United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(WH-585)
823N92001b
INumuoi o
May 1993
Contaminated
Sediments News'
Status of EPA's Contaminated Sediment
Management Strategy
In March 1992, EPA distributed a
draft outline of the Strategy to
government agencies, industry,
consulting firms, law firms, environ-
mental groups, and academia as a
proposal for
discussion.
With the
transmittal of
the draft
outline, EPA
solicited
written public
comments and
issued an
invitation to
attend three public forums (Proceed-
ings of EPA's Contaminated Sedi-
ment Management Strategy Forums,
EPA 823-R-92-007). The formal
public comment period ended July
15,1992, but comments were ac-
cepted until August 31,1992.
Written comments were received
from federal and state agencies;
municipal agencies; business, trade,
The Strategy now fully
describes EPA's
understanding of the
extent and severity of
sediment contamination.
on contaminated segments
and to increase communiea-
To obtain co**fe» of this re-
tion» contact Beverly Baker,
EPA HQ, at (202)260-7037,
and industry organizations; environ-
mental consulting companies; envi-
ronmental organizations; government
coalitions; and law firms. The areas
that received the most comments
were implementa-
tion of sediment
quality criteria,
cross-program
consistent
minimum testing,
and point versus
nonpoint source
control. Com-
ments were also
provided on the
definition of contaminated sediments,
extent and severity of the problem,
human health risks from contami-
nated sediments, coordination of
strategy implementation, the national
inventory of contaminated sediment
sites, prioritization of remedial
actions, natural recovery, enforce-
ment-based remediation, dredged
material management, and EPA's
research strategy for contaminated
sediments.
EPA's responses to the oral and
written comments received have been
incorporated into a complete version
of the draft Strategy. The 146-page
draft Contaminated Sediment Man-
agement Strategy is divided into 15
sections: Purpose; Definition;
Background; Why EPA Needs an
Agency-Wide Strategy; Coordination
of Strategy Implementation; Policy
Contaminated Sediment
Activities Timeline
May 10-11,1993. National Technical
Workshop on PCBs in Fish Tissue.
Washington, DC. Sponsored by EPA.
Call (703) 246-0596.
May 10-14,1993. Toxicity Assessment
and On-line Monitoring, sixth interna-
tional symposium. Berlin, Germany.
Contact Prof. P.O. Hansen, Technische
Universitat Berlin at 49-30-81-696981.
May 23-27,1993. Aquatic Ecosystem
Health and Environmental Bioassay
Techniques. Blacksburg, VA. Contact Dr.
Munawar at Fisheries and Oceans, Canada
Centre for Inland Waters, 867 Lakeshore
Rd., Burlington, Ontario, Canada L7R4A6.
June 6-10,1993. International Associa-
tion/or Great Lakes Research Annual
Meeting. DePere, WI. Special session on
ARCS Program, June 9. Contact John
Kennedy, Green Bay Metropolitan
Sewerage District, at (414) 432-4893.
June 8-11,1993. Metal Speciation and
Contamination of Aquatic Sediments.
Jekyll Island, GA. Contact Herb Allen,
University of Delaware, at (302) 831-3640.
June 14-16,1993. International Associa-
tion on Water Quality. Milwaukee, WI.
1st International Specialized Conference
on Contaminated Aquatic Sediments:
Historical Records, Environmental
Impacts, and Remediation. Contact Erik
Christensen at (414) 229-5422.
June 17-18,1993. Bioremediation Risk
Assessment Workshop. Duluth MM.
Sponsored by EPA and Environment
Canada. Contact Barbara Wiremen, ERL
Gulf Breeze at (904) 934-9241.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Framework; Goals; Principles;
Preventing Sediment Contamination;
Abatement and Control Strategy;
Remediation Strategy; Dredged
Material Management Strategy;
Research Strategy; and Outreach
Strategy.
Specific topics have been added to
the Strategy as suggested by
commenters, and other areas have
been made more explicit and ex-
panded. The Strategy now fully
describes EPA's understanding of
the extent and severity of sediment
contamination, including uncertain-
ties about the dimension of the
problem; the cross-program policy
framework in which EPA intends to
promote consideration and reduction
of ecological and human health risks
posed by sediment contamination;
and the specific actions each EPA
office will take to bring about consid-
eration and reduction of risks posed
by contaminated sediments.
This version of the Strategy is not yet
available for public distribution. A
briefing on the Strategy for the EPA
Sediment Steering Committee is being
scheduled, and a briefing for the EPA
Administrator will follow. Availabil-
ity of the draft Strategy will be
noticed in the Federal Register with a
request for formal public comment.
For more information on the Strategy,
contact Tom Armitage, EPA OST, at
(202) 260-5388.
