00474
1992-93
905R92100
Assessment and Remediation
of Contaminated Sediments
(ARCS) 1992 Work Plan
©United States Areas or Concern
• ARCS Priority Areas of Concern
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
-------
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments Program
FY93 Accomplishments
Fiscal year 1993 brings us to the close of United States Environmental Protection Agency/ Great Lakes
National Program Office's Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments Program mandate.
This year will be spent finalizing reports and studies initiated during the Program. Each segment of the
ARCS Program has endeavored to pull together lessons learned and skills acquired into a cohesive
picture, so that the knowledge can be shared with state and local RAP groups.
We have already completed and published some findings, we anticipate completing and publishing the
remainder by the end of the calendar year 1993. This addendum contains 1992-93 highlights of each
Work Group and published ARCS materials.
The Engineering/Technology Work Group has been completing work from pilot and bench scale
demonstrations:
- The Buffalo River pilot demonstration, conducted hi October 1991, involved thermal desorption
of organic contaminants and solidification/stabilization of the residue.
- Ashtabula was the site of another thermal desorption pilot demonstration conducted hi
September 1992. The location was Jack's Marine hi Ashtabula. Analytical work was
completed in April 1993.
„ - The pilot demonstration at Grand Calumet River, was conducted hi July 1992, and involved
(^ chemical extraction of organic contaminants from sediment at the USX Gary Works, in
conjunction with the USEPA Superfund SITE Program.
v - The Saginaw River and Bay pilot demonstration began in October 1991 and finished in June
1992. Sediment washing was performed using particle separation technologies.
- The Sheboygan River's pilot demonstration of biological remediation of PCB contaminated
sediments was conducted in conjunction with the Superfund program in 1992. The experiment
took place in a confined treatment facility (CTF) on Tecumseh Products Company land. The
CTF was manipulated to de-chlorinate the PCBs under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions.
- Bureau of Mines laboratory investigations of mineral processing technologies as applied to
contaminated sediments are completed.
- Bench scale testing of extractive and destructive technologies was completed by a number of
vendors.
The Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group is hi the final stages of many of their projects. These
projects are scheduled for completion in 1993:
- Contaminant analysis for water, sediment and fish samples for Buffalo and Saginaw Rivers
have been completed in support of the mass balance effort.
- Sediment transport models have been calibrated for the Saginaw and Buffalo Rivers.
U.S. r.ivhonrnenta! Protection Agency
Region b, Lib:a;y (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Bouievacd, 12th Floor
Chicago, 1L 60604-3590
-------
- Remediation scenarios to be modeled have been developed for the Buffalo and Saginaw Rivers.
- The first draft of a contaminant loadings report for the Buffalo River has been completed.
- Calibration of the contaminant model for the Saginaw River has begun.
The Toxicity/Chemistry workgroup has completed its' assessment work:
- The first draft of the ARCS Assessment Guidance Document is under review.
- Assessments have been completed in Saginaw River and Bay, Grand Calumet River and
Buffalo River.
Part of the ARCS mandate involves technology transfer, and in response to that charge ARCS has either
sponsored, or been a part of workshops dealing with contaminated sediment issues:
- University of Wisconsin-Madison, Managing Contaminated Sediments course, April 13-14,
1993.
- Dedicated ARCS session at LAGLR, June 7-10, 1993, Green Bay, Wisconsin.
- ARCS presentations at International Conference on Contaminated Aquatic Sediments, June 14-
16, 1993, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Also under communications efforts ARCS has published three reports, an article and several newsletters
this fiscal year. Human health risk assessment reports for the Buffalo River and the Grand Calumet River
are scheduled for completion in 1993 along with numerous additional reports:
- Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment: Ashtabula River, Ohio, Area of Concern, EPA 905-
R92-007, December 1992
- Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment: Saginaw River, Michigan, Area of Concern,
EPA905-R92-008, December 1992
- Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment: Sheboygan River, Wisconsin, Area of Concern, EPA
905-R93-001, February 1993
- Assessment of Sediment Contamination at Great Lakes Areas of Concern; The ARCS Program
Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group Strategy, Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Overall Program Scope 1
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Objectives 4
3.0 Activities 5
4.0 Products 6
5.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 7
6.0 Data Management 8
7.0 Publication Policy 9
8.0 Summary of Accomplishments. 9
//. Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group Work Plan 10
f.O /ntroduction JO
2.0 Objectives 10
3.0 Activities 10
3.1 Sampling 11
3.2 Sediment Biological Assessment 12
3.3 Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Fish Samples 14
3.4 Broader Spectrum Toxicity Testing of Selected Sediment Samples 15
3.5 Fish Tumor and External Abnormality Survey 15
3.6 Fish Bioaccumulation Assays 16
4.0 Products 16
5.0 Recent Accomplishments 16
6.0 Timeline. 19
III. Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group Work Plan 20
1.0 Introduction 20
2.0 Objectives 20
3.0 Activities 21
3.1 Hazard Evaluation 21
3.1.1 Exposure Assessment 23
3.1.1.1 Exposure Modeling 24
3.1.12 Synoptic Surveys. 28
3.12 Risk and Hazard Assessment 29
3.1.2.1 Human Health Risk Assessment 30
3.1.22 Aquatic Life Hazard Assessment 31
3.1.2.3 Wildlife Hazard Assessment 31
32 Site Prioritization for Remedial Action and Development
of Decision Support Tools 37
4.0 Products 32
5.0 Recent Accomplishments 32
6.0 TmeKne. 34
/V. Engineerino/Technology Work Group Work Plan 35
1.0 Introduction 35
2.0 Objectives 35
3.0 Activities 35
3.7 Perform a Review of Technical Literature 36
32 Evaluate the Applicability of Technologies for Bench-Scale Studies 36
3.3 Estimate Contaminant Losses During Remediation 36
3.4 Collect Sediments for Bench-Scale Testing 37
3.5 Sediment Storage and Analysis 37
3.6 Conduct Bench-Scale Tests of Selected Treatment
Technologies. 38
-------
3.7 Evaluate Treatment Technologies lor Inorganic
Contaminants 39
3.8 Workshop on Bioremediation 39
3.9 Evaluation of Chemical Solidification/Stabilization Technologies 40
3.10 Pilot-Scale Demonstration Projects. 40
3.11 Development of Options tor Priority Consideration Areas 40
3.12 Summaries of Treatment Technologies 41
3.13 Description of Pilot-Scale Demonstrations 43
4.0 Products 45
5.0 Recent Accomplishments 46
6.0 Timeline . 47
V. Communication/Uaison Work Group Work Plan 48
1.0 Introduction 48
2.0 Objectives 48
3.0 Activities 49
3.1 Work Group Interaction 49
32 Preparation of Information Materials 49
3.3 Mailing list Compilation 50
3.4 Soliciting Public Input 50
3.5 Development and Maintenance of Library Repositories 50
3.6 On-site Coordination and Public Meetings 50
3.7 S//de Show Preparation 51
3.8 Video Documentation 51
4.0 Products 5f
5.0 Recenf Accompfishmenls 5J
6.0 Timeline 52
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Map of ARCS Priority Areas of Concern 2
Figure 2. ARCS Management Structure 3
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Toxicity/Chemistry Analysis Matrix. 13
Table2. ARCS Biological Test Matrix 17
Table 3. Hazard Evaluations to be Performed. 22
Table 4. Components of Phase I and Phase II Exposure Modeling Efforts 26
Table 5. Treatment Technologies to be Demonstrated by ARCS 42
APPENDIXES
Appendix A: Maps 53
Appendix B:ARCS Library Repositories 60
Appendix C:ARCS Publications and Repository Contributions 63
Appendix D:ARCS Program Committee Membership 65
-------
I. 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 appropriate treatment of toxic pollutants in bottom sediments. Five areas were
specified in the Act as requiring priority consideration in conducting demonstration
projects: Saginaw Bay, Michigan; Sheboygan Harbor, Wisconsin; Grand Calumet River,
Indiana; Ashtabula River, Ohio; and Buffalo River, New York (Figure 1). To fulfill the
requirements of the Act, GLNPO initiated the Assessment and Remediation of
Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program. In addition, the Great Lakes Critical
Programs Act of 1990 amends the Section, now 118(c)(7), by extending the Program by
one year and specifying completion dates for certain interim activities.
