United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes
National Program Office
77 VJVest Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA 905-S-94-001
August 1994
&EPA Assessment and
Remediation
Of Contaminated Sediments
(ARCS) Program
FINAL SUMMARY REPORT
United States Areas of Concern
ARCS Priority Areas of Concern
/" -printed on recycled paper
-------
Assessment
of Contaminated
and Remediation
Sediments (ARCS) Program
Final Summary Report
-------
-------
Table of
Contents
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program:
Final Summary Report 1
Introduction. 1
The ARCS Program Overview 6
ARCS Program Objectives and Issues Addressed 7
Major Findings and Recommendations of the ARCS Program 8
Organizational Structure of the ARCS Program 12
Findings and Recommendations of the ARCS Pi ogram 13
Integrated Sediment Assessment Approach 13
Findings 14
Recommended Tests and Tools for Performing an Integrated Sediment Assessment 15
Chemical and Biological Analyses 16
Visual Presentation of Data 17
Research Vessel (R/V) Mudpuppy 19
Risk Assessment and Modeling Activities 20
Findings 21
Baseline Risk Assessments 22
Predictive Risk Assessments: The Mass Balance Modeling Approach 24
Remediation Technology Evaluation . 26
Findings 26
Bench-Scale Testing 30
Pilot-Scale Demonstrations 31
Buffalo River 31
Saginaw River 32
Grand Calumet River 33
Ashtabula River 34
Sheboygan River 34
Outreach Activities 36
Findings 36
Conclusions/Challenges 39
Acknowledgments 43
Additional ARCS Program Participants 45
ARCS Program Reports 46
ARCS Program Library Repositories 48
-------
-------
Assessment aid Remediation
of Contaminated Sediipents (ARCS) Program
Final Summary Report
In support of the United States commitment to the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement with Canada, § 118(c)(3) of the Clean Water Act,
added by the Water Quality Act of 198'/, authorized the U.S*
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), through the Great
Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), to "
study and demonstration projects relating to
,.. carry out a five-year
the control and removal
of toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes, with emphasis on the removal
of toxic pollutants from bottom sediments."
Introduction
This report sets
forth the major
findings of the
Assessment and
Remediation of
Contaminated
Sediments
(ARCS)
Program.
The Great Lakes
an extraordinary nalju-
ral resource. These fwe
lakes hold 95 percent
of the surface freshwa-
ter found in the Unite
States and represent 18
percent of the world's
supply of surface freshwater. This wealth of freshwater reaches deep into
North America, susfe ining abundant and diverse populations of plants
and animals.
-------
The Great Lakes have long been a source of economic strength. They
serve as a leading outlet for shipments of farm products from the Great
Plains and Midwest. Because of the presence of large quantities of iron
ore, limestone, and coal, and a readily available waterway system for
transport of these resources, the Great Lakes region has become an
industrial heartland for both the United States and Canada. About 60
percent of the cars made in America today are built in five
of the Great Lakes states. Many other productive indus-
tries are also important, including the forest product,
metals, mining, and chemical industries. The Great Lakes
provide drinking water for millions of people, provide
water for industrial processes, and sustain many recre-
ational activities, including a multibillion-dollar sport
fishing industry.
Years of point and nonpoint source discharges from
industrial and municipal facilities and urban and agricul-
tural runoff to the Great Lakes and its tributaries have
introduced toxic substances to, and thereby significantly
contributed to the contamination of, the Great Lakes
ecosystem. In many cases, contaminants that are intro-
duced directly into the tributaries travel downstream, thereby contribut-
ing to the contamination of the Great Lakes proper. Because of the vast
size and volume of the Great Lakes, the flushing process is slow, taking
years for the water in the lakes to be replenished. This slow flushing
allows contaminants in the water column to settle out and accumulate in
bottom sediments, such that the sediments become a repository for
contaminants. Once the contaminated sediments move out of the harbors
and tributaries into the lakes themselves, the contamination may persist
for a long time and, if widespread, may be virtually impossible to
remediate.
Although discharges of toxic substances to the Great Lakes have been
reduced in the last 20 years, persistent high concentrations of contami-
nants in the bottom sediments of rivers and harbors have raised
-------
considerable concern
bout potential risks to aquatic organisms, wildlife,
and humans. Exposure to contaminated sediments may impact aquatic
life through the develo )ment of cancerous tumors, loss of suitable habitat,
and toxicity to fish ar d benthic organisms. Exposure can also impact
wildlife and human health via the bioaccumulation of toxic substances
through the food chain. As a result, advisories against fish consumption
are in place in many locations around the Great Lakes. These advisories,
along with closed commercial fisheries and restrictions on navigational
dredging, have a significant adverse economic impact in the areas
affected.
There is growing scientific awareness of the significance of bottom
sediments to continuing contamination of the Great Lakes food web. In
1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the State of
Wisconsin, and many cooperating agencies and universities completed a
major study of the sources, pathways, and fates of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) in Green Bay, an arm of Lake Michigan where
concentrations of these contaminants have been especially elevated.
One finding of the study was that more than 90 percent of the ongoing
PCB contamination in Green Bay sport fish came from contaminated
bottom sediments, both within the bay and in the Fox River. Monitoring
of Lake Superior during the past decade suggests a similar conclusion-
that the release of PCBs from bottom sediments is the dominating source
of food web contamination.
In 1987, a protocol (Annex 14) that was added to the already existing
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the United States and
Canada (originally sig:
led in 1972) specifically recognized that there is a
need to jointly address concerns about persistent toxic contaminants in
the Great Lakes. The identified objective of Annex 14 of the Agreement
is for the signing parties, in cooperation with state and provincial
governments, to "... identify the nature and extent of sediment pollution
-------
of the Great Lakes System." These findings are to then be used to "...
develop methods to evaluate both the impact of polluted sediment on the
Great Lakes System, and the technological capabilities of programs to
remedy such pollution." The information obtained through these activi-
ties is to be used to guide development of Lakewide Management Plans
and Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for specific Areas of Concern (AOCs)
in the Great Lakes Basin. The AOCs (43 in.all) were previously
documented by the Great Lakes Water Quality Board of the International
Joint Commission (DC; Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement), and are defined as places where beneficial uses of water
resources such as drinking, swimming, fishing, and navigation are
impaired by anthropogenic pollution or perturbation. The DC has
documented that sediment contamination is a major cause of such
impairment in 42 of the 43 AOCs. Contaminated sediments have been
determined to be a problem in all of the 26 United States and the
5 joint United States/Canadian AOCs.
Concerns about Great Lakes sediment contamination have prompted
numerous studies and projects, both individually and in cooperation with
one another, by United States and Canadian Federal, State, and local
government agencies, universities, and other private organizations.
These projects have focused on such issues as how to
determine the location and severity of sediment
contamination and how to select appropriate
sediment remedial actions. Some of these
activities have included consideration
of rivers and other tributaries to the
Great Lakes as sources of contami-
nated sediments to the lakes.
-------
In support of the Unit
Quality Agreement, §
Water Quality Act of
ed States commitment to the Great Lakes Water
118(c)(3) of the Clean Water Act, added by the
1987, authorized the USEPA, through the Great
Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), to "... carry out a five-year
study and demonstrate Dn projects relating to the control and. removal of
toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes, with emphasis on the removal of toxic
pollutants from bottom sediments." The Water Quality Act of 1987 also
specified five AOCs as requiring priority consideration in conducting
the demonstration projjects. These AOCs are Saginaw Bay, Michigan;
Sheboygan Harbor, Wisconsin; Grand Calumet River, Indiana;
Ashtabula River, Ohio; and Buffalo River, New York.
! kilometers
0 100 200 300
ARCS Priority Areas of Concern
9 Saginaw Bay
G Sheboygan Harbor
© Grand Calumet River
9 Ashtabula River
9 Buffalo River
-------
The ARCS Program
Overview
ARCS Program Participating Organizations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Bureau of Mines
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S, Geological Survey
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
Erie County Department of Environment and Planning
Illinois Natural History Survey
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Now York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
The Citadel
DePaul University
Memphis State University
Michigan State University
Saginaw Valley State University
Stata University College at Buffalo
State University of New York at Buffalo
University of California at Santa Barbara
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota
University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee
Wright State University
Ashlabula Remedial Action Plan Citizens Committee
Atlantic States Legal Foundation
Battalia Marine Science Laboratory
Buffalo Remedial Action Plan Citizens Committee
Canada Centre for Inland Waters
Environment Canada
Grand Calumet Task Force
Great Lakes United
Lake Michigan Federation
Michigan United Conservation Clubs
National Water Research Institute (Canada)
National Wildlife Federation
Saginaw Bay Alliance
Sheboygan Remedial Action Plan Citizens Committee
Sierra Club
Smithsonian Institution ; ,
Wastewater Technology Centre (Canada)
lo fulfill the requirements of
§ 118(c)(3) of the Clean Water Act,
GLNPO initiated the ARCS
Program. At the outset, USEPA
recognized that active participation
by numerous and diverse interests
would be required to successfully
complete activities initiated under
the ARCS Program. Accordingly,
participation was readily sought
from other Federal and State agen-
cies, universities, and public inter-
est groups. This ensured that
national expertise about sediment
assessment and remediation tech-
niques was identified and available
for use during ARCS Program
activities, and that concerns regard-
ing sediment contamination issues
in general were adequately
addressed. Thus, while GLNPO
administered the ARCS Program
and coordinated program activities,
this was truly a multi-organizational
endeavor.