Sediment Activities
Around the Country
National Sediment Inventory
To meet the objectives of the Na-
tional Sediment Strategy and to
comply with the mandates of the
Water Resources
Development Act of
1992, EPA has
initiated the develop-
ment of the National
Sediment Inventory
(NSI). To further
this effort, the NSI
Workshop was held
on March 30-31,
1993, in Washington,
DC, with more than
40 persons from EPA programs and
Regions, as well as other federal and
state agencies, in attendance. The
purpose of the 2-day workshop was
to present an overview of the recently
completed Framework for the
Development of the National Sedi-
ment Inventory and solicit input
regarding critical issues remaining:
(1) inventory design and minimum
data elements, (2) data structure and
systems, and (3) data quality evalua-
tion procedures.
The first day of the workshop con-
sisted of an open discussion among
workshop speakers and others on
various aspects of the development
and management of sediment inven-
tories, including the identification
and prioritization of data sets for
incorporation, distribution, and
update by the Regions, and evalua-
tion of the NSI to determine potential
and probable areas of concern. The
second, more formal day of the
workshop began with a presentation
by Betsy Southerland of EPA's
Contaminated Sediments Program
explaining potential uses of the NSI.
Next, Chris Zarba described his
interest in using the NSI to identify
chemicals of concern for sediment
quality criteria development and
verification. This was followed by
presentations from NOAA (Kostas
Daskalakis and Tom O'Connor),
USGS (Frank Manheim and Jack
Hathaway), USAGE (Tom Wright
and Charlie Lutz), and FWS (Daniel
Olson) on their ongoing inventory
activities and personal observations.
Catherine Fox gave an
update on the NSI,
and Tom Armitage
gave an update on the
National Source
Inventory. Ken
Klewin and Marc
Tuchman presented
Region 5's Sediment
Inventory as an
example of scoring
for the prioritization
of sites. Demonstrations of databases
also took place: Jack Hathaway
demonstrated the USGS Contami-
nated Sediments Database, represen-
tatives of Region 5 demonstrated their
Inventory Data Retrieval Program,
and Roberta Feins demonstrated the
Puget Sound Database. The after-
noon discussion sessions focused on
minimum data elements, data quality
evaluation procedures, and data
management approaches, including
NSI review by the Regions.
Based on workshop recommenda-
tions, planning activities will be
finalized and compilation is sched-
uled to begin May 1,1993. A pre-
liminary evaluation primarily based
on sediment chemistry (with associ-
ated biological, pollutant source, and
QA/QC documentation) and prepara-
tion of regional data sets are sched-
uled for late fall.
To receive a copy of the Framework
for the Development of the National
Sediment Inventory or if you have any
additional questions or comments,
call Catherine Fox at (202) 260-1327.
OPPTS-Exposure Assessment
Branch Developing Test Guide-
line for Contaminants in
Aquatic Environments
The risk associated with the release of
toxic chemicals into the environment
is determined by considering both the
hazards (i.e., toxicity, mutagenicity,
carcinogenicity) associated with the
chemical and the relative exposure of
llV -
-------
humans or the environment. Expo-
sure is affected by various fate
processes, including such physical,
chemical, and biological processes as
sorption, biotransformation, hydroly-
sis, and photolysis.
As part of the risk assessment pro-
cess, the Exposure Assessment
Branch (EAB), in the Economics,
Exposure and Technology Division
(EETD) of OPPTS, assesses the
potential fate in the environment and
the potential exposure of humans and
the environment resulting from
chemical releases. Often, data on the
biodegradation of a chemical in the
environment are not readily available.
EAB is currently
developing a test
guideline to assess
the biodegradability
of chemicals in
aquatic environments.
Because biodegradation is a poten-
tially important process in the ulti-
mate fate of a chemical in the envi-
ronment, EAB is currently develop-
ing a test guideline to assess the
biodegradability of chemicals in
aquatic environments. The test
guideline uses a model test system
called an "ecocore." The ecocore, a
microcosm containing water and
benthic sediments, was originally
developed and extensively tested by
researchers atEPA's Gulf Breeze
ERL.
While other existing test guidelines
such as the Organization for Eco-
nomic Cooperative Development
(OECD) Ready Biodegradability
guidelines provide data relevant to
aquatic biodegradation processes,
there is a need for a higher-tier test
employing a system that models both
water and sediment biodegradation
processes, as well as the interactions
between them. Such currently used
laboratory protocols as the shake
flask "die away" and continuous
activated sludge tests, as well as on-
site field studies, are well established
but have limitations. For example,
laboratory studies are usually de-
signed to assess the fate of a chemical
in specific environ-
mental compart-
ments (e.g., water,
sediment, plant
roots) or popula-
tions (e.g., bacteria,
fungi, algae) and
do not adequately
assess the interac-
tion and impor-
tance of abiotic and biotic compo-
nents of a natural ecosystem. On the
other hand, because environmental
properties such as pH, temperature,
sunlight intensity, and moisture are
not easily controlled in field studies,
results from this type of study may be
difficult to interpret. In addition,
comprehensive field studies are
resource-intensive and not easily
replicated for the purpose of assess-
ing statistical certainty.
In short, existing test guidelines,
laboratory protocols, and field
methods are not wholly suitable for
predicting the fate of a chemical in a
natural environment. In contrast,
sediment/water microcosms, such as
the ecocore test system, model
complex environmental fate pro-
cesses such that environmental
properties may be more easily
controlled and sufficient replication
may be achieved to address variability.