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 43 Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs, as identified by the United
States and Canadian Governments), 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), the U.S. Department of Interior, EPA headquarters
offices, EPA laboratories, EPA Regions II, HI 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 has provided advice on ARCS Program activities, and
its membership includes representatives from the organizations noted above. Three
technical Work Groups identify and prioritize specific tasks to meet the objectives of the
Program. These are the Toxicity/Chemistry, Risk Assessment/Modeling, and
Engineering/Technology Work Groups. A fourth Work Group, Communication/Liaison,
oversees technology transfer, public information and public participation activities.
Finally, the Activities Integration Committee coordinates the technical aspects of the
work groups' activities.
-------
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 GLNPO Staff Chief
TOXIOTY/
CHEMISTRY
WORK GROUP
RISK
ASSESSMENT/
MODELING
WORK GROUP
ENGINEERING/
TECHNOLOGY
WORK GROUP
COMMUNICATION/
LIAISION
WORKGROUP
-------
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,
Demonstrate and evaluate the effectiveness of selected remedial options,
including removal, immobilization and advanced treatment technologies,
as well as the "no action" alternative, and
Provide guidance on contaminated sediment problems and remedial
alternatives in the Areas of Concern and other locations in the Great
Lakes.
An 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 developmental work is, however, being
undertaken.
To completely assess the causes and effects of contaminated sediments and to fully
evaluate the 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 necessary. Unfortunately, such characterizations could cost several millions of dollars
for each priority area. The ARCS Program is using available resources to develop a basic
framework for site characterization.
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, that can be used for other
projects 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 aspect- »t will be critical in the choice of a
remedial alternative (or whether to remediate a }. While not addressing such issues
in depth, the ARCS Program will identify the m issues that need to be resolved before
decisions can be made.
-------
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 harmful to fish or other
aquatic life, wildlife, or human health?
Are the injuries inflicted of such magnitude or quality that remedial action is
needed?
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 addressing these questions.
The general 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" and various 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, the Activities Integration Committee is responsible for
coordinating Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/OC) 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.
Some of the priority consideration areas are the sites of intensive work by other
programs. Both the A ntabula River and the Sheboygan River have had numerous
investigations performea under the U.S. EPA Superfund Program. Rather than duplicate
efforts in these areas, ARCS is following these activities to utilize the information gained,
and will focus its resources on factors that are not being fully addressed by Superfund
activities. This is felt to be the most cost-effective way to utilize ARCS funds.
4.0 Products
Several documents have already been published as a result of ARCS Program
activities. A list of publications to date is included in Appendix C. In addition, several
final reports and guidance documents will be published. 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 n 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 m Contaminated Sediments Assessment Guidance Document. The primary
technical document discussing techniques for the assessment of
contaminated sediments, as demonstrated in the ARCS Program.
-------
Volume IV Risk Assessment/Modeling Guidance Document. Describes the modeling
and risk/hazard excercises and discusses their usefulness and limitations.
Volume V Contaminated Sediments Remediation Guidance. The primary technical
document discussing techniques for the remediation of contaminated
sediments, as demonstrated in the ARCS Program.
Volume VI 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
VII-XI study in the implementation of the guidance contained in Volumes
HI through VI.
In addition to these products, each individual study funded by the ARCS Program
will be written up as a technical document.
5.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The overall ARCS QA/QC program is detailed in the Quality Assurance
Management Plan (QAMP). The QAMP addresses field operations, laboratory and
analytical operations, data quality objectives, the laboratory/field audit program, data
validation/verification, and data management.
It is U.S. EPA policy that all environmental sampling and testing be done in
accordance with a written and approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). An
approved QAPP is to include the following 14 points:
• project description;
• project organization and responsibilities;
• quality assurance objectives for measurement data in terms of precision,
accuracy, completeness, representativeness, and comparability;
• sampling procedures;
• sampling custody;
-------
• calibration procedures and frequency;
• analytical procedures and calibration;
• data reduction, validation, and reporting;
• internal quality control checks;
• performance and system audits;
• preventative maintenance procedures;
• calculation of data quality indicators;
• corrective actions; and
• QA/QC reports to management.
Additionally, each QAPP must have a title page with provisions for approval signatures
and a table of contents. Each individual laboratory generating any form of data (i.e., field
sampling , field descriptions, analytical results, sediment maps, etc.) for the ARCS
Program is required to prepare a QAPP for their individual part of the ARCS Program.
Each individual laboratory QAPP will address each of the above 14 items in detail as they
relate to the overall ARCS Program. The overall Program will be addressed in the ARCS
QAMP. Copies of the approved QAPPs for the ARCS Program will be maintained at the
Great Lakes National Program Office in Chicago, Illinois.
6.0 Data Management
The ARCS Activities Integration Committee will have overall oversight
responsibility for the ARCS data management program. 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 are a component of the participating investigators' QAPPs.
The ARCS Program will be using a Geographic Information System (GIS) for data
analysis, output and mapping. The ARCS minimum reporting requirements include the
data necessary for use in the system. The data management program is responsible for
maintenance of the GIS system, as well as for fulfilling requests from study participants
and report authors for particular outputs from the ARCS data base.
8
-------
7.0 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 the public. EPA will then return its
comments and suggestions for revisions to the principal investigator. If the principal
investigator and EPA project officer can agree on the necessary revisions, then the
publication will carry a statement to the effect that the document has been approved for
publication as an EPA document. If they cannotreach 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 adminis-
trative review process. A detailed explanation of these requirements can be found in 40
CFR Section 30.518.
8.0 Summary of Accomplishments
The following is a brief summary of ARCS accomplishments to date. A more
complete list of recent accomplishments for each Work Group are listed at the end of
Chapters II, HI, IV, and V.
• Completed all sampling surveys and laboratory analyses;
• Completed initial drafts of the Human Health Risk Assessment for the
Grand Calumet and Saginaw Rivers, and the Aquatic Life Hazard
Assessment for the Buffalo River;
Completed the final draft of the Human Health Risk Assessment for the
Buffalo River;
• Completed the pilot-scale treatment demonstrations for the Buffalo River,
and performed a partial pilot scale treatment demonstration for the
Saginaw River and Bay;
• Published Literature Summaries for the five ARCS Areas of Concern, and
several technology reviews;
-------
• Established library repositories at ^e five Areas of Concern for ARCS
Program material and other relatec ormation.
In addition, several ARCS Work Group members ;jave presented papers and/or chaired
sessions at numerous professional meetings.
n. Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group Work Plan
1.0 Introduction
The Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group has been responsible for developing and
testing sediment assessment methods. This Work Group has been assessing 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 has demonstrated assessment techniques for aquatic life at the priority
consideration areas. The information obtained is being used to produce contamination
maps of the areas.
2.0 Objectives
The primary objectives of the Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group are:
1. Assessment 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. Demonstration of Assessment Surveys. To demonstrate the assessment
survey techniques at the priority consideration areas, and use results and
lessons learned in developing guidance.
