable sample preservation techniques, and the correct sample
holding times for given sample types.
To ensure that the QAPPs are being followed properly by the analytical laboratories, EMSL-LV
has developed and will perform periodic on-site system audits at the laboratories. By the end of fiscal
year (FY) 1990, four analytical laboratory'audits and one field sampling audit will have been performed
as part of the audit program. In addition, EMSL-LV will periodically distribute pre-award audit samples
and routine audit samples to participating laboratories in an appropriate matrix (i.e., water or
sediment/soil) will be prepared by the Lockheed-ESC staff and distributed to the analytical laboratory as
single-blind samples (i.e., the sample identity is known to the laboratory but the analyte concentration is
not). By the end of FY 90, one set of pre-award samples has been prepared and distributed covering
nearly the entire range of analytes to be quantified as specified in the laboratory's QAPP. In FY 91,
several sets of pre-award and routine audit samples may be prepared.
EMSL-LV has created and distributed to members of the Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group
and the ARCS management a final QA/QC evaluation scale for historical datasets. The evaluation scale
will help establish the confidence level that the work group can place in the resulting baseline hazard
evaluations and may also be used to possibly explain some of the data outliers that may result from their
modeling efforts. A point system in which all essential QA/QC practices are given numerical values by
parameter group, such as inorganic metals, pesticides/PCBs, and PAHs was selected. The historical data
are then rated on the sum total of various categories. Categories include accuracy, precision, spiked
samples, detection limits, blank usage, calibration procedures, sampling techniques, holding times, and
other properties that might influence the integrity of the sample or the quality of the resultant data. Where
deficiencies in the received data are noted, additional QA/QC data are requested from the analytical
laboratory. If the deficiencies remain, flags are attached to the parameter groupings. The flags allow the
data user to assess the value of the received data as is (actual rating) and the potential value of the data
(assuming that if the flag indicates missing information that the analytical laboratory properly informed the
missing QA/QC evaluation). By the end of FY 90, five databases will have undergone evaluation using
this scale.
The development of the two reports for the ARCS Program, the QAMP and the final QA report,
are in various phases of preparation. Outlines for the QAMP and the QA final report have been submitted
to ARCS management for review. The QAMP will include an introduction, project description, as well as
discussions of sampling strategy, field and laboratory operations, quality assurance objectives, quality
assurance implementation, data quality assessment and reporting, QA/QC of historical databases, and
the data management system. The final QA report will provide discussions of the project organization,
QA program, audit program, data verification, and overview of the database structure and tracking,
assessment of the success of the QA/QC protocols for detectability, accuracy, precision,
representativeness, and comparability, as well as include a conclusion and recommendation section which
addresses how well the program did from a QA/QC standpoint, and provide guidelines for future
improvements on projects similar to those in the ARCS Program.
EMSL-LV will act as an intermediate database repository for the ARCS Program. This
-------
responsibility will include the collection of all data fromthe analytical laboratories, creating computer
programs to perform QA/QC checks on the data, conversion of the data from the received format to one
acceptable in the Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES), development of a cross-referencing system to
track hardcopy data to its corresponding computer file, and to submit the final database on floppy disk to
ODES personnel for uploading onto the mainframe computer at the National Computer Center (NCC) in
Research Triangle Park, Raleigh, North Carolina. A more complete discussion of the data management
and ODES system is provided in the following section.
7.0 Data Management
The ARCS Activities Integration Committee will have overall oversight responsibility for the ARCS
data management program. As mentioned in the previous section, EPA's Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection's ODES database will be the ARCS data repository. Data entry into this repository will be
according to the requirements specified by the data management program. The principal investigators
will provide their data to EMSL-LV before entry into ODES. This will assure the quality of the data going
into the system. Data entry requirements will be a component of the participating investigators' QAPPs
and a special condition of their receiving grant or IAG funds.
The ARCS Program will be using a Geographic Information System (GIS) for data analysis, output
and mapping. The ARCS data minimum reporting requirements will include the data necessary for use
in a GIS system. The data management program will be responsible for maintenance of the GIS system,
as well as for Milling requests from study participants and report authors for particular outputs from the
ARCS data base. The ARCS Activities Integration Committee will have oversight responsibility for the GIS
system implementation.
8.0 Publication Policy
All publications that will result from work funded to support the ARCS Program must comply with
the EPA peer and administrative review process. This review process helps ensure that published
materials are scientifically valid and reflect EPA policy or that appropriate disclaimers to the contrary are
included in the published work. The peer and administrative review process requires that all materials
be submitted to the EPA Project Officer for review and comment prior to release to ffte public. EPA wilt
then return its comments and suggestions for revisions to the principal investigator. If the principal inves-
tigator and EPA project officer can agree on the necessary revisions, then the publication will carry a
statement to tfie effect that the document has been approved for publication as an EPA document. If they
cannot reach agreement, then any publications must carry a disclaimer stating that the document does
not necessarily reflect the views of EPA and no EPA endorsement of the document should be inferred.
Articles published in refereed journals are exempt from the EPA review process, since the journal's peer
review process will serve the same purpose. In such cases, the principal investigators are required to
furnish copies of the article when it is submitted for publication and when it is eventually published.
However, the article must still carry a disclaimer stating that it does not have EPA endorsement, since
it has not gone through the EPA peer and administrative review process. A detailed explanation of these
requirements can be found in 40 CFR Section 30.518.
10
-------
//. Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group Work Plan
1.0 Introduction
The Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group is responsible for developing and testing sediment assessment
methods. This Work Group will assess the nature and extent of contaminated sediment problems by
studying the chemical, physical and biological characteristics of contaminated sediments and their biotic
communities. The Work Group will demonstrate effective assessment techniques for aquatic life at the
priority consideration areas. Finally, it will use the information obtained to produce contamination maps of
the areas.
2.0 Objectives
The primary objectives of the Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group are:
1. Contamination Survey Guidance. To develop guidance on the performance of
assessment surveys of contaminated sediments through the development of a
methodology for such surveys; and
2. Performance of Contamination Surveys. To implement contamination survey techniques
at the priority consideration areas.
3.0 Activities
The tasks needed to accomplish these objectives are:
1) General characterization, sampling and mapping of sediment deposits,
2) Toxicity testing of sediment samples,
3) Chemical analysis of sediment and fish samples,
4) Broader spectrum toxicity testing on a selected subset of sediment samples,
5) Fish tumor and abnormality surveys,
6) Fish Bioaccumulation Assays.
These tasks primarily address Objective 2. Objective 1 will be accomplished by summarizing and
interpreting the results of the assessment activities undertaken in support of Objective 2 in preparing
Volume III of the ARCS outputs, the Contaminated Sediments Assessment Guidance.
3,1 General Characterization, Sampling and Mapping of Sediment Deposits
In order to properly evaluate the nature and extent of sediment contamination in the priority
consideration areas, each of the areas will be characterized for physical, chemical and biological para-
meters, including mapping the distribution of bottom sediments and sediment contaminants. It is desirable
to have information on the physical and spatial characteristics of the sediments and some basic indicator
parameters to help select the stations that will be subjected to more intensive testing and characterization.
11
-------
There are four kinds of sampling stations being used for ARCS sediment testing:
• Reconnaissance Stations,
Master Stations,
• Priority Master Stations, and
• Extended Priority Master Stations.
Table 1 shows the types of tests done at stations in each category. Surveys are conducted in 5
phases, described below. The sequence presented below is the recommended order of operations. Due
to funding constraints and delays in equipment acquisitions, this order was not precisely followed in the
ARCS surveys undertaken to date. The actual sequence achieved in studies to date is summarized in
Section 4.0. Nevertheless, the ideal order is still the following:
1) a pre-survey phase,
2) a reconnaissance survey phase,
3) an inter-survey phase,
4) a supplemental survey, and
5) a post-survey phase.
3.1.1 Pre-Survey Phase
In the pre-survey phase, existing information on sediment contamination at each priority
consideration area was obtained and reviewed. Based on this and discussions with investigators who have
previously worked in the area, a transect/station grid was prepared to guide sampling and sediment profiling
throughout the site. A first set of ten Master Station surficial sediment samples are then collected using a
Ponar grab sampler or box corer. More detailed analyses were performed on these samples (Table 1) and
then correlated with the results of the Reconnaissance Stations (described in Section 3.1.2) where only the
indicator parameters are run. The pre-survey phase has been completed for all ARCS study areas
Reference points are located for deploying microwave transmitters in tfje positioning system used
for mapping the area. Maps of the priority consideration areas are included in the last section of this
document. Note that one of the Superfund Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) for the Sheboygan
Harbor PCB contamination has done very extensive sampling in the Sheboygan River and Harbor for
sediment, soil and water contamination. Through Fiscal Year (FY) 1989, this PRP has collected 20 soil
samples of soils in the river's floodplain and nearly 200 sediment samples and has conducted 5 rounds of
water column sampling under various flow conditions. As a result, the ARCS Program utilizes the existing
data base, supplementing it only when appropriate to fill in missing information. The PRP's sampling sites
covered the entire River and Harbor in a dense pattern from Sheboygan Falls to the mouth (actual stations
are not plotted due to space limitations).
12
-------
Table 1. Toxicity/Chemistry Analysis Matrix
TYPES OF ANALYSES
INDICATOR PARAMETERS
BENTHIC COMMUNITY
DETAILED CHEMISTRY
TIERED BIOASSYAS
o Photobacterium
o Selenastrum
o Daphnia
o Chironomus riparius
o Hyalella
o Pimephales
AMES AND MUTATOX
COMPARATIVE BIOASSAYS
o Photobacterium
o Selenatrun
o Daphnia
o Hyalella
o Ceriodaphnia
o Lemna
o Pimephales
o Hydrilla
o Diaporeia
o Hexagenia
o Panagrellus
o Bacterial enzymes
BIOACCUMULATION
TYPES OF SAMPLING STATIONS
Reconnaissance
Stations
Master
Stations
Priority
Master
Stations
Extended
Priority
Master
Stations
,
- .
'
. -
13
-------
3.1.2 Reconnaissance Survey Phase
During the reconnaissance survey, acoustical soundings are used to map the physical distribution
of sediments to aid in selecting sampling sites. Numerous sediment core samples (100 to 200 per area)
are collected at f/)/s time to be tested for a set of "indicator parameters* which can be run relatively
inexpensively on large numbers of samples. The core horizons are also visually characterized and
photographed. The samples are homogenized and transported to laboratories for biological and chemical
analyses as described below. The series of ARCS Reconnaissance Surveys were completed in December,
1990.
3.1.3 Inter-Survey Phase
The core samples obtained during the reconnaissance survey are analyzed for the following
indicator parameters:
Sediment Grain Size Fractions,
Wet Weight,
• Dry Weight,
Ash Weight,
Organic Carbon,
Solvent Extractables,
Organically-bound Chlorine, Bromine and Iodine,
Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) Analysis of Selected Metals, and
• Microtox Bacterial Luminescence Assay Response.