The draft Sediment/Water Microcosm
Biodegradation Test Guideline has
been submitted for comment to
EPA's Contaminated Sediments
Tiered Testing Workgroup and others
involved in bioassay standardization.
For a copy of the draft microcosm
test guideline, or for additional
information, contact H. Kay Austin at
(202) 260-3927.
Gulf of Mexico Contaminated
Sediments and Pollutant Source
Inventories
The Gulf of Mexico's Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) is now complete.
The report (with accompanying
database.and user manual) describes
the amounts and kinds of point and
nonpoint source (pesticide usage and
produced waters) pollutants dis-
charged to Gulf coastal estuaries in
1989 and 1991. Estuaries are also
ranked in terms of potential risk
posed by the chemical discharges
based on the toxicity of the chemical
and the volume of receiving water.
The Draft GOM Contaminated
Sediments Inventory (CSI) has also
been completed, with the final report,
database, and user manual scheduled
for completion early this summer.
This report describes the compilation
and evaluation of historical sediment
quality data on the Gulf coast with
estuaries ranked by potential risk
from in-place pollutants.
The Toxics Characterization Report is
being prepared and is scheduled for
completion early this summer. The
report will integrate the results of the
TRI and CSI, along with fish advi-
sory information, in order to "tell a
toxics tale" on each estuary of the
Gulf coast. In other words, discharged
chemicals of concern and in-place
chemicals of concern will be com-
pared and data gaps identified for
further monitoring. Fish advisory
information will also be considered
for each estuary in order to estimate
potential environmental and human
health impacts from contaminated
water and sediments.
The Toxics and Pesticides Committee
of the GOMP hopes that this informa-
tion will lead to further understanding
of the impacts caused by toxics to the
GOM and will promote more regional
and site-specific assessment and
management (prevention and
-------
remediation) by federal and state
environmental programs.
To receive a copy of the reports or if
you have any additional questions or
comments, call Catherine Fox at
(202) 260-1327.
Region 9
Improvements for Dredged Material
Permit Application Procedures
Region 9 is leading an interagency
effort under the Long-Term Manage-
ment Strategy (LTMS) for dredged
material from San Francisco Bay to
improve management of data col-
lected, submitted, and evaluated for
dredged material permit applications.
The project involves designing a data
entry package for project administra-
tion, sediment chemistry, bioassay,
and bioaccumulation data that
satisfies the needs of all Bay Area
regulatory agencies. The ultimate
goal of the project is to facilitate and
encourage the submission of permit
applications in an entirely digital
format. Each agency can then either
construct individual software applica-
tions or use Region 9's own Dredged
Material Tracking System (DMATS),
which contains report-generating and
Geographic Information System
(GIS) linkage features. For more
information contact Shelley Clarke,
Region 9, at (415) 744-1162 or Dr.
Brian Melzian at (415) 744-1161.
Sampling of Mercury-Contaminated
Sediments
This spring, Region 9 is completing a
preliminary study of mercury-
contaminated sediments in Clear
Lake, CA, in conjunction with a
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study of the Sulphur Bank Mercury
Mine Superfund Site. Researchers in
the preliminary lake study collected
spatially distributed mercury and
methylmercury data in sediment,
benthic invertebrates, phytoplankton
and zooplankton, and various fish
species across Clear Lake to deter-
mine the correlation between mercury
levels in biota and higher sediment
concentrations near the Sulphur Bank
Mine. Future studies are planned to
develop a site-specific sediment
clean-up goal for mercury. For more
information contact Carolyn
d'Almeida at (415) 744-2225 or
Dr. Brian Melzian at (415) 744-1161.
Region 10
National Benthic Experts Workshop
On February 25, 1993, the Washington
Department of Ecology, EPA Region
10, and the Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority sponsored a work-
shop of nationally recognized benthic
ecologists to provide recommenda-
tions for improving methods used by
programs in the Puget Sound region
to interpret benthic community data.
The workshop objectives were to:
• identify and evaluate the techni-
cal adequacy of selected methods
used to assess adverse effects of
benthic communitites in marine
sediment,
• evaluate the current interpretive
methods used in Puget Sound
programs to identify adverse
effects; and
• develop recommendations for
improving the current benthic
interpretation methods used in
Puget Sound programs to identify
adverse effects.
Regulatory assessments of adverse
environmental impacts are frequently
based on the monitoring and evalua-
tion of benthic invertebrates. These
sediment-dwelling organisms, being
sedentary, respond to both short-term
acute and long-term chronic anthro-
pogenic stresses at a single geographic
point and are excellent indicators of
environmental conditions.
Analysis and interpretation of benthic
data can be complicated by a number
of factors. Investigators of benthic
communities have
used widely differ-
ent approaches to
analyzing benthic data,
reflecting their specific
study objectives or
personal preferences.