3.0 Activities
The tasks needed to accomplish these objectives have been:
1) General sampling, characterization, and mapping of sediment deposits;
2) Toxicity testing of sediment samples;
3) Chemical analysis of. .iment;
10
-------
4) Broader spectrum toxicity testing on a selected subset of sediment samples,
to compare the relative sensitivities and selectivities of different assays;
5) Fish tumor and abnormality surveys; and
6) Fish bioaccumulation assays.
3.1 Sampling
In order to properly evaluate the nature and extent of sediment contamination in
the priority consideration areas, 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.
There are four kinds of sampling stations being used for ARCS sediment testing. Table
1 shows the types of tests done at stations in each category.
For each of the five priority consideration areas, existing information on sediment
contamination was obtained and reviewed. At the Saginaw and Buffalo Rivers and
Indiana Harbor/Grand Calumet River, a station location grid was prepared to guide
sampling and sediment profiling throughout the sites. Numerous sediment core samples
(100 to 200 per area) were collected to be tested for a set of "indicator parameters" which
can be run relatively inexpensively on large numbers of samples. The core horizons were
also visually characterized and photographed. The samples were homogenized and
transported to laboratories for biological and chemical analyses as described below.
The core samples were 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.
11
-------
A first set of seven to ten Master Station surficial sediment samples were collected
using a Ponar grab sampler. Highly detailed analyses were performed on these samples
(Table 1) for subsequent correlation with the results of the Reconnaissance Stations
(described in Section 3.2) where only the indicator parameters are run.
If indicator parameters correlate with the other measurements of contamination
and toxicity, 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 these analyses and from
profiling data are being used to prepare three-dimensional contamination maps, which will
be completed by March, 1992.
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 testing becomes increasingly more time-
consuming and costly. Tier I testing focuses on acute toxicity testing, benthic community
structure and mutagenicity testing; Tier n focuses on partial life-cycle toxicity and Tier in
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 prepared from the
sediment samples:
Daphnia magna, 48-hr mortality test
Microtox (Photobacterium phosphoreum) luminescence test.
Selenastrum capricornutum, 24-hr carbon-14 uptake test.
12
-------
Table 1. Toxicity/Chemistry Analysis Matrix
TYPES OF ANALYSES
INDICATOR PARAMETERS
BENTfflC COMMUNITY
DETAILED CHEMISTRY
TIERED BIOASSAYS
o Photobacterium (bacteria)
o Selenastrum (algae)
o Daphnia (invertebrate)
o Chironomus riparius
(invertebrate)
o Hyalella (invertebrate)
o Pimephales (fish)
AMES AND MUTATOX
COMPARATIVE BIOASSAYS
O Photobacterium (bacteria)
o Selenastrum (algae)
O Daphnia (invertebrate)
o Hyalella (invertebrate)
o Ceriodaphnia (invertebrate)
o Lemna (plant)
o Pimephales (fish)
0 Hydrilla (plant)
o Diaporeia (invertebrate)
o Hexagenia (invertebrate)
o Brachionus (invertebrate)
o Bacterial enzymes
BIOACCUMULATION (fish)
TYPES OF SAMPLING STATIONS
Reconnaissance
Stations
Master
Stations
,
-
'C •••-... .:. ,:,-;./':-.:- \
;j^'^;...S:-:^>..:..,.-r,
'
Priority
Master
Stations
• . •• V . • ;
v,.4k:-:v:h;.r
- \*^l •
;^^;^-r
:""''. ''•'-'.•', •.•x-:-.":$:;'--!' ; ";•-: ::;
'V.'.'ft'X-'-W'-'.vA- '.-•-.' ' " •"' . •"*
Extended
Priority
Master
Stations
"-. ':.
v£:
.;;;•-;. ••**'•
;jh/:' ."::
sV-.->..: ': - •
l}::Sl: •':...
13
-------
Approximately one-half : the Masier 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-: arter of the samples undergoing Tier I testing
also go to Tier HI testing, which consists c, the Hyalella azteca 28-day (whole sediment)
growth test and the fathead minnow (Pimephalespromelds) flow-through bioassay (whole
sediment). The primary purpose of Tier II and Tier HI testing was to evaluate samples
not found to be acutely toxic in Tier I. Therefore, most of the samples tested in Tiers II
and m exhibited little or no toxicity. Because assessment involved a calibration
excercise, a small number of acutely toxic samples were included in Tiers II and in to
provide an appropriate range over which to evaluate the tiered testing .system. For
purposes of comparison, Tier n testing was also perftied on Choronomus tenants
and Choronomus riparius samples.
33 Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Fish Samples
Samples of sediments, sediment extracts and fish flesh (from the bioaccumulation
assays) collected in the ARCS Program have been 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,
• Metals (silver, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercurv. manganese,
nickel, lead, selenium, and zinc) in pore water, elutri and bulk
sediments,
• Organo-metals (methyl mercury and butyl tins),
• Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (naphthalene; 2-methyl naphthalene;
fluorene; phenanthrene; anthracene; fluoranthene; pyrene;
benz(a)anthracene; chrysene; benzo(b+k)fluoranthene; benzo(a)pyrene;
indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene);
• Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Aroclors anc selected congeners);
14
-------
• Chlorinated Pesticides (aldrin; alpha-, beta-, gamma-, and delta-
hexachlorocyclohexane; p,p'-DDE; p,p'-DDD; p,p'-DDT; dieldrin;
endosulfan I and II; endosulfan sulfate; endrin; endrin aldehyde; heptaclor;
heptaclor epoxide; toxaphene; and methoxychlor);
• 1,4-Dichlorobenzene;
• Chlorinated Dioxin and Furan congeners; and
• Phthalates (dimethyl; di-n-octyl; bis-2-ethylhexyl; and butyl benzyl).
3.4 Broader Spectrum Toxicity Testing of Selected Sediment Samples
The bioassays to be performed on samples from 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 Priority Master Stations at each study area were
distributed to these investigators for broader bioassay testing. The resulting information
obtained from this effort will be 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 the
incidence were undertaken in the Buffalo, Ashtabula, Grand Calumet, and Saginaw
Rivers. In these cases, fish were collected and targeted for field necropsy and histo-
pathological examination at each area. Brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus) is the
primary study species, with the white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) serving as a
secondary option. Success in collecting these target species was variable, with none
caught from the Grand Calumet River. A final report will be completed in early 1992.
15
-------
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 was
conducted using bulk sediment samples. Analyses of the fish tissue for selected
parameters were conducted in September, 1991.
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 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, and Volume El of the final
ARCS guidance, which will recommend a much abbreviated, less expensive suite of tests
that can be performed to evaluate contaminated sediment. Also, a report will be prepared
comparing the chemical and toxicological roperties of the seidment with organisms living
in these samples. The writing of these documents is being done by a small investigators
that were involved in conducting these studies, coordinated by the Work Group
Chairperson. GLNPO staff will oversee all phases of the document development.
5.0 Recent Accomplishments
Completed all sampling surveys and laboratory analyses;
In November, 1990, participated in the llth annual meeting of the Society for
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry in Arlington, Virginia;
In June, 1991, presented a series of papers at the 34th Conference on Great Lakes
Research in Buffalo, New York;
In November, 1991, presented seven papers on Work Group findings at the 12th
annual meeting of the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry in
Seattle, Washington;
16
-------
icsi iviauix
TEST SYSTEM
1) TOXICITY TESTS
Photobacterium phosphoreum
Selenastrum capricornutum
Daphnia magna
Chironomus tentans
Chironomus riparius
Hyalella azteca
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Lemna minor
Pimephales promelas
Hydrilla verticulata
Diporeia sp.