Figure 4 shows the procedures that will be used in the analyses. In principle, the indicator
parameters will correlate with other measurements of contamination and toxicity. Therefore, use of the
indicator parameters will allow the detailed analyses from the few Master Stations to be extrapolated
throughout the site, based on correlations between Reconnaissance and Master Station data. Information
from this analysis and from profiling data obtained during the reconnaissance survey will be used to prepare
three-dimensional contamination maps (Figure 5). Maps of bottom topography and sediment layer thickness
are also prepared. Based on these, the remaining ten Master Station sites per area are identified for
sampling during tfie supplemental survey (resources permitting). The inter-survey phase will be completed
in early Fiscal Year 1991.
3.1.4 Supplemental Survey
Sediments from the remaining ten Master Station sites are collected, homogenized and shipped
to laboratories for chemical and biological characterization. Additional deep vibra-cores are collected at this
stage, if required. Supplemental surveys at Saginaw and Buffalo have been conducted.
14
-------
Figure 4. Sediment Sample Analysis Schematic
SEDIMENT
CORE SAMPLE
(Homogenizing)
(Pore water
extraction)
(Wet sieving;
drying. 60°C)
Ammonia
(Probe)
GRAIN SIZE
FRACTION WT.
DETERM.
MICROTOX
TOX1CITY
B1OASSAY
(PISS.)
ICP METALS
ANALYSIS
(TOT. & DISS.)
Conductivity Diss.
Oxygen (Probes)
WETWT.
DETERM.
(Drying. 60°C)
DRYWT.
DETERM.
(Ashing
550°C)
ELEMENTAL
C.H.N
ANALYSIS
(TOT.)
(Drying. 60°C
Solvent
extraction)
SOLV. EXTRAC.
RESIDUE
WT. DETERM.
NEUTRON
ACTIVATION
CI.Br.I
ANALYSIS
15
-------
Figure 5. Process of Mapping Sediment Contamination and Toxicity
Bulk Sampling
Master Station
Sodtment
Depth
Area of Concern
Core Sampling
Test Station - x
2 - Ft. Vertical
Core Intervals
(Each Station)
Indicator Value Contour
Indicator Distribution Maps
Indicator-Contaminant
Correlation Analysis
Area of Concern
Sediment
Depth
Concentration Contour
Contaminant (or Toxicity) Distribution Models
16
-------
3.1.5 Post-Survey Phase
Preparation of the three-dimensional sediment, toxicity and contamination distribution maps are
completed, using correlated data from Reconnaissance and Master Stations. These maps will be made available
to both the Engineering/Technology and the Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Groups for use in their activities.
The post-survey phase will be completed in January, 1991.
3.2 Sediment Biological Assessment
' Laboratory toxicity testing of the Master Station sediments follows a tiered approach to make efficient
use of analytical resources. The results of analyses at one tier are used to select which samples will undergo
testing at the next tier. Fewer samples are analyzed in each successive tier since the tests become increasingly
more time-consuming and costly. Tier I testing focuses on acute toxicity testing, benthic community structure and
mutagenicity testing; Tier II focuses on partial life-cycle toxicity and Tier III on full life-cycle toxicity, sediment
dilution and bioaccumulation.
Information on benthic community structure obtained in Tier I is combined with physical, chemical and
other biological characteristics of sediment quality as part of an overall description of the contamination and its
impacts. All Master Station samples undergo Tier I testing, using the following methods on elutriates of the
sediment samples:
Daphnia magna, 48-hr mortality test.
Microtox (Photobacterium phosphoreum) luminescence test.
Selenastrum capricornutum, 24-hr carbon-14 uptake test.
Approximately one-half of the Master Station samples undergoing Tier I testing are selected for Tier II
testing, which consists of the Hyalella azteca, 7-14 day (whole sediment) growth test. Up to about one-quarter
of the samples undergoing Tier I testing also go to Tier III testing, which consists of the Hyalella azteca 28-day
(whole sediment) growth test and the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) flow-through bioassay (whole
sediment). Selection of samples for Tiers II and III are made to satisfy two conditions. Sediments with low acute
toxicity form the majority of the selections, while some with moderately acute and highly acute toxicity are included
to provide an appropriate range over which to evaluate the tiered testing system. Other bioassays may be added,
as deemed necessary by the Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group.
3.3 Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Fish Samples
Samples of sediments, sediment extracts and fish flesh (from the bioaccumulation assays) collected in
the ARCS Program are subjected to chemical analyses. The analyses include a wide variety of inorganic and
organic chemicals important to understanding sediment contamination problems in the priority consideration areas.
Chemical parameters include:
• Sediment Organic Carbon,
• Free and Acid Volatile Sulfides,
Extractable Metals,
17
-------
Metals (silver, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, manganese, nickel,
lead, selenium, and zinc) in pore water, elutriates and bulk sediments,
Organo-metals (methyl mercury and butyl tin),
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (approximately 16 compounds),
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (approximately 20 congeners),
Chlorinated Pesticides,
Chlorinated Benzenes,
Chlorinated Naphthalenes,
Chlorinated Dioxin and Furan congeners, and
Semi-Volatile Chlorinated Compounds.
3.4 Broader Spectrum Toxicity Testing of Selected Sediment Samples
The bioassays to be performed at the selected Master Stations are limited in number, due to constraints
of cost, space and personnel. In order to provide guidelines for future contamination surveys, it is necessary to
compare the results of the limited suite of bioassays to a larger set of bioassay methods. A cost-effective method
of making such a comparison is to perform a more complete suite of bioassays on a reduced number of samples.
To implement this, a consortium of university and government laboratories with recognized expertise in numerous
other testing methods has been assembled. Sediments from selected Master Stations (Priority Master Stations)
at each study area are distributed to these investigators for broader bioassay testing. The resulting information
obtained from this effort is compared with the results of the limited suite of bioassays. Several of these bioassays
also yield dose-response information, which will be useful in the Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group's
assessment efforts. This broader-spectrum testing on a limited number of samples also provides a check on the
effectiveness of the tiered testing system. Table 2 gives an overview of all bioassay systems evaluated, by
organism, exposure route, endpoint type, and duration.
3.5 Fish Tumor and External Abnormality Survey
Existing information on the incidence of external abnormalities and internal tumors in fish is sought at
each priority consideration area. In addition, surveys to determine Che incidence were undertaken in the Buffalo,
Ashtabula and Saginaw Rivers. In these cases, one hundred individual fish were collected and targeted for field
necropsy and histopathological examination at each area. Brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus) is the primary
study species, with the white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) serving as a secondary option.
3.6 Fish Bioaccumulation Assays
At a very limited number of Master Stations, the Extended Priority Master Stations, a 10-day fathead
minnow (Pimephales promelas) bioaccumulation assay is conducted using bulk sediment samples. Chemical
analyses of the fish tissue are conducted as described in Section 3.3.
18
-------
Table 2. ARCS Biological Test Matrix
TEST SYSTEM
1) TOXICITY TESTS
Photobacterium phosphoreum
Selenastrum capricornutum
Dap/7 n/a magna
Chironomus tentans
Chironomus riparius
Hyalella azteca
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Lemna minor
Pimephales promelas
Hydrilla verticulata
Diporeia sp.
Hexagenia limbata
Panagrellus redlvivus
Bacterial enzymes
Artificial Substrates
2) OTHER TESTS
Salmonella typhimurium
Photobacterium phosphoreum
Pimephales promelas
Ictalurus nebulosus
Benthic community
MEDIUM
Elutriate
Elutriate
Elutriate
Elutriate
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Elutriate
Elutriate
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Elutriate
Sediment
Sediment
Org. extract
Org. extract
Sediment
Sample
Sample
ENDPOINT
Function
Function
Growth
Mortality
Mortality
Reproduction
Mortality
Growth
Mortality
Growth
Mortality
Growth
Reproduction
Mortality
Reproduction
Mortality
Reproduction
Growth
Structure
Mortality
Growth
Terata
Growth
Function
Structure
Mortality
Growth
Mortality
Growth
Function
Structure
Mutation
Mutation
Bioaccumulation
Tumors
Comm. structure
DURATION
15 min
24 h
48 h
96 h
48 h
7d
10d
10d
14d
14 d
7d;14d;28d
14d;28d
14d;28d
48 h
7d
48 h
7d
48 h
48 h
7d
7d
7d
14d
4d;7d
4d
28 d
28 d
28 d
4d
2h
28 d
72 h
12h
10d
Collection
Collection
19
-------
4.0 Products
The products of the Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group will consist of the development of technical
documents for each discrete work unit (e.g., chemical analysis of sediments, toxicity testing of sediments)
and the detailed maps of sediment deposits. In addition, the Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group will have
a key role in the development of the Contaminated Sediments Assessment Guidance Document, Volume
III of tf)e final ARCS guidance, which will recommend a much abbreviated, less expensive suite of tests
that can be performed to evaluate contaminated sediment. The writing of these documents will be done
by a small group of Work Group members and funded investigators, coordinated by the Work Group
Chairperson. GLNPO staff will oversee all phases of the document development.
5.0 Progress on Assessment Surveys
Although five surveys were originally planned, two of the priority Areas of Concern (Sheboygan
Harbor and Ashtabula River - Fields Brook) are also designated as Superfund National Priority List sites.
Due to ongoing activities related to Superfund at those sites, it was premature and potentially redundant
to proceed immediately with ARCS surveys at those sites. The pre-survey phase was first conducted
at the remaining three sites (Buffalo River, Indiana Harbor and Saginaw River). According to the original
plan (see Section 3.1) the next step would have been reconnaissance surveys, followed by the work of
the inter-survey phase, at each site. As the reconnaissance survey involved new equipment and
methods, there were unforseen delays in equipment acquisition and installation. Consequently, the
choice of ten more Master Stations for the supplemental surveys had to be made on the basis of pre-
survey phase information. Furthermore, due to limited resources, the supplemental survey phase was
limited to one area, the Saginaw Bay and River. Finally, the reconnaissance surveys were undertaken
in Saginaw, Buffalo, and Indiana.
20
-------
6.0 Timeline - Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group
ACTIVITY
FISCAL YEAR AND QUARTER
FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92
34 12 34 12 3 4 1234
General Characterization
Pre-survey Phase
Reconnaissance Survey
Inter-survey phase
Supplemental Survey
Post-survey Phase
Sediment Toxicity Testing
Chemical Analyses
Broad Spectrum Toxicity Tests
Tumor and Abnormality Survey
Fish Bioaccumulation Tests
Preparation of Draft Case
Study Segments
Preparation of Draft Guidance
Document
21
-------
///. Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group Work Plan
1.0 Introduction
The Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group is responsible for the evaluation of environmental
and human health impacts resulting from contaminated sediments, and the development of techniques
for assessing the environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of remedial alternatives. A
mini-mass balance approach will be taken to provide the predictive capabilities necessary to determine
such impact. The assessments will serve to identify and develop techniques and tools for performing
sediment-related hazard evaluations. Assessments will consider the difficult task of separating the effects
of sediments from those of the water column or other sources. A system for prioritizing sites with
contaminated sediments will be developed and applied to the five priority consideration areas to provide
a comparative framework for assessing multiple sites in need of remediation.
