905R90010 6069 ASSESSMENT AND REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS (ARCS) WORK PLAN U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 1990 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,- Region 5, Library (PL-12J) 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th floor Chicago, IL 60604-3590 ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES v I. Overall Program Scope 1 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Objectives 1 3.0 Activities 3 4.0 Products 5 5.0 Timeline 5 6.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 5 7.0 Data Management and Work Group Interactions 7 8.0 Publication Policy 9 E. Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group Work Plan 11 1.0 Introduction 11 2.0 Objectives 11 3.0 Activities 11 3.1 General Characterization, Sampling and Mapping of Sediment Deposits 11 3.1.1 Pre-Survey Phase 12 3.1.2 Reconnaissance Survey Phase 12 3.1.3 Inter-Survey Phase 14 3.1.4 Supplemental Survey 14 3.1.5 Post-Survey Phase 14 3.2 Sediment Biological Assessment 17 3.3 Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Fish Samples 17 3.4 Broader Spectrum Toxicity Testing of Selected Sediment Samples 18 3.5 Fish Tumor and External Abnormality Survey 18 3.6 Fish Bioaccumulation Assays 18 4.0 Products 19 5.0 Timeline 20 ------- m. Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group Work Plan 21 1.0 Introduction 21 2.0 Objectives 21 3.0 Activities 21 3.1 Hazard Evaluation 22 3.1.1 Exposure Assessment 24 3.1.1.1 Exposure Modeling 24 3.1.2 Risk and Hazard Assessments 26 3.1.2.1 Human Health Risk Assessment 26 3.1.2.2 Aquatic Life Hazard Assessment 26 3.1.2.3 Wildlife Hazard Assessment 28 3.2 Site Prioritization for Remedial Action and Development of Decision Support Tools. ... 28 4.0 Products 29 5.0 Timeline 30 IV. Engineering/Technology Work Group Work Plan 31 1.0 Introduction 31 2.0 Objectives 31 3.0 Activities 31 3.1 Review of Technical Literature 32 3.2 Evaluation of Applicability 32 3.3 Develop Recommendations for Pilot-Scale Demonstrations 32 3.4 Estimate Contaminant Losses During Remediation 33 3.5 Collection of Sediments for Bench-Scale Testing 33 3.6 Sediment Storage and Analysis 34 3.7 Bench-Scale Tests of Selected Treatment Technologies 34 3.8 Treatment Technologies for Inorganic Contaminants 35 3.9 Workshop on Bioremediation 35 3.10 Evaluation of Solidification/Stabilization Technologies 35 3.11 Pilot-Scale Demonstration Projects 35 3.12 Development of Options for Priority Consideration Areas 35 3.13 Summaries of Treatment Technologies 36 4.0 Products 37 5.0 Timeline 39 ------- V. Communication/Liaison Work Group Work Plan 40 1.0 Introduction 40 2.0 Objectives 40 3.0 Activities 41 3.1 Work Group Interaction 41 3.2 Preparation of Information Materials 41 3.3 Mailing List Compilation 41 3.4 Soliciting Public Input 42 3.5 On-Site Coordination and Public Meetings 42 3.6 Slide Show Preparation 42 3.7 Video Preparation 42 3.8 Guidelines for Public Participation 42 4.0 Products 42 5.0 Timeline 43 VI. Specific Fiscal Year 1990 Work Plan Elements 44 1.0 Activities Integration Committee 44 2.0 Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group 44 3.0 Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group 45 4.0 Engineering/Technology Work Group 45 5.0 Communication/Liaison Work Group 46 ARCS PROGRAM COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP 47 MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE 47 ACTIVITIES INTEGRATION COMMITTEE 48 TOXICITY/CHEMISTRY WORK GROUP 49 RISK ASSESSMENT/MODELING WORK GROUP 50 ENGINEERING/TECHNOLOGY WORK GROUP 51 COMMUNICATION/LIAISON WORK GROUP 52 ------- LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Toxicity/Chemistry Analysis Matrix 13 Table 2. Hazard Evaluations to be Performed 23 Table 3. Components of Phase I and II Exposure Modeling Efforts 25 Table 4. Treatment Technologies to be Demonstrated at the Priority Consideration Areas 39 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. ARCS Management Structure 2 Figure 2. Relative Resource Allocations 6 Figure 3. ARCS Data Management 8 Figure 4. ARCS Data Flow and Work Group Interactions 10 Figure 5. Sediment Sample Analysis Schematic 15 Figure 6. Process of Mapping Sediment Contamination and Toxicity 16 Figure 7. ARCS Modeling Framework 27 MAPS Figure 8. Ashtabula River Location Map 53 Figure 9. Buffalo River Location Map 54 Figure 10. Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Location Maps 55 Figure 11. Saginaw Bay and River Location Maps 57 Figure 12. Sheboygan Harbor Location Map 59 Printed on recycled paper ------- I. Overall Program Scope 1.0 Introduction The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act, in Section 118(c)(3), authorize the U.S. Environmen- tal Protection Agency's (EPA) Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) to coordinate and conduct a 5- year study and demonstration project relating to the control and removal of toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes, with emphasis on removal of toxic pollutants from bottom sediments. Five areas were specified in the Clean Water Act as requiring priority consideration in locating and conducting demonstration projects: Saginaw Bay, Michigan; Sheboygan Harbor, Wisconsin; Grand Calumet River, Indiana; Ashtabula River, Ohio; and Buffalo River, New York. In response, GLNPO has initiated the Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program. ARCS is an integrated program for the development and testing of assessment and remedial action alternatives for contaminated sediments. Information from ARCS program activities will be used to guide the development of Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for the 42 Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs, as identified by the International Joint Commission), as well as Lakewide Management Plans. GLNPO is responsible for the ARCS Program. However, the Program is really a multi-organization endeavor. Other participants in ARCS include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Bureau of Mines, EPA headquarters offices, EPA Regions II, III and V, Great Lakes State Agencies, numerous univer- sities and public interest groups. The management framework for the ARCS Program is depicted in Figure 1. The Management Advisory Committee provides overall advice on ARCS Program activities. The Management Advisory Com- mittee is made up of representatives from the organizations noted above. Three technical Work Groups identify and prioritize tasks to be accomplished in their areas of expertise. These are the Toxicity/Chemistry, Risk Assessment/Modeling, and the Engineering/Technology Work Groups. The Communication/Liaison Work Group oversees technology transfer and public information, and public participation activities. In between the Management Advisory Committee and the Work Groups, the Activities Integration Committee integrates the technical aspects of the work groups' activities. 2.0 Objectives The overall objectives of the ARCS Program are: To assess the nature and extent of bottom sediment contamination at selected Great Lakes Areas of Concern, To evaluate and demonstrate remedial options, including removal, immobilization and advanced treatment technologies, as well as the "no action" alternative, and To provide guidance on the assessment of contaminated sediment problems and the selection and implementation of necessary remedial actions in the Areas of Concern and other locations in the Great Lakes. The primary aim of the ARCS Program is to develop guidance that can be used at sites throughout the Great Lakes. Site-specific factors at the five priority consideration areas will need to be considered in conducting assessments and choosing appropriate remedial alternatives for those locations. Nevertheless, the varying characteristics at the five areas should provide a range of conditions applicable to other sites. The five sites are to be viewed as case studies of the application of the procedures developed under ARCS. ------- Figure 1. ARCS Management Structure MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chaired by GLNPO Director ACTIVITIES INTEGRATION COMMITTEE Chaired by GLNPO Staff Chief TOXICITY/ CHEMISTRY WORK GROUP RISK ASSESSMENT/ MODELING WORK GROUP ENGINEERING/ TECHNOLOGY WORK GROUP COMMUNICATION/ LIAISON WORK GROUP ------- Another important aim of the ARCS Program is to provide guidance that is at once scientifically sound and technologically and economically practical. The intent is for the guidance to provide the en- vironmental manager with methods for making cost-effective, environmentally sound decisions. As a result, the ARCS Program is based as much as possible on the application of proven techniques rather than on basic research into new ones. However, where needed techniques are not available, some developmental work will also be undertaken. To completely assess the causes and effects of contaminated sediments and to fully evaluate the remedial options available and their impacts, a mass balance of each of the priority areas, including quantifica- tion of contaminant loadings from point and non-point sources, would be desirable. Unfortunately, this kind of characterization could cost several millions of dollars for each priority area. Recognizing that sufficient funds are not available for complete characterizations of all the areas and also recognizing that complete characteriza- tion may not be necessary to reach a decision regarding the need for remediation, the ARCS Program intends to use the available resources to develop a basic framework for site characterization. More in-depth evaluations could be performed if additional funds became available. Although the major emphasis of the ARCS Program is the evaluation and demonstration of remedial alternatives, these cannot occur without adequate characterizations of the nature and extent of contaminated sediment problems. Therefore, assessments of the contaminated sediment problems at each of the priority consideration areas will also be performed, if not available from other sources. It is important to stress at the outset that ARCS is not a cleanup program, and will not solve the contaminated sediment problems at the five priority consideration areas. The Program will, however, provide valuable experience, methods, and guidance that could be used by other programs to actually solve the identified problems. There are several important aspects of the management of contaminated sediments that will not be fully addressed by the ARCS Program because they were felt to be outside the main objectives of the study. Regulatory requirements and programs and socioeconomic factors in decision-making are two such aspects that will be critical in the choice of a remedial alternative (or whether to remediate at all). While not addressing such issues in depth, the ARCS Program will identify issues that need to be resolved before sediment cleanups can go forward. 