Hexagenia limbata
Brachionius calyciflorus
Bacterial enzymes
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
Elutriate
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
Biochemical endpoints
Mortality
Growth
Mortality
Mortality
Function
Mutation
Mutation
Bioaccumulation
Tumors
Coram. structure
DURATION
15 min
24 h
48 h; 96 h
96 h
48 h
7d
10 d
10 d
14 d; 28 d
14 d
7 d; 14 d; 28 d
14 d; 28 d
14 d; 28 d
7d
7d
7d
7d
4d
4d
7d
7d
7d
14 d
4d; 7d
20 d
10 d; 28 d
10 d
24 h
2h
72 h
12 h
10 d
Collection
Collection
17
-------
In November, 1991, a scientific paper explaining the Work Group's approach to
developing assessment techniques was published in the Journal of Aquatic
Ecosystem Health.
In November, 1991, a short course on Sediment Assessment and Remediation for
environmental managers and engineers included several ARCS investigators as
instructors, in Madison, Wisconsin.
18
-------
6.0 Timeline - Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group
ACTIVITY
FISCAL YEAR AND QUARTER
FY90 FY91
Sediment Sampling
Sediment Toxicity Testing
Chemical Analyses
Broad Spectrum Toxicity
Tests
Tumor and Abnormality
Survey
Fish Bioaccumulation Tests
Preparation of Draft Case
Study Sediments
Preparation of Draft Guidance
Document
ARCS Sediment Assessment
Document
FY92
1234
34123
19
-------
HI. 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 to provide a comparative framework
for assessing multiple sites that are potentially in need of remediation.
2.0 Objectives
The primary objectives of the Risk Assessment/Modeling 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 alternatives. 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 >f Guidance: To develop guidance on the analytical methods
for assessing environmental and human health impacts of contaminated
sediments, to support decision making.
20
-------
6.0 Timeline - Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group
ACTIVITY
FISCAL YEAR AND QUARTER
FY90 FY91
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
4123 41
34
-------
• Completed initial application and testing of hydrodynamic models on Buffalo
and Saginaw Rivers.
• Completed initial set-up and screening calculations for contaminant transport.
• Completed initial linkage and testing of hydrodynamic and contaminant
models.
• Completed initial linkage and testing of sediment transport and contaminant
models.
• In support of sedimen' transport and resuspension effect on the Buffalo and
Saginaw Rivers.
sampled suspended solids on a regular basis focusing on runoff events.
conducted soundings of selected transects to ascertain changes in
bottom profiles over time.
conducted field shaker tests to determine resuspension potential of
contaminated sediments.
• Completed initial drafts of Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment for Grand
Calumet River and Saginaw Rivers.
• Completed final draft of the Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment for the
Buffalo River.
• Completed first draft of Aquatic Life Hazard Assessment for the Buffalo
River.
33
-------
Areas of Concern. The result will be a prioritization procedure that can be used in
a comprehensive strategy for the management of contaminated sediments.
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 watersheds);
• Calibrate 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.
4.0 Products
The products of the Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group will consist 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 Risk Assessment/Modeling Guidance Document and the Contaminated
Sediments Remediation Guidance Document, discussed in Pan I, and members will have
direct input into the development of these guidance documents.
5.0 Recent Accomplishments
• In support of mini-mass balance work:
completed water column, fish and CSO sampling on the Buffalo
River.
completed water column and fish sampling on lower five miles of
Saginaw River.
began chemical analyses of Buffalo and Saginaw River water,
sediment and fish samples.
32
-------
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, lexicological information describing dose-
response relationships will be used. % baseline aquatic life hazard evaluation is being
performed for the Buffalo River. This approach can be made available for applica ->n to
other sites.
3.1.23 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 is being 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). This approach can be made available for application at other sites where
wildlife impacts from contaminated sediment are of concern.
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
o; ihe Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Development of numerically-based ranking will
provide a method for integrating hazard and risk assessments wit,in and between individual
31
-------
at the five ARCS AOCs will provide more refined tools to be used at the other AOCs than
were previously available. The Baseline Assessments use existing data, while the
Comprehensive Assessments 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, is their potential for adverse developmental 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.
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.
30
-------
3) Contaminant Exposure Data: Ambient water, sediment, loading, and food chain
data for • calibration of the exposure model will use, whenever possible, historical
data. Ii. lition, surveys were conducted to identify spatial variability in the system
during varying flow conditions in 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 are being estimated and/or
measured from point and non-point sources. Historical data are being
assessed to estimate loadings from point sources as well as measurements
acquired concurrently with the ambient water quality studies. Loadings from
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) are eing 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 were not sampled in Sagir "). Loadings for contaminants and suspended
solids from upstream tributar, are 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, are being used
to extrapolate these measurements to annual loading rates. An analysis of the
uncertainty of these estimates is also being performed.
b. Ambient Water Concentrations: Ambi •:• - data for particulate and dissolved
contaminants as • 11 as conventional parameters were obtained over six
sampling days d. g the fall of 1990.
c. Sediment Data: Data for sediment concentrations were collected as part
of separate sampling studies in 1990.
4) Food Chain Data: Data have been 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 o;
-------
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, located at
EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory in Athens, Georgia, 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 were performed for six sampling days
for the lower Buffalo and Saginaw Rivers. The sampling stations were selected to allow
estimates of pollutant influxes to, and effluxes from, the AOCs. Samples were integrated over
the width of the system. The data collected during the synoptic surveys included flows,
loading and concentration data for solids and chemicals in both water and suspended solids.
Samples for selected conventional parameters were 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 is being collected as part of
studies of other ARCS Work Groups. The types of data to be obtained are briefly described
below.
1) Hvdrodvnamic Data: Data for the calibration of the hydrodynamic model includes
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 were also obtained
concurrently with field studies. In addition, water surface elevation data, velocity and
discharge measurements, and wind velocity and direction data were obtained.
2) Sediment Transport Data: Data for the calibration of the sediment transport model
also relies on historical data, such as U.S. ACE dredging records. Information on
sediment characteristics (e.g. grain size, water content, etc.) was determined during
the sediment surveys. Also, bathymetry surveys were conducted to estimate changes
in the system's morphometry. Data on suspended solids were collected concurrently
with the river sampling, and suspended solids data were 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.
28
-------
quantification of the sources, transport, and fate of contaminants. The specific components
of the exposure modeling study are described below.
1) Hvdrodvnaniic 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.
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) 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
reintroduction of some species) using information obtained from the other studies.
27
-------
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 concern 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
-------
Due to resource nations, the Phase II fies:. work to support the mini mass
balance modeling 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
zinc
copper
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.
The mass balances being conducted for ARCS are called Level I or preliminary efforts,
and some uncertainty is expected. Additional model verification will certainly be
necessary in the future
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 wftich the mass balance approach is
applied to a natural system. The application of the mass balance method involves the
25
-------
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 tools using existing
information.
Phase n 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 paniculate and dissolved phases. This work was conducted in September and
November, 1990 for the Buffalo River, and May and June, 1991, for the Saginaw River.
To support the food chain model, fish species were also collected and are being 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.
24
-------
Two levt.s 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. 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 the risk from all components of a remedial process. The
Engineering/Technology Work Group will provide hypothetical mass losses of
contaminants resulting from each step in a remedial action. The Risk
Assessment/Modeling Work Group will then use these mass loadings to develop risk
assessments based on losses to the environment.
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, 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 fish
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 of nearshore 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.
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
/
Wildlife
/
/
Human
/
/
/
/
/
Comprehensive
Aquatic
Life
Wildlife
/
/
Human
/
/
22
-------
3.0 Activities
The tasks needed to accomplish these objectives are:
1) Hazard Evaluation
• Mini-mass Balance Approach
D Exposure Model Development
° Field Surveys to Calibrate Models
• Risk/Hazard Assessments
D Human
o Aquatic Life
o 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.