2.0 Objectives
The primary objectives of the RAM Work Group are:
1. Hazard Evaluation: To evaluate exposures to, and impacts resulting from, contact with
contaminated sediments and media contaminated by sediment contaminants, incurred
by all receptors of concern under the "no action" alternative and other remedial alterna-
tives. This evaluation will draw upon the development and integration of predictive tools
to describe future hazards and risks.
2. Prioritization System Development: To develop and apply a numerically-based system
for use as a decision tool to aid in the prioritization of sites for remedial action;
3. Development of Assessment Guidance: To develop guidance on the methods of
assessing environmental and human health impacts of contaminated sediments.
3.0 Activities
The tasks needed to accomplish these objectives are:
1) Hazard Evaluation
• Mini-mass Balance Approach
° Exposure Model Development
a Field Surveys to Calibrate Model
• Risk/Hazard Assessments
a Human
a Aquatic Life
° Wildlife
2) Site Prioritization
Tasks under section 3.1 address Objective 1; tasks under section 3.2 address Objective 2.
Objective 3 will be accomplished by the implementation and interpretation of activities under Objectives
1 and 2, In overall ARCS guidance documents.
22
-------
3.1 Hazard Evaluation
As used here, the phrase "hazard evaluation" refers to the overall evaluation of impacts to all
receptors of concern resulting from exposure to sediment contaminants, and consists of several discrete
assessments. The ultimate purpose of the hazard evaluation is to determine the existing and future
health risks and effects (e.g., carcinogenic, reproductive or systemic effects, community structure impacts,
etc.) presented to human and environmental receptors (aquatic, avian, mammalian) from direct or indirect
contactwith sediment contaminants under different remedial options. The hazard evaluation is comprised
of 1) an exposure assessment, 2) a human health risk assessment, 3) an aquatic hazard assessment
and 4) a wildlife hazard assessment. Strictly speaking, the exposure assessment is an integral part of
the human health risk assessment and the aquatic and wildlife hazard assessments, and is not usually
separated out as such. However, since the activities involved in performing the exposure assessment
are different than those involved in performing a risk or hazard assessment, this work plan makes a
distinction between them.
Two levels of evaluation are proposed in this work plan: baseline and comprehensive hazard
evaluations (Table 3). Baseline human health hazard evaluations will be performed for all five priority
demonstration areas, and will be developed from available site-specific information. The baseline hazard
evaluations will describe the hazards to receptors under present site conditions, or the "no action"
alternative. This baseline assessment will examine all potential pathways that humans may incur risk
from exposure to sediments for a given location. Comprehensive hazard evaluations will be performed
for the Buffalo River and Saginaw Bay areas. These evaluations will describe the hazards to receptors
under different remedial alternatives. These two areas were chosen based upon anticipated impacts from
sediments, lack of other on-going activities (such as Superfund remedial activities), and lack of
complicating factors (such as complicated ground water/surface water interactions, multiple sources of
contaminant inputs, etc.). Information will be obtained through modeling exercises and field studies
(described below). A variety of remediation scenarios will be examined as part of the comprehensive
evaluation. These will include examining selective removal or capping of hot spots, source control, or
dredging of an entire river, among others. Additionally, the comprehensive risk assessment will examine
risk from losses of selected remedial alternatives. The following remedial alternatives may be considered
in this phase of the comprehensive evaluation:
Capping
Immobilization/Stabilization
Extraction
Chemical Treatment
Biological Treatment
Confined Disposal
These remedial alternatives are being considered by the Engineering/Technology Work Group,
which will determine the input of contaminants presented by each alternative. The RAM Work Group will
use these contaminant loading estimates to estimate exposure and hazards to receptors and compare
them to the "no action" alternative.
3.1.1 Exposure Assessment
As a component of both the human health risk assessment and the aquatic and wildlife hazard
assessments, the exposure assessment strives to describe or predict the receptor's exposure to
sediment-related contaminants. The assessment of direct or indirect exposure to sediment contaminants
by receptors of concern will vary with the type of receptor considered (human, aquatic, avian,
23
-------
Table 3. Hazard Evaluations to be Performed
Priority Area
Ashtabula
River
Buffalo
River
Grand Calumet
River
Saginaw Bay
Sheboygan
Harbor
Types of Hazard Evaluation
Baseline
Aquatic
Life
y
y
y
Wildlife
y
y
Human
y
y
y
y
y
Comprehensive
Aquatic
Life
y
y
Wildlife
y
y
Human
y
y
24
-------
mammalian), the exposure route (ingestion, inhalation, dermal uptake) and the exposure parameters
(exposure magnitude, duration and frequency).
Probable human exposure routes which may need to be addressed in this assessment include
1) intake of sediment contaminants through the consumption of aquatic and avian wildlife into which
sediment contaminants have bioaccumulated, 2) intake of sediment contaminants through ingestion of
sediments (particularly in children between the ages of two to eight), and 3) dermal uptake of sediment
contaminants resulting from recreational use ofnearshore contaminated areas. Other exposure routes,
such as inhalation of volatile contaminants in sediments or ingestion or inhalation of contaminants from
drinking water supplies tainted by sediment contaminants may also be important, and may be considered
if important on a site-specific basis.
Exposure assessments for aquatic biota will be evaluated in part by work being performed for
the Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group. A suite of bioassays on the toxicological effects of sediment
contaminants are planned by the Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group, including those to provide dose-
response information. These data, along with existing information, will be the basis for the aquatic biota
hazard assessment.
Exposure assessments for piscivorous avian and mammalian wildlife will focus mainly on the
uptake of sediment contaminants through the consumption of biota into which sediment contaminants
have bioaccumulated. Other routes of exposure may also be of importance, such as intake of
contaminated suspended particles in whole water, or direct uptake of sediment contaminants dermally.
The feasibility of analyzing these routes will be considered.
The input needed to perform the exposure assessments will be provided by existing information,
information obtained from the Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group, through modeling and through the
performance of selected field exposure studies.
3.1.1.1 Exposure Modeling
The purpose of exposure modeling is to provide a predictive tool to evaluate future exposures
(and consequently hazards) if present conditions are maintained ("no action") or if cleanups are
undertaken. The development and validation of models will proceed in two phases (Table 4). Phase I
will focus on developing modeling toots using existing information.
Phase II will validate the approaches developed in Phase I by obtaining current synoptic
information about the area via five to six sampling days on the river. Data will be collected on flows,
contaminant loadings and concentrations in the water column of both the particulate and dissolved
phases. This work will be conducted in September to November, 1990 for the Buffalo River, and March
to May 1991, for the Saginaw River. To support the food chain model, fish species will also be collected
and analyzed. For the Buffalo River, the food chain model will concentrate on carp, while for the Saginaw
River, the walleye fishery and other forage fish will be sampled and analyzed. These data will then be
used to calibrate the exposure models. Without calibration, there would be little confidence in the
exposure model results.
Due to resource limitations, the Phase II field work to support the mini mass balance modeling
25
-------
Table 4. Components of Phase I and Phase II Exposure Modeling Efforts
Phase I
1) Compilation, review and analysis of all pertinent environmental
information.
2) Development of a sediment transport, deposition and resuspension
model.
3) Use of Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) approach where the
cause(s) of toxicity (e.g., the particular chemicals) have not been
identified.
4) Development of load/response relationships for the chemicals of con-
cern based on existing information about loadings to the system.
Phase II
1) Measures contaminant loadings to the system, such as:
o Upstream loadings
o Tributary loadings
o Combined sewer overflows
o Hazardous waste site discharges.
2) Sample fish.
3) Measure flow characteristics of river.
4) Measure conventional parameters.
5) Characterize sediment deposits.
6) Perform a Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) on selected
Samples.
26
-------
studies will only be conducted at two priority consideration areas: Buffalo River and Saginaw Bay. The
contaminants to be mass balanced for the Buffalo River include:
PCBs lead
DDT copper
dieldrin benzo(a)anthracene
chlordane benzo(b/k)fluoranthene
benzo(a)pyrene chrysene
The contaminants to be modeled for the Saginaw River are:
PCBs copper
zinc lead
The above contaminants were chosen based on fish advisories, concerns cited in the respective
Remedial Action Plans, and results obtained from Toxicity Identification Evaluation work. These are also
the two areas where comprehensive hazard evaluations will be conducted. The primary objectives of
these mass balance modeling studies include the demonstration of available mass balance techniques
and how they may be used as an aid in addressing management questions concerning the remediation
of contaminated sediments. The mass balance studies are designed to allow estimates of the effects of
remedial alternatives, using information provided from other ARCS projects, in order to estimate the
response of the AOCs to these alternative remedial actions in terms of toxicity and concentrations of
contaminants in the water, sediments and biota.
In the mass balance approach, the law of conservation of mass is applied in the evaluation of
the sources, transport, and fate of contaminants. The approach requires that the quantities of
contaminants entering the system, less quantities stored, transformed, or degraded in the system, must
equal the quantities leaving the system. Once a mass balance budget has been established for each
pollutant of concern, the approach can be used to provide quantitative estimates of the effects of changes
in that budget.
A mass balance model is the means by which the mass balance approach is applied to a natural
system. The application of the mass balance method involves the quantification of the sources,
transport, and fate of contaminants. The specific components of the exposure modeling study are
described below.
1) Hydrodynamic Model Application: The complex interaction of flows in the Great Lakes (due
to upstream inflows and changes in lake elevation) requires that a hydrodynamic model be
applied in order to estimate flows. For the systems of concern in the ARCS modeling studies,
the model will be multidimensional in order to provide resolution of lateral as well as possibly
vertical gradients in addition to longitudinal gradients in transport characteristics.
2) Sediment Transport Model: A model of cohesive sediment transport will be applied in order
to predict the interactions between transport, deposition and resuspension processes under
various meteorological and hydrological conditions. This model will provide predictions for use
in the transport of sorbed contaminants and resuspension of toxic sediments. The model will
aid in assessing the no-action alternative by providing estimates of burial rates and the effects
of dredging on the system by providing estimates of sediment transport and times required to
refill dredged areas. The application of a sediment transport model is of particular importance
in these studies due to lack of historical sediment data.
27
-------
3) Contaminant Exposure Model: Time variable exposure models will be applied in order to
predict the effects of water and sediment transport, as well as the effects of sorption and kinetic
processes such as volatilization and degradation, on the concentrations of certain critical
contaminants. Modeling studies will be conducted concurrently of the riverine portions of the
systems, and affected bays or lakes. The contaminant exposure model will assess the effects
of loadings and various remedial alternatives on the system. The models will be applied to
estimate load/response/uncertainty relationships, which will aid in addressing the study
objectives. The models will also provide information that will be used by the Food Chain Model
to estimate the contaminant body burdens in fish species due to varying exposure concentrations
in water and sediment.
4) Toxicity Model: Since it may not be possible to relate exposure concentrations to toxic
effects, it will be necessary to construct a toxic unit model of the system in order to estimate the
probability oftoxicity in response to various meteorological and hydrological conditions as well
as to evaluate the impacts of proposed remedial alternatives. The toxic unit model will utilize
information from the hydrodynamic and sediment transport models as well as data from sediment
transport models to estimate the probability of toxic events.