In developing the
Puget Sound Estuary
Protocols, an attempt
was made to specify
consistent, broadly accepted
methods of analyzing and
interpretating benthic data. Not
unexpectedly, this effort raised
numerous questions and concerns.
Several regulatory and monitoring
programs within Puget Sound rely on
these concensus analyses and inter-
pretations as a primary base for
decision-making, including the state
Sediment Management Standards,
Puget Sound Dredged Disposal
Analysis Program, Puget Sound
Ambient Monitoring Program, and
individual Superfund and Urban Bay
Action efforts.
Prior to the workshop, the available
information on methods used to
identify adverse benthic effects was
compiled and provided to the experts.
Recommendations for improving the
techniques used in Puget Sound
programs were provided verbally
during, and in writing following, the
panel. Copies of the workshop
minutes are available, and a final
report is expected to be available in
May 1993. For more information
contact Sandra Manning, Washington
Department of Ecology, at (206) 438-
7514 or John Malek, Region 10, at
(206) 553-1286.
-------
Cooperative Aquatic Land Use
Planning Related to Superfund
An interagency planning group
consisting of members both inside
and outside the Superfund process
initiated a short-term study to identify
and resolve land use conflicts associ-
ated with efforts to remediate con-
taminated sediments and restore
damaged habitat in Elliott Bay and
the Duwamish River in Seattle, WA.
The group also worked to develop a
generic methodology that could be
used elsewhere in Puget Sound.
Six months of biweekly meetings
produced an interim understanding
among the participants about the
degree of conflict and possible
resolutions.
The process involved:
• an agency-by-agency description
of applicable laws, regulations,
and policies dealing with
management of the area of
interest;
• subdivision of the bay and river
into 17 management units, with
descriptions of the physical and
land use characteristics of each
unit;
• development of a list of issues of
concern to be discussed in terms
of identification of conflicts;
• a matrix evaluation of identified
conflicts between issues of
concern;
• mapping of major uses to identify
potential conflicts within man-
agement units; and
• development of negotiated
management strategies for each
unit to directly resolve identified
conflicts and/or to identify future
actions needed to resolve the
conflicts.
The agencies are continuing to review
the results of this initial effort and
will address by mid-1993 the need for
further conflict-resolution actions.
Funding for this planning effort was
provide by DNR, NOAA, EPA, the
Port of Seattle, and the Elliott Bay/
Duwamish Restoration Fund.
For more information contact David
Jamison, DNR, at (206) 902-1070.
Port of Seattle's Terminal 3 Project
The Port of Seattle recently formu-
lated a Harbor Development Plan that
contemplates eventual conversion of
many existing industrial shorelines
into container terminal shipping
facilities. One proposed element of
this plan has set the stage for the
convergence of many significant laws
and policies relating to sediment
contamination, including the federal
Clean Water Act, the Rivers and
Harbors Act, CERCLA, RCRA,
NEPA, the Puget Sound Dredged
Disposal Analysis program, the state
Sediment Management Standards, the
state Model Toxics Control Act
(MTCA), and the State Environmen-
tal Policy Act (SEPA). Appropriate
uses of constitutionally established
State Harbor Lands, as well as
significant neighborhood concerns,
are also important factors.
One of the first properties that
became available was a former
shipyard owned by Lockheed. This
property has about 25 acres of
uplands and 27 acres of aquatic land.
All but 7 acres of the aquatic land is
leased from the
state. This52-acre
site, which was
intensively used for
shipbuilding and
ship repair from
1949 to 1987,
contains varying
degrees of soil and
sediment contamina-
tion. The site
requires a significant
cleanup before it is converted to a
container facility, and both RCRA
and the state's MTCA establish
applicable requirements. Adjacent to
the Lockheed property are 22 upland
and 7 aquatic acres currently and
historically used for wood-treating.
This property is also contaminated,
and EPA is considering the applica-
tion of CERCLA. The Port would
like to add these two properties to
those adjacent properties which they
own as part of their redevelopment of
Terminal 3.
In response to the Port's plan, local,
state, and federal agencies have
decided to work together to combine
their many mandates to prepare a
joint document written by the Port,
the Corps, the state, and EPA. Other
agencies and the public are being
actively involved. The document will
function as an RI/FS under RCRA
and MTCA, as well as an EIS under
NEPA and SEP A. All pertinent
requirements and procedures of other
laws will be incorporated into the
consolidated document.
Extensive investigations are under
way, including upland and aquatic
sampling and a sophisticated model-
ing effort to assess the confinement
potential for nearshore disposal of
contaminated sediments. Side-by-
side comparisons of standard hazard-
ous waste tests and newer leachate
tests are also being conducted. The
Port has consistently emphasized that
it is focused on conducting an effi-
cient cleanup that would allow future
beneficial uses of the property. Other
options being considered include
disposal of contaminated sediments at
an upland site, capping in place, or
placement in deep water. If con-
structed, a large nearshore confined
disposal site could create a facility
capable of receiving several hundred
thousand yards of contaminated
sediment from other Port lands that
also need clean-up action.
(continued on p. 7)
-------
On March 9,
1993,theU.S.