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 strur ~e impacts, etc.) presented to human
and environmental receptors (aquatic, avian, mammalian) from direct or indirect contact
with 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 nd is not usually separated out as such. However, since the
activities involved in pen. ning the exposure assessment are different than those
involved in performing a risk or hazard assessment, this work plan makes a distinction
between them.
21
-------
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 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 demonstration 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 have been:
1) Perform a review of technical literature;
2) Evaluate the applicability of technologies for bench-scale studies;
3) Estimate contaminant losses during remediation;
4) Collect sediments for bench-scale testing;
5) Sediment storage and analysis;
6) Convene a workshop on bioremediation technologies;
7) Evaluate solidification/stabilization technologies;
35
-------
Tasks currently being performed include:
8) Evaluate ti-uiment technologies for inorganic contaminant
9) Conduct bench-scale tests of selected treatment technologies;
10) Conduct pilot-scale demonstrations; and
11) Develop options for priority consideration areas.
3.1 Perform a 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 m situ techniques. The final
report is complete. Averett et al., see Appendix 3). 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 Evaluate the 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 presen. nd 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 to be demonstrated by the ARCS
Program.
33 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
36
-------
Research Laboratory in Athens, Georgia (ERL/Athens). Coordination between WES and
ERL/Athens is underway. The schedule is as follows:
Scheduled Actual
Start Completion Completion
Date Date Date
A) Phase I, Briefing to 6/90 9/90 9/90
Work Group
B) Phase II, Draft Report 1/91 9/91 10/91
C) Phase III, Draft Report 8/91 2/92
D) Publish Final Report 2/92 7/92
3.4 Collect 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),
3) from a potential hot spot near General Motors in the Saginaw River (50 gallons), and 4)
from one location in the Indiana Harbor Canal (100 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.
3.5 Sediment Storage and Analysis
The sediment samples were homogenized and split into representative subsamples
(wet). The wet subsamples were provided in appropriate volumes 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 are stored in a cold-room at 4'C.
37
-------
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 m, detailed analysis
below 63 m);
• density of dry material;
• total sulfur content;
• acid volatile sulfides;
• oil and grease;
total PCBs;
• PAHs (at least 10 compounds);
metals (ICAP); and
• mercury.
3.6 Conduct 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 depended 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.
There is a contract for bench-scale testing of sediment treatment technologies with
SAIC Corporation. A kickoff meeting for the work plan was held in Cincinnati in August,
1990. Eight bench-scale tests will be completed, and the final report will be ready in March,
1992. 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 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 ECOLogic for testing with their hazardous
wastt .structor. The ECO Logic process requires heat (about 800 C), but the breakup of
contaminants is achieved by the injected reducing agent, free hydrogen. A destruction
removal efficiency of greater than 99% was achieved, in bench scale testing.
38
-------
3.7 Evaluate Treatment Technologies for 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 all five of the priority consideration areas. 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.
A series of interagency agreements have been entered into with the U.S. Bureau of
Mines, with the U.S. work to be carried out at their Salt Lake City Research Facility. 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 was
completed in March, 1991, and a final report is due in December, 1991. Additional work to
be conducted in 1992 will be described in a second report, to be completed in 1993.
3.8 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 components) in remediation strategies, especially when confined
disposal options are leading alternatives. For PCB 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 are available from NTIS.
39
-------
3.9 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 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 ratios was screened and an
optimum ratio was selected for detailed evaluation. Effectiveness was measured by comparing
leaching results, unconfmed compressive strength, and durability under wet/dry and
freeze/thaw cycles. A final report is available.
3.10 Pilot-Scale Demonstration Projects
Pilot-scale demonstrations began in FY1991 and will continue through FY1992. 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 can be performed either on-site or at an off-site location,
but will be performed on-site at all five ARCS priority locations.
3.11 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. Concept plans will be prepared in 1993, after demonstration projects have
been completed.
40
-------
3.12 Summaries of Treatment Technologies
The following are short descriptions of each of the technologies listed in Table 5:
• 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.
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 KPEG 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 CBEST) 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.
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.
41
-------
Tshle 5. Treatment Technologies to be Demonstrated by ARCS
TECHNOLOGIES
Solidification/
Stabilization
Inorganic Treat-
ment/Recovery
Bioremediation
KPEG Nucleophilic
Substitution
B.E.S.T Extraction
Process
Low Temperature
Thermal Stripping
Wet Air Oxidation
Low Energy
Extraction
Eco-Logic Destruc-
tion Process
In-Situ Stabilization
Acetone Extraction
(Rem-Tech)
Aqueous Surfactant
Extraction
Sediment De-
watering Methods
PRIORITY CONSIDERATION AREAS
and Scale of Demonstration
ASHTABULA
RIVER
Bench*
Bench*
Bench*
Pilot*
BUFFALO
RIVER
Bench0
Pilot*
Bench"
Bench*
Bench*
Bench*
Pilot*
Bench*
GRAND
CALUMET
RIVER
Bench'
Bench"
Bench*
Bench*18
Pilot*
Bench*
Bench**
SAGINAW
BAY
Bench"
Pilot*
Bench"
Bench"
Bench*
SHEL .AN
HARBOR
Bench"
Pilot43
Bench3
Bench"
Benchf
Bench"
Pilot"
Bench"
Bench"
Bench"
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
42
-------
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-Loeic 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.
Acetone Extraction fRem-Techl: Acetone is used as a solvent to extract PCBs from
contaminated sediments.
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.
Sediment Dewatering 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.
3.13 Description of Pilot-Scale Demonstrations
ASHTABULA RIVER
Description: ARCS will conduct a pilot demonstration of a low temperature thermal
stripping process, to extract organic contaminants from the sediments. This
is a thermal desorption process that removes semivolatile organic contaminants
(such as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs) by heating the
sediments to temperatures lower than those used in the destructive incineration
process.
Volume: Approximately 10 - 15 cubic yards
Location: Undetermined
Date: Fall 1992
43
-------
BUFFALO RIVER
Description: ARCS conducted a pilot demonstration of a low temperature thermal
extraction process, to extract organic contaminants from the sediment. This
process, like low temperature thermal stripping process, is a thermal
desorption process that removes semivolatile organic contaminants (such as
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs) from sediments. Organic
contaminants are removed from sediments by heating sediments to
temperatures high enough to volatilize the contaminants, but lower than those
used in the destructive incineration process. ReTec technology was
demonstrated. A report summarizing this project will be prepared.
Volume: Approximately 12 cubic yards
Location: Corps of Engineers - Confined Disposal Facility in Buffalo
Date: October, 1991
GRAND CALUMET RIVER/INDIANA HARBOR CANAL
Description: ARCS will conduct a pilot demonstration applying solvent extraction to
contaminated sediments. This process involves exposing the sediment to a
chemical solvent that will separate the organic contaminants from the
sediment.
Volume: Approximately 1 cubic yard
Location: USX Gary Works Plant
Date: April, 1992
SAGINAW RIVER
Description: ARCS will conduct a particle size separation pilot demonstration, using
hydrocyclone or another physical separation technology. This technology is
expected to result in a reduction in volume of the heavily contaminated
sediment fraction. This heavily contaminated sediment fraction will then
undergo further treatment.
Volume: Approximately 300 cubic yards
Location: Corps of Engineers Confined Disposal Facility in the Saginaw River
Date: October, 1991, and spring, 1992
44
-------
SHEBOYGAN RIVER
Description: ARCS will provide technical support and assistance to the Superfund efforts
currently underway at Sheboygan, Wisconsin, through USEPA's
Environmental Research Laboratory in Athens, Georgia. Technical support
will involve a scientific review of the Sheboygan bioremediation pilot project
already underway, including recommendations for enhancing the experimental
design of the project, and the sampling required to achieve a statistically
supportable documentation of its effectiveness.