5) Food Chain Model: A model of the food chain will be utilized to estimate the response of
varying exposure concentrations on contaminant concentrations in the biota. The model will use
data collected as part of the study in order to construct a simple food chain model as well as
evaluate certain hypothetical food chains (due to ^introduction of some species) using
information obtained from the other studies.
The study will utilize existing models and methods. The model which will be used as a
framework for the study is Water Quality Analysis Program, WASP4 (Ambrose et al. 1988). This model
will be used to integrate predictions from other models (e.g. hydrodynamic and sediment transport) in
order to estimate contaminant concentrations in the water sediment and biota. The WASP4 model
provides a consistent modeling framework for eutrophication, toxics transformation and transport,
bioaccumulation, and food chain effects. It is maintained and distributed by the Center for Exposure
Assessment Modeling at Athens and has been widely distributed around the world. It is presently the
framework used for modeling studies in Green Bay, Lake Michigan, as well as studies on Lake Ontario
and elsewhere on the Great Lakes.
3.1.1.2 Synoptic Surveys
Field sampling programs were designed to provide information required for the application of
mass balance models. Synoptic surveys are planned for six sampling days for the lower Buffalo and
Saginaw Rivers. Data will be collected on two low flow days, representative of low flow steady-state
conditions. Samples will also be collected during an event lasting 3-4 days. The sampling stations were
selected to allow estimates of pollutant influxes to, and effluxes from, the AOCs. Samples will be
integrated over the width of the system and possibly over depth. Where significant stratification is
encountered, samples will be taken at discrete depths at several locations. The data collected during the
synoptic surveys will include flows, loading and concentration data for solids and chemicals in both water
and suspended solids. Studies of selected conventional parameters will be collected at a greater
frequency in order to aid in calibration of the hydrodynamic and sediment transport model, and in order
to aid in estimating yearly loadings. Data on sediment contamination will be collected as part of studies
28
-------
of other ARCS Work Groups. The types of data to be obtained are briefly described below.
1) Hydrodynamic Data: Data for the calibration of the hydrodynamic model will include historical
data as well as data collected as part of the field studies. Historical data are available on flows,
water surface elevations at the mouth of the Buffalo and Saginaw Rivers, meteorological data,
and concentrations of some conventional constituents such as temperature, conductivity, etc.
The above data will also be obtained concurrently with field studies. In addition, water surface
elevation data, velocity and discharge measurements, and wind velocity and direction data will
be obtained.
2) Sediment Transport Data: Data for the calibration of ihe sediment transport model will also
rely on historical data, such as U.S. ACE dredging records. Data on sediment characteristics
(e.g. grain size, water content, etc.) will be collected during the sediment surveys. Also,
bathymetry surveys will be conducted to estimated changes in the system's morphometry. Data
on suspended solids will be collected concurrently with the river sampling, and suspended solids
data will be collected either during high flow events (Buffalo River) or hourly during certain
periods (Saginaw) in order to support the sediment transport model. Finally, "shaker" studies
will be conducted to estimate the resuspension characteristics of the sediments.
3) Contaminant Exposure Data: Ambient water, sediment, loading, and food chain data for the
calibration of the exposure model will use, whenever possible, historical data. In addition,
surveys will be conducted to identify spatial variability in the system during certain low flow
periods in the fall of 1990. Further studies will be conducted to identify pollutant loadings and
ambient pollutant concentrations in water and sediments, and biota.
a. Pollutant Loadings: Pollutant loadings will be estimated and/or measured from point
and non-point sources. Historical data will be assessed to estimate loadings from point
sources as well as measurements acquired concurrently with the ambient water quality
studies during the fall of 1990. Loadings from Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) will
be estimated based on a limited field sampling program (24 samples at 10 CSOs) and
storm water modeling in the Buffalo River study (CSOs were not identified as significant
sources and will not be sampled in Saginaw). Loadings for contaminants and
suspended solids from upstream tributaries will be based on 6 daily averaged
measurements taken during the fall of 1990. Historical contaminant, suspended solids
and flow data, as well as data from the suspended solids survey, will be used to
extrapolate these measurements to annual loading rates. An analysis of the uncertainty
of these estimates will also be performed.
b. Ambient Water Concentrations: Ambient data for particulate and dissolved
contaminants as will as conventional parameters will be obtained over six sampling days
during the fall of 1990.
c. Sediment Data: Data for sediment concentrations will be collected as pan of
separate sampling studies planned for the spring of 1990.
29
-------
4) Food Chain Data: Data will be collected for carp in the Buffalo River and their stomach
contents analyzed in order to establish a relationship between carp contaminant concentrations
and their benthic forage. Carp were selected for analyses for two reasons. First, there are
presently advisories in effect for consumption of carp in the Buffalo River. Second, the available
resources limit the possibility of collection data to support an evaluation of fish species with a
more complex food chain. Data will be collected for nine carp (divided into three age classes)
for analysis. Sampling in the Saginaw River will concentrate on walleye and its food chain due
to the Importance of the walleye fishery in this area.
The final phase of this approach will be to verify and calibrate the models in Phase I using the
site-specific data collected in Phase II.
3.1.2 Risk and Hazard Assessments
The activities involved in the preparation of the individual Risk and Hazard Assessments vary
depending upon the area evaluated, the receptors and the endpoints considered. It is primarily a paper
exercise, combining information on exposure to, and toxicity of, sediment contaminants. The Baseline
Assessments will use existing data, while the Comprehensive Assessments will use the results obtained
from the exposure modeling work to predict future risk.
3.1.2.1 Human Health Risk Assessment
Cancer risks and non-cancer hazards potentially incurred resulting from direct and indirect
exposure to sediment contaminants, will be considered. Risks and hazards will be calculated using
methods recommended by the U.S. EPA Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986 and other generally
recognized risk assessment procedures. Uncertainties in the risk assessment will be stated, as will the
assumptions, and discussion on the overall meaning of the risk assessment will be developed.
Toxicological information required to calculate risks or hazards may not be available for all chemicals
found in the demonstration areas. Therefore, the baseline risk assessment will identify information which
is required for the evaluation but not available, and such needs will be recommended to the Activities
Integration Committee for resolution. As part of the comprehensive evaluations planned for the Buffalo
River and Saginaw Bay, target sediment concentrations (i.e., chemical concentrations below that
associated with unacceptable risks and hazards) will be calculated for chemicals identified as responsible
for the majority of the risk or hazard.
One of the more potentially important impacts of some chlorinated organic compounds, such as
PCBs, are their potential adverse development effects upon infants and children. Recent epidemiological
evidence exists that suggests developmental effects have occurred in young children whose mothers
were heavy consumers of Great Lakes fish. Given the relationship between sediment and fish
contamination, this toxicological endpoint should be assessed in the ARCS program. However, this
endpoint is not easily assessed in a quantitative fashion using the existing risk assessment methodology
commonly employed by the U.S. EPA. This arises from the hypothesis that the contaminants, to which
the infant or child is exposed through placental transfer and breast-feeding, is a result of the mother's
body burden of the chemical. This maternal body burden is the result of her lifetime of contaminant
intake, not only that occurring during pregnancy. Assessment would require complex pharmacokinetic
modeling, an approach which is not well developed in the environmental assessment field.
30
-------
Given the difficulties which exist in quantifying this hazard, it is beyond the scope of the ARCS
program to address this issue in any great depth. However, ARCS would be remiss if it did not address
the issue at all. Therefore, the Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group is pursuing the option to develop
an issue or problem identification paper on the subject. It is envisioned that the paper would summarize
the existing epidemiological information, discuss the relationship between sediments, fish consumption,
human body burden, and human-to-human chemical transfer, and discuss the inadequacies of present
assessment techniques to describe the problem.
3.1.2.2 Aquatic Life Hazard Assessment
Aquatic life hazard assessment is an emerging discipline which differs fundamentally from
assessments of human health effects. Current approaches for assessing the hazards to aquatic life (such
as endangerment of health and viability of populations and communities) focus on existing ecological
toxicity, as determined by field or laboratory studies. This type of information will be available from the
Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group. Other types of descriptors of toxicity, based on chemical, physical and
biological factors, such as the Equilibrium Partitioning Approach to calculating numerical sediment criteria
from water quality criteria, the Apparent Effects Threshold and the Sediment Quality Triad, will also be
part of the Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group output, and will be used to express and estimate future
exposures and effects under the various remedial alternatives. To predict impacts on aquatic life under
various remedial alternatives, toxicological information describing dose-response relationships will be
used. All of this information will also be used to identify concentrations of chemicals in sediments in the
Buffalo River and Saginaw Bay, which, if reached through remediation, will not result in unacceptable
hazards. Baseline aquatic life hazard evaluations will be performed for at least three of the priority
consideration areas (Buffalo River, Grand Calumet River, and Saginaw Bay). Comprehensive assess-
ments will only be performed for the Buffalo River and Saginaw River.
3.1.2.3 Wildlife Hazard Assessment
Hazards to piscivorous avian and mammalian species are of primary concern for areas within
the Great Lakes System. Adverse health effects, such as reproductive impairment and structural
deformities, resulting from intake of contaminants in food, have been documented. Description of such
effects are generally an outcome of field studies; prospective hazard assessments are not commonly
performed. However, since the primary route of contaminant intake is through the consumption of
contaminated food (fish), a rough prospective hazard evaluation can be performed in a manner similar
to human food chain concerns. As above, the baseline hazard assessment will be based on existing
information on impacts upon wildlife in the area, with an emphasis on the degree of hazard attributable
to contaminated sediment, as compared with other "sources" of contaminants to wildlife. For the
comprehensive assessment, future impacts will be based upon modeled exposures. Limitations of
performing such an assessment will be discussed. Baseline and comprehensive wildlife hazard
evaluations will be performed at two of the priority consideration areas (Buffalo River and Saginaw Bay).
31
-------
3.2 Site Prioritization for Remedial Action and Development of Decision Support Tools
A numerically-based ranking system which synthesizes assessment variables and produces
objective priorities will be designed to allow remedial priorities to be set for each of the Great Lakes Areas
of Concern. Development of numerically-based ranking will provide a method for integrating hazard and
risk assessments within and between individual Areas of Concern. The result will be a prioritization
procedure that can be used in a comprehensive strategy for the management of contaminated sediments
by Federal, State and Provincial governments to guide the development of Remedial Action Plans and
Lakewide Management Plans.
During this Program, a database for each of the 5 priority consideration areas will be obtained,
and will contain assessment variables which range from site-specific factors (e.g., measurements and/or
predictions of heavy metal and organic contaminants, acute and chronic toxicity, mutagenicity,
bioaccumulation potential, benthic species composition, and resuspension potential) to broad scale factors
(e.g., fish tumor incidence rates, fish and waterfowl consumption advisories, loadings to receiving waters,
beach closings, drinking water hazards, human risk from fish consumption, and socioeconomic consider-
ations). These factors will be integrated for use in a decision-making framework to determine which
site(s) should be targeted for remedial action. As much as possible, this assessment will be based on
a minimum data set common to all five priority consideration areas obtained by the three technical Work
Groups.