Environmental
Protection Agency
and Department of
Justice announced
the signing of a
multimillion-dol-
lar, precedent-set-
ting consent decree
with Inland Steel
Corporation. The
consent decree settled a 1990 lawsuit
that alleged violations of federal water,
hazardous waste, and air laws at the
company'sEastChicago.Indiana, steel
mill.
Consent Decree Summary
Under the consent decree, Inland
Steel will pay a $29.5 million civil
penalty consisting of a $3.5 million
cash fine, a $19 million contaminated
sediments remediation Supplemental
Environmental Project (SEP), and
$7 million for other SEPs to prevent
or reduce pollution at the facility
beyond levels required by federal
law. The company will also begin a
Focus:
Enforcement- Based
Remediation
comprehensive clean-up program',
costing about $25 million, to comply
with water and air requirements and
to correct numerous hazardous waste
problems at its 2,400-acre facility.
In addition, Inland must clean up
sediments in the canal along its
dockfaces.
Contaminants of Concern
Based on previous studies of the
Indiana Harbor Canal done by EPA
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, the contaminants found in high
concentrations are heavy metals (up
to thousands of parts per million of
lead and zinc, hundreds of parts per
million of chro-
mium, copper, and
nickel), oil and
grease (several
percent), polychlo-
rinated biphenyls
(PCBs; over 50
parts per million in
places), polycyclic
aromatic hydrocar-
bons (PAHs; tens
of parts per
million of many PAHs), and volatile
organic compounds (such as benzene,
toluene, and xylene). These contami-
nants are the source of local toxicity
to biota and are being carried into
Lake Michigan by canal flow and the
action of vessels.
Sediments Study and Remediation
Project
The sediment remediation SEP will
consist of two phases. In the first
phase, Inland will study and sample
3 miles of sediments in Indiana
Harbor and Ship Canal and Roxana
Marsh, a neighboring wetland. In the
second phase, Inland will remediate
Grand Calumet River
Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Canal Area
I I Inland sediment characterization
Inland sediment remediation
I I LTV sediment remediation
Q£S Gary sediment remediation
|H USX sediment remediation area
I I USX sediment characterization study
mites, sc
-------
sediments in the canal adjacent to its
facility, most likely by dredging.
EPA estimates that as much as
750,000 yd3 of sediments could be
remediated under the SEP and
another 25,000 yd3 at Inland's
dockfaces. EPA further estimates
that if 750,000 yd3 of sediment were
removed, about 575,000 Ib of lead,
2,580,000 Ib of zinc, and 5,000 Ib of
PCBs would be removed from the
canal. Disposal options for the
removed sediment will be determined
by a process set up in the consent
decree in which Inland will define
disposal options based on the results
of the study and EPA will approve
the selected options.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
estimates that 157,000 yd3 of con-
taminated sediments move into Lake
Michigan annually from the Grand
Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Canal
system. The sediment remediation
project under this consent decree
would remove a substantial propor-
tion of those contaminants and
prevent them from entering the lake.
Other Enforcement Actions
The Inland settlement is the third
thus far obtained by EPA's sediment
enforcement efforts on the Grand
Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Canal
system. Previous settlements were
obtained for LTV Steel across the
canal and the USX Gary Plant and
the City of Gary upstream from the
canal. Development of remediation
plans by LTV, USX, and Gary is in
progress. The LTV and USX
projects will most likely involve
dredging of substantial volumes of
contaminated sediments followed by
disposal in hazardous waste landfills.
Additional actions are filed by the
Agency at a number of other sites in
the area as part of the Northwest
Indiana Geographic Enforcement
Initiative. For more information
contact Phillippa Cannon, Region 5,
at (312) 353-6218.
(Port of Seattle continued from p. 4)
Information gained and administra-
tive techniques developed through
this effort are expected to assist
future regional actions and could
affect similar situations nationwide.
The next 2 years will show whether
such a complex convergence of laws
and interests can be made to yield
effective and efficient results. For
more information contact Tom
Elwell, Ecology, at (206) 459-6053
or John Malek, Region 10, at (206)
553-1286.
ERL-Narragansett/Newport
ERL-Narragansett/Newport is
currently working on the following
sediment research issues:
Sediment Quality Criteria
• Revising SQC documents for
acenaphthene, dieldrin, endrin,
fluoranthene, and phenanthrene
following concurrence of all Red
Border reviewers.
• Preparing SAB briefing docu-
ment on SQC for metals with
Office of Water.
• Focusing research on the
technical basis of SQC for
metals on acid volatile sulfide
and secondary metals binding
phases, developing a model
of the kinetics of metals and
sulfide cycles, researching the
role of metal binding in relation
to chronic exposure of benthic
organisms, and studying marine
sediments contaminated with
metals from the field.
For more information contact Dave
Hansen at (401) 782-3027.
Combined PAH SQC Model
Researchers developed a model to
predict the toxicity of field-collected
marine sediments contaminated by
PAHs. This model predicts toxicity
using PAH sediment concentrations,
EqP, QSAR, and additivity. Re-
searchers measured toxicity using
four amphipod species and sediments
from six sites; literature data was
obtained from three other studies.