3.0 Activities Many complicated issues need to be addressed in order to accomplish the objectives of this Program. However, they can be boiled down to a few basic questions: Are the sediments contaminated with substances that are impairing or injuring biota (aquatic, mammalian, avian or human)? Is the injury of such magnitude or quality that remedial action is needed? Will remedial actions be effective in reducing or eliminating the impairment or injury? What remedial action alternatives are available, what are their limitations and how effective are they likely to be? What are the impacts of the remedial action itself? What are the costs of taking remedial action? ------- The activities of the three technical Work Groups are designed to answer these questions in a scientifically sound and cost-effective manner. The general responsibilities of the Work Groups are as follows: Toxicity/Chemistry 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 contamination maps of the areas. Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group. To assess the current and future hazards presented by contaminated sediments to all biota (aquatic, terrestrial and human) under the "no action" alternative and other remedial alternatives at the priority consideration areas, and to develop a ranking scheme for inter-site comparison. Engineering/Technology Work Group. To evaluate and test available removal and remedial technologies for contaminated sediments, to select promising technologies for further testing, and to perform field demonstra- tions of as many of the promising technologies as is 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. More detailed descriptions of each Work Group's objectives and activities are provided in individual Work Group work plans presented in the following chapters. 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/QC) and data management activities of the ARCS Program. This involves ensuring that proper QA/QC measures are integrated into Work Group activities through the development and peer review of quality assurance and sampling and analysis plans. Many of the activities performed by one Work Group will be useful to, or needed by, the other Work Groups. For example, physical, chemical and biological information obtained by the Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group will be needed by both the Risk Assessment/Modeling and the Engineering/Technology Work Groups; the Engineering/Technology Work Group will need to exchange information with the Risk As- sessment/Modeling Work Group, etc. The Work Groups will interact with each other on a regular basis to ensure that needed information is obtained in a timely and cost-effective manner, and that duplicative efforts are kept to a minimum. The Work Plan has identified where information exchanges are expected. While the Clean Water Act specifies that priority consideration should be given to the Ashtabula River, Buffalo River, Grand Calumet River, Saginaw Bay and Sheboygan Harbor, it does not preclude con- sidering other areas in the Great Lakes. The ARCS Program will take advantage of ongoing sediment-related activities in these other locations where it would be beneficial. Some of the priority consideration areas are the sites of intensive work by other programs. Both the Ashtabula River and the Sheboygan River are being ad- dressed under the U.S. EPA Superfund Program. Rather than duplicate efforts in these areas, ARCS will follow these activities to utilize the information gained, and will focus its resources only on factors that are not being addressed by Superfund activities. This is felt to be the most cost-effective way to utilize ARCS funds, and is expected to be the course of action followed by State and local governments. ------- 4.0 Products An essential output of the ARCS Program is to provide guidance to State and local governments on methods of assessing and remediating contaminated sediments at Areas of Concern. This will be accomplished by developing a series of documents discussing different findings of the Program, which together comprise a comprehensive guidance package. Ten documents are foreseen at this time. 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. Layman's Guide to Contaminated Sediments. A non-technical overview of the con- taminated sediments problem, which would focus on education of the public to enable their effective participation in local sediment-related issues. Contaminated Sediments Assessment Guidance. The primary technical document discussing techniques for the assessment of contaminated sediments, as demonstrated in the ARCS Program. Contaminated Sediments Remediation Guidance. The primary technical document discussing techniques for the remediation of contaminated sediments, as demonstrated in the ARCS Program. 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. Each of the five priority consideration areas will be presented as a case study in the implementation of the guidance contained in Volumes III through V. In addition to these products, each work unit (study funded by ARCS) of ARCS will be written up as a technical document Volume II Volume III Volume IV Volume V Volumes VI-X 5.0 Timeline Summary schedules of the activities for each of the Work Groups are presented within the chapters for the respective Work Groups. Figure 2 depicts the overall key activities and the level of effort and funding required by the Work Groups for the duration of the Program. 6.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control It is EPA policy and good scientific practice that all environmental sampling and testing be done in accordance with a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). Therefore, all participating laboratories and investigators will be required to comply with strict quality assurance requirements through compliance with Quality Assurance special conditions in grants and Interagency Agreements (IAG). A properly written and executed QAPP ensures that the data that are collected will be of a quality and confidence such that the project's objectives will be met. Adherence to an overall Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) program is ------- Figure 2. Relative Resource Allocations for Each of Four Work Groups CO o o o o I_ 3 O (/> 0 cc FY89 FY 90 FY 91 Fiscal Year FY92 Toxicrty/Chemistry Work Group -- Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group Engineering/Technology Work Group Communication/Liaison Work Group ------- essential for a large, multi-participant program such as ARCS to ensure that data collected by the different investigators are comparable and congruous. For example, if results are to be comparable between laboratories, then the samples being tested by different laboratories and the analytical techniques used must be as comparable as possible. The ARCS Activities Integration Committee will have overall oversight responsibility for the ARCS QA/QC program. The EPA Environmental Monitoring and Systems Laboratory (EMSL) in Las Vegas, Nevada will be responsible for actually operating the ARCS QA/QC program. EMSL will assist in the development of clear Data Quality Objectives (DQO) for the different parts of the program. DQOs define the type and quality of data necessary to answer the questions being investigated in the Program. Once the DQOs are established, the participating principal investigators will prepare QAPPs for their projects to satisfy the DQOs and have their QAPPs approved by EMSL prior to making their measurements. EMSL will monitor data as they are produced for compliance with established DQOs. To ensure that the QAPPs are being followed, EMSL will perform periodic on-site audits at the laboratories. In addition, EMSL will periodically distribute performance audit samples of known toxicity or chemical concentration to the participating laboratories and report the results back to GLNPO management, as well as to the laboratories themselves. Finally, EMSL will evaluate the quality of existing data being used by the Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group in performing baseline hazard evaluations for the priority consideration areas. This will help establish the confidence the Work Group can place in the resulting hazard evaluations. 7.0 Data Management and Work Group Interactions Following Quality Assurance/Quality Control, the next most important issue for ARCS is data management. The various laboratories and investigators will be generating large volumes of information. A data management program must be in effect to ensure that these data are readily useable by all ARCS Program par- ticipants. Efficient data management will not only benefit those responsible for writing the ARCS Program final reports, but also those investigators who need to share one another's data in order to conduct their own studies. The data management program will establish minimum data reporting requirements (sampling date, sample number, latitude/longitude of sampling station, state, county, type of sampler used, media sampled, water depth, etc.) The data management program will also establish common formats and protocols for reporting data, common sample numbering systems, and will be responsible for the maintenance of a storage and retrieval data system. Figure 3 depicts the flow of data from generation by the principal investigators through use in mapping, modeling, analysis and report writing. The ARCS Activities Integration Committee will have overall oversight responsibility for the ARCS data management program. The EPA Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection's Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES) will be utilyzed as a data repository. Data entry into this repository will be according to the require- ments specified by the data management program. The principal investigators will be responsible for providing their data to the Activities Integration Committee for entry into the data repository. This will help assure the quality of the data going into the system. Data entry requirements will be a component of the participating inves- tigators' QAPPs and a special condition of their receiving grant or LAG funds. The ARCS Program will be using a Geographic Information System (GIS) for data analysis, output and mapping. The ARCS data minimum reporting requirements will include the data necessary for use in a GIS system. The data management program will be responsible for maintenance of the GIS system, as well as for ------- Figure 3. ARCS Data Management RETF t STOF i EN1 tIEVAL » W3E L TRY ( ^ MAPPING ) (MODE (INDIVIDUAL REPORTS TMULTIPLE-MEDIA) ^ ANALYSES J .LIN ) PUT) r ARCS ^ PROGRAM REPORTING *v J DATA REPOSITORY QUALITY ASSURANCE P .1 . DATA GENERATION 8 ------- fulfilling requests from study participants and report authors for particular outputs from the ARCS data base. The ARCS Activities Integration Committee will have oversight responsibility for the CIS system implemen- tation. Figure 4 conceptualizes the data flow and interactions between the ARCS Program study participants and Work Groups, as well as between them and the data management storage/retrieval system. An efficient data management repository is the linchpin for these interactions. As a result, active and full cooperation by all study principal investigators and laboratories is essential to the success of the Program. 