For the decision-making process, assessment factors will be synthesized to evaluate the sites
with regard to remediation. For remedial evaluation, a ranking system will be used which 1) is numeri-
cally-based, 2) accommodates a multi-disciplinary database (chemical concentrations, ecotoxicity, model
predictions, human risk, cost, etc.), 3) synthesizes and reduces the database to an understandable
context, 4) produces objective output, 5) illustrates quantifiable differences between sites, and 6)
establishes remedial priorities. The priorities established by the ranking system will then be viewed in
terms of remedial goals, the likelihood of successful remediation, cost-benefit, and the technologies
available to achieve these goals.
The following are tasks anticipated for this activity to provide site ranking and integration of
information about individual sites or areas of concern:
Investigate methods of ranking and decision support analysis to determine what other
approaches should be incorporated for the ARCS program;
Develop a ranking method to integrate measures of hazard, risk and cost;
Develop a method of ranking sites which can be applied to the Great Lakes Region, by
State and Provincial jurisdictions, or smaller sub-regions (i.e., individual lake water-
sheds);
Calibrate and test the ranking procedure and integration procedure on the five priority
consideration areas being investigated during the ARCS Program.
This work will be closely coordinated with the data collection and assessment activities of the
Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group. All data collection and toxicology studies should be specifically designed
to provide information for the integration and ranking system selected.
32
-------
4.0 Products
The products of the Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group will consist of the development of
technical documents for each discrete work unit (e.g., the baseline and comprehensive hazard
evaluations). In addition, much of the work performed for this Work Group will be an integral part of the
Contaminated Sediments Assessment Guidance and the Contaminated Sediments Remediation
Guidance, discussed in Part I, and members will have direct input into the development of these guidance
documents.
5.0 Accomplishments in Fiscal Year 1990
1) Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) work completed on the Buffalo and Saginaw
Rivers.
2) Draft of Buffalo River Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment.
3) Development of field sampling programs to support modeling efforts on the Buffalo and
Saginaw Rivers;
A Buffalo River team was established and included SUNY at Buffalo, Buffalo
State University, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Buffalo District;
The Saginaw River team includes University of Michigan, Michigan State
University, Saginaw Valley State University, and U.S. Geological Survey.
4) Hydrodynamic modeling started on Buffalo River using existing data.
5) To support sediment transport model, field shaker tests were conducted on Buffalo
River sediments to determine resuspension of the sediments.
6) Aquatic Life Hazard Assessment begun on Buffalo River.
7) Wildlife Hazard Assessments begun on Buffalo and Saginaw Rivers.
33
-------
6.0 Timeline • Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group
ACTIVITY
FISCAL YEAR AND QUARTER
FY89
3 4 1
FY90
234
FY91
234
FY92
234
Hazard Evaluation (Baseline)
Wildlife
Human
Aquatic
TIE Studies
Synoptic Surveys
Field Work and Analysis
Buffalo
Saginaw
Exposure Model Development
and Application
Site Prioritization
Hazard Evaluation
(Comprehensive)
Report Preparation
34
-------
IV. Engineering/Technology Work Group Work Plan
1.0 Introduction
The primary responsibilities of the Engineering/Technology Work Group are to evaluate and test
available removal and remedial technologies for contaminated sediments, to select promising new
technologies for further testing, to demonstrate alternatives at priority consideration areas, and to estimate
contaminant losses during remediation. The Engineering/Technology Work Group will seek technologies
that are available, implementable, and economically feasible. Both removal and in situ alternatives will
be considered.
2.0 Objectives
The primary objectives of the Engineering/Technology Work Group are:
1. Evaluation of existing technologies: To evaluate the effectiveness, technical feasibility
and cost of existing technologies to remediate contaminated sediments and estimate
contaminant losses during remediation;
2. Demonstration of effectiveness: To demonstrate the effectiveness of sediment remedial
technologies through the performance of bench-scale tests, and pilot-scale demonstra-
tion projects at selected priority consideration areas;
3. Options Development: To develop options for the remediation of contaminated
sediments at the five priority consideration areas; and
4. Development of Remediation Guidance: To develop guidance on the selection and
implementation of contaminated sediment remedial alternatives.
3.0 Activities
The tasks needed to accomplish the Work Group objectives are:
1) Review of technical literature;
2) Evaluation of applicability of technologies for bench-scale studies;
3) Develop recommendations for pilot-scale demonstration;
4) Estimate contaminant losses during remediation;
5) Collection of sediments for bench-scale testing;
6) Sediment storage and analysis;
7) Bench-scale testing of selected treatment technologies;
8) Treatment technologies for inorganic contaminants;
9) Workshop on bioremediation technologies;
10) Evaluation of solidification/stabilization technologies;
35
-------
11) Conduct pilot-scale demonstrations; and
12) Development of options for priority consideration areas.
3.1 Review of Technical Literature
Existing literature on contaminated sediment treatment technologies has been reviewed for the
ARCS Program by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Waterways Experiment Station (WES), focusing
on the updating of present knowledge on the selection and use of technologies for removal and transport
of contaminated sediments, placement/disposal of'material at disposal sites, treatment technologies, as
well as in situ techniques. The final report is completed. Previous technology assessments, and field
demonstration studies conducted by the U.S. EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and others were
reviewed for applicability.
3.2 Evaluation of Applicability of Technologies for Bench-Scale Studies
The applicability of treatment technologies to priority consideration areas were evaluated based
upon the nature and degree of contamination at the site. Treatment technologies identified in Task 1
were matched with the contaminants present and the level of contamination and volume of sediments to
which each technology can be applied. Each technology was evaluated based on costs, effectiveness,
volume of material to be handled, level of existing contamination and levels of cleanup required. Table
4 shows treatment technologies selected for each Priority Consideration area.
3.3 Develop Recommendations for Pilot-Scale Demonstrations
Ideally, the Engineering/Technology Work Group would complete its bench-scale evaluations and
the products of the other work group studies would be reviewed before any final decisions about sites
and technologies for pilot-scale demonstrations were made. However, in order for the demonstrations
to occur during FY1991/92, the decision on sites and technologies must be made no later than the fourth
quarter of FY 1990 and detailed preparations begun immediately thereafter. WES has completed a draft
strategy for proposed demonstration projects including recommendations for the selection of sites and
technologies.
The selection of technologies which are available for pilot-scale demonstration in this timeframe
is limited. There is not enough time to scale-up developmental technologies which require elaborate
physical or mechanical plants. Some proprietary vendors already have portable pilot-scale plants
available for demonstration. A few other technologies can be demonstrated using commercially available
equipment. The only technology which has full-scale facilities operational now is incineration.
The availability of sites for demonstrations is even more limiting than the availability of
technologies. As a result, site availability will probably be the major determinant as to which technologies
can be demonstrated during the ARCS Program. Most pilot-scale demonstrations are performed at the
site of contamination. The site of a demonstration must be secure, so that accidents, spills or emissions
can be controlled. Land acquisition and site preparation for demonstrations are beyond the resource and
time limitations of the ARCS Program. As a result, the use of existing, operational confined disposal
facilities (CDFs) appears to be the most viable option for siting demonstrations. Other options, such as
close collaboration with Superfund projects and/or Superfund's SITE program will also be explored.
36
-------
If ARCS demonstrations at these sites are to be implemented, some or all of the following actions
will have to be completed:
• Preparation of plans and specifications;
Reviews of biddability/constructability;
Contract bidding or sole source contracting;
Review of contractor submittals;
NEPA documentation;
Preparations for monitoring programs; and
Obtaining any local, State or federal permits needed.
These actions will require considerable time, effort and coordination, and they must be completed
by December, 1990, in order to prepare for pilot-scale demonstrations during FY 1991/92.
3.4 Estimate Contaminant Losses During Remediation
Contaminant inputs which may occur to the environment during and after implementation of the
remedial alternative will be assessed. Models available to calculate losses during dredging, volatilization
losses, leaching losses, run-off and effluent concentrations will be reviewed. Models will be selected to
calculate the annual losses to the environment resulting from each treatment technology evaluated.
These contaminant loads to the environment will be supplied to the Risk Assessment/Modeling Work
Group who will assess the human and environmental health impacts associated with each of the remedial
alternatives. These tasks will be accomplished by WES and USEPA's Environmental Research
Laboratory in Athens, Georgia (ERL/Athens). Coordination between WES and ERL/Athens is underway.
The schedule is as follows:
Scheduled
Stan Completion
Date Date
A) Phase I, Briefing to Work Group 6/89 9/89
B) Phase II, Draft Report 10/90 3/91
C) Phase III, Draft Report 4/91 12/91
D) Publish Final Report 1/92 6/92
3.5 Collection of Sediments for Bench-Scale Testing
The bench-scale tests (discussed below) require sediments for testing from the five priority
consideration areas. The same or similar sediment samples will be used to evaluate and compare similar
demonstration projects. Therefore, it was necessary to collect, characterize, and preserve large-volume
sediment samples from each of the areas. Sediment samples consist of homogenized, moist composites
of samples from a contaminated region within the area. Sediments were collected for all five (5) areas
for Bench-Scale Studies. Sediments were collected by bucket at the following sites: 1) off Buffalo Color
Corporation in the Buffalo River (100 gallons), 2) from three (3) sites in the Saginaw River (100 gallons),
and 3) from a potential hot spot near General Motors in the Saginaw River (50 gallons). In the Ashtabula
River, 100 gallons were collected by boring at various locations and depths. Two gallons were collected
from Sheboygan. Additional samples will be collected for the pilot demonstration projects.
37
-------
3.6 Sediment Storage and Analysis
The sediment samples were homogenized and split into representative subsamples (wet). The
wet subsamples are being provided in a variety of convenient sizes for use by the various investigators.
The procedure that will be used has been previously applied to sediments from Lake Ontario and the Fox
River/Green Bay, and has been validated for organic carbon and organochlorine contaminant
homogeneity. Wet samples will be stored in a cold-room at 4°C.
The basic characterization of the sediment includes the following parameters:
total organic carbon;
total inorganic carbon;
particle size analysis (wet sieve analysis from 710 to 63 \im, detailed analysis below 63
\im);
density of dry material;
total sulfur content;
acid volatile sulfides;
• oil and grease;
total PCBs;
PAHs (at least 10 compounds);
metals (/CAP); and
mercury.
3.7 Bench-Scale Tests of Selected Treatment Technologies
Particular promising technologies identified in Task 3 will be evaluated in bench-scale tests using
sediments from the priority consideration areas. As used here, bench-scale tests mean ones that are
done on a few grams to kilograms of sediment. The selection of which technology to use on which
priority consideration area will depend upon matching-up the characteristics of each (i.e., a PCB treatment
method will be matched with a location having PCB contamination problems).
Bench-scale testing will provide preliminary feasibility data and design data for pilot-scale
demonstrations of selected technologies. As used here, pilot-scale tests are those that involve up to
several cubic meters of sediments. Treatment technologies have been evaluated in bench-scale tests
and the sediments tested are shown in Table 4.