The prediction of presence or absence
of toxicity was 82.5 percent accurate
for tests conducted at Newport and
88.5 percent accurate for tests from
the literature. A manuscript on this
method is in preparation. For more
information call Rick Swartz at (503)
867-4031.
Toxicity Test Development
Toxicity tests for the Coot clam
(Mulinia lateralis):
• Embrvo/larval test - Advantages
include high sensitivity, duration
<24 hours, and sublethal end-
point. Preliminary results
indicate normal development in
clean sediments and abnormal
development in contaminated
sediments. For more information
call George Morrison at
(401)782-3016.
• Juvenile 7-dav test - Growth and
mortality endpoints were studied.
Mortality endpoint shows similar
sensitivity to amphipod mortality
endpoint; growth endpoint is
more sensitive than amphipod
mortality endpoint. Manuscript
submitted to Environ. Toxicol. &
Chem. For more information cadi
Robert Burgess at (401) 782-3106.
• Settlement - Chronic Ei-S *P&-
Settlement success, growth and
survival endpoints-were studied.
Preliminary culture results are
promising. For more information
call Dave Hansen at (401) 782-3027.
-------
Ten-Day Sediment Lethality Test for
Hawaiian amphipods: Researchers
developed test protocols using
Corophium acherusicum and C.
insidiosum. Sensitivity of the
Corophium spp. was comparable to
that ofRhepoxymis and greater than
that of Eohaustorius with water
spiked with cadmium. Survival of
Corophium was less than that of
Eohaustorius in pyrene-spiked water
and comparable to Eohaustorius in
pyrene-spiked sediment. Pyrene-
spiked sediment was not toxic to
either species. For more information
call Janet Lamberson at (503) 867-4043.
Chronic Sediment Toxicity Test for
Marine Benihie Amphipods: Re-
searchers developed research meth-
ods for assessing the chronic toxicity
of contaminated marie and estuarine
sediments using the benthic amphi-
pod Leptocheirus plumulosus. The
final report is completed. For more
information call Ted De Witt at (503)
867-5030.
Marine Sediment TIE Methods
Development
Two approaches are currently being
used to develop TIE methods for
marine sediments:
• Adapt marine effluent TIE
methods to interstitial waters.
Interstitial water TIE Phase I
results of New Bedford Harbor
indicate that acute toxicity was
not associated with either metals
orPAHs. PCBs or a co-eluting
compound may be responsible for
the toxicity.
B Conduct TIEs on whole sedi-
ments. Preliminary whole-
sediment TIE method develop-
ment demonstrates that EDTA
and C18 pellets reduce toxicity in
metal- and organic-spiked marine
sediments, respectively. For
more information call Kay Ho at
(401)782-3196.
The Chesapeake Bay Program's
Toxics Subcommittee sponsored a
"Chesapeake Bay Contaminated
Sediment Critical Issue Forum" on
December 10,1992, as part of the
larger, ongoing reevaluation of the
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics
Reduction Strategy. The forum was
structured to seek a technical consen-
sus on the nature, magnitude, and
extent of contaminated sediments
within Chesapeake Bay. Regional
and national experts were invited to
join participants from various Chesa-
peake Bay Program state and federal
agencies, research institutions, and
public interest groups in addressing
the contaminated sediments issue.
Creature Feature
Test your sediment skills and
name this friendly face found as
part of the meiobenthos in both
marine and fresh waters. Answer
on p. 11.
Not actual size
There was general consensus among
the forum participants that there are
three contaminated sediment "hot
spots" in Chesapeake Bay—Balti-
more Harbor, Anacostia River and
Elizabeth River—and that there is not
a ubiquitous contaminated sediments
problem in the Bay. Other areas with
elevated levels of sediment contami-
nants were limited in their geographi-
cal extent, as demonstrated through
the series of sequential presentations
of NOAA National Status and Trends
Program, EPA Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program,
and Chesapeake Bay Contaminated
Sediment Monitoring Program data
for the Bay's tidal waters. Sediment
toxicity data from a variety of
sources, presented as part of the
forum, showed adverse effects were
limited to the three "hot spots" and a
few other areas with elevated sedi-
ment contaminant levels.
To receive a copy of the Chesapeake
Bay Contaminated Sediments Critical
Issue Forum Proceedings, call Rich
Batiuk, EPA Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram Office, at (410) 267-0061.
Regional Surveys
As a part of its National Status and
Trends Program, NOAA is conduct-
ing a series of regional surveys of
sediment toxicity in selected bays and
estuaries. The objectives of these
surveys are (1) to determine the
spatial patterns and extent of toxicity,
(2) to estimate the severity of toxic-
ity, and (3) to determine the relation-
ships between toxicity and chemical
contamination.
Thus far, surveys have been com-
pleted in San Francisco Bay and the
bays adjoining Long Island Sound.