Volume: Undetermined
Location: Confined Treatment Facility
Date: 1992
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 5 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.
45
-------
5.0 Recent Accomplishments
• Published the proceedings of a workshop on Biological Remediation of Contaminated
Sediments.
• Published the report, "Review of Removal, Containment, and Treatment Technologies
for Remediation of Contaminated Sediment in the Great Lakes".
• Prepared the final report, "An Evaluation of Solidification/Stabilization Technology
for Buffalo River Sediment".
• Prepared work plans for pilot demonstration projects at Buffalo, Saginaw, and Grand-
Calumet.
Prepared a work plan for Evaluation of Contaminant Losses from Components of
Remediation Alternatives for Contaminated Sediment, and started the next phase of
work.
• Performed or initiated work for the following three pilot demonstrations:
Buffalo River - (conducted in fall, 1991) thermal desorption of organic
contaminants and solidification stablization of the residue. The location is the
Buffalo Confined Disposal Facility Number Four.
Grand Calumet River - chemical extraction of organic contaminants at the
USX Gary Works, in conjunction with the USEPA Superfund SITE Program.
Saginaw River and Bav - (begun in fall, 1991) a particle size separation pilot
demonstration using hydrocyclone technology. The heavily contaminated
fraction will be subjected to a solvent extraction process to remove organize
contaminates. A biological remediation will also be conducted on the heavily
contaminated fraction. The location is the Saginaw Confined Facility.
• Two ET Work Group members made presentations at a Canadian Workshop on
Dredging and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments.
Bench scale testing was completed by SAIC.
46
-------
6.0 Timeline - Engineering/Technology Work Group
ACTIVITY
FISCAL YEAR AND QUARTER
FY90 FY91
Technical Literature Review
Evaluation of Applicability of
Technologies for Bench Scale
Studies
Develop Recommendations and
plan for Pilot - Scale
Demonstrations
Estimate Contaminant Losses
During Remediation
Collection of Sediments for
Bench - Scale Testing
Sediment Storage and Analysis
Bench - Scale Tests
Treatment Technologies for
Inorganic Contaminants
Workshop on Bioremediation
Bioremediation Demonstrations
Evaluation of Solidification
Stabilization Technologies
Conduct Pilot - Scale
Demonstrations
Development of Options for
Priotity Consideration Areas
47
-------
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 officiz.
government agencies, and the interested public. The group also provides feedback from thos.
interested parties to the technical work groups and other ARCS committees.
Ongoing communication between the technical work groups and the
Communication/Liaison Work Group regarding research and field work is critical tc
ongoing success of this work group. In part, this will be accomplished through wet
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 t; ARCS Program and ongoing efforts of each
technical work group.
2. Disseminate Information about the program regularly to the public, other
organizations and 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 Particir^.ion. During all phases of the project, the Work
Group seeks to encourage and maintain strong public interest in the ARCS
Program through pub' ' meetings, news releases, informal information
exchange, and other activities.
48
-------
3.0 Activities
The tasks needed to accomplish these objectives are the following:
1) Continual work group interaction;
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; and
8) 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
written materials for dissemination to interested Federal and State agencies, elected officials,
and the public at regular intervals.
49
-------
Periodic "ARCS Updates" will continue to be produced and distributed. They will
provide information not only on ARCS Program activities, but also on cooperative effort.- J
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 Communication/Liaison Work Group member representing U.S.
EPA's Office of Public Affiars in cooperation with the Communication/Liaison Work Group
member in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' North Central Division, where appropriate.
33 Mailing List Compilation
A mailing list has been compiled and will continue to be maintained and updated
regularly to disseminate information gathered in the tasks above to the appropriate interested
parties.
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 br 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 and are being maintained for all of the five priority
areas. For a listing of all ARCS library repositories, see Appendix B.
3.6 On-Site Coordination and Public Meetings
Representatives from the Communication/Liaison Work Group will continue to travel
to the priority consideration sites to inform the public and media about the ARCS Program,
ongoing field work, research activities and results. Meetings with interested public hi
already been held at four of the five sites (Saginaw, Buffalo, Indiana Harbor, and Ashtabu
Second meetings will be held at these four sites in fiscal 1992 along with at least one meeting
in Sheboygan. Efforts will be made to conduct additional meetinc? with RAP Pub *
Advisory Committees in various Great Lakes locations where interest is expressed.
50
-------
3.7 Slide Show Preparation
A slide show has been developed and is being disseminated to describe the
contaminated sediment issue in general and the ARCS program in particular. A minimum of
10 presentations will be made by Work Group members in fiscal 1992.
3.8 Video Documentation
Video footage on demonstration projects and related field activities will be produced
to document ARCS activities. Consideration will be given to preparing an overall sediment
remediation documentary.
4.0 Products
The products of the Communication/Liaison Work Group will consist of the fact
sheets, press releases, slide show, video footage and other forms of communication 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 1. Members will have
an opportunity for direct input into the development of these guidance documents.
5.0 Recent Accomplishments
• In Fiscal Year 1991, the Communication/Liaison Work Group produced two "ARCS
Updates", and several site-specific fact sheets and news releases. A slide show was
developed and disseminated, and video footage was taken.
• Members of the work group scheduled and coordinated meetings with Remedial
Action Plan Public Advisory Committees in Ashtabula, Ohio, and the Grand Calumet
River/Indiana Harbor Canal, as well as speaking to approximately 30 interested civic
and environmental groups around the Great Lakes basin. Work Group members also
participated in professional discussions of contaminated sediment assessment and
remediation Action Plan forum of the International Joint Commission in Traverse
City, Michigan, in September 1991.
• The Work Group participated in a press conference and public information
dissemination regarding a pilot demonstrations in Saginaw Bay, Michigan, and the
Buffao River, New York.
• The Work Group enlarged its mailing list to approximately 1,000 people. It also
fielded requests for information and collected feedback on the program from the
public for dissemination to EPA managers.
• Library repositories for ARCS material and other information on contaminated
sediment have been established in the five priority areas and materials have been
distributed to them.