-------
ARCS Program
Objectives and Issues
Addressed
comprehensive appro*
A primary goal of tl e ARCS Program was to develop an integrated,
ich to assessing the extent and severity of sediment
contamination, assessing the risks associated with that contamination,
and selecting appropriate remedial responses. This information was
developed to help sup port implementation of RAPs at the Great Lakes
AOCs. The ARCS Prc gram developed the following objectives that were
designed to meet this
H Clean Water Act:
Assess the nature
selected Great Lates
Demonstrate and
options, including
technologies, as
Provide guidance
alternatives in the
goal and the requirements of § 118(c)(3) of the
and extent of bottom sediment contamination at
AOCs;
evaluate the effectiveness of selected remedial
removal, immobilization, and advanced treatment
as the "no action" alternative; and
well
contaminated sediment problems and remedial
AOCs and other locations in the Great Lakes.
Consistent with these abjectives, the ARCS Program directed its efforts
toward developing and demonstrating sediment assessment and cleanup
approaches that are scientifically sound, and technologically and economi-
cally feasible. The ARCS Program was intended to provide environmen-
tal managers at AOCs and elsewhere with the tools and information
necessary for making informed, cost-effective, and environmentally
sound decisions in ad iressing a local contaminated sediment problem.
Although ARCS was
not a cleanup program, the activities undertaken
generated valuable information that can now be applied in making
cleanup decisions at the five priority AOCs and elsewhere.
-------
To meet the above obj ectives, the ARCS Program identified the following
important and complex issues that needed to be addressed:
• Determining whether, and if so to what extent, sediments are
contaminated with substances that are harmful and/or bioavailable
to benthos, fish, wildlife, and/or humans;
• Defining the three-dimensional boundaries of a sediment contamina-
tion problem;
• Identifying available remedial alternatives, what their limitations are,
and how effective they are likely to be;
• Determining the environmental impacts that might result from a
remedial action; and
• Determining the economic costs associated with implementing reme-
dial actions.
Major Findings and
Recommendations of the
ARCS Program
The major findings and recommendations of the ARCS Program include
the following:
• Use of an integrated sediment assessment approach, incorporating
chemical analyses, toxicity testing, and benthic community surveys,
is essential to define the magnitude and extent of sediment contami-
nation at a site.
-------
• Semiquantitative screening-level analyses allow a greater num-
ber of sites to be sampled than traditional approaches and thus are
cost-effective
detailed asses
sment.
• It is usually
deep-core sediment
aries of a
tools for focusing resources on areas that need
ijecessary to collect and analyze both surface and
samples to accurately delineate the bound-
contamination problem.
sediment
The ARCS Program identified a short list of toxicity and
bioaccumulation tests from which a subset should be selected and
conducted on a site-specific basis to adequately characterize the
toxicity of contaminants associated with sediments.
Risk assessment
evaluating the potential
ments.
and modeling activities are valuable techniques for
impacts associated with contaminated sedi-
Reductions in
action can
established.
on
risk created by the implementation of a remedial
ly be evaluated if baseline risks are adequately
Mass balance nodeling is a useful tool for predicting the changes
in risk resulting from the implementation of various remedial
actions, including the "no action" alternative.
A complex series of mass balance models can produce meaning-
ful results with reasonable data requirements.
A number of treatment technologies are effective in removing or
destroying sediment contaminants.
• Demonstrations
the field
of treatment technologies in the laboratory and
documented that individual treatment technologies are
-------
only effective on specific types of sediment contaminants, with no
one treatment technology able to adequately treat all contami-
nants.
• The use of sediment treatment technologies may be appropriate in
some applications; however, they will remain more costly (by
approximately an order of magnitude) than traditional disposal
methods without further process development and refinement.
• Sediment washing technologies were found to be promising in
that they were both feasible and could be conducted at a relatively
lower cost, although they are applicable for only certain types of
sediment.
• Broad public involvement and education are critical in any sediment
assessment and remedy selection study in order to develop a common
understanding of the problem and the environmental and economic
impacts of alternative remedial actions.
Each of these major conclusions is discussed in further1 detail in later
sections of this report.
The Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990 amended § 118(c)(7) of
the Clean Water Act to extend the ARCS Program for 1 year (to Decem-
ber 31,1993) and specified completion dates for certain interim activities.
The ARCS Program has completed all of its activities within the time
frame mandated by the Act.
The ARCS Program conducted all of its activities in the most cost-
effective manner. Existing and accepted testing protocols were used
rather than undertaking the costly task of developing new testing proce-
dures. The ARCS Program worked closely with other local, State,
Federal, and international programs to avoid costly duplications in effort.
In addition, because the Sheboygan Harbor and Ashtabula River AOCs
10
-------
Announce
Technologies
(Deadline
December 1990) '
Complete
Assessments
(Deadline
December 1990)
C
C
D
15
omplete
nsite
emonstrations
Deadline
ecember 1992)
1990 | 1991 I
N | D I j IF
9f
.,
-feWX
3chnc
ssesi
Completion dates for
critical ARCS Prograr
elements.
logie
0
ment
n
M
:Sele
".ongr
;Corr
A I M I J I a
cted
3SSW
plete
ttified
• 1
i
A I S 1 0 I N
,
-ederal Register Notict
-
i- •"
••
'
Publi
---..'
shed
''•\'[_
«E
D
uffalo
.
1992
J
Rive
F | M
Com
jleteo
'A | M
•
"
J 1 J 1 A |S I 0
«£
- -
agina
»'•
. --
wRiv
Granc
?6mp
,
erCo
"balu
leted
• /
C
nplett
netF
shtab
ompl
• S
f
. C
N I D
-.
- •
"
;jv
id
iver
u/aR
Xed
hebo
iver
ompl
ver
rgan
were already undergoing intensive study under the Superfund program,
the ARCS Program chose to focus its resources on activities such as
sediment sampling and laboratory treatment technology investigations
for those priority AOCs that did not already have the benefit of these
activities under Supeijfund.
The results of the ARCS Program effort will be of continuing use in
addressing sediment c jntamination problems both within the Great Lakes
region and nationally
oped for assessing se(
decisions will
In particular, information gained and tools devel-
iment contamination and for making remediation
help to streamline efforts to address contaminated
sediment concerns in all of the identified Great Lakes
AOCs. In addition, the information gained
through the ARCS Program activities will
be incorporated into the EPA's Contami-
nated Sediment Management Strategy
currently being developed by USEPA
Headquarters in cooperation with the
Regional USEPA offices and other agen-
cies and organizations.
11
-------
Organizational Structure
of the ARCS Program
>xicity/Chemi;
Work Group
Risk Assessment/
Modeling Work Group
Communication/! ;
Liaison Work Group;
Xo meet the objectives and to address each of the issues discussed earlier
in this report, the ARCS Program developed the overall organizational
structure illustrated. The responsibilities of each identified committee
and work group were as follows:
Management Advisory Committee
The Management Advisory Committee was responsible for providing advice on ARCS Program activities. Its membership included
representatives from many of the organizations identified in the participant list provided at the end of this report.
Activities Integration Committee
The Activities Integration Committee was responsible for providing oversight of the ARCS Program, including the activities of the work groups
discussed below. This committee coordinated quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) and data management activities of the ARCS
Program to ensure consistency among work group activities.
Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group
The Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group was responsible for evaluating and testing sediment assessment methods. This work group assessed the
current nature and extent of contaminated sediment problems by studying chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of contaminated
sediments and their biotic communities, and demonstrated cost-effective sediment assessment techniques at the priority AOCs.
Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group
The Risk Assessment/Modeling Work Group was responsible for assessing the current and future risks presented by contaminated sediments
to all biota (aquatic, terrestrial, and human) under the "no action" and various remedial alternatives at the priority AOCs, and developing
techniques for assessing^he environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of remedial alternatives. Modeling was performed to
predict possible impacts from various sediment remedial alternatives. A system for prioritizing sites with contaminated sediments was also
developed to provide a comparative framework for assessing multiple sites that are potentially in need of remediation.
Engineering/Technology Work Group
The Engineering/Technology Work Group was responsible for evaluating and testing available remediation technologies for contaminated
sediments, selecting promising technologies for further testing, performing field demonstrations of promising technologies at the priority
AOCs, and estimating the costs of and contaminant losses during remediation.
Communication/Liaison Work Group
The Communication/Liaison Work Group was responsible for facilitating the flow of information from the technical work groups and the
overall ARCS Program to the interested public and providing feedback from the public to the ARCS Program on needs, expectations, and
perceived problems.
12
-------
Findings and Recommendations of the
ARCS Program
The findings of the ARCS
report are discussed i
[in
Integrated Sediment
Assessment Approach
Program that were summarized earlier in this
more detail in this section.
Use of an integrated
sediment assessment approach is absolutely
essential to accurately define the magnitude and
extent of sediment contamination.
Development and demonstration of state-of-the-art assessment tools
were key objectives [of the ARCS Program. To this end, the ARCS
Program evaluated various assessmenttools
to develop the most cost-effective,
yet scientifically sound, means
of assessing sediments. Based
on this evaluation, the ARCS
Program concluded that an
integrated sediment assessment
approach provides the means to
adequately evaluate whether sediments
are contaminated, what contaminants are present, and the severity of the
contamination problem. The integrated sediment
assessment approach helps to ensure that a
sufficient body of information is collected
to define "hot spot" areas and, in turn, to
support making environmentally
sound decisions.
Hyalella azteca — used in
sediment toxicity tests.
13
-------
The ARCS Program developed detailed guidance for sampling sedi-
ments; selecting and conducting chemical, toxicity, and biological analy-
ses; and interpreting sediment data. This information is described in the
ARCS Assessment Guidance Document. In developing sediment assess-
ment guidance and conducting sediment assessment activities during the
ARCS Program, rigorous QA/QC protocols were followed to ensure that
the information gathered was scientifically credible and therefore will be
useful in making contaminated sediment cleanup decisions in the future.
Findings
The first step in any evaluation of contaminated sediments is to identify
the magnitude and extent of the problem. Through the Toxicity/Chem-
istry Work Group, the ARCS Program demonstrated that a comprehen-
sive, integrated assessment approach that includes, at a mini-
mum, chemical analyses, toxicity testing, and benthic
community surveys may be needed to accurately charac-
terize the magnitude and extent of the sediment
contamination problem. Each of these assess-
ment components provides information about
different aspects of the contamination problem:
chemical analyses provide information about which
toxic substances are present; toxicity test results provide information
about how the toxic substances might affect organisms; and benthic
community surveys of organisms living in the sediments provide an
indication of the long-term impacts that may result from toxic contami-
nation. Integration of these results thus provides a clear picture of the
amounts and effects of contaminants present in the sediments.
Conducting sediment assessments typically requires that many samples
be taken in order to adequately characterize the magnitude and extent of
sediment contamination at a given site. However, chemical and biologi-
cal analyses of these samples can be expensive. Therefore, the ARCS
14
-------
Screening-Level Analyses
Technique
Parameters
Immunoassays
Fluorescence
Spectroscopy
PCBs
Pesticides
PAHs
PAHs
\
j
X-ray Fluorescence
Spectroscopy
Microtox®
Metals
Program found that wl icre historical information is limited, a preliminary
survey using screening-level analyses should be conducted
prior to undertaking the more rigorous and costly
integrated sediment assessment. The screening-
level analyses include a set of relatively inex-
pensive, semiquantitative tests that can be
conducted quickly in the field. The results
of screening-level analyses can then be
used to focus later sampling efforts during
the integrated sediment assessment by
defining the area (potentially smaller than
that evaluated in the screening-level analy-
sis) that warrants more detailed testing.
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Acute Toxicity
Recommended Tests and
Tools for Performing an
Integrated Sediment
Assessment
of
Hexagenia bilineata
- used in sediment
toxicity tests.
One key objective of
the ARCS Prograrr
was the development
guidance on the performance and application
of integrated sediment assessments that may be used
to assist in RAP development at AOCs. To this end, the ARCS
Program evaluated a variety of assessment tools (e.g., sediment sampling,
chemical and biological testing approaches, data interpretation tech-
niques) in an effort to develop the most cost-effective, yet scientifically
sound, means of assessing sediments. The most promising techniques
were then applied at demonstration areas in the Buffalo River, Grand
Calumet River, and Saginaw Bay priority AOCs. Again, in an effort to
15
-------
minimize duplication of effort between activities in the ARCS Program
and the Superfund program, sediment assessment activities were not
undertaken at the Ashtabula River and Sheboygan Harbor AOCs.
Chemical and Biological Analyses
Because protocols for conducting sediment chemistry analyses are fairly
well established, the ARCS Program determined that it would be most
appropriate to recommend the use of existing chemical test methods. The
ARCS Program did, however, evaluate a myriad of possible biological
toxicity tests (approximately 17 organisms, 97 endpoints, and more than
7,600 data points), and based on these evaluations developed guidance for
the selection of a tailored battery of toxicity tests from a list of recom-
mended tests to be used at AOCs (see table below). Here again, the ARCS
Program relied on verifying the capabilities of known toxicity tests, rather
than undertaking the costly proposition of developing new tests.
ISlHffiM^
••••^
Organism
Hyalella azteca
Amphipod
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran
Chironomus riparius
Midge
Chironomus tentans
Midge
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Duration
10-28 day
7 day
14 day
10 day
7 day
7 day
Pontoporeia hoyi (Diporeia sp.)
Amphipod 5 day
Hexagenia bilineata
Mayfly
10 day
Endpoints
Survival, length, sexual maturation
Survival, reproduction
Survival, length
Survival, growth
Survival, reproduction
Larval growth
Preference/avoidance
Survival, molting frequency
16
-------
Although the Chironc
mus teutons bioassay did not perform well during
the ARCS Program, it is included in the recommended toxicity test list
because of subsequent improvements in the test methods made by
USEPA's Environmental Research Laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota,
during the development of USEPA's manual-Procedures for Assessing
the Toxicity and' Bioaccumulation of Sediment Associated Contaminants
with Freshwater Invertebrates. Also, the 10-day duration tests using
Chironomus teutons
and Hyalella azteca are included as "minimum
Saginaw River
Reconnaissance Sampling Sites
manual), with
biological testing requirements" (as defined in the above-referenced
the longer durations being used to enhance the
LEGEND
Zinc Concentration (ug/g)
• >270
® 120-270
O 0-120
Depth 2-4 ft
amount of information on chronic toxicity that can be gained
from the tests. Note that all of the tests .that appear on the
list hc.ve varying strengths and weaknesses and are
inter ded to be used in a battery, or suite, of tests when
64 applied at a specific site. The ARCS Assessment
Guidance Document contains detailed procedures
for selecting the proper tests for use at a specific site.
150
Visual Presentation of Data
.
Another sediment assessnient tool that the ARCS Pro-
gram found' to, be very valuable was the mapping of
sedimerj t chemical and biological data. A visual presenta-
tion allows for easier interpretation of the relationships
between chemical and biological data and the extent and
severity of the sediment contamination problem, and can aid in
the evaluation of potential remedial alternatives and the identifica-
tion of locations
Program found th<
where they might be implemented. The ARCS
.t the sediment data could be readily depicted using
62
James Clements
Airport
existing Geographic Information System (GIS) technology, and thus
did" not expend unnecessary time and money to invent or evaluate new
or less established mapping approaches. Maps are also a valuable tool
for communicating this information to the public.
17
-------
The ARCS Program also input the sediment assessment data from the
three AOCs into the existing Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES)
database. B ecause ODES is a national database, these data from the Great
Lakes are now available for further evaluation by others around the
country.
o 29 Sediment core station
SEDIMENT TYPE
BH Gravel
KiHi Black gravel/slag
BH Sand
BH Brown silt
Black oily silt
Red/brown clay
Black/brown clay
Concentration of
extractable residue
within sampled interval
Water depth (feet)
Depth of sediment core
QQ
in
in
\ r
0 13000 26000
i i r
13000 26000
0 13000 26000
CONCENTRATION OF
EXTRACTABLE
RESIDUE (ng/g)
(Figure adapted from an original
graphic developed by USEPA's
Large Lakes Research Station)
1990 Buffalo River
sediment survey.
18
-------
Research Vessel (R/V)
Mudpuppy
Another tool that was key to the success of the ARCS Program sampling
efforts and that demonstrates USEPA's long-term commitment to the
evaluation and remediation of contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes
Basin was the R/V Mudpuppy. This sampling boat was specifically
designed and developed for the ARCS Program to support sediment
sampling activities, and is equipped with a vibro-corer capable of collect-
ing sediment core samples up to 6 meters in length. It is currently in use
and will continue to be available for sediment sampling efforts in the
Great Lakes AOCs and other areas in the Great Lakes system.
19
-------
Risk Assessment and
Modeling Activities
The ARCS Program found that risk assessment activities, including a
baseline risk assessment and predictive
assessments using the mass balance
modeling approach, are valuable
techniques for determining the
magnitude of the risks associ-
ated with current sediment con-
tamination and for predicting
reductions or increases in risk over.
time following the implementation of
different remedial actions. This information in turn provides a scientific
basis for making remedial response decisions.
Risk assessment and
modeling activities are valuable techniques for,
evaluating the potential impacts associated with
contaminated sediments
^fl Enitiai Screening of
^^ Potential Areas ot Concern
1 (AOCs)
1
ft™ Risk Assessment
: I
: _ r"
•1
T* Baseline Risk Assessment
r"" 1
1 f
f Ranking of Subareas
wilhintheAOC
• , ,
III Initial Screening of
| Remedial Alternatives
m ' _ 1 —
I Tfa'iaccrt and Fat* if
\ mfm Comparative Risk
I
;
KB Sclcctiorvand Implementation
of Final Remedial Action Plan
|
Post-Remediation Monitoring
rsasea on tne results or iieia sampling, a numoer 01 poten-
tial r^mpHiatinn Qp^n^fioQ \x/prp pvfmninprl for tiip "RnfFfiln
River and Saginaw Bay AOCs using the mass balance
modeling approach. Scenarios identified
inoiuuou urt/ugmg LUC L/IIUXL/ iivci, uicug
Supplementary Field
sample, -^ si fR-speci fi c "hot spots," and capping
"hot spots" in place These scenarios
must be compared to each other and to the "no action"
alternative to determine which actions prove most benefi-
cial overall in each system. Guidance on performing risk
1
assessment and modeling activities is provided in the
ARCS Risk Assessment and Modeling Overview
Document.
Overview of the comprehensive
risk management process.
20
-------
Findings
Once the extent of sediment contamination at a site is determined, one
must consider the risks that might be posed both by current contaminant
levels and by predic
performance of both
risk assessments are u
ted future contaminant levels. This requires the
?aseline and predictive risk assessments. Baseline
sed to determine current risk conditions. The results
r\
C/5
DC
of these assessments c an be used to make decisions regarding the need for
remediation now, and to determine in the future whether risks have
increased or decreased over time with changes in the levels of sediment
contamination. Predictive assessments are used to estimate and compare
the risks that may he associated with different remedial alternatives
(including the "no action" alternative). These predictions can be made by
manipulating the information entered into the models used in the mass
balance approach.
The information gen arated by the baseline and predictive risk assess-
ments can be used as a tool in conjunction with other economic, policy,
and social considerations in making remediation decisions.
For, example, if it is predicted that PCB concentrations
in fish will be reduced if contaminated sedi^-
ments are allowed to recover naturally,
the "no action" remedial alternative
may be appropriate. However, if it is
predicted that it will take 25 years or
more for PCB concentrations in fish to
be reduced under the "no action" alter-
native, active remediation may be
appropriate.
YEARS
21
-------
Comparisons can also be made between the predicted decreases in risk
and the costs of conducting various remedial actions. This information
can then be used as a basis for making remediation decisions. For
example, if it is predicted that a very costly remedial alternative would
result in only a small decrease in risk, that remedial alternative might be
eliminated from consideration. The tradeoffs between risk reduction and
cost need to be weighed in making remediation decisions at any contami-
nated site.
To conserve resources and prevent duplications in effort, the ARCS
Program relied on existing Superfund guidance (USEPA's Risk Assess-
ment Guidance of 1986) and other generally recognized risk assessment
procedures in conducting risk assessment activities. The ARCS Program
assessed risks to both human health and the environment. For the human
health risk assessment activities, both cancer risks and non-cancer haz-
ards potentially resulting from direct and indirect exposure to sediment
contaminants were considered.
Baseline Risk
Assessments
Receptors that should be
evaluated in a baseline
risk assessment (e.g.,
humans and/or ecologi-
cal organisms, including
aquatic, avian, and mam-
malian species) may vary
depending on site-spe-
cific exposure condi-
tions. The baseline risk
assessment includes
22
-------
evaluations of expo >ure pathways (e.g., dermal absorption, ingestion)
from sediments to the receptors and the magnitude and frequency of
exposure via all applicable pathways. The ARCS Program conducted
baseline human health risk assessments at all five priority AOCs using
available site-specific information. These assessments revealed that the
primary pathway of risk to humans under present conditions at these
AOCs is through the consumption of fish (this is likely the case for
wildlife as well; other pathways may be more important at other loca-
tions). Human heart hi risk levels associated with fish consumption were
then derived based on an estimate of the magnitude and frequency of
exposure by considering a range of consumption scenarios including
typical, subsistence,
and reasonable maximum consumption rates.
Basis for Selection of
Contaminants of Conce
• Frequency of detections
• Comparison with background
concentrations
• Consideration of potential
laboratory contamination
• Toxicity, persistence, and mobility
rn
/
/ /
Exposui
• Popi
• Path
• Expc
Cone
• Intak
/
Data Review
and Identification
of Contaminants
of Concern
\
^
Toxic
^Carcinogen
Use cancer s
e Assessment
lations
nays
sure point
entrations
e rates
*V
1
Risk Characterization
• Carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic risks
• Uncertainty assessment
^
ty Assessment
^
c Effects
1
ope factors
] Noncarcino'genic Effects
Use referena
doses
!
Carcinogens |
Risk -
Intake x Cancer Slope Factor,
Noncarcinogens \
Ua7atvJ IprJpy
Site-specific Intake
Reference Dose
Components of a
, human health risk
assessment.
23
-------
Predictive Risk
Assessments: The Mass
Balance Modeling
Approach
Examples
of
remedial
scenarios
examined
Like the baseline risk assessment, predictive risk assessments can include
an evaluation of human and/or ecological receptors depending on the
specific exposure conditions at a given site. In general, predictive
assessments are conducted by comparing exposure estimates with the
changing levels of sediment contamination over time that would result
from natural processes (e.g., sediment transport or the natural covering of
contaminated sediments with clean sediments) or from implementation of
different remedial actions. The purpose of the predictive assessments
conducted by the ARCS Program was to help target scarce sediment
cleanup dollars on areas where the greatest risk reduction would be cost-
effective. The ARCS Program conducted predictive assessments, using
the mass balance modeling approach, for the Buffalo River and Saginaw
Bay AOCs. These assessments included an examination of risks' to
humans under different remediation scenarios.
The mass balance modeling approach involves quantification of the
relationship between sources of contaminants to a natural system and the
resulting concentrations in water, sediments, and biota. This linkage is
accompli shed by mathematically representing all important transport and
fate processes in the system of interest. Existing models and methods
were used in applying the mass balance modeling approach to the Buffalo
River and Saginaw Bay AOCs. Specific modeling components consid-
ered by the ARCS Program included hydrodynamics to predict river
flows ^sediment transport to predict the interactions between transport,
deposition, and resuspension processes under various meteorological and
hydrological conditions; contaminant exposure to predict the effects of
water and sediment transport and other processes on the concentrations of
24
-------
Loading
contaminants; and fo od chain modeling to estimate the effects of varying
exposure
concentrations on contaminant concentrations in the biota.
Mass balance modeling
framework used in the
ARCS Program.
The typica. mass balance modeling approach requires an
extensive database to generate results with a
high enough degree of certainty to be of use
in making remedial management decisions.
It is recognized that use of the models to
evaluate remedial actions at other
AOCs may be limited by the avail-
ability of adequate funding to provide
such a database. To make best use of
its resources, the ARCS Program
made an effort to define the minimum
amount of data needed to generate
information with an adequate degree
of certainty for use in making man-
agement decisions. The ARCS Pro-
gram found that although a significant amount
of information is nebded, it is possible to generate results of adequate
quality and scientific certainty to assist in making important remedial
management decisions. In any given application, acceptable levels of
uncertainty, and thus the amount of data required, will need to be
evaluated. The ARCS Program found that it was necessary to have highly
skilled and experienced modelers running the mass balance models to
reduce the amount of uncertainty to the point where meaningful informa-
tion can be generated. This need for experienced modelers will continue
into the foreseeable: iiture, until models are developed that can be more
readily used by less experienced individuals.
25
-------
Remediation Technology
Evaluation
The ARCS Program evaluated, and demonstrated in the laboratory and
the field, the effectiveness, feasibility, and cost of numerous remediation
treatment technologies. Several of those
technologies were found to be
technically feasible although
they varied in their effective-
ness depending on the contami-
nants present, and all of those
evaluated cost more than traditional
confined disposal. Sediment washing technologies were found to be
promising in that they were feasible and could be conducted at the lowest
cost.
Several treatment technologies
are effective in removing contaminants
from sediments
Findings
Guidance on making remedial decisions based on the results of these
ARCS Program activities is provided in the ARCS Remediation Guidance
Document. This guidance includes cost estimates for implementation of
treatment technologies. These estimates include the costs associated with
dredging, any pretreatment required by the technology, the cost of
application of the technology itself, and the costs associated with final
disposal of the residuals that will always remain after treatment.
Once preliminary estimates are made of the magnitude and extent of
sediment contamination and the associated risks to human health and the
environment, a determination must be made whether remediation will be
required. If so, a remedial alternative must be selected (e.g., active
remediation, such as dredging contaminated sediments and treating them,
or in-place remediation, such as capping or armoring of sediments).
26
-------
Of the treatment technologies evaluated and demonstrated by the ARCS
Program, no single technology was effective for all contaminants.
Typically, technologies are designed to deal with either the organic
contaminants (such as PCBs) or heavy-metal contaminants. Some of the
technologies considered (e.g., particle separation and solidification) may
effectively treat both types of contaminants, but their application is
limited to sediments with specific characteristics that are not present at all
sites. Complications due to the presence of certain contaminants may
occur in the application of some technologies, and volatile contaminants
may be lost unintentionally during the application of some thermal
treatment processes. In addition, the treatment technologies were effec-
tive on only some types of sediment. These limitations suggest that a
multiple-step treatment process may be necessary in some cases.
With the knowledge of dredging and sediment disposal activities already
well advanced by previous research efforts, the ARCS Program focused
its efforts on the evaluation and demonstration of treatment technologies
for the remediation of contaminated sediments. Technologies that extract
contaminants from sediments were identified as having high potential for
successful remediation because of the nature of contamination in sedi-
ments. Specifically,
sites tends to be quit
the sediments tend
contaminated soils ;
the volume of sediments present at contaminated
5 high, while the concentrations of contaminants in
to be relatively low in comparison to those in
•t hazardous waste cleanup sites. Substantial cost
savings can be achieved by applying extractive technologies first, thus
reducing the volume of material requiring further treatment by more
expensive destructive methods.
The ARCS Program focused on the evaluation of remediation technolo-
gies that traditionally had not been applied to contaminated sediment
problems. This program management decision was not meant to preclude
the continued use ofl traditional sediment remedial alternatives such as
confined disposal facilities (CDFs); rather, it was made to help expand
the knowledge base on sediment remedial alternatives so that in the future
(all options can be evaluated on a more equal basis. In this light, the
27
-------
.treatment cost estimates that were developed during the pilot-scale
demonstrations under the ARCS Program, and that are summarized in this
report, can be compared to the cost of typical CDF disposal of around
$20-$30 per cubic yard of sediment.
There are two broad categories of contaminated sediment treatment
technologies: those that work on the sediments in situ and those that
process sediment after dredging. Technologies for the treatment of
contaminated sediments in situ were found to be less developed than the
technologies that can be applied to dredged material. Any decision to
leave sediments in place is highly dependent on an evaluation of the
relative risks posed by the sediments left untreated on the
bottom, the risks of performing a treatment operation on
in situ sediments, and the risks associated with the removal
and subsequent disposal or treatment of the contaminated
dredged material.
The ARCS Program researched more than 250 treatment technologies,
most of which had not been previously demonstrated on contaminated
sediments. Nine of these technologies were selected for bench-scale
testing. Four of the nine technologies were then selected for pilot-scale
demonstrations. The ARCS Program conserved resources by testing only
readily available technologies. To identify and evaluate new, untested
approaches would require more time and funds than available. In
addition, recognizing that decision-makers addressing the cleanup of
contaminated sediments in areas around the Great Lakes may not have
significant resources, the ARCS Program also targeted the most cost-
effective remediation technologies for evaluation.
To identify the most promising technologies, the ARCS Program looked
to other disciplines (e.g., the mining and metal processing industries) and
also to other countries. The state of sediment treatment technology
development, testing, and implementation was found to be advanced in
the United States in comparison with efforts in Europe and Japan. The
Canadian government began a similar sediment remediation demonstration
28
-------
project in 1990, and
close cooperation between the ARCS Program and
the Canadian project have helped optimize the use of both countries'
resources. The nine technologies were selected for further evaluation
based on their likelihood of success, and by considering ongoing evalu-
ations by others, in irder to avoid duplication of effort or overlapping
investigations.
fTRE ATENT TECHNOLOGIES EmUEMfl
Particle separation - The application
Solidification/stabilization -The addition of Portland cement, fly ash, or other binding
agents to reduce the amount of contaninants that can leach from the sediments
of mineral processing and mining techniques to
separate clean sediment particles from contaminated sediment particles
Bioremediation -The management and use of existing microorganisms to break down
and destroy organic contaminants present in the sediment
• Base catalyzed decomposition - A
process that uses simple chemical reagents to
remove the chlorine atoms from conta ninants such as PCBs
Basic Extractive Sludge Treatment (3EST®) process - An extraction technology that
uses the solvent triethylamine to rerr ove and concentrate^ but not destroy, organic
contaminants from the sediments
Low temperature thermal desorption — Several technologies that heat the sediments
to temperatures less than those used in incinerators; the organic contaminants are
vaporized from the sediments and the(i concentrated in an oil fraction, but they are not
destroyed
Wet air oxidation - The use of elevated temperature and pressure to break down and
destroy organic contaminants such as
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Thermal reduction (EcoLogic® process)—The chemical reduction, or degradation, of
organic contaminants in a heated reactor
In situ stabilization - The use of clear) materials to cap, or armor, sediment deposits in
place at the bottom of a river or harbor.
29
-------
Bench-Scale Testing
Many of the nine selected technologies had not been developed specifi-
cally for the treatment of contaminated sediments and had never been
tested on sediments either in the laboratory or the field. Therefore, ARCS
Program personnel decided it would be appropriate to first evaluate the
technologies in the laboratory, in what are referred to as bench-scale tests,
prior to evaluating their performance in field demonstrations. The nine
technologies were tested in the laboratory on a few grams or kilograms of
sediment collected from the priority AOCs. The selection of which
technology to use on sediments from the different priority AOCs
depended on matching the characteristics of each technology with the
specific sediment type and contaminants present (e.g., a PCB treatment
technology would be matched with sediments from a location having
PCB contamination problems). The results of the bench-scale testing
provided preliminary feasibility data and design data for the pilot-scale
demonstrations.
Bench-scale evaluation
of a solvent extraction
process.
30
-------
Pilot-Scale
Demonstrations
Pilot-scale demonsti ations involved onsite field testing of a treatment
technology on as mu di as several thousand cubic yards of sediment from
the five priority AO Us. These demonstration projects are summarized
below.
Buffalo River
Low temperature the mal desorption, which uses indirect heat to separate
organic contaminant 3 from contaminated sediments through volatiliza-
tion, was demonstrated on 12 cubic yards of sediment from the Buffalo
River AOC. This tec hnology consists primarily of a twin-screw heating
element, which the sediments pass over and around to be heated. Hot,
molten salt flows through the interior of the twin screws and heats the
sediments to temperatures up to 500°F. Organic contaminants are
volatilized, or vaporized, from the sediments and then condensed and
collected in a separate residual oil product that is much smaller in volume
than the original contaminated sediments. This technology was selected
for the Buffalo Riv
;r AOC because it was previously shown to be
successful in the removal of organic contaminants (e.g., PAHs) from
sediments, which are of particular concern at this location. Following
the treatment demonstration, sediment samples were analyzed for PCBs,
PAHs, and heavy metals to determine how effectively and efficiently this
process removes organic contaminants. The process removed more man
80 percent of the PAHs present in the Buffalo River sediments and
revealed several material handling problems that will assist engineers in
designing full-scale
sediment treatment units. The estimated cost of
applying this technology to sediments with the same physical character-
istics and contaminant concentrations as Buffalo River sediments is
between $350 and $535 per cubic yard of sediment (depending on the
volume of material
storage of the materi
treated), not including the costs of dredging and
d prior to treatment.
31
-------
Saginaw River
Sediment washing was demon-
strated at the Saginaw Bay CDF
on approximately 400 cubic
yards of sediment dredged
from the Saginaw
River. Sediment
washing equip-
ment such as
hydrocyclones
areusedroutinely
in the mining and
mineral process-
ing industries to separate
•— Finer particles and water
! discharge through overflow.
Control valve and air
line used to control
siphoning effect.
Overflow discharge extending
below apex creates siphon.
^t™ regulator p^nts an from
entering through discharge line.
Feed slurry
enters under
Sressure. Feed
ow energy
converted into
centrifugal force.
Smaller particles and water
move inward and are drawn
upward through vortex finder
by siphon.
Large particles sorted out by
centrifugal force according to
settling velocities.
Cycfone apex.
Discharge regulator.
High density larger solids
discharged.
Schematic diagram
of a hydrocyclone.
slurries into sets of different-sized particles.
The sediments were fed into the treatment process by conveyor. As sand
and fine fractions were separated, they were collected in different areas
of the CDF. Bench-scale studies suggested that because sediment
contaminants have a tendency to associate with the fine-grained particles
such as silts and clays, the
particle size separation unit
used in this demonstration
could substantially reduce
the volume of contaminated
sediment. In this demon-
stration project, samples
collected at more than 20
different points in the treat-
mentprocess were analyzed
to see if the particles were
effectively separated by
Pilot-scale sediment washing
demonstration at Saginaw
River.
32
-------
size, and if the contai ainants indeed remained with the silts and clays. The
sediment washing process was very effective in separating clean sands
from contaminated silts and clays, and produced a sand fraction, repre-
senting about 75 percent of the mass of the feed material, that could be
considered for beneficial reuse (e.g., beach nourishment) instead of
requiring confined di sposal. The estimated cost of applying this technol-
ogy to sediments wit i the same physical characteristics and contaminant
concentrations as Sa^inaw River sediments is between $39 and $224 per
cubic yard of sediment (depending on the volume of material treated).
Grand Calumet Riv>
The BEST® process was demonstrated on 10 batches of 100 Ibs of
contaminated sediment taken from two locations on the Grand Calumet
River. This demonstration was a cooperative effort between the ARCS
Program and USEPA's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Program. The BEST'D process was selected for this demonstration project
because of its ability 1 o remove oil and other organic contaminants, which
are of great concern in this AOC. The BEST® process uses the solvent
triethylamine to sejarate organic contaminants such as PCBs from
sediment. This technology takes advantage of the unique properties of
triethylamine, which mixes with water only when it is chilled. When
heated, the water and triethylamine are easily separated. During the
process, chilled solvent is mixed with the sediments, and the sediment
particles are then separated from the water, solvent, and organic liquid
mixture. The liquid mixture is then heated to separate the water, reusable
solvent, and an oily
much higher concenl
fraction that contains the organic contaminants in
•ations, but in a much smaller volume compared to
the original volume of sediment. Sediment samples and treated residues
were collected. Mork than 98 percent of the total PAHs and total PCBs
were removed from the Grand Calumet River sediments using the BEST®
process. The estimated cost of applying this technology to sediments with
33
-------
the same physical characteristics and contaminant concentrations as
Grand Calumet River sediments is between $138 and $357 per cubic yard
of sediment (depending on the volume of material treated), not including
the costs of dredging, storage of the material prior to treatment, and final
disposal of process residuals.
Ashtabula River,
The same low temperature thermal desorption technology that was used
in the Buffalo River demonstration was also used on approximately
15 cubic yards of sediment in the Ashtabula River demonstration. This
CI CI
technology was repeated at the Ashtabula River AOC to test its capabili-
Cl Jilf^—^Kk— ci ties for treating contaminants such as PCBs and other chlorinated hydro-
carbons that were not present in significant concentrations at the Buffalo
2,2', 4,4'- River AOC. Sediments, treated solids, and condensed organic com-
^p*rf!°hloroblphenyl pounds present at the end of the process were sampled and analyzed for
PCBs, PAHs, semivolatile compounds, chlorinated volatile compounds,
and heavy metals to determine how effectively and efficiently the process
removed these contaminants from the sediments. The process removed
86 percent of the PCBs, up to 99 percent of the semivolatile compounds,
and more than 92 percent of the chlorinated volatile compounds. Mercury
was the only heavy metal removed by the process. The cost of applying
this technology is estimated to be similar to the costs developed during the
Buffalo River demonstration-between $350 and $535 per cubic yard of
sediment-not including the costs of dredging and storage of the material
prior to treatment.
Sheboygan River
Bioremediation was demonstrated on contaminated sediments from this
priority AOC. This demonstration was performed in conjunction with
Superfund activities being conducted by Tecumseh Products, a poten-
tially responsible party, at this site. Tecumseh had removed 2,700 cubic
34
-------
yards of PCB-contan inated sediment from the river and had stored it in
a confined treatment facility (CTF). USEPA developed a plan with
Tecumseh to manipulate the contents of the CTF to enhance naturally
occurring biodegradation. Manipulation consisted of adding nutrients to
sediments already containing indigenous populations of microorganisms
(bacteria and fungi), and cycling the CTF between aerobic and anaerobic
conditions (PCBs do not completely degrade either aerobically or anaero-
bically). The demonstration confirmed that the PCBs present in the
Sheboygan River sediments had already undergone a great deal of
anaerobic dechlorinaiion. However, questions remain about developing
a properly engineered system to deliver adequate amounts of oxygen to
the sediments in order to break down the remaining partially dechlori-
nated PCB molecules. Cost estimates have not been developed for this
type of bioremediatio i application, and the remaining questions concern-
ing the engineering de sign of a full-scale system must be answered before
realistic costs can be determined.
35
-------
Outreach Activities
An essential component of the ARCS Program was the active involve-
ment of the public in all decision-making and demonstration activities.
The ARCS Programconcludedthat
broad public involve-
Broad public involvement and education
is critical in any sediment assessment and remedy selection
study in order to develop a common understanding of the
problem and the environmental and economic impacts of
alternative remedial actions
ment and education
is critical to the
success of any
sediment assess-
ment and remedy
selection study. Such
interaction is critical in order
to develop a common understanding of the problem and the environmental
and economic impacts of remedial alternatives, to minimize fears and
misconceptions about the severity of contamination and associated risks,
and to ensure that public concerns are adequately addressed.
Findings
The ARCS Program maintained a high degree of public outreach and
participation throughout the study. Numerous environmental and public
interest groups assisted the ARCS Program in defining the nature of the
sediment contamination problem and in defining appropriate assessment
and remediation study activities on which to focus. This participation
included representation from the local RAP committees responsible for
developing RAPs for the five priority AOCs considered by the ARCS
Program.
36
-------
The ARCS Program found that for this effort to be successful, information
must be disseminated to scientists, decision-makers, and the public
involved in the assessment and remediation of contaminated sediments.
To this end, technica workshops were, and will continue to be, held on
sediment assessment techniques, risk assessment, and remedial option
selection. These workshops in turn help to continue building expertise for
addressing sediment c ontamination problems throughout the Great Lakes
Basin.
The ARCS Program did not limit itself by seeking ideas from only local
interests, but looked worldwide to gather the best and most up-to-date
sediment assessment and treatment technology information. ARCS
Program representatives met with Japanese representatives to discuss
treatment technologies, reviewed international literature on sediment
assessment and sediment remediation techniques, and discussed these
subjects with scientists from the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Scot-
land, and England. ARCS Program representatives also communicated
with representatives
Canadian Great Lake
of demonstration programs managed under the
5 Cleanup Fund.
The ARCS Program Communication/Liaison Work Group included
members from public interest groups, Federal and State agencies, and
individual citizens that live in the vicinity of AOCs. The members of this
work group were responsible for disseminating ARCS Program and
related sediment information to the interested public (a mailing list of
more than 1,000 people was developed). In addition, citizen representa-
tives were included as members on each of the technical work groups.
Information about ARCS Program activities has been widely distributed
to the public in the form of ARCS Update'fact sheets, news releases, a slide
show, public meetings, and public open houses held at the five priority
37
-------
AOCs. The ARCS Program has made all written documentation continu-
ously accessible by setting up repositories for ARCS Program material
and other information on contaminated sediments in local libraries in the
vicinity of the five priority AOCs. Workshops were also held in 1992 and
1993 to communicate ARCS Program efforts to state RAP coordinators.
In addition, ARCS Program personnel have
given numerous oral presentations
discussing the program's
accomplishments at con-
ferences and other gatherings. \ u Al «-
Through all of these activi-
ties, the ARCS Program
continually solicited
and received
public input.
38
-------
Conclusions/Challenges
The ARCS Prograir has demonstrated state-of-the-art methods for the
assessment of contaminated sediments (especially in the area of toxicity
testing) and has broken new ground in the application of the mass balance
modeling approach. The ARCS Program has made significant contribu-
tions to the knowledge base on contaminated sediment remediation by
selecting promising trieatment technologies, taking them out into the field,
and demonstrating tl eir effectiveness on site. The strong partnerships
established among AICS Program participants have played a key role in
achieving program goals.
The major findings oi
integrated sediment a
the ARCS Program-the need to perform thorough,
ssessments, the importance of mass balance model-
ing in the evaluation of remediation scenarios, the identification and
demonstration of sevsral feasible sediment treatment technologies, and
Nipigon Bay,
Thunder Bay
St. Louis River
Jackfish Bay
Peninsula Harbour
—- Collmgwood Harbour
Penetang Bay to
< • Sturgeon Bay
Menominee River
Fox River and Southern
Green Bay
White Lake
Montague
Muskegon
Saginaw
Bay
Kalamazoo
Raisin River
Maumee
River
Sheboygan Harbor
Milwaukee Estuary
Waukegan Harbor
Grand Calumet River
Cornwall/Massena
Bay of Quinte^" ' St. Lawrence River
Port Hopi
Toronto (•"—"''""' t ?£/& Oswego River
Hamilton ,^T K ejCM^-* Rochester River
Eighteen Mile Creek
NiagaraRTverjp~) Buffalo River
Presque Isle Bay
St. Glair River
Clinton River
Detroit River
.shtabula River Rou9e River
'Cuyahoga River
Black River
Wheatley
Great Lakes Areas
of Concern.
39
-------
the recognition and success of public involvement and active participa-
tion in sediment assessment and remediation proj ects-are but a beginning
in the continuing process of solving this complicated problem. One of the
main objectives of the ARCS Program was to provide guidance to
effectively address the contaminated sediment problem at Great Lakes
AOCs. It is expected that much of the information and tools generated by
the program will be used at AOCs over the next several years. Increasing
the knowledge base through the transfer of this technology at the State and
local levels and throughout USEPA is the next logical step.
Over the next year, the ARCS Program will accomplish this technology
transfer obj ective through various avenues. Three guidance and overview
documents were developed that provide guidance on: conducting sedi-
ment assessments, conducting risk assessments and mass balance model-
ing, and selecting appropriate sediment remediation technologies. Aside
from the generation of documents, a number of technology transfer
workshops are planned for the coming years. One such workshop
addressing sediment assessment techniques was held in April 1993 at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison. The main participants at these work-
shops are State agency representatives who are involved in implementing
the RAPs being developed for the AOCs.
This ARCS Program Final Summary Report condenses the detailed
results contained in the more than 40 individual project reports produced
during the ARCS Program. At the time of the writing of this summary
report, most of these project reports are in final stages of editing and
publication. A list of report titles is provided at the end of this report to
allow the reader to seek out those specific reports that cover their area of
interest. In addition, library repositories that contain copies of all of these
reports have been set up at several locations in the vicinity of each priority
AOC. A list of those repository locations is provided at the end of this
report.
40
-------
ARCS Program personnel will dedicate the next several years to assisting
programs throughout the Great Lakes Basin, including States, USEPA
Regions, and RAP teams, as they address their contaminated sediment
problems. The R/VMudpuppy will remain a lasting symbol of the success
of the ARCS Program as it is used basin-wide to collect the sediment
samples necessary fc r further integrated assessment work. GLNPO will
continue to support
reducing solutions tc
efforts in the development of economical, risk-
contaminated sediment problems.
The products of the A RCS Program will not, by themselves, eliminate the
problems posed by contaminated sediments, nor do they propose one
"cure all" treatment technology for their remediation. They do, however,
provide guidance for the selection of sediment assessment and treatment
technologies as well
as recommendations for future full-scale applica-
tions. The results and products from the ARCS Program will have far-
reaching implications for the remediation of contaminated sediments
within the Great Lakes as well as on a nationwide basis.
The contaminated sediment problem in the Great Lakes Basin is large in
scope and magnitude. It is responsible for both localized impacts by
degrading habitat and causing toxicity to benthic organisms as well as
long-range impacts by being a source of contaminants to the food chain.
We are just beginning to understand how widespread these sediment
contaminants are and! what their impacts are on biota and wildlife. Given
the potentially large cost of remediating all the contaminated sediment
deposits in the Great Lakes, there is a need to find a way to better define
the problem and determine its impacts, so that scarce resources can be
strategically targeted at those contaminated sediments posing the greatest
risk to the basin.
The field assessment, contaminant fate modeling, risk assessment,
and remediation technology techniques demonstrated in the ARCS
Program have impny
ed our knowledge base and will enable us to make
41
-------
scientifically sound decisions. Although the cost and difficulty of
solving the contaminated sediment problem in the Great Lakes will be
significant, this body of work represents a key step toward ensuring the
most judicious use of scarce financial resources.
42
-------
Acknowledgments
was managed by the Remedial Programs Staff of
Chicago. Chris Grundler and Carol Finch were
As mentioned earlier, the success of the ARCS Program is a direct result
of the multi-disciplinary approach taken in the management and structure
of the program. All of the disciplines necessary to complete the ARCS
Program were not present within the Federal government, or within
USEPA. Many peopl; from many different organizations made contribu-
tions that were vital to the development and execution of the ARCS
Program.
The ARCS Program
GLNPO, located in
Directors of GLNPO
-------
Although GLNPO was responsible for the management of the ARCS
Program, there were several individuals from outside USEPA without
whose dedication and perseverance the ARCS Program could not have
succeeded. Some of these individuals, along with the GLNPO ARCS
Program staff, have already received recognition through the receipt of
USEPA's Bronze Medal for Meritorious Service. However, it is worth-
while to once again identify those who helped make the program a success
including: Daniel Averett, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station; G. AllenBurton, Wright State University; Eric Crecelius, Battelle
Marine Sciences Laboratory; Chris Ingersoll, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; Jan Miller, U.S. Army Engineer Division, North Central; and
William Richardson, USEPA Large Lakes Research Station.
The ARCS Program would also like to specifically acknowledge the key
role played by USEPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) for
the wide-ranging support they provided. The ORD laboratories
involved in this effort included: Environmental Research Laboratory-
Duluth; Large Lakes Research Station-Grosse He; Environmental
Research Laboratory-Athens; Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory-Las Vegas; and the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory.
These laboratories played a key role in sediment assessment and
sampling, mass balance modeling, QA/QC, and technology demonstra-
tion support.
Additional individuals that participated in the ARCS Program, either as
work group members, contributing scientists and engineers, or other
parties, are shown in the list that follows. The ARCS Program staff have
tried to recall the names of everyone who was part of the program over
the past 5 years, and hope that any omissions are few.
44
-------
Additional ARCS Program Participants
i
Daveen Adams, USEPA Region 2
Jim'Ahl, Great Lakes United
Jim Allen, Bureau of Mines
Paulette Altringer, Bureau of Mines
Bob Ambrose, USEPA ERL-Athens
Gary Ankley, USEPA ERL-Duluth
Rochelle Araujo, USEPA ERLrAthens
Tom Armitage, USEPA HQ
Joe Atkinson, SUNY-Buffalo
Karla Auker, Ohio EPA
Bev Baker, USEPA HQ
Bruce Baker, Wisconsin DNR
Bob Barrick, PTI
Mike Basils, USEPA Region 2
Jennifer Beese, USEPA Region 5
Linda Bingler, Battelle
Barry Boyer, SUNY-Buffalo
Carole Braverman, USEPA Region 5
Fred Brown, Great Lakes United
Paul Bucens, Wastewater Technology Centre
Denny Buckler, USFWS
Skip Bunner, Indiana DEM
LouAnn Burnett, Illinois NHS
Tim Canfield, USFWS
Dorreen Carey, Grand Cal Task Force
Laveme Cleveland, USFWS
Dave Conboy, Corps of Engineers
John Council, USEPA Region 5
. Phil Cook, USEPA ERL-Duluth
Jim Coyle, USFWS
Judy Crane, AScI Corp/EVS Consultants
Bill Creal, Michigan DNR
Man Cronberg, Corps of Engineers
Dave Dabertin, Indiana DEM
Mario Del Vicario, USEPA Region 2
JoeDePinto, SUNY-Buffalo
Clyde Dial, SAIC
Linda Diez, Corps of Engineers
Tom Dillon, Corps of Engineers
John Dorkin, USEPA Region 5
Dick Draper, New York SDEC
Len Eames, Ashtabula RAP
Tim Eder, National Wildlife Federation
Bonnie Eleder, USEPA Region 5
Doug Endicott, ERL LLRS
Russell Erickson, USEPA ERL-Duluth
Jim Fairchild, USFWS
John Filkins, USEPA ERL-LLRS
Bill Fitzpatrick, Wisconsin DNR
Beth Hemming, Corps of Engineers
Dawn Foster, Blasland & Bouck
Catherine Fox, USEPA HQ
Joe Gailani, AScI Corp.
Jim Galloway, Corps of Engineers
John Gannon, USFWS , , - . .
John Giesy, Michigan State Univ.
Mike Giordano, SAIC
Greg Goudy, Michigan DNR
Wendy Graham, PTI
Gene Greer, USFWS
Rich Griffiths, USEPA RREL
Ken Gritton, Bureau of Mines
Geoffrey Grubbs, USEPA HQ
Nadine Hall, USFWS
Ed Hanlon, USEPA Region 5
Paul Heine, USFWS
Mary Henry, Univ. of Minnesota
John Herrmann, USEE
A. RREL
Linda Hoist, USEPA I .egion 5
Bill Hoppes, USEPA Region 2
Pam Horner, Corps of Engineers
Joseph Hudek, USEPA Region 2
Patrick Hudson, USFWS
Laura Huellmantel, AScI Corp.
Don Hughes, Great Lakes United
Brett Hulsey, Sierra Club
Kim Irvine, SUC-Buffalo
Steve Johnson, USEPA Region 5
Tom Johnson, USFWS
Jack Jones, USEPA ERL-Athens
Roger Jones, Michigan DNR
David Jude, Univ. of Michigan
Gail Kantak, Saginaw
Nile Kemble, USFWS
Jeff Kelley, USEPA R
Tom Kenna, Corps of
Laura King, USFWS
/alley State Univ.
:gion5
Engineers
'-, ' ,"..''''
Steve Klaine, Memphi i State Univ.
Diana Klemans, Michigan DNR
Ken Klewin, USEPA Region 5 -
Nick Kolak, New Yorl SDEC
Ron Kovach, USEPA
Mike Kravitz, USEPA
Russ Kreis, USEPA E
Tim Kubiak, USFWS
Doug Kuehl, ERL-Du
Ed Lancaster, AScI Cc
Peter Landnim, NO A/
Tom LaPoint, Clemso
Dick Lee, Corps of En
Lisa Lefkovitz, Battell
Judy Leithner, Corps (
Don Leonard, Corps o
Lynn Lesko, USFWS
Julie Letterhos, Ohio I
legion 5
HQ: , ". : .-"-
IL-LLRS
ath •
*'
Univ. ' '
;inecrs
f Engineers
Engineers
PA
Wilbert Lick, UC-Santa Barbara
Simon Litten, New YoHc SDEC
E.G. Logananthan, SUC-Buffalo
Bob Ludwig, Univ. of
Mike Mac, USFWS
Diane Mann-Klager, I
Dave MarkJand, Univ.
Tony Martig, USEPA
Minnesota
"'.,'
SFWS .. '
of Minnesota
legionS
James Martin, AScI Corp.
Mark McCabe, Retec ,'
Lawrence McCrone, Pal
Steve McCutcheon, USEPA ERL-Athens
John McMahon, New York SDEC
Mark Meckes, USEPA RREL
Mohammed Mian, Lockheed
Mike Mikulka, USEPA Region 5
Marirosa Molina, USEPA ERL-Athens
Russ Moll, Univ. of Michigan
Mary Ellen Mueller, USFWS
Tom Murphy, DePaul LJniv.
Thomas P. Murphy, Canada Centre for Inland Waters
Tommy Myers, Corps pf Engineers
Marcia Nelson, USFWS ...
Lois New, New York SDEC
Brian Nummer, Univ. pf Georgia
Trudy Olin, Corps of I ngineers
Ian Orchard, Environn
Dale Owen, RCC
Mike Palermo, Corps t
ent Canada
f Engineers
Dora Passino-Reader, USFWS
Mario Paula, USEPA Region 2
Amy Pelka, USEPA Region 5
Dave Petrovski, USEPA Region 5
Diana Papoulias, USFWS
Rich Powers, Michigan DNR
Mike Raab, Erie County DEP
Joe Rathfaun, AScI Corp.
Roy Rathb'un, USEPA HQ
David Reid, NO AA
Bill Richardson, USEPA ERL-LLRS
Rene Rochon, Environment Canada
Charles Rogers, USEPA RREL
John Rogers, USEPA ERL-Athens
Ron Rossman, USEPA ERL-LLRS
Ann Rowan, USEPA Region 5
Ralph Rumer, SUNY-Buffalo
Ken Rygwelski, Computer Services Corp.
Roger Santiago, Environment Canada
Charles Sapp, USEPA Region 3
James Schaefer, Shehjoygan RAP
Bernie Scheiner, Bureau of Mines
Bill Schmidt, Bureau of Mines
Paul Schroeder, Corps of Engineers
Mary Schubauer-Berigan, Minnesota PCA
Jay Semmler, Corps of Engineers
Griff Sherbin, Environment Canada
Harish Sikka, SUC-Buffalo
Jill Singer, SUC-Buffalo
Elliott Smith, AScI Corp.
Frank Snitz, Corps of Engineers
Mary Sonntag, Erie County DEP
Betsy Southerland, USEPA HQ
Tim Stewart, Computer Services Corp.
Nancy Sullivan, USEPA Region 5
RickSutton, Corps of Engineers
William Sutton, USEPA ERL-Athens
Mike Swift, Univ. of Minnesota
Rich Swinich, New York SDEC
Henry Tatem, Corps of Engineers
Robert Taylor, Univ. of Wisconsin
Stewart Taylor, SUNY-Buffalo
Joe Thomas, Indiana DEM
Nelson Thomas, USEPA ERL-Duluth
Joe tillman, SAIC
Dennis Timberlake, USEPA RREL
Bob Tolpa, USEPA Region 5
RickTraver, Bergmann USA
Andrew Turner, Ohio EPA
Dwight Ullman, USEPA Region 5
Gil Veith, USEPA ERL-Duluth
Dave Verbrugge, Michigan State Univ.
Tom Wagner, SAIC
Tom Wall, USEPA HQ ' .
P.F. Wang, AScI Corp.
Craig Wardlaw, Waste water Technology Centre
Lanny Weimer, RCC
Mark Wildhaber, USFWS
Matt Williams, USEPA Region 5
Tom Wright, Corps of Engineers
Daniel Wubah, USEPA ERL-Athens
John Yagesic, Corps of Engineers
Mark Zappi, Corps of Engineers
Paul Zappi, Corps of Engineers
Howard Zar, USEPA Region 5
Chris Zarba, USEPA HQ
i
t.
,;
,.
1
4°
i
t
pi
it
f
I
.;!
!"
C
•v
1 I
',
. "1
;
«*
"':'
•"it
T
"Sf
,'„
45
-------
ARCS Program Reports
The following are the working titles of the project reports to be published under
the ARCS Program. Where a report has been published as of July 1994, an EPA
publication number is given to facilitate acquiring the report. Limited copies of all
ARCS reports will be available from the Great Lakes National Program Office, as
supply lasts (please see the GLNPO address on the last page).
ARCS Assessment Guidance Document (EPA-905-B94-002)
ARCS Program Final Summary Report (EPA-905-S-94-001)
ARCS Remediation Guidance Document (EPA-905-B94-003)
ARCS Risk Assessment and Modeling Overview Document (EPA-905-R93-007)
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment: Grand Calumet River, Indiana, Area of Concern
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment: Buffalo River, New York, Area of Concern
(EPA-905-R93-008)
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment:. Saginaw River, Michigan, Area of Concern
(EPA-905-R92-008)
Baseline Human Health Risk Resulting from PCB Contamination at the Sheboygan River,
Wisconsin, Area of Concern (EPA-905-R93-001)
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment: Ashtabula River, Ohio, Area of Concern
(EPA-905-R92-007)
Bench-Scale Evaluation of Bioremediation on Contaminated Sediments from the Ashtabula, Buffalo,
Saginaw and Sheboygan Rivers
Bench-Scale Evaluation of RCC's Basic Extractive Sludge Treatment (B.E.S.T.) Process on
Contaminated Sediments from the Buffalo, Grand Calumet and Saginaw Rivers
(EPA-905-R94-010)
Bench-Scale Evaluation of Sediment Treatment Technologies Summary Report (EPA-905-R94-011)
Bench-Scale Evaluation of SoilTech's Anaerobic Thermal Process Technology on
Contaminated Sediments from the Buffalo and Grand Calumet Rivers (EPA-905-R94-009)
Bench-Scale Evaluation of ReTeC's Thermal Desorption Technology on Contaminated Sediments
from the Ashtabula River (EPA-905-R94-008)
Bench-Scale Evaluation of Zimpro's Wet Air Oxidation Process on Contaminated Sediments
from the Grand Calumet River (EPA-905-R94-007)
Biological and Chemical Assessment of Contaminated Great Lakes Sediment (EPA-905-R93-006)
Biological Remediation of Contaminated Sediments, with Special Emphasis on the Great Lakes
(EPA-600-9-91-001)
46
-------
Buffalo River Mass Balance Modeling Stu iy Results
Concept Plans for the Remediation of Com
aminated Sediments in the Great Lakes
An Evaluation of Solidification/Stabilization Technology for Buffalo River Sediment1
Information Summary, Area of Concern: Saginaw River, Michigan1
Information Summary, Area of Concern: Grand Calumet River, Indiana1
Information Summary, Area of Concern: Ashtabula River, Ohio1
Information Summary, Area of Concern: Sheboygan River, Wisconsin1
Information Summary, Area of Concern: Buffalo River, New York1
Layman's Guide to Contaminated Sediment
Mineral Processing Pretreatment of Contaminated Great Lakes Sediments
Modeling Data Requirements and Mass Loading Estimates for the Buffalo River Mass Balance
Study (EPA-905-R94-005)
A Multi-Assay/Multi-Test Site Evaluation
rf Sediment Toxicity
Numerical Ranking Methodologies for Contaminated Sediments
Pilot-Scale Demonstration of Solvent Extraction for the Treatment of Grand Calumet River Sediments
(EPA-905-R94-003)
Pilot-Scale Demonstration of Bioremediati >n for the Treatment of Sheboygan River Sediments
Pilot-Scale Demonstration of Sediment We shing for the Treatment of Saginaw River Sediments
Pilot-Scale Demonstration of Thermal Des jrption for the Treatment of Buffalo River Sediments
(EPA-905-R93-005)
Pilot-Scale Demonstration of Thermal Des
Pollutant Loadings to the Buffalo River Ar
(EPA-905-R94-006)
Review and Synthesis of Bioassessment M
>rption for the Treatment of Ashtabula River Sediments
;a of Concern from Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites
sthodologies for Freshwater Contaminated Sediments1
Review of Removal, Containment and Treatment Technologies for Remediation of
Contaminated Sediment in the Great Lakes, 1994 Update
Review of Removal, Containment and Tre* tment Technologies for Remediation of Contaminated
Sediment in the Great Lakes1
Saginaw River Mass Balance Modeling Sti dy Results
Summary of Data Inputs to the Saginaw Ri ver Mass Balance Modeling Study
Tumors and Abnormalities in Fish from th« Ashtabula and Buffalo Rivers
Wildlife Hazard Assessment: Saginaw River Area of Concern
Wildlife Hazard Assessment: Buffalo River Area of Concern
1 This report was published by the U.S..
while supplies last, from GLNPO.
Corps of Engineers. Copies are available,
47
-------
ARCS Program Library Repositories
Ashtabula River
Ashtabula County District Library
335 West 44th
Ashtabula Ohio 44004
Phone: 216-997-9341
Buffalo River
Buffalo and Erie County Public Library
Attn: Science Department
Lafayette Square
Buffalo, New York 14203
Phone 716-858-7101
J.P. Dudley Branch Library
2010 South Park Avenue
Buffalo, New York 14220
Phone: 716-823-1854
State University College at Buffalo
Attn: Butler Library
1300 Elm wood Avenue
Buffalo, New York 14222
Phone: 716-878-6331
Grand Calumet River
Gary Public Library
220 West 5th Street
Gary. Indiana 46202
Phone: 219-886-2484
East Chicago Public Library
2401 E. Columbus Drive
East Chicago, Indiana 46312
Phone: 219-397-2453
Indiana University-Northwest
Attn: Government Documents
3400 Broadway
Gary, Indiana 46408
Phone: 219-980-6580
Saginaw River
Hoyt Library
Attn: Michigan Room
505 Janes Street
Saginaw, Michigan 48605
Phone: 517-755-0904
Bay City Branch Library
708 Center Avenue
Bay City, Michigan 48708
Phone: 517-893-9566
Saginaw Valley State University
Attn: Zahnow Library (reference)
2250 Pierce Road
University Center, Michigan 48710
Phone: 517-790-4240
Sheboygan River
Mead Public Library
710 Plaza 8
Sheboygan, Wisconsin 53081
Phone: 414-459-3432
Additional Repositories
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Librarian
77 West Jackson Blvd
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590
Phone: 312-353-2022
Lake Michigan Federation
59 East Van Buren
Chicago, Illinois 60605
Phone: 312-939-0838
International Joint Commission
Great Lakes Regional Office
100 Ouellette Avenue
Windsor, Ontario N9A 6T3
Phone: 313-226-2170
For additional information on the ARCS Program, write to: ARCS Program, Great Lakes National Program Office,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3590.
48
------- |