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
------- |