51
-------
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 Footage Preparation
Fact Sheets
FISCAL YEAR AND QUARTER
FY90 FY91
52
-------
-------
I cr
"33 g <
LLJ
o
5
45
; CM
_o
T5
CO
0£
<
-II
•5 t
ii
^
-------
tM 11.1 11 o »«
UG4 uo
GRAND CALUMET RIVER
•J IJ 1.0
I I lmi««i
55
-------
Ashtabula River
Superfund Sediment
Sampling Area
56
-------
SAMPLING SITES
SAGINAW RIVER
SEDIMENT QUALITY SURVEY
!2Gi - .iclcaJcr station
1_ - Master/Indicator station
f -i
~07pj;- Master station
----- Shipping chonne! boundary
I H.S. i*Ti(***t*ui r»uct>*t
Mcl
Urge lakct Ictcirch Station
* CHIM Hi, MlcM|H
ARCS SEDIMENT QUALITY SURVEY;
SACINAW tlVEI, MICHIGAN
Dcctmbtr. 1111. Miy;wnc, WO
-------
-------
59
-------
Appendix B
ARCS Library Repositories
Ashtabula River
Ashtabula County District Library
Attn: BiUTokarczyk
335 West 44th
Ashtabula Ohio 44004
Phone: 216-997-9341
Buffalo River
Buffalo and Erie County Public Library
ATTN: Science Department
Lafayette Square
Buffalo, New York 14203
Phone 716-858-7101
J.P. Dudley Branch Library
Attn: Marjorie Piegay
2010 South Park Avenue
Buffalo, New York 14220
Phone: 716-823-1854
State University College at Buffalo
Attn: Butter Library
1300 Elmwood Avenue
Buffalo, New York 14222
Phone: 716-878-6331
Grand Calumet River
Gary Public Library
ATTN: Mrs.Watldns
220 West 5th Street
Gary, Indiana 46202
Phone: 219-886-2484
60
-------
East Chicago Public Library
Attn: Adena Fitzgerald
2401 E. Columbus Drive
East Chicago, Indiana 46312
Phone: 219-397-2453
Indiana University-Northwest
Attn: Government Documents
3400 Broadway
Gary, Indiana 46408
Phone: 219-980-6580
Saginaw River
Hoyt Library
Attn: Michigan Room
505 Janes Street
Saginaw, Michigan 48605
Phone: 517-755-0904
Bay City Branch Library
Attn: Barbara Fisher
708 Center Avenue
Bay City, Michigan 48708
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
61
-------
Additional Repositories
U.S. Env:- ^mental Protection Agency
Great La, National Program Office, G-9J
Attn: Lib. .an
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Phone: 312-353-7932
Lake Michigan Federation
59 East Van Buren
Chicago, Illinois 60605
Phone: 312-939-0838
International Joint Commission
Great Lakes Regional Office
Attn: Pat Murray
100 Ouellette Avenue
Windsor, Ontario N9A 6T3
Phone: 313-226-2170
62
-------
Appendix C
ARCS Publications
and
Repository Contributions
ARCS Publications:
1. Literature Summaries:
a) December 1990. Information Summary, Area of
Concern: Ashtabula River, Ohio (H. ETatem/
D. L. Brandon/C. R. Lec/J. W. Simmers/J. G.
Skogerboe);
b) March 1991. Information Summary, Area of
Concern: Buffalo River, New York (C. R. Lee/
D. L. Brandon/J. W. Simmers/H. E. Tatem/
J. G. Skogerboe);
c) March 1991. Information Summary, Area of Concern:
Grand Calumet River, Indiana (J. W. Simmers/C. R.
Lee/D. L. Brandon/H. E. Tatem/J. G. Skogerboe);
d) March 1991. Information Summary, Area of Concern:
Saginaw River and Saginaw Bay (D. L. Brandon/C. R.
Lee/J. W. Simmers/H. E. Tatem/J. G. Skogerboe);
e) March 1991. Information Summary, Area of Concern:
Sheboygan River, Wisconsin (J. G. Skogerboe/C. R.
Lee/D. L. Brandon/J. W. Simmers/H. E Tatem);
2. Technology Reviews
a) Bioremediation of Contaminated Sediments with Special Emphasis on Great
Lakes; July 17-19, 1990. USEPA.
b) Review and Synthesis of Bioassessment Methodologies for Freshwater
Contaminated Sediments (T. Dillon/A. Gibson) 1990.
c) Review of Removal, Containment and Treatment Technologies for Remediation
of Contaminated Sediment in the Great Lakes (D. Averett/B. Pcrry/E. Torrey)
1990.
3. Miscellaneous ARCS
a) ARCS Work Plans
b) "ARCS Update" Newsletters
c) Great Lakes National Program Office: Sediment Remediation Technologies
Selection - Federal Register, Volume 56, No. 85, 5/2/91.
63
-------
Non-ARCS Contributions to Library Repositories:
1. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
2. IJC Documents:
a) December 1988. Procedures for the Assessment of Contaminated Sediment Problems in
Great Lakes;
b) December 1988. Options for the Remediation of Contaminated Sediments in Great Lakes;
c) March 1990. Proceedings of Technology Transfer Symposium for Remediation of
Contaminated Sediments in the Great Lakes Basin;
d) 1991. Report on Great Lakes Water Quality (when available);
c) 1991 Report on Great Lakes Water Quality Appendix A, "Progress in Developing and
Implementing Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern" (when available).
3. Clean Water Act
4. Draft Material from Ontario Ministry of Environment:
"Development of the Ontario Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines for PCBs and the
Organochlorine Pesticides" (R. Jaagumagi).
5. Draft Material from Ontario Ministry of Environment:
"Development of the Ontario Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines for Arsenic, Cadmium,
Chromium, Copper Iron, Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Nickel and Zinc" (R. Jaagumagi)
6. June, 1990. Workshop on Innovative Technologies for Treatment of Contaminated Sediments,
USEPA.
7. Interim Sediment Criteria Values for Nonpolar Hydrophobic Organic Contaminants. USEPA.
8. April 1991. Sediment Management Standards, Chapter 173-204 WAC, Washington State
Department of Ecology
9. 1989 Lake Michigan Federation Citizens Guide: "Cleaning up
Contaminated Sediment" (J. Sullivan/A. Bixby)
10. December 1988. Conference Proceedings for MerrillviUe
Sediment Conference: "The Sediment Solution" (James W. Ahl)
11. EPA Headquarters Contaminated Sediments News:
a) Issue No. 1 • August, 1989
b) Issue No. 2 - April, 1990
c) Issue No. 3 • April, 1991
12. Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990
13. May, 1991. Chronological Development of Water and Sediment
Criteria and National "Guidelines" Concepts. USEPA
64
-------
Appendix D
ARCS PROGRAM COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NAME
Bruce Baker
Frederick Brown
David Dabertin
Mario Del Vicario
Geoffrey Grubbs
Christopher Grundler
(Chairperson)
Timothy Kubiak
Donald Leonard
John McMahon
Ian Orchard
Richard Powers
David Reid
Charles Sapp
Elizabeth Southerland
Andrew Turner
Oilman Veith
Howard Zar
AFFILIATION
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI
Great Lakes United, Midland, MI
Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Gary, IN
U.S. EPA, Region II, NY, NY
U.S. EPA, H.Q., Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, MI
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Division,
Chicago, IL
N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation, Buffalo, NY
Environment Canada, Toronto, Canada
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ann Arbor,
MI
U.S. EPA, Region III, Philadelphia, PA
U.S. EPA, H.Q., Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division, Washintgon, DC
Ohio EPA, Columbus, OH
U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth, MN
U.S. EPA, Region V, Chicago, IL
TELEPHONE
608-266-8631
517-835-9625
219-881-6712
212-264-5170
202-260-7040
312-353-2117
517-337-6650
312-353-6355
716-851-7070
416-973-1089
517-335-4175
313-668-2019
215-597-9096
202-260-7049
614-644-2001
218-780-5550
312-886-1491
65
-------
ACT
NAME
David Cowgill,
ARCS Program Manager
Glenda Daniel
Mario Del Vicario
Paul Horvatin (Chairperson)
Philippe Ross
Brian Schumacher
Nancy Sullivan
Marc Tuchman
Steve Yaksich
iVttlES iNIUXikAllON COMMITTEE
AFFILIATION
U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago,
IL
Lake Michigan Federation, Chicago, IL
U.S. EPA, Region II, NY, NY
U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago,
IL
The Citadel, Charleston, SC
U.S. EPA, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,
Las Vegas, NV
U.S. EPA, Region V, Chicago, IL
U.S. EPA, Region V, Chicago, IL
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo, NY
TELEPHONE
312-3' "76
312-939-0838
212-264-5170
312-353-3612
803-792-7875
702-798-2454
312-886-6687
312-886-0239
716-879-4272
66
-------
TOXICTIY/CHEMTSTRY WORK GROUP
NAME
Gerald Ankley
Bruce Baker
Frederick Brown
Allen Burton
William Deal
Eric Crecelius
David Dabertin
John C. Filkins
Rick Fox
John Giesy
Edward J. Hanlon
Joseph Hudek
Christopher Ingersoll
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, MN
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI
Great Lakes United, Midland, MI
Wright State University, Dayton, OH
Michigan, Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI
Battelle Memorial Institute, Sequim, WA
Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Gary, IN
U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory • Large Lakes
Research Station, Grosse, He, MI
U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL
Michigan State University, Department of Fisheries, East
Lansing, MI
U.S. EPA, Region V, Chicago, IL
U.S. EPA, Region II, Edison, NJ
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia, MO
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ann Arbor,
MI
Ohio EPA, Columbus, OH
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NFC-GL, Ann Arbor, MI
N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation, Buffalo, NY
DePaul University, Chemistry Department, Chicago, IL
AScI, U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory - Large
Lakes Research Station, Grosse, He, MI
The Citadel, Charleston, SC
Environment Canadq, Toronto, Ontario
AScI, U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory - Large
Lakes Research Station, Grosse, He, MI
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, MI
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS
Univerity of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, WI
TELEPHONE
218-720-5500
608-266-8631
517-835-9625
513-873-2655
517-335-4181
206-683-4151
219-881-6712
313-692-7600
312-353-7979
517-353-2000
312-353-9228
201-321-6713
314-875-5399
313-668-2276
614-644-2866
313-994-3331
716-851-7070
312-362-8191
313-692-7600
803-792-7875
416-973-1107
313-692-7600
313-226-6748
601-634-3695
414-229-4018
67
-------
RISK ASSESSMENT/MODELING WORK GROUP
NAME
Bruce Baker
Carole Braverman
Frederick Brown
Denny Buckler
Judy Crane
William Creal
David Dabertin
Richard Draper
Bonnie Eleder
Russell Erickson
Edward J. Hanlon
Bill Hoppes
Patrick Hudson
Russell Kries, Jr.