The tests employed in these surveys
-------
include a solid-phase amphipod
survival test, an elutriate or porewater
test with invertebrate larvae or
gametes, and an organic extract
Microtox™ test. The following is an
update on the progress of the surveys
that are under way.
Hudson-Raritan Estuary (NY/NJ)
An estuary-wide survey of this study
area was completed in Phase I in
1991-92; 117 samples were.tested for
toxicity. Toxicity data have been
compiled and evaluated. Chemical
analyses of selected samples are
under way with funding from EPA
Region 2. Samples for Phase II were
collected in February/March 1993 by
EPA Region 2 and the Army Corps of
Engineers. Phase II focuses on
Newark Bay and vicinity. Toxicity
tests will be conducted by Science
Applications International Corpora-
tion, and chemical analyses will be
performed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS). The chemi-
cal analyses will include quantifica-
tions of dioxins and furans.
Tampa Bay (FL)
Ninety samples collected throughout
the estuary were tested for toxicity in
Phase I (1991); many were analyzed
for chemical concentrations, with
funding by the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation (FDER).
An additional 75 samples from four
regions were tested in Phase II
(1992): northern Hillsborough Bay,
western Old Tampa Bay, lower Boca
Ciega Bay, and along the St. Peters-
burg shoreline. Chemical analyses of
these samples are currently under way.
Southern California (CA)
Toxicity was determined in 99
samples from San Pedro Bay and
vicinity in 1992 in a joint project with
the California State Water Resources
Control Board. Chemical analyses of
selected samples are under way.
About 120 samples will be collected
in March/April 1993 in San Diego
Bay and vicinity for toxicity testing
and chemical analyses. The sam-
pling, toxicity tests, and chemical
analyses are being conducted by the
California Department of Fish and
Game.
Western Florida Panhandle (FL)
Samples will be collected in
Pensacola Bay and St. Andrew Bay in
1993 and in Choctawhatchee Bay and
Appalachicola Bay in 1994 in a joint
project with FDER. Toxicity tests
will be conducted by the FWS. A
modified EMAP randomized-block
sampling plan is being used in these
surveys.
Charleston Harbor (SC)
Samples will be collected during May
1993 in Charleston Harbor, Winyah
Bay, and vicinity by the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
and tested for toxicity by NMFS, the
University of South Carolina, and the
FWS. In a cooperative effort, the
Charleston Harbor Project also will
test additional samples for toxicity.
Boston Harbor (MA)
Samples will be collected in June/
July 1993 throughout Boston Harbor
by a contractor yet to be selected. In
a cooperative effort, the Massachu-
setts Bay Estuary Project will test
additional samples with the same
methods.
Sediment Quality Guidelines
The database originally used by Long
and Morgan (1990) was significantly
revised and expanded with new data
in a cooperative effort with FDER,
Environment Canada, and
MacDonald Environmental Services,
Ltd. The data from the toxicity
surveys listed above will be incorpo-
rated into the ever-expanding data-
base as they become available, and
revised guidelines willte developed.
For more information contact Ed
Long, NOAA/ORCA, at (206) 526-
6338 in Seattle.
U.S. Army Corps
USAGE and EPA Jointly
Develop Technical Framework
for Environmental Evaluation of
Dredged Material Alternatives
Background
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) and the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) share
the responsibility of regulating
dredged material management
activities under the Marine Protec-
tion, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA) and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, also called the Clean Water
Act(CWA). Such management
activities must also comply with the
applicable requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). But there is often disagree-
ment and confusion within USAGE
Divisions and Districts, EPA Regions,
and other agencies over how to
manage dredged material and how to
evaluate proposed disposal alternatives
from the environmental standpoint
-------
The USAGE and EPA have recently
published a revised dredged material
testing manual for evaluation of
material to be discharged at MPRSA
ocean disposal sites (commonly
called the Green Book). A similar
updated manual for evaluation of
CWA discharges in U.S. waters is
under development. However, these
documents do not provide guidance
on how to evaluate the full range of
dredged material management
alternatives that can be considered.
7?7e Framework is
intended to be applicable
to all proposed actions
involving the management
of dredged material.
To meet this need, the USAGE and
EPA have jointly developed a consis-
tent Technical Framework for the
evaluation of dredged material
management alternatives (USAGE/
EPA 1992).
The need for a comprehensive
strategy or framework for the evalua-
tion of alternatives was recognized
early on. In the mid 1980s, the
USAGE developed a Management
Strategy (Francingues and others
1985) for evaluation of dredged
material alternatives that focused
on contaminant testing and controls
(see November 1984 newsletter,
Vol. D-84-6). EPA later initiated
development of a similar manage-
ment strategy focusing on environ-
mental considerations of disposal
alternatives. But neither of the
strategies fully addressed the full
range of alternatives and materials.
A USAGE/EPA work group was
subsequently formed for the purpose
of developing an approach that would
meet the needs of both agencies.