8.0 Publication Policy All publications that will result from work funded to support the ARCS Program must comply with the EPA peer and administrative review process. This review process helps ensure that published materials are scientifically valid and reflect EPA policy or that appropriate disclaimers to the contrary are included in the published work. The peer and administrative review process requires that all materials be submitted to the EPA Project Officer for review and comment prior to release to 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 disclaimer to the effect that the document has been approved for publication as an EPA document. If they cannot reach agreement, then any publications must carry a disclaimer stating that the document does not necessarily reflect the views of EPA and no EPA endorse- ment 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 inves- tigators are required to furnish copies of the article when it is submitted for publication and when it is eventually published. However, the article must still carry a disclaimer stating that it does not have EPA endorsement, since it has not gone through the EPA peer and administrative review process. A detailed explanation of these requirements can be found in 40 CFR Section 30.518. ------- Figure 4. ARCS Data Flow and Work Group Interactions Management Advisory Committee Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group Activities Integration Committee / DATA MANAGEMENT V REPOSITORY/GIS SYSTEM Risk Assessment/ Modeling Work Group Principal Investigators Communication/ Liaison Work Group Engineering/ Technology Work Group Public LEGEND: Data How Interactions <- - -> 10 ------- II. Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group Work Plan 1.0 Introduction The Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group is responsible for developing and testing sediment assessment methods. This Work Group will assess the nature and extent of contaminated sediment problems by studying the chemical, physical and biological characteristics of contaminated sediments and their biotic communities. The Work Group will demonstrate effective assessment techniques for aquatic life at the priority consideration areas. Finally, it will use the information obtained to produce contamination maps of the areas. 2.0 Objectives The primary objectives of the Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group are: 1. Contamination Survey Guidance; To develop guidance on the performance of assessment surveys of contaminated sediments through the development of a methodology for such surveys; and 2. Performance of Contamination Surveys: To implement contamination survey techniques at the priority consideration areas. 3.0 Activities The tasks needed to accomplish these objectives are: 1. General characterization, sampling and mapping of sediment deposits; 2. Toxicity testing of sediment samples; 3. Chemical analysis of sediment and fish samples; 4. Broader spectrum toxicity testing on a selected subset of sediment samples; 5. Fish tumor and abnormality surveys; and 6. Fish Bioaccumulation Assays. These tasks primarily address Objective 2. Objective 1 will be accomplished by summarizing and interpreting the results of the assessment activities undertaken in support of Objective 2 in preparing Volume III of the ARCS outputs, the Contaminated Sediments Assessment Guidance. 3.1 General Characterization, Sampling and Mapping of Sediment Deposits In order to properly evaluate the nature and extent of sediment contamination in the priority consideration areas, each of the areas will be characterized for physical, chemical and biological parameters, including mapping the distribution of bottom sediments and sediment contaminants. It is desirable to have information on the physical and spatial characteristics of the sediments and some basic indicator parameters to help select the stations that will be subjected to more intensive testing and characterization. 1 1 ------- There are four kinds of sampling stations being used for ARCS sediment testing: Reconnaissance Stations, Master Stations, Priority Master Stations, and Extended Priority Master Stations. Table 1 shows the types of tests that will be done at each of these kinds of stations. Surveys will be conducted in 5 phases which are described below: 1. a pre-survey phase; 2. a reconnaissance survey phase; 3. an inter-survey phase; 4. a supplemental survey; and 5. a post-survey phase. 3.1.1 Pre-Survey Phase In the pre-survey phase, existing information on sediment contamination at each priority consideration area will be obtained and reviewed. Based on this and discussions with investigators who have previously worked in the area, a transect/station grid will be prepared to guide sampling and sediment profiling throughout the site. A first set of ten Master Station surficial sediment samples are then collected using a Ponar grab sampler or box corer. More detailed analyses will be performed on these samples (Table 1) and then correlated with the results of the Reconnaissance Stations (described in Section 3.1.2) where only the indicator parameters will be run. Reference points will be located for deploying microwave transmitters in the positioning system used for mapping the area. Maps of the priority consideration areas are included on pages 53-59. Note that one of the Superfund Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) for the Sheboygan Harbor PCB contamination has done very extensive sampling in the Sheboygan River and Harbor for sediment, soil and water contamination. Through Fiscal Year (FY) 1989, this PRP has collected 20 soil samples of soils in the river's floodplain and nearly 200 sediment samples and has conducted 5 rounds of water column sampling under various flow conditions. As a result, the ARCS Program will utilize the existing data base and supplement it only when appropriate to fill in missing information. The PRP's sampling sites covered the entire River and Harbor in a dense pattern from Sheboygan Falls to the mouth (actual stations are not plotted due to space limitations). 3.1.2 Reconnaissance Survey Phase During the reconnaissance survey, acoustical soundings will be used to map the physical distribution of sediments to aid in selecting sampling sites. Numerous sediment core samples (100 to 200 per area) will be collected to be tested for a set of "indicator parameters" which can be run inexpensively on large numbers of 12 ------- Table 1. Toxicity/Chemistry Analysis Matrix TYPES OF SAMPLING STATIONS Extended Priority Master Stations TYPES OF ANALYSES Reconnaissance Stations Master Stations INDICATOR PARAMETERS BENTHIC COMMUNITY DETAILED CHEMISTRY TIERED BIOASSAYS o Photobacterium o Selenastrum o Daphnia o Chironomus tentans o Chironomus riparius o Hyalella o Pimephales AMES AND MUTATOX COMPARATIVE BIOASSAYS o Photobacterium o Selenastrum o Daphnia o Hyalella o Ceriodaphnia o Lemna o Pimephales o Hydrilla o Diaporeia o Hexagenia o Panagrellus o Bacterial enzymes BIOACCUMULATION 13 ------- samples. The core horizons will also be visually characterized and photographed. The samples will be homogenized and transported to laboratories for biological and chemical analyses as described below. 3.1.3 Inter-Survey Phase The core samples obtained during the reconnaissance survey will be 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, Microtox Bacterial Luminescence Assay Response. Figure 5 shows the procedures that will be used in the analyses. In principle, the indicator parameters will correlate with other measurements of contamination and toxicity. Therefore, use of the indicator parameters will allow the detailed analyses from the few Master Stations to be extrapolated throughout the site, based on correlations between Reconnaissance and Master Station data. Information from this analysis and from profiling data obtained during the reconnaissance survey will be used to prepare three-dimensional contamination maps (Figure 6). Maps of bottom topography and sediment layer thickness will also be prepared. Based on these, the remaining ten Master Station sites per area will be identified for sampling during the supplemental survey (resources permitting). 3.1.4 Supplemental Survey Sediments from the remaining ten Master Station sites will be collected, homogenized and shipped to laboratories for chemical and biological characterization. Additional deep vibra-cores will be collected at this stage, if required. 3.1.5 Post-Survey Phase Preparation of the three-dimensional sediment, toxicity and contamination distribution maps will be completed, using correlated data from Reconnaissance and Master Stations. These maps will be made available to both the Engineering/Technology and the Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Groups for use in their activities. 14 ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 5. Sediment Sample Analysis Schematic SEDIMENT CORE SAMPLE (Homogenizing) Conductivity Diss. Oxygen (Probes) (Pore water extraction) (Wet sieving; drying, 60°C) Ammonia (Probe) GRAIN SIZE FRACTION WT. DETERM. MICROTOX TOXICITY BIO ASS AY (DISS.) ICP METALS ANALYSIS (TOT. & DISS.) (Ashing 550°C) ASH WT. DETERM. ELEMENTAL C.H.N ANALYSIS (TOT.) 15 WETWT. DETERM. (Drying. 60°C) DRY WT. DETERM. (Drying, 60°C; Solvent extraction) SOLV. EXTRAC. RESIDUE WT. DETERM. NEUTRON ACTIVATION Cl, Br, I ANALYSIS ------- Figure 6. Process of Mapping Sediment Contamination and Toxicity Bulk Sampling Master Station Sediment Depth Area of Concern Core Sampling Test Station x 2 - Ft. Vertical Core Intervals (Each Station) Indicator Value Contour Indicator Distribution Maps Indicator-Contaminant Correlation Analysis Area of Concern Sediment Depth Concentration Contour Contaminant (or Toxicity) Distribution Models 16 ------- 3.2 Sediment Biological Assessment Laboratory toxicity testing of the Master Station sediments will follow a tiered approach to make efficient use of analytical resources. The results of analyses at one tier will be used to select which samples will undergo testing at the next tier. Fewer samples will be analyzed in each successive tier since the tests become increasingly more time-consuming and costly. Tier I testing focuses on acute toxicity testing, benthic community structure and mutagenicity testing; Tier II focuses on partial life-cycle toxicity and Tier HI on full life- cycle toxicity, sediment dilution and bioaccumulation. Information on benthic community structure obtained in Tier I will be 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 will undergo Tier I testing, using the following methods on elutriates of the sediment samples: Daphnia magna, 48-hr mortality test. Microtox (Photobacterium phosphoreum) luminescence test Selenastrum capricornutum, 24-hr carbon-14 uptake test Approximately one-half of the Master Station samples undergoing Tier I testing will be selected for Tier II testing, which consists of the Hyalella azteca, 7-14 day (whole sediment) growth test. Up to about one- quarter of the samples undergoing Tier I testing will also go to Tier III testing, which consists of the Hyalella azteca 28-day (whole sediment) growth test and the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) flow-through bioassay (whole sediment). Selection of samples for Tiers II and III will be made to satisfy two conditions. Sediments with low acute toxicity will form the majority of the selections, while some with moderately acute and highly acute toxicity will be included to provide an appropriate range over which to evaluate the tiered testing system. Other bioassays may be added, as deemed necessary by the Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group. 3.3 Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Fish Samples Samples of sediments, sediment extracts and fish flesh (from the bioaccumulation assays) collected in the ARCS Program will be subjected to chemical analyses. The analyses will 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, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead, selenium, and zinc) in pore water, elutriates and bulk sediments, Organo-metals (methyl mercury and butyl tin), 17 ------- Polynuclear aromatic Hydrocarbons (approximately 16 compounds), Polychlorinated Biphenyls (approximately 20 congeners), Chlorinated Pesticides, Chlorinated Benzenes, Chlorinated Naphthalenes, Chlorinated Dioxin and Furan congeners, and Volatile Chlorinated Compounds. 3.4 Broader Spectrum Toxicity Testing of Selected Sediment Samples The bioassays to be performed at the selected Master Stations are limited in number, due to constraints of cost, space and personnel. In order to provide guidelines for future contamination surveys, it is necessary to compare the results of the limited suite of bioassays to a larger set of bioassay methods. A cost-effective method of making such a comparison is to perform a more complete suite of bioassays on a reduced number of samples. To implement this, a consortium of university and government laboratories with recognized expertise in numerous other testing methods has been assembled. Sediments from selected Master Stations (Priority Master Stations) at each study area will be 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 will also yield dose-response information, which will be useful in the Risk Assessment/Model- ing Work Group's assessment efforts. This broader-spectrum testing on a limited number of samples will also provide a check on the effectiveness of the tiered testing system. 3.5 Fish Tumor and External Abnormality Survey Existing information on the incidence of external abnormalities and internal tumors in fish at each priority consideration area will be sought. In addition, surveys to determine the incidence will be undertaken in the Buffalo, Grand Calumet and Saginaw Rivers. In these cases, one hundred individual fish will be collected and targeted for field necropsy and histopathological examination at each area. Brown bullheads (Ictalurus nebulosus) will be the primary study species, with the white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) serving as a secondary option. 3.6 Fish Bioaccumulation Assays At a very limited number of Master Stations, the Extended Priority Master Stations, a 10-day fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) bioaccumulation assay will be conducted using bulk sediment samples. Chemical analyses of the fish tissue will be conducted as was described in Section 3.3. 18 ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4.0 Products The products of the Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group will consist of the development of technical documents for each discrete work unit (e.g., chemical analysis of sediments, toxicity testing of sediments) and the detailed maps of sediment deposits. In addition, the Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group will have a key role in the development of the Contaminated Sediments Assessment Guidance Document, Volume III of the final ARCS guidance, which will recommend a much abbreviated, less expensive suite of tests that can be performed to evaluate contaminated sediment 19 ------- 5.0 Timeline - Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group FISCAL YEAR FY89 QUARTER 3 4 ACTIVITY FY90 FY91 1234 12 34 FY92 1234 General Characterization Pre-survey Phase Reconnaissance Survey Inter-survey phase Supplemental Survey Post-survey Phase Sediment Toxicity Testing Chemical Analyses Broad Spectrum Toxicity Tests Tumor and Abnormality Survey Fish Bioaccumulation Assays 20 ------- III. Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group Work Plan 1.0 Introduction The Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group is responsible for tire evaluation of environ- mental 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. The assessments will serve to identify and develop techniques and tools for performing sediment-related hazard evaluations. Assessments will consider the difficult task of separating the effects of sediments from those of the water column or other sources. A system for prioritizing sites with contaminated sediments will be developed and applied to the five priority consideration areas to provide a comparative framework for assessing multiple sites in need of remediation. 2.0 Objectives The primary objectives of the RAM Work Group are: 1. Hazard Evaluation : To evaluate exposures to, and impacts resulting from, contact with contaminated sediments and media contaminated by sediment contaminants incurred by all receptors of concern under the "no action" alternative and other remedial 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; and 3. Development of Assessment Guidance : To develop guidance on the methods of assessing environmental and human health impacts of contaminated sediments. 3.0 Activities The tasks needed to accomplish these objectives are: 1. Exposure Assessment - Exposure Model Development - Synoptic Surveys Risk/Hazard Assessments -Human - Aquatic Life - Wildlife 21 ------- 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 structure 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, and is not usually separated out as such. However, since the activities involved in performing the exposure assessment are different than those involved in performing a risk or hazard assessment, this work plan makes a distinction between them. Two levels of evaluations are proposed in this Work Plan: baseline and comprehensive hazard evaluations (Table 2). Baseline human health hazard evaluations will be performed for all five priority demonstration areas, and will be developed from available site-specific information. The baseline hazard evaluations will describe the hazards to receptors under present site conditions, or the "no action" alternative. 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). The following remedial alternatives may be considered in the comprehensive evaluation: Capping Immobilization/Stabilization Extraction Chemical Treatment Biological Treatment These remedial alternatives are those being considered by the Engineering/Technology Work Group. The Engineering/Technology Work Group, in their evaluation of these alternatives, will determine the input of contaminants presented by each alternative. The RAM Work Group will use these contaminant loading estimates to estimate exposure and hazards to receptors and compare them to the "no action" alternative. 22 ------- Table 2. Hazard Evaluations to be Performed Priority Area Ashtabula River Buffalo River Grand Calumet River Saginaw Bay Sheboygan Harbor Types of Hazard Evaluation Baseline Aquatic Life y V V Wildlife y y Human y y y y y Comprehensive Aquatic Life y V Wildlife y y Human y y 23 ------- 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 aquatic and avian wildlife into which sediment contaminants have bioaccumulated, 2) intake of sediment contaminants through ingestion of sediments (particularly in children between the ages of 2 to 8), 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. 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 lexicological effects of sediment contaminants are planned, 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 con- taminants have bioaccumulated. Other routes of exposure may also be of importance, such as intake of contaminaLod suspended particles in whole water, or direct uptake of sediment contaminants dermally. The feasibility of analyzing these routes will be considered. The information 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 3). Phase I will focus on developing modeling tools using existing information. Phase II will validate the approaches developed in Phase I by obtaining current synoptic information about the area during an intensive, week-long, round-the-clock mini mass balance study. Data will be collected on flows, loading and concentrations data for solids and chemicals in both water and sediments. These data would then be used to calibrate the exposure models. Without calibration, there would be little confidence in the exposure model results. Due to resource limitations, Phase II mini mass balance modeling studies will only be conducted at two priority consideration areas: Buffalo River and Saginaw Bay. These are also the two areas where comprehensive hazard evaluations will be done. The mini mass balance modeling 24 ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 3. Components of Phase I and II Exposure Modeling Efforts Phase 1: 1) Compilation, review and analysis of all pertinent historical environmental information, 2) Development of a sediment transport, deposition and resuspension model, 3) Development of a Unit Toxicity Model in areas where the cause of sediment toxicity (e.g.. the particular chemicals) has not been identified, 4) Development of Load/Response relationships for the chemicals of concern, based on existing information about chemical loadings to the system. Phase II: 1) Measure contaminant loadings to the system from: o Upstream loadings, o Tributary loadings, o Combined sewer overflows, o Hazardous waste site discharges, 2) Sample aquatic biota, 3) Measure flow characteristics of river, 4) Measure conventional parameters, 5) Characterize sediment deposits. 6) Perform a Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) on selected sediment samples. 25 ------- studies will provide crucial information for the comprehensive hazard evaluations planned for those two areas. The modeling framework that will be used in the ARCS Program is depicted in Figure 7. 3.1.2 Risk and Hazard Assessments The activities involved in the preparation of the individual Risk and Hazard Assessments vary depending upon the area evaluated, the receptors and the endpoints considered. It is primarily a paper exercise, combining information on exposure to, and toxicity of, sediment contaminants. 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 or the majority of the risk or hazard. 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. All of this information will also be used to identify concentrations of chemicals in sediments in the Buffalo River and Saginaw Bay, which, if reached through remediation, will not result in unacceptable hazards. Baseline aquatic life hazard evaluations will be performed for at least three of the priority consideration areas (Buffalo River, Grand Calumet River, and Saginaw Bay). Comprehensive assessments will be performed for the Buffalo River and Saginaw Bay only. 26 ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 7. ARCS Modeling Framework Hydrodynamic Hazard .J Assesment Toxicity Unit I I F Identify Specific Chemicals 1 ' toMass Balance 27 ------- 3.1.2.3 Wildlife Hazard Assessment Hazards to piscivorous avian and mammalian species are of primary concern for areas within the Great Lakes System. Adverse health effects, such as reproductive impairment and structural deformities, resulting from intake of contaminants in food, have been documented. Description of such effects are generally an outcome of field studies; prospective hazard assessments are not commonly performed. However, since the primary route of contaminant intake is through the consumption of contaminated food (fish), a rough prospective hazard evaluation can be performed in a manner similar to human food chain concerns. As above, the baseline hazard assessment will be based on existing information on impacts upon wildlife in the area. 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). 3.2 Site Prioritization for Remedial Action and Development of Decision Support Tools A numerically-based ranking system which synthesizes assessment variables and produces objective priorities will be designed to allow remedial priorities to be set for each of the Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Development of numerically-based ranking will provide a method for integrating hazard and risk assessments within and between individual Areas of Concern. The result will be a priori tization procedure that can be used in a comprehensive strategy for the management of contaminated sediments by Federal, State and Provincial governments to guide the development of Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans. During this Program, a database for each of the 5 priority consideration areas will be obtained, and will contain assessment variables which range from site-specific factors (e.g., measurements and/or predictions of heavy metal and organic contaminants, acute and chronic toxicity, mutagenicity, bioaccumulation potential, benthic species composition and resuspension potential) to broad scale factors (e.g., fish tumor incidence rates, fish and waterfowl consumption advisories, loadings to receiving waters, beach closings, drinking water hazards, human risk from fish consumption, and socioeconomic considerations). These factors will be integrated for use in a decision-making framework to determine which site(s) should be targeted for remedial action. As much as possible, this assessment will be based on a minimum data set common to all five priority consideration areas obtained by the three technical Work Groups. For the decision-making process, assessment factors will be synthesized to evaluate the sites with regard to remediation. For remedial evaluation, a ranking system will be used which 1) is numerically-based, 2) accommodates a multi-disciplinary database (chemical concentrations, ecotoxicity, model predictions, human risk, cost, etc.), 3) synthesizes and reduces the database to an understandable context, 4) produces objective output, 5) illustrates quantifiable differences between sites, and 6) establishes remedial priorities. The priorities established by the ranking system will then be viewed in terms of remedial goals, the likelihood of successful remediation, cost-benefit, and the technologies available to achieve these goals. The following are tasks anticipated for this activity to provide site ranking and integration of information about individual sites or areas of concern: 28 ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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); and Calibrate and test the ranking procedure and integration procedure on the five priority consideration areas being investigated during the ARCS Program. This work will be closely coordinated with the data collection and assessment activities of the Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group. All data collection and toxicology studies should be specifically designed to provide information for the integration and ranking system selected. 4.0 Products The products of the Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group will consist of the development of technical documents for each discrete work unit (e.g., the baseline and comprehensive hazard evaluations). In addition, much of the work performed for this Work Group will be an integral part of the Contaminated Sediments Assessment Guidance and the Contaminated Sediments Remediation Guidance, discussed in Part I, and members will have direct input into the development of these guidance documents. 29 ------- 5.0 Timeline - Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group FISCAL YEAR FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 QUARTER 34 123412341234 ACTIVITY Hazard Evaluation (Baseline) \Milrllifr\ I wiioiite i Human i Aquatic i TIE Studies Synoptic Surveys Field Work and Analysis Buffalo Saginaw Exposure Model Development and Application Site Prioritization Hazard Evaluation (Comprehensive) Report Preparation i mm : mm = mm = i = I : = 30 ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IV. Engineering/Technology Work Group Work Plan 1.0 Introduction The primary responsibilities of the Engineering/Technology Work Group are to evaluate and test available removal and remedial technologies for contaminated sediments, to select promising new technologies for further testing, to demonstrate alternatives at priority consideration areas and estimate contaminant losses during remediation. The Engineering/Technology Work Group will seek technologies that are available, implementable, and economically feasible. Both removal and in situ alternatives will be considered. 2.0 Objectives The primary objectives of the Engineering/Technology Work Group are: 1. Evaluation of existing technologies: To evaluate the effectiveness, technical feasibility and cost of existing technologies to remediate contaminated sediments and estimate contaminant losses during remediation; 2. Demonstration of effectiveness: To demonstrate the effectiveness of sediment remedial technologies through the performance of bench-scale tests and pilot-scale demonstra- tion projects at selected priority consideration areas; 3. Options Development: To develop options for the remediation of contaminated sediments at the five priority consideration areas; and 4. Development of Remediation Guidance: To develop guidance on the selection and implementation of contaminated sediment remedial alternatives. 3.0 Activities The tasks needed to accomplish the Work Group objectives are: 1. Review of technical literature; 2. Evaluation of applicability of technologies for bench-scale studies; 3. Develop recommendations for pilot-scale demonstration; 4. Estimate contaminant losses during remediation; 5. Collection of sediments for bench-scale testing; 6. Sediment storage and analysis; 7. Bench-scale testing of selected treatment technologies; 8. Treatment technologies for inorganic contaminants; 31 ------- 9. Workshop on bioremediation technologies; 10. Evaluation of solidification/stabilization technologies; 11. Conduct pilot-scale demonstrations; and 12. Development of options for priority consideration areas. 3.1 Review of Technical Literature Existing literature on contaminated sediment treatment technologies has been reviewed for the ARCS Program by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Waterways Experiment Station, focusing on the updating of present knowledge on the selection and use of technologies for removal and transport of contaminated sediments, placement/disposal of material at disposal sites, treatment technologies, as well as in situ techniques. A draft report is currently undergoing revision. 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. Field demonstrations in connection with major sediment remediation efforts in areas, including outside the Great Lakes, will be studied to gain information on sediment removal and associated treatment and disposal operations for highly contaminated materials. This information will be used to refine techniques and assist in selecting technologies to be demonstrated. 3.2 Evaluation of Applicability of Technologies for Bench-Scale Studies The applicability of treatment technologies to priority consideration areas will be evaluated based upon the nature and degree of contamination at the site. Treatment technologies identified in Task 1 will be matched with the contaminants present and the level of contamination and volume of sediments to which each technology can be applied. Each technology will be evaluated based on costs, effectiveness, volume of material to be handled, level of existing contamination and levels of cleanup required. 3.3 Develop Recommendations for Pilot-Scale Demonstrations Ideally, the Engineering/Technology Work Group would complete its bench-scale evaluations and the products of the other work group studies would be reviewed before any final decisions about sites and technologies for pilot-scale demonstrations were made. However, in order for the demonstrations to occur during FY 1991/92, the decision on sites and technologies must be made no later than the third quarter of FY 1990 and detailed preparations begun immediately thereafter. The selection of technologies which are available for pilot-scale demonstration in this time frame is limited. There is not enough time to scale-up developmental technologies which require elaborate physical or mechanical plants. Some proprietary vendors already have portable pilot-scale plants available for demonstration. A few other technologies can be demonstrated using commercial- ly available equipment The only technology which has full-scale facilities operational now is incineration. 32 ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The availability of sites for demonstrations is even more limiting than the availability of technologies. As a result, site availability will probably be the major determinant as to which technologies can be demonstrated during the ARCS Program. Most pilot-scale demonstrations are performed at the site of contamination. The site of a demonstration must be secure, so that accidents, spills or emissions can be controlled. Land acquisition and site preparation for demonstrations are beyond the resource and time limitations of the ARCS Program. As a result, the use of existing, operational confined disposal facilities (CDFs) appears to be the most viable option for siting demonstrations. If ARCS demonstrations at these sites are to be implemented, some or all of the following actions will have to be completed: Preparation of plans and specifications, Reviews of biddability/constructability, Contract bidding or sole source contracting, Review of contractor submittals, NEPA documentation, Preparations for monitoring programs, and Obtaining any local, State or federal permits needed. These actions will require considerable time, effort and coordination, and they must be completed during FY 1990, in order to prepare for pilot-scale demonstrations during FY 1991/92. 3.4 Estimate Contaminant Losses During Remediation Contaminant inputs which may occur to the environment during and after implementation of the remedial alternative will be assessed. Models available to calculate losses during dredging, volatilization losses, leaching losses, run-off and effluent concentrations will be reviewed. Models will be selected to calculate the annual losses to the environment resulting from each treatment technology evaluated. These contaminant loads to the environment will be supplied to the Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group who will assess the human and environmental health impacts associated with each of the remedial alternatives. 3.5 Collection of Sediments for Bench-Scale Testing The bench-scale tests (discussed below) will 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 will be necessary to collect, characterize, and preserve large-volume sediment samples from each of the areas. Sediment samples will consist of homogenized, moist composites of samples from a contaminated region within the area. One to two composites will be collected from each of the AOCs and between 4 to 8 bench-scale tests are anticipated. Each may require as much as 50 to 60 kg of moist sediment (approx. 40% water 33 ------- content) for testing. Therefore, an initial supply of 400 liters of each composite sample is required. These samples will be characterized for physical properties and chemical (organic and inorganic) composition. 3.6 Sediment Storage and Analysis A sediment sample of approximately 400 liter size will be homogenized and split into representative subsamples (wet). The wet subsamples will be provided in a variety of convenient sizes for use by the various investigators. The procedure that will be used has been previously applied to sediments from Lake Ontario and the Fox River/Green Bay, and has been validated for organic carbon and organochlorine contaminant homogeneity. Wet samples will be stored in a cold- room at 4 °C. The basic characterization of the sediment will include the following parameters: total organic carbon, total inorganic carbon, particle size analysis (wet sieve analysis from 63 to 710 Jim, detailed analysis below 63jun), density of dry material, total sulfur content, acid volatile sulfide, oil and grease, total PCBs, PAHs (at least 10 compounds), metals, and mercury. 3.7 Bench-Scale Tests of Selected Treatment Technologies Particular promising technologies identified in Task 3 will be evaluated in bench-scale tests using sediments from the priority consideration areas. As used here, bench-scale tests mean ones that are done on a few kilograms of sediment. The selection of which technology to do on which priority consideration area will depend upon matching-up the characteristics of each (i.e., a PCB treatment method will be matched with a location having PCB contamination problems). Bench-scale testing will provide preliminary feasibility data and design data for pilot-scale demonstrations of selected technologies. As used here, pilot-scale tests are those that involve up to several cubic meters of sediments. Several types of treatment technologies will be evaluated in bench-scale tests including: Solidification/Stabilization, Extraction, Chemical Treatment, Biological Treatment. During FY 1990, eight to ten specific bench-scale tests will be initiated. In FY 1991, some of these bench-scale tests may be expanded, and several new tests will be initiated. 34 ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.8 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 three of the priority consideration areas with metals contamination problems: Ashtabula River, Grand Calumet River, and Saginaw Bay. Techniques used for extraction and recovery of metals from ores and wastes will be evaluated on contaminated sediments. These include physical separation processes using gravity and magnetic properties, and flotation processes. 3.9 Workshop on Bioremediation A workshop will be held to provide for the exchange of information on the state-of-the-art in biological treatment processes. Some bioremediation processes can be applied in situ, as well as upon excavated material. Although bioremediation is a promising technique for some types of pollutants, it is largely unproven for contaminated sediments, especially for large-scale treatment projects. In addition, because numerous investigators are currently conducting bench- and pilot-scale biodegradation studies throughout the U.S. and Canada, learning from their experiences was considered a prerequisite to initiating new studies. 3.10 Evaluation of Solidification/Stabilization Technologies Besides removal and disposal, solidification/stabilization techniques are probably the most proven techniques for remediation of contaminated sediments. Sediment samples from selected priority consideration areas will be subjected to a variety of solidification/stabilization treatments. The solidified/stabilized products will be evaluated for physical properties using unconfined compressive strength and durability testing. The treated samples will also be tested for leaching properties using the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test or Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure, and sequential batch extraction. The results of the bench-scale tests will be used to select technologies to be tested on a pilot-scale, as well as the optimum formulations to use in those tests. 3.11 Pilot-Scale Demonstration Projects Pilot-scale demonstrations are scheduled to start in FY 1991 and continue into FY 1992. The scale of the pilot demonstrations will be several hundred cubic yards of sediment. Full-scale demonstrations would address in the range of 5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of sediment Pilot-scale demonstrations will only demonstrate the unit process (e.g., extraction). They will not include the full treatment train (e.g., dredging, storage, sorting, dewatering, extraction, destruction of extract, solidification, final disposal) that a full-scale demonstration would include. Pilot-scale demonstra- tions could be performed either on-site or at an off-site location. 3.12 Development of Options for Priority Consideration Areas Based upon the information gained in the earlier tasks, concept plans for sediment remedial options will be developed for each priority consideration area. The costs of applying the selected options will be calculated. In addition, estimates will be made on the losses of contaminants that 35 ------- 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 die 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. 3.13 Summaries of Treatment Technologies The following are short descriptions of each of the technologies listed in Table 4: 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 materials 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 diem through biological action. Used in the treatment of waste waters and contaminated soils. Popssjym-Polyethvlene Glycol fKPEG') Nucleophylic Substitution: A chemical process that reduces the toxicity of chlorinated hydrocarbons (such as PCBs) by removing chlorine atoms and replacing them with alkali metals (such as potassium). Basic Extraction Sludge Technology (BEST) Extraction Process: Separates contaminated sediments into three fractions: a solid fraction that contains the inorganic contaminants (such as heavy metals); an oil fraction that contains the organic contaminants (such as PCBs); and a water fraction that may contain residual amounts of the original sediment contaminants. By itself, BEST does not destroy any contaminants, but may significantly reduce the volume of material requiring advanced treatment Critical Fluids CCF) Systems Solvent Extraction: Performs the same functions as the BEST process, but instead of the triethylamine solvent used by BEST, the CF Systems process utilizes gases at critical temperatures and pressures (propane and carbon dioxide), which reduces the cross-contamination of the end products with the solvent (the propane is simply exposed to normal pressures and temperatures where it turns back into a gas). Incineration: The high temperature destruction of organic contaminants in a furnace. Used for the disposal of municipal and hazardous wastes. Low Temperature Thermal Stripping: Removes volatile organic contaminants (such as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs) by heating the sediments to temperatures 36 ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lower than those used in the destructive incineration processes. Not intended to permanent- ly destroy contaminants, but may result in a sediment that can be more easily disposed of. Wet Air Oxidation: Organic contaminants are destroyed by exposing them to elevated temperatures and pressures. This process was developed over 30 years ago and has been successfully used to treat municipal sewage sludge. Low Energy Extraction: Separates contaminated sediments into fractions as described for the BEST process. Uses a combination of solvents to remove PCBs and other organic contaminants from the sediment. Eco-Logic 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 (Hem-Tech1): Acetone is used as a solvent to extract PCBs from contaminated sediments. Aqueous Surfactant Extraction: Similar to the Low Energy Extraction process. Instead of employing acetone, however, this process uses aqueous surfactants to remove PCBs. Ultrasonics may be employed to improve extraction efficiencies. Taciuk Thermal Extraction: A thermal separation process similar to Low Temperature Thermal Stripping. The sediments are heated in an oxygen-free atmosphere, which aids in the removal of organic contaminants. Sediments 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. 4.0 Products The products of the Engineering/Technology Work Group will consist of the development of technical documents for each discrete work unit (e.g., bench-scale testing, pilot-scale testing). One key product of this Work Group is a matrix of monetary costs versus contaminant losses from the technologies tested. This information will be provided to the Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group for use in evaluating the impacts of alternative remedial options. Table 4 summarizes the match-up of technologies and locations planned for the ARCS demonstrations. The table also includes technology demonstrations that have been or are being done under other programs, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Superfund 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. 37 ------- Table 4. Treatment Technologies to be Demonstrated at the Priority Consideration Areas TECHNOLOGIES Solidification/ Stabilization Inorganic Treatment/ Recovery Bioremediation KPEG Nucleophilic Substitution B.E.S.T. Extraction Process CF Systems Solvent Extraction Incineration Low Temperature Thermal Stripping Wet Air Oxidation Low Energy Extraction Eco- Logic Destruction Process In-Situ Stabilization Acetone Extraction (Rem-Tech) Aqueous Surfactant Extraction Taciuk Thermal Extraction Sediment Dewatering Methods PRIORITY CONSIDERATION AREAS and Scale of Demonstration ASHTABULA RIVER Bench" Bench* Bench3 BUFFALO RIVER Bench0 Bench3 Bench3 Bench3 GRAND CALUMET RIVER Bench* Bench6 Bench3'6 Bench3 Bench3 Bench6 SAGINAW BAY Bench6 Bench3 Bench3 Bench3 SHEBOYGAN HARBOR Benchd Pilotd Bench8 Bench* Benchd Pilotd Benchd Benchd Benchd Benchd Legend: a = performed for ARCS Program by contractor b = performed for ARCS Program by Bureau of Mines c = performed for ARCS Program by Army Corps of Engineers/Waterways Experiment Station (WES) d = performed by Superfund Potentially Responsible Parties e = performed for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by Indiana University - N.W. or Corps' WES f = performed for Canada 38 ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5.0 Timeline - Engineering/Technology Work Group FISCAL YEAR FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 QUARTER 34 123412341234 ACTIVITY Technical Literature Review Evaluation of Applicability of Technologies for Bench Scale Studies Develop Recommendations for Pilot - Scale Demonstration 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 Evaluation of Solidification/ Stabilization Technologies Conduct Pilot - Scale Demonstrations Development of Options for Priority Consideration Areas Document Preparation w M 1 i i § 1 i 1 1 39 ------- V. Communication/Liaison Work Group Work Plan 1.0 Introduction The Communication/Liaison Work Group was established to disseminate up-to-date information regarding the ARCS Program and related activities to elected officials, related government agencies, and the interested public. The group will also provide feedback from those interested parties to the technical work groups and other ARCS committees. The Work Group's communication efforts will stress that ARCS is not a cleanup program, but a program designed to assess the contaminated sediments problem only to the extent necessary to identify practical remedial options, and test new technologies on bench and pilot scales. ARCS Program activities will be conducted with full public scrutiny. Timely notice and ongoing communication between the technical work groups and the Communication/Liaison Work Group regarding research and field work is important for the efficient and effective functioning of this Work Group. Pan of this ongoing transfer of information will be accomplished by weekly con- ference calls of the Activities Integration Committee, and attendance of Communication/Liaison Work Group members at other work group meetings. 2.0 Objectives The primary objectives of the Communication/Liaison Work Group are: 1. Program Operations Tracking. Efforts in this area will keep the Work Group current on the overall status of the ARCS Program, as well as the proposed and actual work efforts of each of the technical work groups. 2. Information Dissemination. This will involve disseminating information about the Program regularly to the public, other agencies and elected officials in the U.S., as well as Canadian Federal and Provincial agencies involved in contaminated sediment issues. 3. Feedback Solicitation. The Work Group will solicit feedback from the public and elected officials on the progress and scope of the ARCS Program, and transmit this feedback to the other Work Group chairs, the ARCS Management Advisory Committee and GLNPO Management 4. Development of Guidelines for Public Participation. As the Program concludes, the Work Group will develop guidelines for public involvement for possible future contaminated sediment demonstration and cleanup projects. 5. Encourage Public Participation. In all of its efforts, the Communication/Liaison Work Group will encourage and maintain strong public interest in the ARCS Program. 40 ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.0 Activities The tasks needed to accomplish these objectives are the following: 1. Work group interaction; 2. Preparation of information materials; 3. Mailing list compilation; 4. Soliciting public input; 5. On-site coordination and public meetings; 6. Slide-show preparation; 7. Video preparation; 8. Guidelines for public participation. 3.1 Work Group Interaction Frequent contact with members of other Work Groups will be maintained, and interviews will be scheduled as appropriate to obtain information on planned or ongoing work. The Com- munication/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 will prepare fact sheets and other such materials for dissemination to interested Federal and State agencies and the public, including appropriate elected officials at various levels. Fact sheets will be produced and published on contaminated sediment issues, and will provide information not only on ARCS Program activities, but also on more general topics such as current scientific research that relates contaminated sediments to ecological impacts, and other findings. Updates on activities specific to the priority consideration areas will be developed and distributed as needed. Press releases will be coordinated and issued by U.S. EPA's representative on the Work Group through the U.S. EPA's Office of Public Affairs. 3.3 Mailing List Compilation A mailing list will be compiled and maintained in order to disseminate information gathered in the tasks above to the appropriate interested parties. 41 ------- 3.4 Soliciting Public Input Ongoing and regular feedback will be secured from environmental groups, elected officials and the general public, and will be communicated to the Management Advisory Committee and the other work groups. 3.5 On-Site Coordination and Public Meetings Representatives from the Communication/Liaison Work Group will travel to the priority consideration sites to inform the public and media about the ARCS Program, ongoing field work, research activities and results. Ideally, at least one public meeting will be held at each of the five areas to explain ARCS activities to area residents and officials. 3.6 Slide Show Preparation A slide show will be prepared to explain the current nature of the contaminated sediments problem and efforts being undertaken by the ARCS Program to explore remedial solutions. The slide show will also provide background information on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement The slide show can be used in the short-term to explain the ARCS Program and how it will impact the contaminated sediments problem. 3.7 Video Preparation A video will be produced to provide a general understanding of the contaminated sediments problem, including information about the extent of the problem in the Great Lakes, assessment techniques and disposal technologies. The video is expected to take several months to complete, and will be completed during more advanced stages of the ARCS Program. 3.8 Guidelines for Public Participation Based on the experience gained from the five priority consideration areas, the Communication/Liaison Work Group will produce guidelines for public involvement for possible future contaminated sediment demonstration and cleanup projects. 4.0 Products The products of the Communication/Liaison Work Group will consist of the fact sheets, slide show, video and other forms of communication forms discussed above. In addition, the Work Group will provide regular feedback from the public to the work groups and the Management Advisory Committee. Much of the work performed by this Work Group will be an integral part of the Contaminated Sediments Management Documents, discussed in Part I. Members will have direct input into the development of these guidance documents. 42 ------- 5.0 Timeline - Communication/Liaison Work Group FISCAL YEAR FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 QUARTER 34 123412341234 ACTIVITY Work Group Interaction i Preparation of Information i Materials Soliciting Public Input i Mailing List Compilation i On-site Coordination and { Public Meetings Slide Show Preparation Video Preparation i Guidelines for Public Participation ract oneets ' Guidance Documents 1 ^ ^ 43 ------- VI. Specific Fiscal Year 1990 Work Plan Elements This section will provide more detailed information in bullet form on ARCS Program activities by the Work Groups in FY 1990. 1.0 Activities Integration Committee The Activities Integration Committee will continue management and integration of day-to-day ARCS Program activities. The Committee will provide QA/QC support and review with the assistance of EPA EMSL. Existing and new data sets will be subjected to QA review as needed. The Committee will oversee implementation of the data management program for ARCS, as well as the GIS system. Basic mapping information for all of the priority consideration areas will be entered into the GIS system. Finally, the Activities Integration Committee will initiate development of the ARCS Program reports and guidance documents to ensure timely completion and to help identify inputs that will be needed from the Work Groups. 2.0 Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group The Work Group will coirpbtc ar.al>scs of samples collected in FY 1989 at the Buffalo River and Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Canal. Sampling and analysis will be conducted of the first ten Master Stations on the Saginaw River. Later in the year, the second set of Master Stations will also be sampled. Sediments will be analyzed for chemistry, biological toxicity testing, and benthic community structure analysis. Data from the Ashtabula River will be obtained by the Ashtabula River Group (ARG) through the Superfund program. Both chemical and physical profiling data will be available. Sediment profiling and core sampling will be done on the Buffalo River, Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Canal, and Saginaw River. Analyses will be conducted for the indicator chemical parameters. Surveys will be conducted in the Grand Calumet River and Saginaw River for tumors and other abnormalities in resident fish populations. Histopathology will be conducted on fish tissue previously collected from the Buffalo River. Bioaccumulation testing will be done on sediment samples from the Buffalo River, Grand Calumet River and Saginaw River. 44 ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.0 Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group Baseline hazard evaluations will be undertaken for the five priority consideration areas. Impacts upon aquatic, wildlife, and human receptors will be evaluated. Mini mass balances of selected contaminants will be conducted on the Buffalo River and the Saginaw River. The sampling will include a synoptic survey of sources. The sediment resuspension model will be developed on the Buffalo River and the Saginaw River. Sediment prioritization ranking schemes will be tested using data from all five priority consideration areas. Research on the Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) procedure will be conducted on sediments from the Buffalo River and Saginaw Bay to identify what is causing the toxicity observed in the samples collected there. 4.0 Engineering/Technology Work Group Bench-scale treatment tests will be completed on the Buffalo River sediment samples collected in FY 1989. Sediment samples will be collected from the Ashtabula River, Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Canal, Saginaw River, and Sheboygan Harbor for bench-scale treatment technology evaluations. Bench-scale treatment technology evaluations will be conducted according to the following plan: Solidification/Stabilization treatments on sediments from the Buffalo River; Inorganic chemical treatment/recovery technologies on sediments from the Ashtabula River, Grand Calumet River, and Saginaw Bay; Nucleophilic substitution (KPEG process) on sediments from the Ashtabula River and Sheboygan Harbor; B.E.S.T. solvent extraction process on sediments from the Buffalo River, Grand Calumet River, and Saginaw River; CF Systems solvent extraction process on sediments from the Grand Calumet River and Saginaw Bay; Incineration on sediments from the Grand Calumet River, Low Temperature Thermal Stripping on sediments from the Ashtabula River, and 45 ------- Wet Air Oxidation process on sediments from the Buffalo River, and Low Energy Extraction using both a solvent and thermal treatment on sediments from the Buffalo River and Saginaw Bay. The Engineering/Technology Work Group will initiate development of guidance on selecting cleanup options. The Work Group will sponsor a workshop on biological treatment processes (bioremediation) to assess the state-of-the-art and determine which bioremediation technologies might be selected for testing by the ARCS Program. Concept plans for sediment remedial options will be developed for the Buffalo River, Grand Calumet River, and Saginaw River. 5.0 Communication/Liaison Work Group Public meetings on the ARCS Program will be held in the Buffalo River, Grand Calumet River, and Saginaw Bay priority consideration areas. A meeting will be held for Remedial Action Plan Citizens Advisory Committees in February in Buffalo, New York, and will include a special ARCS Program session. The Work Group will continue to issue fact sheets on the ARCS Program approximately every 2 months. The ARCS slide show will be prepared. Frequent news releases on the ARCS Program will be prepared on an ongoing basis in cooperation with the EPA Office of Public Affairs. The Communication/Liaison Work Group will continue to facilitate communication between the ARCS Work Groups. 46 ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ARCS PROGRAM COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTTEE Name Bruce Baker Charles Bardonner Frederick Brown Robert Collin Mario Del Vicario Carol Finch (Chairperson^ Geoffrey Grubbs Donate Leanard John McMahon Robert Pacific Richard Powers Ian Orchard David Reid Charles Sapp Elizabeth Southerland Andrew Turner Gilman Veith Howard Zar Affiliation Wisconsin Department of "Natural Resources Indiana Department of Environmental Management Great Lakes United N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation U.S. EPA, Reqion II U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office U.S. EPA. Assessment and Watershed Protection Division U.S. Armv Corps of Enaineers. North Central Division N.Y. Department of Envirionmental Conservation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Michiaan Department of Natural Resources Environment Canada National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. EPA. Reaion III U.S. EPA, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division Ohio EPA U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laoratory - Duluth U.S. EPA. Reaion V Telephone 608-266-8631 317-232-8476 517-835-9625 518-457-0669 212-264-5170 312-353-2117 202-382-7040 312-353-6355 716-847-4590 517-337-6650 217-335-4175 416-973-1089 313-668-2019 215-597-9096 202-382-7046 614-644-2001 218-780-5550 312-886-1491 47 ------- ACTIVITIES INTEGRATION COMMITEE Name David Cowgill Glenda Daniel Mario Del Vicario Paul Horvation Philippe Ross Marc Tuchman Steve Yaksich Affiliation U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office Lake Michigan Federation U.S. EPA, Region II U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office Illinois Natural History Survey U.S. EPA, Region V U.S. Armv Corns of Engineers Telephone 312-353-3576 312-939-0838 212-264-5170 312-353-3612 217-244-5054 312-886-0239 716-879-4272 48 ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Name Gerald Ankley Frederick Brown Skip Banner Eric Crecelius John Filkins John Giesy Joseph Hudek Christopher Ingersoll Diana Klemans Peter Landrum Julie Letterhos Simon Litten Michael Mac John McMahon Thomas Murphy Joseph Rathbun Philippe Ross (Chairoerson) Elliott Smith Frank Snitz :Henry Tatem 'Robert Taylor TOXICITY/CHEMISTRY WORKGROUP Affiliation U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth Great Lakes United Indiana Department of Environmental Manaaement Battelle Northwest U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Large Lakes Research Station Michigan State University, Department of Fisheries U.S. EPA, Region II U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Michigan Department of Natural Resources National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Ohio EPA N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation DePaul Universtiy, Chemistry Department AScI, U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory - Larae Lakes Research Station Illinois Natural History Survey AScI, U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory - Larae Lakes Research Station U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Waterways Experiment Station University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Telephone 218-720-5603 517-835-9625 317-232-8602 206-683-4151 313-675-2245 517-353-2000 201-340-6713 314-875-5399 517-373-2758 313-668-2276 614-644-2866 518-457-7470 313-994-3331 716-847-4589 312-341-8191 313-675-2245 217-244-5054 313-675-2245 313-226-6748 601-634-3695 414-229-4018 49 ------- I RISK ASSESSMENT/MODELING WORK GROUP Name Frederick Brown Denny Buckler Skip Bunner Richard Draper Bonnie Eleder Russell Erickson Bill Hoppes Patrick Hudson Diana Klemans Russell Kreis Timothy Kubiak Gerry Laniak Charles Lee Julie Letterhos Steve McCutcheon John McMahon Russell Moll Dora Pasino-Reader William Richardson Ralph Rumer Kenneth Rygwelski Katherine Schroer Griff Sherbin Marc Tuchman (Chairoerson) Christopher Zarba Affiliation Great Lakes United U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Indiana Department of Environmental Management N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation U.S. EPA, Reqion V U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth U.S. EPA, Reaion 11 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Michigan Department of Natural Resources U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory - Large Lakes Research Station U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Athens U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways ExDerimffnt Station Ohio EPA U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Athens N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation University of Michiaan U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory - Large Lakes Research Station State University of New York - Buffalo CSC, U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Large Lakes Research Station U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office Environment Canada U.S. EPA, Region V U.S. EPA, Criteria and Standards Division Telephone 517-835-9625 314-875-5399 317-232-8602 518-457-0669 312-886-4885 218-780-5534 212-264-8632 313-994-3331 517-373-2758 313-692-7600 517-337-6651 404-546-3138 601-634-3585 614-644-2866 404-546-3301 716-847-4590 313-763-1438 313-994-3331 313-692-7600 716-636-3446 313-692-7600 312-886-4012 416-973-1107 312-886-0239 202-475-7326 50 ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ENGINEERING/TECHNOLOGY WORK GROUP Name Daniel Averett Frederick Brown Skip Bunner Philip M. Cook Steve Garbaciak Richard Griffiths Jonathon Herrmann Chad Jafvert Diana Klemans Alex Lechich Julie Letterhos John McMahon Jan Miller Thomas P. Murphy Rene Rochon Charles Rogers John Rogers William Schmidt Griff Sherbin Frank Snitz Steve Yaksich (Chairperson) Affiliation U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station Great Lakes United Indiana Department of Environmental Management U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Dultith U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. EPA, Reqion II U.S. EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Athens Michiqan Department of Natural Resources U.S. EPA. Reaion II Ohio EPA New York Department of Environmental Conservation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Canada Centre for Inland Waters Environment Canada. Quebec Reaion U.S. EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory - Athens Bureau of Mines Environment Canada U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Telephone 601-634-3959 517-835-9625 317-232-8602 218-720-5553 312-353-0789 201-321-6632 513-569-7839 404-546-3349 517-373-2758 212-264-5283 614-644-2866 716-847-4590 312-353-6354 416-336-4602 514-283-0676 513-569-7757 404-546-3103 202-634-1210 416-973-1107 313-226-6748 716-879-4272 51 ------- COMMUNICATION/LIAISON WORK GROUP Name Glenda Daniel fOonhairnfirsonl Doreen Carey Tim Eder Brett Hulsey Lin Kaatz Chary Lois New Evelyn Schiele Mary Beth Tuohy (Cochairperson) Affiliation Lake Michigan Federation Calument College, Whiting, Indiana National Wildlife Federation Sierra Club Atlantic States Legal Foundation New York Department of Environmental Conservation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. EPA, Region V Telephone 312-939-0838 219-473-4246 313-769-3351 608-257-4994 219-938-0209 312-353-3209 312-353-6412 312-353-1159 52 ------- MAPS Figure 8. Ashtabula River Location Map LAKE EWG SURFACE WATER SAMPUE (TCX, TAL) RSH SAMPLE STREAM GAGING AND TOS, TSS NOTE: 4.5.6.7.9.11 SAME LOCATION A! SEDIMENT CROSS-SECTION SURFACE WATER AND FISH SAMPLING LOCATIONS 53 ------- Figure 9. Buffalo River Location Map I I I Muttr Station Loctllona Bullilo Rlv«r Surwy X Ootob«f 54 I I I I ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 10. Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Location Map 7-'° 8"° J& 10'° UG4 ^£3 GRAND CALUMET RIVER UG2 0.0 r- 1.0 2.0 1 miles 55 ------- I I I 56 I I I I I I I I I I ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 11. Saginaw Bay and River Location Maps Master Station Locations. Saginaw River Survey 1. Nov.- Dec.. 1989 EM Lire* Lakct R«««arcH. Qro«»« II*. Ml 57 ------- .--.-->v Master Station Locations. Saginaw River Survey 1. Nov.- Dec., 1989 58 ------- Figure 12. Sheboygan Harbor Location Map 59 ------- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency r ,,;.,, rv | ;._ir?ry /p: i n / jdck:on L Jf 12th floor wmcago, IL 606Q4-3JJO ------- |