A contract for bench-scale testing of sediments treatment technologies is in with SAIC
Corporation. A kickoff meeting for the work plan was held in Cincinnati in August, 1990. Eight bench-
scale tests will be completed by February, 1991, and the final report will be ready in August, 1991.
Depending upon results, some of these bench-scale tests may be and several new tests will be initiated.
Sheboygan River sediment was tested by USEPA, Cincinnati Laboratory, using the Base
Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD) process. All Aroclor congeners were reduced to below2ppm. Samples
from the Ashtabula River and the Grand Calumet Harbor were also sent to the laboratory.
Sheboygan River sediment was sent to ECO Logic for testing with their hazardous waste
destructor. The ECO Logic process requires heat (about 800 C), but the breakup of contaminants is
achieved by the injected reducing agent, free hydrogen.
38
-------
Sediments from Buffalo, Saginaw, Grand Calumet and Ashtabula were sent to Chemical Waste
Management, Inc. Their process is solvent extraction. Arrangements were made for preparation of a
QAPPbyCWM.
3.8 Treatment Technologies lor Inorganic Contaminants
This task will examine the treatment options that are available for inorganic contaminants
including metals. Treatment options will be evaluated using sediment samples from three of the priority
consideration areas with metals contamination problems: Buffalo River, Grand Calumet River, and
Saginaw Bay. Techniques used for extraction and recovery of metals from ores and wastes will be
evaluated on contaminated sediments. These include physical separation processes using gravity and
magnetic properties, and flotation processes.
An interagency agreement has been entered into with the Bureau of Mines with the U.S. work
to be carried out at their Salt Lake City Research Facility. A kickoff meeting was held with the
Engineering/Technology Work Group. Initial characterization tests were performed on sediments from
the Buffalo, Saginaw, and Grand Calumet Rivers. A QAPP has been prepared and approved. Testing
of the sediments will be completed in March, 1991, and a final report is due in June, 1991.
3.9 Workshop on Bioremediation
A workshop was held July 17-19, 1990, in Manitowoc, Wisconsin. More than 60 scientists from
state and federal agencies, academia, and the private sector from the United States, Canada, and the
Netherlands, participated.
During the workshop, presentations were made describing site characteristics of the five ARCS
priority U.S. Areas of Concern and for Hamilton Harbour, Ontario. Major contaminants within these and
other areas include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and
various heavy metal species.
The remainder of the workshop was devoted to discussing related laboratory and field studies
and the applicability of biological remediation processes for these contaminants. Workshop presentations
and discussions underscored the fact that biological remediation technologies for these classes of
compounds are in rapid development, and in some situations may warrant evaluation as a component(s)
in remediation strategies, especially when confined disposal options are leading alternatives. For PCS
mixtures (Aroclors), anaerobic reductive dechlorination, shown by several investigators to occur in both
historically contaminated sediments at various sites and in laboratory spiked sediments, results in the
same molar concentration of PCBs with fewer average chlorines per molecule. While this process
reduces toxicity alone, further aerobic treatment, believed to be partially a cometabolic process, may
result in complete mineralization. For PAH compounds, aerobic microbial and fungal decomposition is
fairly well documented, whereas biological treatment of sediments for the remediation of metal species
has been considered only recently. In related areas, however, microbially mediated precipitation and/or
dissolution reactions of metal species have been effectively utilized.
Proceedings from the workshop will be available in October, 1990.
3.10 Evaluation of Chemical Solidification/Stabilization Technologies
Besides removal and disposal, chemical solidification/stabilization (CSS) techniques are probably
the most proven techniques for remediation of contaminated sediments. CSS techniques were
39
-------
investigated for the Buffalo River. The scope of the study involves laboratory preparation of CSS
samples using Buffalo River sediment and one of the following binders/additives: Portland
Cement, lime/fly ash, kiln dust, and Portland cement with powdered activated carbon. A range
of binder-to-sediment rations were screened and an optimum ratio was selected for detailed
evaluation. Effectiveness was measured by comparing leaching results, uncon fined compressive
strength, and durability under wet/dry and freezeAhaw cycles.
A draft report was prepared in June, 1990. A final report will be available in January, 1990.
3.11 Pilot-Scale Demonstration Projects
Pilot-scale demonstrations are scheduled to start in FY 1991 and continue through FY 1992.
The scale of the pilot demonstrations will be several hundred cubic yards of sediment. Full-scale
demonstrations would address in the range of 5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of sediment. Pilot-scale
demonstrations will only demonstrate the unit process (e.g., extraction). They will not include the full
treatment train (e.g., dredging, storage, sorting, dewatering, extraction, destruction of extract,
solidification, final disposal) that a full-scale demonstration would include. Pilot-scale demonstrations
could be performed either on-site or at an off-site location.
3.12 Development of Options for Priority Consideration Areas
Based upon the information gained in the earlier tasks, concept plans for sediment remedial
options will be developed for each priority consideration area. The costs of applying the selected options
will be calculated. In addition, estimates will be made on the losses of contaminants that might result from
applying the remedial actions. The Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group will use this and other
information to evaluate the hazards associated with each remedial option. These plans will also serve
to identify data gaps that need to be filled in order to complete the process of selecting the best remedial
options for each priority consideration area. Because it would be premature to select the single best
remedial option for each area, the concept plans will present three different remediation scenarios for
each priority consideration area. These plans will provide very useful information to the State and local
groups responsible for the development of sediment remediation plans.
A kickoff meeting was held with the Engineering/Technology Work Group in August, 1990. Draft
reports from the Buffalo and Saginaw Rivers are due in February, 1991, with a second progress briefing
inMarch, 1991, and the final report due in May, 1991. Concept plans for the Ashtabula, Grand Calumet
and Sheboygan Rivers will start in 1991.
3.13 Summaries of Treatment Technologies
The following are short descriptions of each of the technologies listed in Table 5:
o Solidification/Stabilization: The addition of binding materials to produce a more stable solid
material that is more resistant to the leaching of contaminants. Typical binding material used
include portland cement, fly ash, kiln dust, blast furnace slag, and proprietary additives.
40
-------
Table 5. Treatment Technologies to be Demonstrated by ARCS
TECHNOLOGIES
Solidification/
Stabilization
Inorganic Treatment/
Recovery
Bioremediation
KPEG Nucleophilic
Substitution
B.E.S.T. Extraction
Process
CF Systems
Solvent Extraction
Incineration
Low Temperature
Thermal Stripping
Wet Air Oxidation
Eco-Logic
Destruction Process
In-Situ Stabilization
Acetone Extraction
(Rem-Tech)
Aqueous Surfactant
Extraction
Taciuk Thermal
Extraction
Sediment Dewatering
Methods
PRIORITY CONSIDERATION AREAS 1
and Scale of Demonstration
ASHTABULA
RIVER
Bench3
BUFFALO
RIVER
Bench0
Bench
Bench3
0
Bench
Bench3
GRAND
CALUMET
RIVER
Bench*
Benchb
Bench
Bench3-6
Bench3
Bench3
Bench6
SAG IN AW
BAY
Bench6
Bench3
Bench3
SHEBOYGAN
HARBOR
Benchd
Pilotd
Bench3
~^.^..
Bench"
Pilotd
Benchd
Benchd
Benchd
Benchd
Legend: a = performed for ARCS Program by contractor
b = performed for ARCS Program by Bureau of Mines
c = performed for ARCS Program by Army Corps of Engineers/Waterways Experiment Station (WES)
d = performed by Superfund Potentially Responsible Parties
e = performed for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by Indiana University - N.W. or Corps' WES
f = performed for Canada
41
-------
Inorganic Treatment/Recovery: The physical or chemical separation of sediments into different
fractions that may be more or less contaminated. Since sediment contaminants usually
associate themselves with fine-grained particles like silts and clays, their separation from the bulk
of the sediments could significantly reduce the volume of material requiring advanced treatment.
Bioremediation: The use of microorganisms such as bacteria to reduce the toxicity of sediment
contaminants by degrading them through biological action. Used in the treatment of waste
waters and contaminated soils.
(Based Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD) Process formerly called KIEG Nucleophilic Substitution}:
A chemical process that reduces the toxicity of chlorinated hydrocarbons (such as PCBs) by
removing chlorine atoms and replacing them with alkali metals (such as potassium).
Basic Extraction Sludge Technology (BEST) Extraction Process: Separates contaminated
sediments into three fractions: a solid fraction that contains the inorganic contaminants (such
as heavy metals); an oil fraction that contains the organic contaminants (such as PCBs); and a
water fraction that may contain residual amounts of the original sediment contaminants. By
itself, BEST does not destroy any contaminants, but may significantly reduce the volume of
material requiring advanced treatment.
Critical Fluids (CF) Systems Solvent Extraction: Performs the same functions as the BEST
process, but instead of the solvent used by BEST, the CF System's process utilizes gases at
critical temperatures and pressures (propane and carbon dioxide), which reduces the cross-
contamination of the end products with the solvent (the propane is simply exposed to normal
pressures and temperatures where it turns back into a gas).
Incineration: The high temperature destruction of organic contaminants in a furnace. Used for
the disposal of municipal and hazardous wastes.
Low Temperature Thermal Stripping.: Removes volatile organic contaminants (such as
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs) by heating the sediments to temperatures lower
than those used in the destructive incineration process. Not intended to permanently destroy
contaminants, but may result in a sediment that can be more easily disposed of.
Wet Air Oxidation: Organic contaminants are destroyed by exposing them to elevated
temperatures and pressures. This process was developed over 30 years ago and has been
successfully used to treat municipal sewage sludge.
Low Energy Extraction: Separates contaminated sediments into fractions as described for the
BEST process. Uses a combination of solvents to remove PCBs and other organic contaminants
from the sediment.
Eco-LoQic Destruction Process: A thermochemical process that uses high temperatures and
hydrogen gas to destroy organic contaminants.
In-Situ Stabilization: The covering or armoring of sediment deposits with geotextiles, plastic
liners, or graded stone. Prevents the disturbance and resuspension of contaminated sediments,
which could lead to a release of sediment contaminants back into the water column.
42
-------
o Acetone Extraction (Rem-Tech): Acetone is used as a solvent to extract PCBs from
contaminated sediments.
o Aqueous Surfactant Extraction: Similar to the Low Energy Extraction process. Instead of
applying acetone, however, this process uses aqueous surfactant to remove PCBs. Ultrasonics
may be employed to improve extraction efficiencies.
o Taciuk Thermal Extraction: A thermal separation process similar to Low Temperature Thermal
Stripping. The sediments are heated in an oxygen-free atmosphere, which aids in the removal
of organic contaminants.
Sediments Dewaterinq Methods: Techniques to remove the water from contaminated sediments,
such as air drying, consolidation, and filter presses. May be necessary prior to the
application of a treatment technology that works inefficiently in the presence of water.
4.0 Products
The products of the Engineering/Technology Work Group will consist of the development of
technical documents for each discrete work unit (e.g., bench-scale testing, pilot-scale testing). One key
product of this Work Group is a matrix of monetary costs versus contaminant losses from the
technologies tested. This information will be provided to the Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group for
use in evaluating the impacts of alternative remedial options. Table 4 summarizes the match-up of
technologies and locations planned for the ARCS demonstrations. The table also includes technology
demonstrations that have been or are being done under other programs, including the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Superfund PRPs and Canada. The Engineering/Technology Work Group will make use
of the results of these other demonstrations along with the ones being done specifically for ARCS.
In addition, much of the work performed for this Work Group will be an integral part of the
Contaminated Sediments Remediation Guidance Document, discussed in Part I, and members will have
direct input into the development of this guidance document.
5.0 Accomplishments in Fiscal Year 1990
Sediments were collected from all five (5) areas for Bench-Scale Studies. Sediments were
collected by bucket at the following sites: 1) off Buffalo Color Corporation in the Buffalo River (100
gallons); 2) from three sites in Saginaw (100 gallons); 3) from a potential hot spot near General Motors
in the Saginaw River (50 gallons); and 4) from a site just downstream of the Columbus Drive Bridge in
the Indiana Harbor Canal (100 gallons). In Ashtabula, 100 gallons were collected by boring at various
locations and depths. Two gallons were collected from the Sheboygan River.
Sediment samples were homogenized and characterized for physical and chemical properties
by the EPA's Duluth Laboratory.
Sheboygan River sediment was tested by EPA, Cincinnati Laboratory, using the Base Catalyzed
Decomposition (BCD) process. AIIAroclor congeners were reduced to below 2 ppm. Samples from the
Ashtabula River and the Grand Calumet Harbor were also sent to the laboratory.
Sheboygan River sediment was sent to ECO Logic for testing with their hazardous waste
distributor. The ECO Logic process requires heat (about 800 C), but the breakup of contaminants is
achieved by the injection of the reducing agent, free hydrogen.
43
-------
Sediments from Buffalo, Saginaw, Grand Calumet and Ashtabula were sent to Chemical Waste
Management.lnc (CWM). Their process is solvent extraction. Arrangements were made for preparation
of a QAPP by CWM.
A Workshop on Biological Remediation of Contaminated Sediments was held in July, 1990. The
following topics were covered: 1)Pathways of Biological Degradation of PCBs and PAHs; 2) Biological
Transformation/Complexation of Metal Species, 3) Bioremediation Technologies - Pilot or Full Scale Field
Studies; and 4) Relevance to the preparation of Remedial Action Plans for the 42 AOCs.
Four members of the work group made presentations at a Workshop on Innovative Technologies
for Treatment of Contaminated Sediment, held in June, 1990, by ERA'S Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio.
The Corps' Waterways Experiment Station (WES) completed the laboratory studies to stabilize
and solidify Buffalo River sediment. A draft report has been prepared.
WES completed the literature review of technologies to treat contaminated sediments. The final
report is in preparation.
Technologies identified in the literature were selected for bench-scale testing in Buffalo, Grand
Calumet, Saginaw, Sheboygan and Ashtabula.
WES completed (August, 1990) a draft "Recommendations for Proposed Demonstration Projects
Including Selection of Sites And Technologies".
Concept plans for Buffalo and Saginaw were initiated July, 1990.
A contract for Bench-Scale Testing of Sediment Treatment Technologies was made with SAIC
Corporation. A kickoff meeting for the work plan was held in Cincinnati in August, 1990.
An interagency agreement has been entered into with the U.S. Bureau of Mines (BOM). The
BOM Salt Lake City Research Facility will investigate treatment options that are available for inorganic
contaminants. These include physical separation processes using gravity and magnetic properties, and
flotation processes. Initial characterization tests on sediments from Buffalo, Saginaw and Grand Calumet
have been performed.
Buffalo River sediments have been sent to the EPA Athens, Georgia Laboratory. They will
investigate the use of surfactant for biological degradation of PAHs.
WES and the EPA Athens Laboratory have begun work on a study to estimate contaminant
losses during remediation.
44
-------
6.0 Timeline - EngineeringfTechnology Work Group
ACTIVITY
FISCAL YEAR AND QUARTER
FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92
34 12 3 412 34 1 234
Technical Literature Review
Evaluation of Applicability of
Technologies for Bench Scale
Studies
Develop Recommendations and
plan for Pilot - Scale
Demonstration
Estimate Contaminant Losses
During Remediation
Election of Sediments for
Bench - Scale Testing
Sediment Storage and Analysis
Bench - Scale Tests
Treatment Technologies for
Inorganic Contaminants
Workshop on Bioremediation
Evaluation of Solidification/
Stabilization Technologies
Conduct Pilot - Scale
Demonstrations
Development of Options for
Priority Consideration Areas
45
-------
V. Communication/Liaison Work Group Work Plan
1.0 Introduction
The Communication/Liaison Work Group was established to disseminate up-to-date information
regarding the ARCS Program and related activities to elected officials, government agencies, and the
interested public. The group will also provide feedback from those interested parties to the technical work
groups and other ARCS committees.
Ongoing communication between the technical work groups and the Communications/Liaison
Work Group regarding research and field work is critical to the ongoing success of this work group. In
part, this will be accomplished through weekly conference calls with the AIC, and work group members'
attendance at other work group meetings.
Timely notice of upcoming events to our work group members and interested citizens is essential
in ensuring our goal of full public scrutiny of ARCS.
The work group's communication efforts will continue to stress that ARCS is not a clean-up
program, but is designed to assess the contaminated sediments problem, to identify practical remedial
options, and to test new technologies on bench and pilot scales.
2.0 Objectives
The primary objectives of the Communication/Liaison Work Group are:
1. Track Program Operations in order to keep Work Group members informed of the
overall status of the ARCS Program and ongoing efforts of each technical work group.
2. Disseminate Information about the program regularly to the public, other agencies, and
elected officials in the U.S., as well as to Canadian Federal and Provincial agencies
involved in contaminated sediment issues.
3. Solicit Feedback from the public and elected officials on the progress and scope of the
ARCS Program, and communicate the substance of this feedback to the other work
group chairs, the ARCS Management Advisory Committee and GLNPO Management.
4. Encourage Public Participation. During all phases of the project, the Work Group seeks
to encourage and maintain strong public interest in the ARCS Program through public
meetings, news releases, informal information exchange, and other activities.
5. Develop Guidelines for Public Participation in future contaminated sediment
demonstration projects. These guidelines are to be developed by the conclusion of the
ARCS program as part of an overall set of documents prepared by project work teams.
3.0 Activities
The tasks needed to accomplish these objectives are the following:
1) Continual work group interaction;
46
-------
2) Preparation and dissemination of general and site-specific information materials on the ARCS
Program and on contaminated sediments in general;
3) Mailing list compilation and maintenance;
4) Solicitation of public input through news updates, press releases, questionnaires, public meetings
and informal dialogue;
5) Development and maintenance of library repositories for contaminated sediment and ARCS
Program materials in the five priority areas;
6) On-site coordination of public meetings and press briefings;
7) Slide-show preparation and dissemination;
8) Video preparation and dissemination; and
9) Guidelines for public participation and community outreach plans when appropriate.
3.1 Work Group Interaction
Frequent contact with members of other work groups is maintained, and interviews are scheduled
as appropriate to obtain information on planned or ongoing work. The Communication/Liaison Work
Group will receive summaries of other work group meetings and work plan revisions on a regular basis.
3.2 Preparation of Information Materials
The Communication/Liaison Work Group prepares press releases, fact sheets and other such
materials for dissemination to interested Federal and State agencies, elected officials, and the public at
regular intervals.
Quarterly ARCS updates will be produced and published. They will provide information not only
on ARCS Program activities, but also on cooperative efforts and information sharing with other projects
(such as EPA's Superfund Program, Environment Canada's contaminated sediment research, etc.) and
on more general topics such as current scientific research that relates contaminated sediments to
ecological impacts on the Great Lakes.
Updates on activities specific to the priority consideration areas will be included in the Fact
Sheets or produced and disseminated separately as needed. Press releases will be coordinated and
issued by the Communications/Liaison Work Group member representing U.S. EPA's Office of Public
Affairs.
3.3 Mailing List Compilation
A mailing list has been compiled and will be maintained and updated regularly to disseminate
information gathered in the tasks above to the appropriate interested parties.
47
-------
3.4 Soliciting Public Input
Ongoing and regular feedback will continue to be sought from environmental groups, elected officials
and the general public, and will be communicated to the other work groups, GLNPO staff, and the Management
Advisory Committee.
3.5 Development and Maintenance of Library Repositories
Repositories have been established for all of the five priority areas. They are:
Ashtabula River
Ashtabula County District Library
Attn: Bill Tokarczyk
335 West 44th
Ashtabula Ohio 44004
Phone: 216-997-9341
Buffalo River
Buffalo and Erie County Public Library State University College at Buffalo
ATTN: Science Department Attn: Butler Library
Lafayette Square 1300 Elmwood Avenue
Buffalo, New York 14203 Buffalo, New York 14222
Phone 716-823-7101 Phone: 716-878-6331
J.P. Dudley Branch Library
Attn: Marjorie Piegay
2010 South Park Avenue
Buffalo, New York 14220
Phone: 716-823-1858
Grand Calumet River
Gary Public Library East Chicago Public Library
ATTN: Mrs. Watkins Attn: Adena Fitzgerald
220 West 5th Street 2401 E. Columbus Dirve
Gary, Indiana 46202 East Chicago, Indiana 46312
Phone: 219-886-2484 Phone:219-397-2453
48
-------
Indiana University-Northwest
Attn: Government Documents
3400 Broadway
Gary, Indiana 46408
Phone: 219-980-6580
Saginaw River
Hoyt Library Bay City Branch Library
Attn: Michigan Room Attn: Barbara Fisher
505 Janes Street 708 Center Avenue
Saginaw, Michigan 48605 Bay City, Michigan 48708
Phone: 517-775-0904 Phone: 517-893-9566
Saginaw Valley State University
Attn: Zahnow Library (reference)
2250 Pierce Road
University Center, Michigan 48710
Phone: 517-790-4240
Sheboygan River
Mead Public Library
Attn: SueMathews
710 Plaza 8
Sheboygan, Wisconsin 53081
Phone: 414-459-3432
Additional Repositories
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office, 5GL
Attn: Librarian
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Phone: 312-353-7932
International Joint commission
Great Lakes Regional Office
Lake Michigan Federation Attn: Pat Murray
59 East Van Buren 100 Ouellette Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60605 Windsor, Ontario N9A 6T3
Phone: 312-939-0838 Phone: 313-226-2170
49
-------
3.6 On-Site Coordination and Public Meetings
Representatives from the Communication/Liaison Work Group will travel to the priority
consideration sites to inform the public and media about the ARCS Program, ongoing field work, research
activities and results. Public meetings have already been held at three of the five sites (Saginaw, Buffalo,
and Indiana Harbor) and will be held in the other two locations in Fiscal Year 1991.
3.7 Slide Show Preparation
A slide show is being developed to aid in the discussion of contaminated sediments. Discussions
of current contaminated sediment problems, pollutants, ARCS objectives, and remedial options are being
explored.
3.8 Video Preparation
A video will be produced to provide a general understanding of the contaminated sediments
problem, including information about the extent of the problem in the Great Lakes, assessment techniques
and disposal technologies. Video footage is being taken as the project proceeds, and will be completed
during advanced stages of the ARCS Program. In the interim, short segments of the material may be
provided to the media or others upon request.
3.9 Guidelines for Public Participation
Based on the experience gained from the five priority consideration areas, the
Communication/Liaison Work Group will produce guidelines for public involvement for future contaminated
sediment demonstration projects.
4.0 Products
The products of the Communication/Liaison Work Group will consist of the fact sheets, press
releases, slide show, video and other forms of communication forms discussed above. Much of the work
performed by this Work Group will be an integral part of the Contaminated Sediments Management
Documents, discussed in Part I. Members will have direct input into the development of these guidance
documents.
5.0 Accomplishments in Fiscal 1990
In Fiscal 1990, the Communications/Liaison Work Group produced one general program Fact
Sheet and several site-specific fact sheets and news releases. A draft slide show was developed and
preliminary footage for an ARCS video was collected.
The members of the work group scheduled and coordinated public meetings in Buffalo, New
York; Bay City, Michigan; and Gary, Indiana, as well as presenting talks to community leaders in
Kenosha, Wisconsin; at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee,
Green Bay, Wisconsin, Gary, Indiana and White Lake/Muskegon Lake, Michigan. Presentations were
also made to Citizen's Advisory Committees of Remedial Action Plans, which convened in Stella Niagara,
New York.
50
-------
The Work Group developed a mailing list of some 500 people. It also fielded requests for
information and collected feedback on the program from the public for dissemination to and evaluation
by the project managers.
Library repositories for ARCS material and other information on contaminated sediment have
been designated in the five priority areas. Materials will be distributed to those repositories beginning in
fiscal year 1991.
6.0 Timeline - Communications/Liaison Work Group
ACTIVITY
Work Group Interaction
Preparation of Information
Materials
Soliciting Public Input
Mailing List Compilation
On-site Coordination and
Public Meetings
Slide Show Preparation/
Distribution and Presentations
Video Preparation and
Distribution
Guidelines for Public
Participation and Outreach
Fact Sheets
FISCAL YEAR AND QUARTER
FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92
34 123412341234
•H
•i
•1
-
•
•i
OB
••
•1
-------
ARCS PROGRAM COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NAME
Bruce Baker
Frederick Brown
Skip Bunner
Robert Collin
Mario Del Vicario
Geoffrey Grubbs
Christopher Grundler (Chairperson)
Timothy Kubiak
Donald Leonard
John McMahon
Robert Pacific
Richard Powers
Ian Orchard
David Reid
Charles Sapp
Elizabeth Southerland
Andrew Turner
Gilman Veith
Howard Zar
AFFILIATION
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Great Lakes United
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation
U.S. EPA, Region II
U.S. EPA, H.Q., Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, Ml
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Division
N. Y. Department of Environmental Conservation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Environment Canada
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. EPA, Region III
U.S. EPA, H.Q., Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Ohio EPA
U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth
U.S. EPA, Region V
TELEPHONE
608-266-8631
517-835-9625
317-232-8602
518-457-0669
212-264-5170
202-382-7040
312-353-2117
517-337-6650
312-353-6355
716-847-4590
517-337-6650
217-335-4175
416-973-1089
313-668-2019
215-597-9096
202-382-7046
614-644-2001
218-780-5550
312-886-1491
52
-------
ACTIVITIES INTEGRATION COMMITTEE
NAME
David Cowgill, ARCS Program Manager
Glenda Daniel
Mario Del Vicario
Paul Horvatin (Chairperson)
Philippe Ross
Marc Tuchman
Mary Beth Tuohy
Steve Yaksich
AFFILIATION
U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office
Lake Michigan Federation
U.S. EPA, Region II
U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office
Illinois Natural History Survey
U.S. EPA, Region V
U.S. EPA, Region V, Office of Public Affairs
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo, NY
TELEPHONE
312-353-3576
312-939-0838
212-264-5170
312-353-3612
217-244-5054
312-886-0239
312-353-1159
312-886-3857
716-879-4272
53
-------
TOXICITY/CHEMISTRY WORK GROUP
NAME
Gerald Ankley
Frederick Brown
Skip Bunner
Eric Crecelius
John Filkins
Rick Fox
John Giesy
Joseph Hudek
Christopher Ingersoll
Diana Klemans
Peter Landrum
Julie Letterhos
Michael Mac
John McMahon
Thomas Murphy
Joseph Rathbun
Philippe Ross (Chairperson)
Griff Sherbin
Elliott Smith
Frank Snitz
Henry Tatem
Robert Taylor
AFFILIATION
U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth
Great Lakes United
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Battelle Northwest
U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Large Lakes
Research Station
U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office
Michigan State University, Department of Fisheries
U.S. EPA, Region II
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia, MO
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Ohio EPA
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ann Arbor, Ml
N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation
DePaul University, Chemistry Department
AScI, U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory - Large
Lakes Research Station
Illinois Natural History Survey
Environment Canada
AScI, U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory • Large
Lakes Research Station
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station
Univerity of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
TELEPHONE
218-720-5603
517-835-9625
317-232-8602
206-683-4151
313-378-7614
312-353-7979
517-353-2000
201-321-6713
314-875-5399
517-373-2758
313-378-2276
614-644-2866
313-994-3331
716-847-4590
312-692-7600
313-692-7600
217-244-5054
416-973-1107
313-692-7600
313-226-6748
601-634-3695
414-229-4018
54
-------
RISK ASSESSMENT/MODELING WORK GROUP
NAME
Carole Braverman
Frederick Brown
Denny Buckler
Skip Burner
Judy Crane
Richard Draper
Bonnie Eleder
Russell Erickson
Bill Hoppes
Patrick Hudson
Ken Karwowski
Diana Klemans
Russell Kreis, Jr.
Timothy Kubiak
Charles Lee
Julie Letterhos
James Martin
Steve McCutcheon
John McMahon
Russell Moll
Dora Passino-Reader
William Richardson
Ralph Rumer
Kenneth Rygwelski
Katherine Schroer
Griff Sherbin
Marc Tuchman (Chairperson)
Christopher Zabra
AFFILIATION
U.S. EPA, Region V
Great Lakes United
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia, Ohio
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
AScI, U.S. Environmental Research Laboratory - Athens
N. Y. Department of Environmental Conservation
U.S. EPA, Regional V
U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth
U.S. EPA, Region II
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ann Arbor, Ml
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cortland, NY
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Large Lakes
Research Station
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, Ml
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wafenvays Experiment Station
Ohio EPA
AScI, U.S. Environmental Research Laboratory - Athens
U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Athens
N. Y. Department of Environmental Conservation
University of Michigan
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ann Arbor, Ml
U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory - Large Lakes
Research Station
State University of New York - Buffalo
CSC, U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Large
Lakes Research Station
U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office
Environment Canada
U.S. EPA, Region V
U.S. EPA, H.Q., Criteria and Standards Division
TELEPHONE
312-886-2589
517-835-9625
314-875-5399
317-232-8602
404-250-3324
518-457-0669
312-886-4885
218-780-5534
212-264-8632
313-994-3331
607-753-9334
517-373-2758
313-692-7600
517-337-6651
601-634-3585
614-644-2866
404-546-3138
404-546-3301
716-847-4590
313-763-1438
313-994-3331
313-692-7600
716-636-3446
313-692-7600
312-886-4012
416-973-1107
312-886-0239
202-475-7326
55
-------
ENGINEERING/TECHNOLOGY WORK GROUP
NAME
Daniel Averett
Frederick Brown
Skip Bunner
Philip M. Cook
Steve Garbaciak
James Galloway
Richard Griffiths
Jonathon Herrmann
Don Hughes
Chad Jafvert
Thomas Kenna
Diana Klemans
Julie Letterhos
John McMahon
Jan Miller
Thomas P. Murphy
Ian Orchard
Mario Paula
Rene Rochon
Charles Rogers
John Rogers
William Schmidt
Griff Sherbin
Frank Snitz
Dennis Timberlake
Steve Yaksich (Chairperson)
AFFILIATION
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station
Great Lakes United
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District
U.S. EPA, Region II
U.S. EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Great Lakes United
U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Athens
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Ohio EPA
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NCD
Canada Centre for Inland Waters
Environment Canada
U.S. EPA, Region II
Environment Canada, Quebec Region
U.S. EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Athens
U.S. Bureau of Mines
Environment Canada
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District
U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District
TELEPHONE
601-634-3959
517-835-9625
317-232-8602
218-720-5553
312-353-0789
313-226-6760
201-321-6632
513-569-7839
315-471-6399
404-546-3349
716-879-4272
517-373-2758
614-644-2866
716-847-4590
312-353-6354
416-336-4602
416-973-1089
212-264-6041
514-283-0676
513-569-7757
404-546-3103
202-634-1210
416-973-1107
313-226-6748
513-569-7839
716-879-4272
56
-------
COMMUNICATION/LIAISON WORKGROUP
NAME
Doreen Carey
Glenda Daniel (Co-Chairperson)
Len Eames
Tim Ecfer
Mike Forster
Brett Hulsey
Lois New
Evelyn Schiele
Jill Singer
Karen Murphy (Alternate)
Jame Schaefer (Alternate)
Mary Beth Tuohy (Co-Chairperson)
AFFILIATION
Calumet College, Whiting, Indiana
Lake Michigan Federation
Member, Citizens Advisory Committee, Ashtabula RAP
National Wildlife Federation
Saginaw Basin Alliance
Sierra Club
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
State University College at Buffalo
Great Lakes United
Member, Citizens Advisory Committe, Sheboygan RAP
U.S. EPA, Region V
TELEPHONE
219-473-4246
312-939-0838
216-997-9412
313-769-3351
517-790-5917
608-257-4994
518-457-0849
312-353-6412
716-878-4710
716-886-0142
414-458-9274
312-353-1159
312-886-3857
57
-------
Indiana Harbor Master Station Location
Lake Michigan
58
-------
Indiana Harbor Core Station Locations
Lake Michigan
Whiting. IN
N
A
1/2 Mile
Lake George Branch
59
-------
Buffalo River Master Station Locations
60
-------
Buffalo River Core Station Locations
Lackawanna. NY
Intensive Survey Area
Flow
Buffalo. NY
Lake
Erie
N
1 Mile
61
-------
Sag/navv f?/ver Master Station Locations
Saginaw
Bay
N
1 Mile
62
-------
Saginaw River Core Station Locations
Saginaw
Bay
Intensive Survey Area
(Stations not shown)
1 Mile
-------
Saginaw Bay Master Station Locations
Michigan
Saginaw
River
Michigan
(ARCS Station 01=Michigan DNR Station 48)
64
-------
Ashtabula River
LAKE ERIE
0 1000 2000
SCALE . FT
ASHTABULA RIVER
INVESTIGATION AREA
-------
Sheboygan River Superfund Sampling Locations
------- |