Timothy Kubiak
Charles Lee
Julie Letterhos
Diane Mann
James Martin
Steve McCutcheon
John McMahon
Russell Moll
Dora Passino-Reader
William Richardson
Ralph Rumer
Kenneth Rygwelski
Katherine Schroer
Griff Sherbin
William Sutton
Marc Tuchman (Chairperson)
Christopher Zarba
AFFILIATION
Wisconsin Dept. Natural Resources, Madison, WI
U.S. EPA, Region V, Chicago, IL
Great Lakes United, Midland, MI
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - NFCRC, Columbia, MO
AScI, U.S. Environmental Research Laboratory - Athens, GA
TELEPHONE
608-266-8631
312-886-2589
517-835-9625
314-875-5399
404-353-8718
Michigan Dept. Natural Resources, Lansing, MI 517-335-4181
Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Gary, IN
N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY
U.S. EPA, Regional V, Chicago, IL
U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth, MN
U.S. EPA, Region V, Chicago, IL
U.S. EPA, Region II, NY, NY
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ann Arbor, MI
ORD, ERL/LLRS, Grosse, He, MI
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, MI
U.S. Army COE, Waterways Experiment Station, Vjcksburg,
MS
Ohio EPA, Columbus, OH
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cor _ NY
AScI, U.S. Environmental Research Laboratory - Athens, GA
U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Athens, GA
N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation, Buffalo, NY
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - GLFRS, Ann Arbor, MI
U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory - Large Lakes
Research Station, Grosse, He, MI
State ". Diversity of New York - Buffalo, NY
CSC, U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Large
Lakes Research Station, Grosse, He, MI
.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL
Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario
U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA
U.S. EPA, Region V, Chicago, IL
U.S. EPA, H.Q., WH-585, Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, DC
219-881-6712
518-457-0669
312-886-4885
218-780-5534
312-353-9228
212-264-8632
313-994-3331
313-692-7600
517-337-6651
601-634-3585
614-644-2866
607-753-9334
404-353-8718
404-546-3180
"16-851-7070
. .3-763-1438
313-994-3331
313-692-7600
716-636-3446
313-692-7600
312-886-4012
416-973-1107
404-546-3371
312-886-0239
202-260-1326
68
-------
ENGINEERING/TECHNOLOGY WORK GROUP
NAME
James P. Allen
Karla Auker
Daniel Averett
Bruce Baker
Frederick Brown
Philip M. Cook
William Creal
David Dabertin
William Fitzpatrick
James Galloway
Steve Garbaciak
Richard Griffiths
Edward J. Hanlon
Jonathan Herrmann
Don Hughes
Thomas Kenna
Nick Kolak
Julie Letterhos
John R. Ludwig
John McMahon
Jan Miller
Thomas P. Murphy
Ian Orchard
Mario Paula
David Petrovski
Rene Rochon
Charles Rogers
John Rogers
William Schmidt
Jay Semmler
Griff Sherbin
Frank Snitz
Mary Sontag
Dennis Timberlake
Craig Wardlaw
Steve Yaksich (Chairperson)
AFFILIATION
Bureau of Mines, Salt Lake City, Utah
Ohio EPA, Twinsburg, OH
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI
Great Lakes United, Midland, MI
U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth, MN
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI
Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Gary, IN
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, Detroit, MI
U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL
U.S. EPA, Region II, Edison, NJ
U.S. EPA, Region V, Chicago, IL
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH
Atlantic States, Inc., Syracuse, NY
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, Buffalo, NY
NYSDEQ Albany, NY
Ohio EPA, Columbus, OH
Natural Resources Research Institute, Coleraine, MN
N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation, Buffalo, NY
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NCD, Chicago, IL
Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario
Environment Canada, Toronto, Canada
U.S. EPA, Region II, NY, NY
U.S. EPA, Region V, Chicago, IL
Environment Montreal, Quebec, Canada
U.S. EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH
U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Athens, GA
U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District, IL
Environment, Canada, Toronto, Ontario
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, MI
Erie County Department of Environmental Planning, Buffalo,
NY
U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH
Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, NY
TELEPHONE
801-524-6147
216-425-9171
601-634-3959
608-266-8631
517-835-9625
218-720-5553
517-335-4181
219-881-6712
608-266-9267
313-226-6760
312-353-0117
201-321-6632
312-353-9228
513-569-7839
315-475-1170
716-879-4272
518-457-3957
614-644-2866
218-245-2200
716-851-7070
312-353-6354
416-336-4602
416-973-1089
212-264-6148
312-886-0997
514-283-0676
513-569-7757
404-546-3103
202-634-1210
312-353-6518
416-973-1107
313-226-6748
716-858-7762
513-569-7839
416-336-4691
716-879-4272
69
-------
COMMUNICATION/LIAISON WORK GROUP
NAME
Barry Boyer
Dorreen Carey
Mari Cronberg
Glenda Daniel (Co-Chaiiperson)
LenEames
TirnEder
Brett Hulsey
Lois New
MikeRaab
James Schaefer
Nancy Sullivan (Co-Chairperson)
Dwight Ullman
AFFILIATION
SUNY, Buffalo, NY
Calumet College, Whiting. IN
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago, IL
Lake Michigan Federation, Chicago, IL
Ashtabula, OH
National Wildlife Federation, Ann Arbor, MI
Sierra Club, Madison, WI
New York Department of Environmental Conservation,
Albany, NY
Erie County Department of Environmental Planning,
Buffalo, NY
Interested Public - Sheboygan, WI
U.S. EPA, Region V, Chicago, IL
U.S. EPA, Region V, Saginaw, MI
TELEPHONE
716-636-2102
219-473-4246
312-353-6317
312-939-0838
216-997-9412
313-769-3351
608-257-4994
518-457-0849
716-858-6231
414-458-9274
312-886-6687
517-792-8068
70
-------
U.S. Environment Prot^c.-tr/n Agency
Region 5, Libia,",- (PL-IP')
77WeslJ^:cooBVuV;v-3lXi, 12th I loaf
Chicago, JL &0504-j'jij0
------- |