The work group was composed of
representatives from USAGE and
EPA headquarters, several USAGE
Divisions and Districts, several EPA
Regions, EPA research labs, and the
USAGE Waterways Experiment
Station. For over a year, the work
group developed and revised the
Technical Framework, incorporating
comments from all USAGE Divisions
and Districts and EPA Regions. The
final joint Technical Fran? /ork has
now been endorsed by h n agencies.
Objectives of the Framework
The Technical Framework is intended
to serve as a consistent "road map"
for USAGE and EPA personnel to
follow in evaluating the environmen-
tal acceptability of dredged material
management alternatives.
Specifically, its major objective is to
provide the following:
• A general technical framework
for evaluating the environmental
acceptability of the full con-
tinuum of dredged material
management alternatives (open-
water placement, confined
(diked) placement, and beneficial
use applications).
• Additional technical guidance to
supplement present implementa-
tion and testing manuals for
addressing the environmental
acceptability of available man-
agement options for the discharge
of dredged material in both open-
water and confined sites.
• Enhanced consistency and
coordination in USAGE and EPA
decision-making in accordance
with federal environmental
statutes regulating dredged
material management.
Overview of the Framework
The Technical Framework is de-
signed to meet the procedural and
substantive requirements of NEPA,
CWA, and MPRSA in a technically
consistent manner and is intended to
be applicable to all proposed actions
involving the management of dredged
material. This includes both new
construction and navigation project
maintenance, both clean and contami-
nated materials, and the broad array
of management alternatives, including
confined (diked intertidal and upland)
disposal, open-water(aquatic) dis-
posal, and beneficial use applications.
The Technical Framework can be
applied nationwide and is relatively
general, but comprehensive. Because
the Technical Framework provides
national guidance, flexibility is
necessary. It should not be followed
rigidly; rather, it should be used as a
technical guide to evaluate the
commonly important factors to be
considered in managing dredged
material in an environmentally
acceptable manner. These broad steps
are followed:
• Evaluation of dredging project
requirements.
• Identification of alternatives.
• Initial screening of alternatives.
• Detailed assessment of
alternatives.
• Alternative selection.
The steps are designed to meet the
regulatory requirements of NEPA,
MPRSA, and CWA as they pertain to
the required consideration of alternatives.
Detailed Assessments
For both open-water and confined
placement alternatives, the detailed
assessment of alternatives includes
the following broad steps:
• Determining the characteristics of
disposal sites.
• Evaluating direct physical
impacts and site capacity.
10
-------
• Evaluating contaminant pathways
of concern.
• Evaluating control measures.
• Retaining environmentally
acceptable alternatives.
For beneficial use applications, the
detailed assessment includes the
following:
• Determining beneficial use needs
and opportunities.
• Evaluating physical suitability of
material for proposed uses.
• Evaluating logistical and
management requirements.
• Evaluating environmental suitability.
• Retaining environmentally
acceptable alternatives.
Application of the Framework
Application of the Technical Frame-
work will allow for consistency in
decision-making across statutory
boundaries and consideration of the
full continuum of dredged material
discharge options. For example,
application of the Technical Frame-
work will help ensure that open-water
discharge does not hinder the devel-
opment and use of other options, such
as confined upland sites. The guid-
ance established by the Technical
Framework should reduce confusion
by both regulators and the regulated
community in all future evaluations.
To obtain a copy of the Technical
Framework, contact Pat Humphries at:
U.S. Army Engineer WES
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg,MS 3918(^6199
(601)634-2696.
Center for
Contaminated Sediments
The U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) has recently
established a Center for Contaminated Sediments (CCS) to focus existing
expertise on the problems of contaminated sediments including identification,
assessment, evaluation, and management.
These activities encompass endangerment assessments, risk analysis, restora-
tion, remediation, and management activities.
Activities of the Center will include (1) technical and regulatory assistance,
(2) training, (3) technology transfer, (4) research and development, (5) work-
shops and seminars, and (6) response to general information requests.
The CCS will incorporate appropriate expertise from all WES elements in
responding to these activities, as well as expert input from outside WES as
needed. The WES staff has more than two decades of experience in various
aspects of identifying, delineating, assessing, remediating, and managing
contaminated sediments. This expertise is a direct result of research, develop-
ment, and reimbursable activities executed in support of the Corps of Engineers
dredging mission, work related to military clean-up activities, EPA's Superfund
Program and Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS)
Program, and NOAA's Natural Resource Trustee Program. For more informa-
tion contact Dr. Robert Engler, WES, at (601) 634-3624.
RELEVANT LITERATURE
Francingues, N. R., Palermo, M. R., Peddicord, R. K., and Lee, C. R.
1985. Management strategy for the disposal of dredged material: Con-
taminant testing and controls. Miscellaneous paper EL-85-1. U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
McGee, B.L., S.S. Schlekat, and E. Reinharz, 1993. Assessing sublethal
levels of sediment contamination using the estuarine amphipod
Leptocheirus plumulosus. Env. Tox. andChem. 12:577-587.
USACE/EPA. 1992. Evaluating environmental effects of dredged
material management alternatives—A technical framework. EPA 842-B-
92-008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington, DC.
11
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency (WH-585)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |