-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 9-24
tissue analyses if review of the literature indicates that these analytes
have the potential to bioaccumulate in animals (i.e., have high
Kows or BCFs) and persist in animal tissues, and are of toxicological
"•ow
concern.
9.5.2 Selection of Analytical Chemical Techniques (Biota)
At present, formally approved standard methods for the analysis of
priority pollutants in tissues are not available. However, several studies
conducted for EPA and other agencies have developed analytical methods
capable of identifying and quantifying most organic and inorganic priority
pollutants in tissues. The amount of tissue required for analysis is
somewhat dependent on the analytical procedure. As a general guideline,
25 g (wet weight) of tissue should be delivered to the laboratory for
organic analysis and 10 g delivered for metals analysis; an additional 25 g
may be necessary for supplemental analyte determinations.
The detection limits achieved for target analytes in tissue depend on
the sample size as well as the specific analytical procedure. The MDL
presented in a particular analytical method should serve as goals for
priority pollutant tissue analyses. MDLs should be determined for all
analytes according to guidance in 40 CFR 136; Appendix A. Detection limits
have to be specified based on the intended use of the data and specific
needs of each evaluation.
The existing methods for the analysis of priority pollutants in tissue
involve two separate procedures: one for organic compounds and another for
metals. The recommended methods for the analysis of semivolatile organic
pollutants are described in "Extractable Toxic Organic Compounds, Standard
Analytical Procedures of the NOAA National Analytical Facility" (NOAA,
1989). These methods are currently being used in the NOAA National Status
and Trends Program. The procedure involves serial extraction of
homogenized tissue samples with methylene chloride, followed by alumina and
gel permeation column cleanup procedures that remove coextracted lipids.
An automated gel permeation procedure described by Krahn et al. (1988) is
recommended for rapid, efficient, and reproducible sample cleanup. The
methylene chloride extract is concentrated and analyzed for semivolatile
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 9-25
organic pollutants using gas chromatography with capillary fused-silica
columns to achieve sufficient analyte resolution.
Chlorinated hydrocarbons (e.g., PCBs and chlorinated pesticides)
should be analyzed by gas chromatography/electron capture detection
(GC/ECD) . It is recommended that PCBs be quantitated as specific congeners
(Mullin et al., 1984; Stalling et al., 1987) and not by industrial
formulations (e.g., arochlors) because the levels of PCBs in tissues result
from complex processes including selective accumulation and metabolism.
See the discussion of PCB in Section 9.3.2. Lower detection limits and
positive identification of PCBs and pesticides can be obtained using
chemical ionization mass spectrometry if necessary.
The same tissue extract is analyzed for other semivolatile pollutants
(e.g., PAHs phthalate esters, nitrosamines, phenols, etc.) using gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) as described in NOAA (1989),
Battelle (1985), and Tetra Tech (1986b). These GC/MS methods are similar
to EPA Method 8270 for solid wastes and soils (EPA, 1986) . The lowest
detection limits are achieved by operating the mass spectrometer in the
selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode. Decisions to perform analysis of
nonchlorinated hydrocarbons and the interpretation of resulting data should
consider that many of these analytes are readily metabolized by most fish
and many marine invertebrates.
If analysis of tissue samples for volatile priority pollutants is
necessary, analytical methods are cited in Tetra Tech (1986b). The lipid
content of the biological material is of importance in the interpretation
of bioaccumulation information. A lipid determination should be performed
on all biota submitted for organic analyses and the method of Bligh and
Dyer (1959) is recommended. If other methods are used, they should be
referenced to results from Bligh and Dyer's method. If dioxin analysis is
being performed, methods by Mehrle et al. (1988), Smith et al. (1984), or
Kuehl et al. (1987) should be .consulted.
The analysis for priority pollutant metals involves a nitric acid or
nitric acid/perchloric acid digestion of the tissue sample and subsequent
analysis of the acid extract using AAS or Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP)
techniques. Procedures for the digestion of tissue samples for priority
pollutant metals can be found in Tetra Tech (1986b). The methods used in
the NOAA Status and Trends Program (NOAA, 1989) may also be used and are
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 9-26
recommended when very low detection levels are required. Microwave
technology may be used for tissue digestion to reduce contamination and
improve recovery of metals (Nakashima et al., 1988). This methodology is
consistent with tissue analyses performed for the NOAA Status and Trends
Program except for the microwave heating steps. Mercury analysis requires
the use of cold vapor AAS methods. The matrix interferences encountered in
analysis of metals in tissue might require case-specific techniques for
overcoming interference problems. If tributyltin analysis is being
performed, the methods of Rice et al. (1987) or Uhler et al. (1989) should
be consulted.
9.5.3 Quality Control
Chapter 13 presents a general discussion of appropriate quality
assurance and control practices for tissue analysis. A procedural blank
(to measure potential contamination from laboratory procedures) and a
matrix spike (to measure the recoveries of the target analytes from a
sample matrix) should be performed with each 10 - 20 samples. Triplicate
analysis of one sample (to measure analytical precision) and appropriate
standard reference materials (to measure analytical accuracy) should be
performed with the same frequency as the blanks and matrix spikes.
Standard reference materials for organic priority pollutants in tissues are
currently not available. The National Institute for Standards and
Technology (NIST) is presently developing standard reference materials
(SRM) for organic analytes. Tissue matrix spikes of target analytes should
be used to fulfill analytical accuracy requirements for organic analyses.
Standard reference materials for priority pollutant metals include NRC
dogfish liver tissue (DOLT-1), dogfish muscle tissue (DORM-1), and lobster
hepatopancreas reference tissue (TORT-1); and IAEA fish flesh MA-A-2(TM)
and mussel tissue MAM-2(TM). Marine reference materials and standards for
inorganic constituents in tissue may be obtained from the organizations
listed in Table 9.4.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 9-27
9.6 REFERENCES
APHA. 1989. Standard Methods for the Analysis of Water and Waste Water,
17th Edition. American Public Health Association, American Water
Works Association, Water Pollution Control Federation, Washington, DC.
ASTM. 1980. Annual Book of Standards, Part 31, Water. American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Ballschmiter, K. and M. Zell. 1980. Analysis of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB's) by glass capillary gas chromatography, composition of
technical aroclor- and clophen-PCB mixtures. Freseniusz. fuer analyt
chem., Vol. 302, pp. 20-31.
Battelle. 1985. Method for semivolatile organic priority pollutants in
fish. Final Report. EPA contract no. 68-03-1760.
Bligh, E.G. and W.J. Dyer. 1959. A rapid method of total lipid extraction
and purification. Can. J. Biochem. Physiol. 37:911-917.
Bloom, N.S., E.A. Crecellius, and S. Berman. 1983. Determination of
mercury in seawater at sub-nanogram per liter levels. Marine Chem.
14:49-59.
Brown, J.F., Jr., R.E. Wagner, D.L. Bedard, M.J. Brennan, J.C. Carnahan,
and R.J. May. 1984. PCB transformations in Upper Hudson sediments.
Northeastern Environmental Science 3(3/4):267-279.
Chiou, C.T., V.H. Freed, D.W. Schmedding, and R.L. Kohnert. 1977.
Partition coefficient and bioaccumulation of selected organic
chemicals. Environ. Sci. Technol. 11:475-478.
Clarke, J.U. and A.B. Gibson. 1987. Regulatory Identification of
Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Dredged Material; Proceedings of a
Workship. Miscellaneous Paper D-87-3, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Danielson, L., B. Magnussen, and S. Westerland. 1978. An improved metal
extraction procedure for determination of trace metal in seawater by
atomic absorption spectrometry with electrothermal atomization. Anal.
Chem. Acta. 98:47-5.
Dunn, W.J., III, Stallings, D.L., Schwartz, T.R., Hogan, J.W., Petty, J.D.,
Johansson, E., and Wold, S. 1984. Pattern recognition for
classification and determination of polychlorinated biphenyls in
environmental samples. Anal. Chem. 56:1308-1313.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1982. Methods for the
Analysis of Water and Wastes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
460 pp.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 9-28
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1985. Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits,
Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-85-032.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986a. Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986b (revised July 1987).
U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program—Statement of Work for Organics
Analysis, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration. IFB WA 87K236-IFB WA
87K238.
EPRI (Electrical Power Research Institute). 1986. Speciation of selenium
and arsenic in natural waters and sediments, Vol. 2. Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories. EPRI EA-4641.
Folk, R.L. 1980. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphill Publishing
Co., Austin, TX, 182 pp.
Kenaga, E.E. and C.A.I. Goring. 1980. Relationship between water
solubility, soil sorption, octanol-water partitioning, and
concentration of chemicals in biota. In: J.G. Eaton, P.R. Parish, and
A.C. Hendricks (eds.), Aquatic Toxicology, ASTM STP 707, pp. 78-115.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Krahn, M.M., L.K. Moore, R.G. Bogar, C.A. Wigren, S.L. Chan and D.W. Brown.
1988. High performance liquid chromatography methods for isolating
organic contaminants from tissue and sediment extracts. Journal of
Chromatography 437: 161-175.
Kuehl, D.W., P.M. Cook, A.R. Batterman, D. Lothenbach and B.C. Butterworth.
1987. Bioavailability of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
dibenzofurans from contaminated Wisconsin River Sediment to Carp.
Chemosphere 16,4:667-679.
MacKay, D. 1982. Correlation of bioconcentration factors. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 5:274-278.
McFarland, V.A. and J.U. Clarke. 1989. Environmental occurrence,
abundance, and potential toxicity of polychlorinated biphenyl
congeners: considerations for a congener-specific analysis. Environ.
Health Perspect. 81:225-239.
McFarland, V.A., J.U. Clarke, and A.B. Gibson. 1986. Changing Concepts
and improved methods for evaluating the Importance of PCB's as Dredged
Sediment Contaminants. Miscellaneous Paper D-86-5, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 9-29
Mehrle, P.M., D.R. Buckler, E.E. Little, L.M. Smith, J.D. Petty, P.H.
Peterman, D.L. Stalling, G.M. DeGraeve, J.J. Coyle, and W.J. Adams.
1988. Toxicity and Bioconcentration of 2,3,7,8 Tetrachloro-
dibenzodioxin and 2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzofuran in Rainbow Trout.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 7:47-62.
Mullin, M.D., C.M. Pochini, S. McCrindle, M. Romkes, S.H. Safe, and
L.J. Safe. 1984; High resolution PCB analysis: Synthesis and
chromatographic properties of all 209 PCB congeners. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 18:468-476-
Mullin, M.D., et al. 1984. High resolution PCB analysis. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 18:468-76.
Nakashima, S., R.E. Sturgeon, S. N. Willie and S. S. Berman. 1988. Acid
digestion of marine sample for trace element analysis using microwave
heating. Analyst. 113.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1989. Standard
Analytical Procedures of the NOAA National Analytical Facility, second
edition. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWC-92, 1985-86. Contact:
National Status and Trends Program, NOAA N/OMA32, 11400 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
Plumb, R.H., Jr. 1981. Procedure for Handling and Chemical Analysis of
Sediment and Water Samples. Technical Report EPA/CE-81-1, prepared by
Great Lakes Laboratory, State University College at Buffalo, Buffalo,
NY, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Corps of Engineers
Technical Committee on Criteria for Dredged and Fill Material.
Published by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Rice, C., F. Espourteille, and R. Huggett. 1987. A method for analysis of
tributyltin in estuarial sediments and oyster tissue, Crassostrea
Virqinica. R. Appl. Organometalic Chemistry. 1:541-544.
Schwartz, T.R., Campbell, R.D., Stalling, D.L., Little, R.L., Petty, J.D.,
Hogan, J.W., and Kaiser, E.M. 1984. Laboratory data base for isomer-
specific determination of polychlorinated biphenyls. Anal. Chem.
56:1303-1308.
Smith, L.M., D.L. Stalling and J.L. Johnson. 1984. Determination of
part-per-trillion levels of polychlorinated dibenzofurans and dioxins
in environmental samples. Anal. Chem. 56:1830-1842.
Stalling, D.L., T..R. Schwartz, W.J. Dunn, III, and S. Wold. 1987.
Classification of polychlorinated biphenyl residues. Anal. Chem.
59:1853-1859.
Sturgeon, R., S. Willie, S. Berman. 1985. Preconcentration of selenium
and antimony from seawater for determination of graphite furnace
atomic absorption spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 571:6-9.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 9-30
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1985. Bioaccumulation Monitoring Guidance: 1.
Estimating the Potential for Bioaccumulation of Priority Pollutants
and 301(h) Pesticides Discharged into Marine and Estuarine Waters.
Final Report. EPA Contract No. 68-01-6938.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1986a. Analytical Methods for U.S. EPA Priority
Pollutants and 301(h) Pesticides in Estuarine and Marine Sediments.
Final Report. EPA Contract No. 69-01-6938.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1986b. Bioaccumulation Monitoring Guidance: 4.
Analytical Methods for U.S. EPA Priority Pollutants and 301(h)
Pesticides in Tissues from Estuarine and Marine Organisms. Final
Report. EPA Contract No. 68-01-6938.
Uhler, A.D., T.H. Coogan, K.S. Davis, G.S. Durell, W.G. Steinhauer, S.Y.
Freitas and P.O. Boehm. 1989. Findings of trlbutyltin, dibutyltin
and monobutyltin in bivalves from selected U.S. coastal waters.
Environ. Tox. Chem. 8:971-979.
Veith, G.D., K.J. Macek, S.R. Petrocelli, and J. Carroll. 1980. An
evaluation using partition coefficients and water solubility to
estimate bioconcentration factors for organic chemicals in fish. In:
J.G. Eaton, P.R. Parish, and A.C. Hendricks (eds.), Aquatic
Toxicology, ASTM STP 707, pp. 116-129. American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-1
10.0 GUIDANCE FOR PERFORMING BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS TESTS
Biological effects tests with the dredged material may be necessary if
Tiers I and II evaluations suggest that the dredged material contains
contaminants that might result in an unacceptable adverse impact to the
benthic environment and/or the water column. Bioassays with deposited
dredged material are used to determine the effects on benthic (bottom-
dwelling) organisms; bioassays with suspensions/solutions of dredged
material are'conducted to determine the effects on water column organisms.
Bioassays should be conducted only in the tiers appropriate to provide the
information necessary and sufficient for decisions.
The objective of water column bioassays (if they are necessary) is to
determine the potential impact of dissolved and suspended contaminants on
organisms in the water column, after considering initial mixing. Test
organisms should be representative of sensitive water column organisms
occurring in the vicinity of the disposal site.
The objective of benthic bioassays is to determine the potential
impact of the settleable fraction of the dredged material on benthic
organisms at and beyond the boundaries of the disposal site. The organisms
used in testing should be representative of sensitive infaunal or epifaunal
organisms occurring in the vicinity of the disposal site. Benthic
bioassays are intended to determine the potential toxicity of a dredged
material as distinct from its physical effects. In tests similar to those
described here, some animals are known to be affected by differences in
sediment textures or absence of sediments (DeWitt et al., 1988; McFarland,
1981). It is important, therefore, that test organisms and control and
reference sediments are selected to minimize the artifactual effects of
differences in grain size. If the sediment texture varies considerably
between the dredged material and the control or reference sediments,
organisms sensitive to grain size effects have to either not be used, or
the effects of grain size have to be determined and considered when
designing benthic bioassays and evaluating the test results.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-2
10.1 TIER II: WATER COLUMN EFFECTS
10.1.1 Determination of the Need for Additional Water Column Testing
The initial step of the Tier II water column evaluation determines the
need for additional testing by considering the bulk concentration of
contaminants in the dredged material, the initial mixing at the disposal
site, and applicable marine water quality criteria. If the need for
additional testing is not demonstrated, the potential for water column
impacts is considered to be in compliance with the regulations. If
additional testing is needed, it is conducted according to the guidance in
Section 10.1.2 or 10.2.1 as appropriate.
10.1.1.1 Chemical Analysis
Analytical procedures for specific constituents in water are presented
Section 9.4.2.
10.1.1.2 Need for Additional Testing
The determination of the need for additional water column testing
involves determination that the limiting permissible concentration (LPC)
would be met if the bulk concentration of contaminants were to be dissolved
in the water at the disposal site upon dumping. This is determined using
the appropriate numerical computer model described in Appendix B. Versions
of the models for use on IBM compatible microcomputers and example
applications are found on the floppy disk in the pocket inside the back
cover of this manual.
The disk contains models appropriate to instantaneous discharges,
continuous discharges, and hopper dredge discharges, as described in
Appendix B. The appropriate model for the proposed operation under
consideration has to be selected according to the guidance in Appendix B.
within that model the application for determination of need for additional
testing is selected.
The model need only be run for the contaminant of concern that would
require the greatest dilution. If this contaminant would meet the LPC, all
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-3
others requiring lesser dilution would also meet the LPC. The contaminant
that would require the greatest dilution is determined by calculating the
dilution that would be required to meet the applicable marine quality
criterion. To determine the dilution (D) the following equation is solved
for each contaminant of concern:
D = C0 / CWQ
where C0 = bulk sediment concentration of the contaminant in Jig/kg
CWQ = applicable marine water quality criterion for the
contaminant in [ig/l>
A data analysis routine is available in the dispersion models to
perform these calculations and identify the contaminant of concern that
would require the greatest dilution.
The concentration of the contaminant that would require the greatest
dilution is then modeled. The key parameter derived from the dispersion
model is the maximum concentration of the contaminant in the water column
outside the boundary of the disposal site after the 4 hr initial mixing
period. If this concentration is below the applicable marine water quality
criterion, no additional testing is required and the water column
evaluation complies with the regulations. If this concentration exceeds
the applicable marine water quality criterion, additional testing is
necessary. Since the model calculations at this stage are based on bulk
concentrations which will not totally dissolve upon discharge, if further
testing is indicated the procedures described in Section 10.1.2 or 10-2.1
have to be used. The procedure described above cannot be used to evaluate
water column impacts; it can be used only to determine whether additional
testing for potential water column impacts as described in Section 10.1.2.
or 10.2.1 is necessary.
10.1.2 Testing for Potential Water Column Impacts
The potential for impacts in the water column can be evaluated in Tier
II if there are applicable marine water quality criteria for all
contaminants of concern and synergistic effects are not suspected (see
Section 227.13(c)(1) of the regulations). Even though this Tier II
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-4
evaluation utilizes chemical rather than biological testing, it is placed
in the chapter on biological testing because the results are used to
evaluate biological effects by comparison to water quality criteria, which
are based on biological tests.
The Tier II water column evaluation considers dissolved concentrations
(in contrast to bulk concentrations used in Section 10.1.1) of contaminants
of concern from the dredged material, after allowance for initial mixing,
compared with applicable marine water quality criteria.
10.1.2.1 Dredged Material Preparation (Standard Elutriate)
Prior to use, all glassware should be thoroughly cleaned. Glassware
should be washed with detergent, rinsed 5 times with tap water, placed in a
clean 10 percent HC1 acid bath for a minimum of 4 hr, rinsed 5 times with
tap water, and then thoroughly flushed with distilled or deionized water.
The dredged material may be prepared using seawater collected from the
disposal site, clean seawater, or artificial sea salt mixtures.
Subsample approximately 1 L of the dredged material from the well-
mixed original sample. Combine the dredged material and unfiltered water
in a sediment-to-water ratio of 1:4 on a volume basis at room temperature
(22° i 2°C) . This is best accomplished by volumetric displacement. After
the correct ratio is achieved, mix vigorously for 30 min with a magnetic
stirrer. Also stir the flasks manually at 10 min intervals to ensure
complete mixing. After the 30 min mixing period, allow the mixture to
settle for 1 hr. Siphon off the supernatant and/or centrifuge filter
through a 0.45 pm filter to remove particulates.
10.1.2.2 Chemical Analysis
Analytical procedures for specific constituents in water are presented
in Section 9-4.2.
10.1.2.3 Determination of Compliance
The Tier II water column effects evaluation involves running a
numerical computer model to determine compliance with the LPC. A
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-5
description of the model is contained in Appendix B, and the models are
found on the floppy disk in the pocket inside the back cover of this
manual .
The disk contains models appropriate to instantaneous discharges,
continuous discharges, and hopper dredge discharges, as described in
Appendix B. The appropriate model for the proposed operation under
consideration has to be selected according to the guidance in Appendix B.
Within that model the Tier II application for comparison to water quality
criteria is selected.
The model need only be run for the contaminant of concern requiring
the greatest dilution. If this contaminant meets the LPC, all others
requiring lesser dilution will also meet the LPC. The contaminant
requiring the greatest dilution is determined by calculating the value of
dilution required to meet the applicable marine water quality criterion for
every contaminant of concern. To determine the dilution (D) the following
equation is solved for each contaminant of concern:
D - (C0 - CBG) / (CWQ - CBG)
where C0 = concentration of the dissolved contaminant in the standard
elutriate in
CBG = background concentration of the dissolved contaminant in
the disposal site water in |U.g/L
CWQ = applicable marine water quality criterion for the
contaminant in
A data analysis routine is available in the dispersion models to
perform these calculations and identify the contaminant of concern
requiring the greatest dilution.
The concentration of the contaminant requiring the greatest dilution
is then modeled. The key parameters derived from the model are the maximum
concentration of the contaminant outside the boundary of the disposal site
during the 4 hr initial mixing period and the maximum concentration
anywhere in the marine environment after the 4 hr initial mixing period.
These values are compared with applicable marine water quality criteria
according to the guidance in Section 5.1.2 to determine compliance with the
regulations.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-6
10.2 TIER III: BIOASSAYS
10.2.1 Water Column Bioassays
Tests to determine the impact of the dredged material on water column
organisms involve exposing organisms to a dilution series containing both
dissolved and suspended components of the dredged material. The test
organisms are added to the exposure chambers and exposed for prescribed
period of time (usually 96 hr). Tests with zooplankton and larvae may be
run for shorter periods. The surviving organisms are examined at specified
intervals to determine if the test material is producing an effect. An
introductory guide to general toxicity testing is presented in part 8000 of
Standard Methods (1989). Biological testing aspects of the Standard
Methods guidelines may be followed as long as they do not conflict with the
guidelines in this manual.
10.2.1.1 Species Selection
Section 227.27(c) of the regulations defines appropriate sensitive
water column marine organism to mean at least one species each
representative of phytoplankton or zooplankton, crustacean or mollusc, and
fish. It is recommended that the test organisms be fish, crustaceans, and
zooplankton. The test species may be from healthy laboratory cultures or
may be collected from the vicinity of the disposal site or in an area of
similar water quality and substrate sedimentology, but not within the
influence of former or active disposal sites or other discharges. Ideally
the test species should be the same or closely related to those species
that naturally dominate biological assemblages in the vicinity of the
disposal site. Characteristics and examples of some appropriate species
for water column testing are presented in Figure 10.1. With reasonable
care test organisms can be collected from wild populations and maintained
in the laboratory under controlled conditions with low mortality. If the
proposed test species has not been used previously, a preliminary study
should be conducted to assess the ability of the field collected species to
acclimate to laboratory conditions.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-7
CHARACTERISTICSa
. Comply with Section 227.27(c)
. Readily available year-round
. Tolerate handling and laboratory conditions
. Consistent, reproducible response to toxicants
. Related phylogenetically and/or ecological requirements to species
characteristic of the water column of the disposal site area in
the season of the proposed disposal
. Can be readily tested as juveniles or larvae to increase sensitivity
. Important ecologically, economically, and/or recreationally
EXAMPLES3
Crustaceans Fish
Mysids *Silversides, Menidia sp.
*Mysidopsis sp. *Shiner perch, Cymatogaster
aggregata
*Neomysis sp.
Pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides
*Holmesimysis sp.
Spot, Leiostomus xanthurus
Grass Shrimp, Palaemonetes sp. Zooplankton
Commercial shrimp, Penaeus sp. *Copepods, Acartia sp.
Oceanic shrimp, Pandalus sp. *Larvae of:
Blue crab, Callinectes sapidus mussels, Mytilus edulis
oysters, Crassostrea virginica
Cancer crab, Cancer sp. Ostrea sp.
recommended crustacean species
aNeither characteristics nor examples are presented in order of importance,
except that the first characteristic is mandatory and recommended species
are marked by an asterisk.
FIGURE 10.1. CHARACTERISTICS AND EXAMPLES OF APPROPRIATE
SPECIES FOR DETERMINING POTENTIAL WATER COLUMN
IMPACTS OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL. THE
LISTS ARE ILLUSTRATIVE BUT NOT EXHAUSTIVE.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-8
In addition to species occurring at the disposal site, other
representative commercially available species or sensitive life stages of
economically important species may be used. Mysids of the genera
Mysidopsis, Neomysis, or Holmesimysis are highly recommended as test
species. Embryo-larval stages of crustaceans, molluscs, or fish are also
appropriate sensitive marine organisms. Adult fish and molluscs and large
crustaceans are not recommended for water column testing because of their
generally greater resistance to contaminants.
Regardless of their source, test organisms should be collected and
handled as gently as possible. Transport field collected animals to the
laboratory in seawater of the same salinity and temperature as the water
from which they were obtained. Hold them in the laboratory no longer than
necessary, preferably no more than 2 wk, before they are used. During this
period they have to be gradually acclimated to the salinity and temperature
at which the test will be conducted. Animals from established
laboratory cultures can be held indefinitely but may also need to be
gradually acclimated to the test temperature and salinity if test
conditions differ from holding conditions.
10.2.1.2 Apparatus
Water column bioassays are generally run as static exposures for a
period of 96 hr. The exposures should be conducted in glass chambers
equipped with covers to minimize evaporation. The size of the chambers
depends on the size of the test species. All glassware has to extremely
clean. Before use, glassware should be washed with detergent, rinsed 5
times with tap water, placed in a clean 10 percent HC1 acid bath for a
minimum of 4 hr, rinsed 5 times with tap water, and then thoroughly flushed
with distilled or deionized water.
Equipment and facilities have to be available to provide acceptable
lighting requirements and temperature control. An environmental incubator
or a water bath system that allows temperature control within ^1°C is
recommended. A waterproof light box or table is recommended for observing
zooplankton and larvae.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-9
10.2.1.3 Experimental Conditions
Water column bioassays should be conducted under conditions known to
be nonstressful to the test organisms. Salinity should be stable within
+2°/oo and temperature within +2°C throughout the exposure period.
Dissolved oxygen concentration should not be allowed to fall below 4 mg/L.
The temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and pH in the test containers
should be measured and recorded daily.
10.2.1.4 Experimental Procedures
(1) Dredged Material Preparation
Prior to use, all glassware should be thoroughly cleaned. Glassware
should be washed with detergent, rinsed 5 times with tap water, placed in a
clean 10 percent HC1 acid bath for a minimum of 4 hr, rinsed 5 times with
tap water, and then thoroughly flushed with distilled or deionized water.
Seawater collected from the disposal site may be used to prepare the
dredged material suspension and as dilution water in the test. If disposal
site water is not used, clean seawater or artificial sea salt mixtures
adjusted to the test salinity may be used instead.
Subsample approximately 1 L of the dredged material from the well-
mixed original sample. Combine the dredged material and unfiltered water
in a volumetric sediment-to-water ratio of 1:4 at room temperature (22°
i2°C). This is best accomplished by volumetric displacement. After the
correct ratio is achieved, mix vigorously for 30 min with a magnetic
stirrer. Also stir the flasks manually at 10 min intervals to ensure
complete mixing. After the 30 min mixing period, allow the mixture to
settle for 1 hr. The liquid plus the material remaining in suspension
after the settling period represents the 100 percent liquid plus suspended
particulate phase. Carefully siphon the supernatant, without disturbing
the settled material, and immediately use it for testing. With some very
fine-grained dredged materials, it may be necessary to centrifuge the
supernatant for a short time. The suspension should be clear enough at the
first observation time for the organisms to be visible.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-10
(2) Test Design
The number of replicate exposure chambers per treatment and the number
of organisms per exposure chamber should be determined according to the
guidance in Section 12.1. A minimum of 5 replicates per treatment and 10
organisms per replicate are recommended unless Section 12.1 indicates
otherwise. In all cases the single most important concern is that the
organisms not be stressed by overcrowding. At least 3 concentrations of
dredged material suspension should be tested; recommended minimum test
concentrations are 100, 50, and 10 percent. If disposal site water is
used, both 100 percent disposal site water and water of the type in which
the animals were held prior to testing should be included as control
treatments.
Assign test organisms randomly to the different treatments, using
animals of approximately equal size. Zooplankton and larvae are usually
transferred with the aid of a pipette. Take care that air is not trapped
on or under the animals during the transfer process. Larger animals may be
transferred in fine-mesh nets. Discard any animals that are dropped,
physically abused, or exhibit abnormal behavior.
Cover the test chambers and place them in an incubator or water bath.
Randomize placement of the test containers. During the exposure period, do
not replace the test medium, do not supply aeration (unless necessary to
keep dissolved oxygen concentration above 4 mg/L), and do not stir the test
solutions. Some species of crustaceans, particularly larval forms, will
require feeding during the test.
Recommended test duration is 48 hr for zooplankton and larvae, and 96
hr for other organisms. At 0, 4, 24, 48, (and perhaps 72 and 96) hr,
record the number of live animals in each chamber. Use a light box or
dissecting microscope, taking care to minimize the stress to the animal.
Always count the number living, not the number dead. An animal is judged
dead if it does not move after the water is gently swirled or after a
sensitive part of its body is gently touched with a probe. At each
observation, use a pipette or forceps to remove dead organisms, molted
exoskeletons, and food debris.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-11
10.2.1.5 Data Analysis
(1) Data Presentation
Present the data for each test species in separate tables that include
the following information: the scientific name of the test species, the
number of animals in each treatment at the start of the test, the number of
animals alive at each observation period, the number of animals alive from
each chamber at the end of the test, and any additional information such as
behavioral abnormalities.
(2) Statistical Analysis
It is possible that no mortality will be observed in any treatments or
that survival in the dredged material will be equal to or higher than
survival in the controls. In either of these situations, there is no need
for statistical analyses and no indication of adverse effects due to the
dredged material. If survival in the controls is greater than 90 percent
and is higher than in the dredged material treatments, the data have to be
evaluated statistically to determine whether there is a significant
difference in survival between the control and any dredged material sample.
If greater than 50 percent mortality occurs in any of the dredged material
treatments, it might be possible to calculate an LC50 value (lethal
concentration to 50 percent of the sample). If less than 50 percent
mortality occurs in any of the dredged material treatments it is not
possible to calculate an LC50. In such cases the LC50 is considered to be
100 percent suspension in determining compliance as discussed in Section
10.2.1.6. Statistical procedures recommended for analyzing the test data
are described in detail in Sections 12.2.1 and 12.2.2.
10.2.1.6 Determination of Compliance
The Tier III water column effects evaluation involves running a
numerical model to determine compliance with the LPC. A description of the
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-12
models is contained in Appendix B, and the models are found on the floppy
disk in the pocket inside the back cover of this manual.
The disk contains models appropriate to instantaneous discharges,
continuous discharges, and hopper dredge discharges, as described in
Appendix B. The appropriate model for the proposed operation under
consideration has to be selected according to the guidance in Appendix B.
Within that model the Tier III water column bioassay application is
selected. The key parameters derived from the model for evaluating water
column toxicity in Tier III are the maximum concentration of dredged
material in the water column outside the boundary of the disposal site
during the 4 hr initial mixing period, and the maximum concentration in the
water column anywhere in the marine environment after the 4 hr initial
mixing period.
Compliance with the LPC is evaluated by constructing a time-
concentration acute mortality curve from the bioassay data, which is
compared graphically to the time-concentration dilution curve as determined
by the model. A time-concentration acute mortality curve is constructed
from the bioassay data by calculating the LC50 for each observation time
and plotting the LC50 estimates for each observation against time, as in
Figure 10.2. This illustrates the relationship of concentration and
exposure time causing acute mortality in the bioassay.
To determine whether the LPC might be exceeded in the field, this
time-concentration mortality curve is graphically compared to the expected
dilution curve from the model, as in Figure 10.2. To accomplish this, the
data in the final table of the model output are utilized. The maximum
concentration outside the site boundaries is plotted against time on the
same plot as the acute mortality data (Figure 10.2) . If the model outputs
of maximum concentrations inside and outside the site have not converged by
4 hr, the dilution curve is plotted using concentration outside the site
during the first 4 hr and inside the site from 4 hr until the outputs
converge.
To determine whether or not the proposed discharge complies with the
LPC requirement that a concentration of 0.01 of the acutely toxic
concentration not be exceeded outside the site boundaries during the first
4 hr and at any point after 4 hr, the two curves on this plot are compared.
This comparison is easier if a curve representing 0.01 of the mortality
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-13
curve is plotted, as illustrated in Figure 10.2. Determination of
compliance is made in accordance with the guidance in Chapter 6.1.
Figure 10.2 is a hypothetical case illustrating a situation where the
LPC would not be met. This hypothetical illustration is only to illustrate
the procedure for determination of compliance with the LPC; the typical
plot might frequently resemble Figure 10.3 more than Figure 10.2. In
Figure 10.2 the LPC would be exceeded after the 4 hr initial mixing period
and at 8 and 24 hr because the concentration predicted by the dilution
curve is greater than 0.01 of the time-concentration mortality curve. At
48 hr, the LPC would be satisfied, since the predicted concentration is
less than 0.01 of the toxic concentration. However, at 72 hr, the LPC
would again be exceeded. Both the 4 hr and long-term considerations of the
LPC have to be met to satisfy the criteria. Therefore, this hypothetical
situation would not meet the LPC.
Figure 10.3 is also a hypothetical case, illustrating a situation
where the LPC would be met. In Figure 10.3, both the 4 hr and long-term
requirements of the LPC are met. After 4 hr, the toxic concentration
cannot be precisely specified but is greater than 100 percent of the
original concentration, and during the 4 hr initial mixing period the
predicted dilution is to a concentration far less than 0.01 of the acutely
toxic concentration. Since the dilution curve and mortality curve continue
to diverge, the LPC requirement that a concentration of 0.01 of the acutely
toxic concentration shall not be exceeded is met both at the end of and
beyond the 4 hr initial mixing period.
10.2.1.7 Quality Control Considerations
If less than 10 percent mortality (20 percent for zooplankton and
larvae) occurs in the control treatment for a particular test species, the
data for that species may be evaluated. Unacceptably high control
mortality indicates that the organisms are being affected by important
stresses other than contamination in the material being tested. These
stresses may be due to injury or disease, unfavorable physical or chemical
conditions in the test containers, improper handling or acclimation, or
possibly unsuitable or contaminated water. Species selection and the
potential effects of these and other variables should be carefully
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-14
100
a
c
0)
o
o
0.01 of the Mortality Curve
O
048
Figure 10-2. Comparison of hypothetical time-concentration mortality curve with
hypothetical dilution curve illustrating non-compliance with the LPC.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-15
100-
50% Mortality Curve
10-
a
c
o
4—
O
•M
I
Ł
s
«-»
C
o
c
0.01 of the Mortality Curve
Dilution Curve
0.1.
048
24
i
48
72
96
Elapsed Time, Hr
Figure 10-3. Comparison of typical time-concentration mortality curve with typical
dilution curve illustrating compliance with the LPC.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-16
examined in an attempt to reduce unacceptably high mortality if the test is
repeated.
Reference toxicant tests should be performed routinely on all groups
of organisms used in dredged material testing in order to determine their
relative health and vigor. Many chemicals may be used satisfactorily as
reference toxicants (Lee, 1980). Reference toxicant tests are performed in
the absence of sediment. A geometric dilution series of 5 unreplicated
concentrations is used. Nominal (rather than measured) concentrations are
usually sufficient for reference toxicant tests. The concentration range
should be selected to give greater than 50 percent mortality in at least
one concentration and less than 50 percent mortality in at least one
concentration. An initial pilot test using a very wide range of
concentrations may be necessary to determine the proper concentration range
for reference toxicant tests. Test duration is 24 hr. Ten organisms per
exposure chamber are sufficient. Reference toxicant tests are usually
conducted under static conditions. For each species mortality is
determined and the LC50 is calculated as described in Section 12.2.2.
When data for a particular reference toxicant have been generated on
at least 5 groups of organisms of a species, two standard deviations above
and below the mean is established as the bounds of acceptability. When the
next group of organisms of this species is tested with this reference
toxicant, if the LC50 is within the bounds of acceptability, the group of
organisms may be used for dredged material testing. If not, their response
is atypical of the population, and that group of organisms should not be
used for testing. The data from each reference toxicant test are added to
the database and the bounds of acceptability are recalculated after each
test in order to continuously improve the characterization of the typical
response of the species. Reference toxicant tests should be conducted at
least monthly on each species cultured in-house, and should be performed on
each lot of purchased or field-collected organisms. The basic concept and
application of reference toxicant tests is discussed by Lee (1980).
General quality assurance (QA) considerations applicable to biological
tests are discussed in Chapter 13.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-17
10.2.2 Benthic Bioassays
Bioassays with deposited dredged material are designed to determine
whether the material is likely to produce unacceptable adverse effects on
appropriate sensitive benthic marine organisms. The test animals are
exposed to the test sediments for a specified period of time, and the
number of survivors is recorded.
10.2.2.1 Species Selection
Benthic bioassays have to be conducted with appropriate sensitive
benthic marine organisms. Section 227.27(d) of the regulations defines
this to mean at least one species each representing filter-feeding,
deposit-feeding, and burrowing species chosen from among the most sensitive
species accepted by EPA and CE as being reliable test organisms to
determine the potential for benthic impacts. Among these three groups,
great differences in sensitivity to sediment associated contaminants have
been demonstrated by research on contaminated sediments (e.g., Gentile, et
al., 1988; Rogerson, et al., 1985) and experience under the MPRSA since
biological testing of dredged material began in 1977. Infaunal amphipods
are commonly the most sensitive of the three groups (Swartz et al., 1979;
Mearns and Word, 1982; Rogerson, et al., 1985; Gentile, et al, 1988) in
short-term toxicity tests with deposited sediment. Therefore, toxicity
testing is best done with infaunal amphipods, and they are used in this
manual as surrogates for the others in compliance with the requirement to
test appropriate sensitive benthic marine organisms.
The test species should be related as closely as possible
phylogenetically and ecologically to appropriate sensitive benthic marine
organisms expected in the area of the disposal site at the time of the
proposed operation. Commercially important benthic species occurring in
the vicinity of the disposal site may also be used as test species.
Characteristics and examples of some appropriate species for benthic
testing are presented in Figure 10.4.
Because the sediment grain size is likely to vary considerably between
the dredged material, the reference sediment, and the control sediment, any
species selected for testing should first be evaluated for sensitivity to
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-18
CHARACTERISTICS'
Comply with Section 227.27(d)
Readily available year-round
Ingest sediments
Tolerate grain sizes of dredged material and control and
reference sediments equally well
Consistent, reproducible response to toxicants
Tolerate handling and laboratory conditions
Related phylogenetically and/or ecological requirements to
species characteristic of the disposal site area
Can be readily tested as juveniles to increase sensitivities
Important ecologically, economically, and/or recreationally
EXAMPLES"
Infaunal amphipods
* Rhepoxynius sp.
* Ampelisca sp.
* Eohaustorius sp.
Burrowing Polvchaetes
* Neanthes sp.
* Nereis sp.
Nephthys sp.
Glycera sp.
Arenicola sp.
Abarenicola sp.
Crustaceans
Mysids-Afysidopsis sp.
Neomysis sp.
Holmesimysis sp.
Commercial shrimp, Penaeus sp.
Grass shrimp, Palaemonetes sp.
Sand shrimp, Crangon sp.
Ocean shrimp, Pandalus sp.
Blue crab, Callinectes sapidus
Cancer crab, Cancer sp.
Molluscs
Yoldia limatula
Macoma sp.
aNeither characteristics nor examples are presented in order of importance,
except that the first characteristic is mandatory and recommended species
are marked by an asterisk.
FIGURE 10.4.
CHARACTERISTICS AND EXAMPLES OF APPROPRIATE
SPECIES FOR DETERMINING POTENTIAL BENTHIC
IMPACTS OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL. THE
LISTS ARE ILLUSTRATIVE BUT NOT EXHAUSTIVE.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-19
the effects of grain size (DeWitt, et al., 1988; McFarland, 1981). If
sensitivity of a candidate test species to the different grain sizes of the
dredged material, control, and reference sediments to be used in a
particular test is great enough to be of concern, other species shown to
tolerate the range of grain sizes represented by the dredged material,
reference, and control sediments should be considered. It is also possible
to conduct the test and mathematically account for any grain size effects
by a method similar to that used by DeWitt et al. (1988) for the amphipod
Rhepoxynius abronius. The data these authors present can be used directly
to describe the relationship between survival and sediment grain size in R.
abronius bioassays compatible with their method. A data analysis approach
similar to that of DeWitt et al. (1988) can be used in conjunction with an
experimental design patterned after McFarland (1981) to determine the
relationship between sediment grain size and survival for other species.
In addition to the sediment tests, all species will also be tested with a
standard reference toxicant to determine the relative health of the test
animals as part of the quality control program discussed in Section
10.2.2.7.
The number of animals of each species in each replicate exposure
chamber should be determined according to the guidance in Section 12.1. A
minimum of 20 animals are recommended unless Section 12.1 indicates fewer
are sufficient. In all cases the single most important concern is that the
organisms not be stressed by overcrowding. Juvenile forms of molluscs or
large crustaceans are recommended because they are generally more sensitive
than adults. The identity of all species should be verified by experienced
taxonomists, particularly for animals collected in the field. If the
bioassay animals are also to be used in estimating bioaccumulation
potential, the factors discussed in Section 11.2.1 for species selection
should also be considered.
Handle the animals as gently as possible, placing them in buckets
containing about 3 cm of sediment and several liters of seawater.
Transport the animals to the laboratory in well aerated water from the
collection site. Benthic animals should be held in the laboratory in
aquaria with a 5 cm layer of control sediment. This sediment should be
sieved and contain no organisms which would adversely affect test results.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-20
Animals from established laboratory cultures can be held indefinitely.
Animals collected from the field should be held no longer than necessary,
preferably for no more than 10 days, before they are used in testing.
During this period, they have to be gradually acclimated, if necessary, to
the temperature and salinity at which the toxicity test will be conducted.
10.2.2.2 Apparatus
The test system described by Swartz et al. (1985) for the
phoxocephalid amphipod Rhepoxynius abronius is recommended for bioassays
with this and other amphipod species. Some amphipods do not survive well
under static conditions and, therefore, should be tested using only a
continuous flow or static renewal test design. The American Society for
Testing and Materials or ASTM, (ASTM Headquarters, 1916 Race St.,
Philadelphia, PA 19013) is preparing standardized guidance on conducting
sediment bioassays with amphipods. The guidance will consist of a generic
test design and species-specific appendices. When released by ASTM, this
guidance for testing all species of amphipod may be followed on all points
that do not conflict with this manual.
Larger aquaria (>20 L) are recommended for larger species. Tests with
large aquaria should be run under continuous flow conditions with 90
percent of the water volume replaced at least once every 4 hr. If a
Continuous flow seawater supply is not available, the animals may be tested
using a static renewal design. Seventy-five percent of the water in each
exposure chamber should be renewed 1 and 48 hr after test initiation and at
48 hr intervals thereafter. Care should be taken to minimize resuspension
of the sediments during water changes. The frequency of water changes
should be increased if acceptable water quality cannot be maintained.
All glassware has to be extremely clean. Before use, glassware should
be washed with detergent, rinsed 5 times with tap water, placed in a clean
10 percent HC1 acid bath for a minimum of 4 hr, rinsed 5 times with tap
water, and then thoroughly flushed with distilled or deionized water.
The dilution water used in both flow-through and static renewal tests
should be of a temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen concentration
known to be nonstressful to the test organisms, and should be stable
throughout the exposure period. The seawater should be filtered (20 |0m)
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-21
and the flow to the exposure chamber should be directed to achieve good
mixing without disturbing the sediment on the bottom of the chamber.
Static renewal tests should be conducted in a water bath or environmental
chamber to maintain the temperature within ±1°C of the test temperature.
The procedures for collecting sediments (and animals and water if
appropriate) are described in Chapter 8. The sediment samples should be
stored as indicated in Table 8.1. The bioassay will include a reference
sediment and a control sediment (as discussed in Section 3.1), and one or
more dredged material samples.
The bioassays should be initiated as soon as possible, preferably
within 1 wk after sediments and animals are collected. The number of
replicate exposure chambers for the dredged material, reference, and
control should be determined according to the guidance in Section 12.1.
A minimum of 5 replicates are recommended unless Section 12.1 indicates
otherwise.
The quantity of sediment needed for the benthic tests depends on the
size of the exposure chambers to be used. The test is conducted with a
layer of dredged material or reference sediment or control sediment on the
bottom of each exposure chamber. This layer has to be deep enough to meet
the biological needs of the test organisms, i.e., allow organisms to burrow
in their normal position, etc. In any case it should be at least 2 cm
deep.
10.2.2.3 Experimental Conditions
Benthic bioassays should be conducted under conditions known to be
nonstressful to the test organisms. Salinity should be stable within
±2°/oo and temperature within ±2°C throughout the exposure period.
Dissolved oxygen should be maintained above 4 mg/L by gentle aeration if
necessary, being careful not to resuspend deposited sediment. The water
used in the test may be collected from the disposal site or uncontaminated
seawater or artificial sea salt mixtures may be used. The amphipod
bioassay (Swartz, et al., 1985) employs a 96 hr exposure period. Tests
with other species are 10 days in duration.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-22
10.2.2.4 Experimental Procedure
The reference and control sediments, as well as the dredged material
being tested, may contain live organisms. Remove macroinvertebrates by wet
sieving the sediments, using the smallest amount of seawater possible,
through a 1.0 mm mesh screen. Retain the water and sediment in a settling
container. Gently transfer the material that remains on the screen to a
sorting tray, remove the animals, and return the remainder to the settling
container. After the sediments have settled for a minimum of 6 hr, decant
the seawater from the settling container without disturbing the sediment
surface, and then mix the sediment thoroughly. Return the sieved dredged
material to its storage container and hold it at 4°C. Use the sieved
reference and control sediments as soon as possible after the
macroinvertebrates are removed.
Follow the experimental procedure described in Swartz et al. (1985)
for preparing the exposure chambers for amphipod bioassays. For larger
exposure chambers use the following procedure. Place reference and control
sediment and dredged material in their respective aquaria deep enough to
meet the needs of the test organisms but at least 2 cm deep on the bottom
of the empty exposure chambers. Start the flow of seawater to each
exposure chamber, directing the flow to minimize the resuspension of
sediment. Introduce the test organisms to the exposure chambers as soon as
the chambers are full of water.
The use of flow-through exposure systems is preferred to minimize the
chances that stressful artifacts of experimental procedures will affect the
results; static renewal systems may be acceptable. If static renewal
systems are used, the exposure design should include replacement of 75
percent of the water volume every 48 hr. When water is changed, be very
careful not to resuspend settled material or test organisms.
Animals that have been collected in the field and kept in holding
tanks with sediment can be recaptured by gently siphoning the sediment
through a 1.0 mm screen. Handle the animals as little as possible and with
the utmost care. Do not use any animals that are dropped, physically
abused during capture or transfer, or exhibit unusual behavior. Specific
handling requirements for amphipods are described in Swartz et al. (1985).
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-23
Divide the test animals randomly among finger bowls, or other suitable
intermediate containers, equal in number to the number of exposure chambers
in the test. Randomly place 20 individuals of each species in each
container with water of the same temperature and salinity and from the same
source as the water being used in the test. After 30 min remove any dead
animals or animals exhibiting unusual behavior and replace them with
healthy individuals. If obvious mortalities exceed 10 percent during this
period, discontinue the test and begin a new one. Reexamine species
selection, collection, and holding techniques in an effort to reduce the
unacceptably high mortality in the new test.
During the exposure period, record daily observations of obvious
mortalities, emergence of infaunal organisms, formation of tubes or
burrows, and any unusual behavior. Also keep a daily record of water
quality parameters (e.g., dissolved oxygen, salinity, temperature, pH) in
each exposure chamber; in static renewal systems, also measure ammonia
concentrations. Water quality parameters may be kept within acceptable
bounds by increasing the flow rate or frequency of water changes. Gentle
aeration may also be used to keep dissolved oxygen concentration above
4 mg/L.
After the exposure period, siphon the sediment in the exposure
chambers through a 0.5 mm screen. Gently rinse the material retained on
the screen with seawater and search it thoroughly for animals. Animals
that show any response to gentle probing of sensitive parts should be
considered alive. Specimens not recovered have to be considered dead.
Always count living animals, because dead animals may decompose or be
eaten. If animals from the benthic bioassay are to be used in estimating
bioaccumulation potential, gently and rapidly count the surviving specimens
and treat them as described in Chapter 11.
10.2.2.5 Data Analysis
(1) Data Presentation
Present the data for each test species in separate tables that include
the following information: the scientific name of the test species, the
number of animals in each treatment at the start of the test, the percent
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-24
of animals recovered alive from each chamber at the end of the test, and
any additional information regarding emergence, burrowing, tube building,
or other behavioral abnormalities. Present the water quality data for each
test chamber for each day in a separate table.
(2) Statistical Analysis
If less than 10 percent mean mortality occurs in the control, the data
may be evaluated statistically. It is possible that no mortality will be
observed in any treatments or that the total survival in the dredged
material will be eg^ial to or higher than survival in the reference or
control sediments. In either of these situations, there, is no need for
statistical analyses and no indication of adverse effects due to the
dredged material. If survival in the reference sediment is higher than in
the dredged material treatments, the data have to be analyzed statistically
to determine whether there is a significant difference in survival between
the reference material and any dredged material sample. Statistical
procedures recommended for analyzing benthic bioassay data are described in
detail in Section 12.2.3.
10.2.2.6 Determination of Compliance
Guidance on the use of the results to reach a decision is provided in
Section 6.2.
10.2.2.7 Quality Control Considerations
If less than 10 percent mortality occurs in the control treatment for
a particular test species, the data for that species may be evaluated.
Unacceptably high control mortality indicates that the organisms are being
affected by important stresses other than contamination in the material
being tested and the test has to be repeated. These stresses may be due to
injury or disease, unfavorable physical or chemical conditions in the test
containers, improper handling or acclimation, or possibly unsuitable
sediment grain size. Species selection and the potential effects of these
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-25
and other variables should be carefully reexamined in an attempt to reduce
unacceptably high mortality when the test is repeated.
Reference toxicant tests should be performed routinely on all groups
of organisms used in dredged material testing in order to determine their
relative health and vigor. Many chemicals may be used satisfactorily as
reference toxicants (Lee, 1980). Reference toxicant tests are performed in
the absence of sediment, even for animals to be used in benthic bioassays.
The idea is to use short-term response to a standardized exposure as an
indication of the relative health of the organisms. Sediment is
unnecessary in the short reference toxicant tests and, if used, would sorb
the toxicant and invalidate the reference toxicant test. A geometric
dilution series of 5 unreplicated concentrations is used. Nominal (rather
than measured) concentrations are usually sufficient for reference toxicant
tests. The concentration range should be selected to give greater than 50
percent mortality in at least one concentration and less than 50 percent
mortality in at least one concentration. An initial pilot test using a
very wide range of concentrations may be necessary to determine the proper
concentration range for the reference toxicant tests. Test duration is 24
hr. Ten organisms per exposure chamber are sufficient. Reference toxicant
tests are usually conducted under static conditions. For each species,
mortality is determined and the LC50 is calculated as described in Section
12.2.2.
When data for a particular reference toxicant have been generated on
at least 5 groups of organisms of a species, two standard deviations above
and below the mean is established as the bounds of acceptability. When the
next group of organisms of this species is tested with this reference
toxicant, if the LC50 is within the bounds of acceptability, the group of
organisms may be used for dredged material testing. If not, their response
is atypical of the population, and that group of organisms should not be
used for testing. The data from each reference toxicant test are added to
the database and the bounds of acceptability are recalculated after each
test in order to continuously improve the characterization of the typical
response of the species. Reference toxicant tests should be conducted at
least monthly on each species cultured in-house, and should be performed on
each lot of purchased or field-collected organisms. The basic concept and
application of reference toxicant tests is discussed by Lee (1980).
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-26
General quality assurance (QA) guidance applicable to bioassays is
presented in Chapter 13.
10.3 TIER IV: CASE-SPECIFIC TESTS
Under certain circumstances, as discussed in Chapter 7, it might be
necessary to assess the chronic effects of the dredged material on
sensitive benthic organisms. There are no routine methods available for
assessing the chronic effects (i.e., effects on growth or reproductive
processes) of contaminated sediments on benthic marine or estuarine
organisms. However, a number of tests are under development or could be
developed for this purpose.
Biological tests in Tier IV should be used only in situations that
warrant special investigative procedures. In such cases, test procedures
have to be tailored to the specific situation, and general guidance cannot
be offered. Such studies have to be selected, designed, and evaluated as
the need arises, with the assistance of administrative and scientific
expertise from headquarters of CE and EPA, and other sources if
appropriate.
Ideally Tier IV tests would measure reproductive effects on a
sensitive sediment-ingesting, infaunal animal. A number of species of
polychaetes and amphipods and certain species of bivalve mollusc (e.g.,
Macoma sp., Yoldia limatula) could be used. The primary disadvantage of
this approach is that most species of infaunal polychaetes, amphipods, and
molluscs have relatively long life cycles and a test of several months or
longer would be needed to accurately assess reproductive effects. It might
be possible, however, to measure effects on growth that correlate with
reproductive effects within a shorter exposure period. It might also be
possible to measure bioenergetic alterations that correlate with
reproductive suppression without conducting a full life-cycle test, as has
been demonstrated with mysids (Carr et al., 1985).
In some cases the potential for chronic benthic impacts may be
determined from properly designed and conducted field studies. The use of
field studies for predictive purposes is valid only where there is a true
historical precedent for the proposed operation being evaluated. That is,
it can be used only for maintenance dredging where the quality of the
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-27
sediment to be dredged can be shown not to have deteriorated or become more
contaminated since the last dredging and disposal operation. In addition,
the disposal has to be proposed for the site at which the dredged material
in question has been previously disposed, or for a site with similar
sediment type supporting a similar biological community. Under these
conditions field studies can provide very realistic predictions of effect
because benthic animals have been exposed throughout their life cycles to
the chemical, physical, and biological conditions prevailing at the
disposal site. Although field assessments are frequently of limited
usefulness because of the above constraints, when the constraints are met,
field assessments can be valuable.
10.4 REFERENCES
Carr, R.S., J.W. Williams, F.I. Saksa, R.L. Buhl, and J.M. Neff. 1985.
Bioenergetic alterations correlated with growth, fecundity and body
burden of cadmium for Mysidopsis bahia during a life-cycle exposure.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 4:181-188.
DeWitt, T.H., G.R. Ditsworth, and R.C. Swartz. 1988. Effects of natural
sediment features on survival of the phoxocephalid amphipod
Rhepoxvnius abronius. Mar. Environ. Res. 25:99-124.
Gentile, J.H., G.G. Pesch, J. Lake, P.P. Yevich, G- Zarvogian,
P. Rogerson, J. Paul, W. Galloway, K. Scott, W. Nelson, D. Johns, and
W. Munns. 1988. Applicability and field verification of predictive
methodologies for aquatic dredged material disposal. Technical Report
D-88-5. Prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Narragansett, RI, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Lee, D.R. 1980. Reference toxicants in quality control of aquatic
bioassays, pp 188-199. In: Aquatic Invertebrate Bioassays (A. L.
Burkema, Jr. and J. Cairns, Jr., Eds), ASTM STP 715. American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
McFarland, V.A. 1981. Effects of sediment particle size distribution and
related factors on survival of three aquatic invertebrates:
implications for the cpnduct of dredged sediment bioassays. In:
Proceedings of the Thirteenth Dredging Seminar, J.B. Herbich (ed.) ,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. pp. 88-102.
Mearns, A. J. and J. Q. Word. 1982. Forecasting effects of sewage solids
on marine benthic communities, pp. 495-512 in G. F. Mayer (ed.),
Ecological Stress in the New York Bight: Science and Management.
Estuarine Research Federation, Columbia, SC.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 10-28
Rogerson, P.F., S. C. Schimmel and G. Hoffman, 1985. Chemical and
biological characterization of Black Rock Harbor dredged material.
Technical Report D-85-9. Prepared by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Narragansett, RI, for the U.S. Army Corps Of
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Standard Methods. 1989. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 17th edition. American Public Health Association,
American Water Works Association, Water Pollution Control Federation,
Washington, DC.
Swartz, R.C., W.A. DeBen, and E.A. Cole. 1979. A bioassay for the
toxicity of sediment to marine macrobenthos. Water Pollut. Control
Fed., Vol. 51, pp. 944-950.
Swartz, R.C., W.A. DeBen, J.K.P. Jones, J.O. Lamberson, and F.A. Cole.
1985. Phoxocephalid amphipod bioassay for marine sediment toxicity.
In: Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Seventh Symposium, ASTM
STP 854, R.D. Cardwell, R. Purdy, and R.C. Bahner (eds.). American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. pp. 284-307.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-1
11.0 GUIDANCE FOR PERFORMING BIOACCUMPLATION TESTS
Bioaccumulation refers to the accumulation of contaminants in the
tissues of organisms through any route, including respiration, ingestion,
or direct contact with contaminated sediment or water. The regulations
require that bioaccumulation be considered as part of the environmental
evaluation of dredged material proposed for ocean dumping. This
consideration involves predicting whether there will be a cause and effect
relationship between an animal's presence in the area influenced by the
dredged material and an environmentally important elevation of its tissue
content or body burden of contaminants above that in similar animals not
influenced by the disposal of the dredged material. That is, it has to be
predicted whether an animal's exposure to the influence of the dredged
material is likely to cause a meaningful elevation of contaminants in its
body.
The bioaccumulation evaluation may be conducted at Tiers II, III,
and/or IV, as appropriate. The tiered approach uses resources efficiently
by testing only as intensively as is necessary to reach a decision in each
case.
Tier II provides an evaluation of the theoretical bioaccumulation
potential (TBP) of nonpolar organic contaminants if the dredged
material in question is the only source of contaminants to the
organism. It is based on solubility partitioning between sediments
and tissues. If the theoretical bioaccumulation potential
calculated in Tier II can be judged acceptable under the guidance
discussed in Section 5.2, no further bioaccumulation testing of
these compounds is needed. If it is not possible to make a
decision at Tier II, further evaluation in Tier III or IV is
necessary.
Tier III bioaccumulation evaluation consists of measurement of
bioaccumulation potential after a 10 or 28 day exposure to the
dredged material. These exposure periods do not provide
information on concentrations that would actually be accumulated by
organisms after prolonged exposure to the dredged material, but do
indicate bioavailability, i.e., whether there is a real potential
for bioaccumulation to occur. If the acceptability of the
bioaccumulation potential can be determined following the guidance
discussed in Section 6.3, no further bioaccumulation testing is
needed. If this is not the case, further evaluation in Tier IV is
necessary.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-2
. Tier IV provides a determination of steady state bioaccumulation
from exposure to the dredged material. It is based on field data
or laboratory exposure with time-sequence sampling of the
organisms. The acceptability of the bioaccumulation indicated at
Tier IV has to be determined under the guidance discussed in
Section 7.2; no further bioaccumulation testing is available.
Many marine organisms are capable of metabolizing some types of
organic compounds to varying degrees, and the ability of each species to
metabolize the specific contaminant(s) of concern influences the tissue
concentration of those chemicals. Organic contaminants such as PCBs and
other synthetic compounds can accumulate to high levels in animal tissues
because they are highly resistant to metabolic degradation. Many PAHs, on
the other hand, are readily taken up by many organisms, but might not be
found in high concentrations in tissue because some of the parent compounds
are rapidly metabolized. The metabolites are not easily quantified by
standard analytical methods, but in many cases are potent toxicants that
can adversely affect the organisms in which they occur. Relatively low
concentrations of organic chemicals in tissues may thus suggest either low
bioavailability and therefore low bioaccumulation, or that bioaccumulation
was followed by metabolization. Therefore, it is important to evaluate PAH
bioaccumulation in species that have only limited ability to metabolize
them. Bivalve molluscs are generally considered to satisfy this
requirement. For purposes of regulation, analyses of PAH in dredged
material and organisms exposed to it should focus on the PAH on the
priority pollutant list. The rationale for this recommendation is provided
by Clarke and Gibson (1987).
11.1 TIER II: THEORETICAL BIOACCUMULATION POTENTIAL (TBP)
OF NONPOLAR ORGANIC CHEMICALS
TBP is an approximation of the equilibrium concentration in tissues if
the dredged material in question were the only source of contaminant to the
organisms. At present the TBP calculation can be performed only for
nonpolar organic chemicals (such as PCBs), although methods for making the
calculation with metals and polar organic compounds are under development
and may be added to this manual in the future. Therefore, a particular
dredged material may contain contaminants of concern for which it is
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-3
inappropriate to calculate TBP (e.g., polar organic compounds,
organometals, and metals), and bioaccumulation evaluations of such
dredged materials will require testing in Tiers III or IV as appropriate.
However, even if the dredged material contains other contaminants of
concern in addition to nonpolar organic contaminants of concern, it is
still useful to calculate TBP. TBP provides an indication of the magnitude
of bioaccumulation of nonpolar organics that may be encountered in Tier III
and/or Tier IV testing. Additionally, if the TBP of the nonpolar organics
meets the decision guidance, the calculation may eliminate the need for
further evaluation of these compounds and thereby reduce efforts in Tier
III and/or IV.
For the purposes of Tier II, nonpolar organic chemicals include all
organic compounds that do not dissociate or form ions. This includes the
chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides; many other halogenated hydrocarbons;
PCB, many PAHs including all the priority pollutant PAHs, dioxins, furans,
etc. It does not include organic acids or salts, or organometallic
complexes such as tributyltin or methyl mercury. Metals and metal
compounds are not included.
The distribution in the environment of nonpolar organic chemicals is
controlled largely by their solubility in various media. Therefore in
sediments they tend to occur primarily in association with organic matter
(Karickhoff, 1981), and in organisms are found primarily in the body fats
or lipids (Konemann and van Leeuwen, 1980; Geyer et al., 1982; Mackay,
1982). Therefore, bioaccumulation of nonpolar organic compounds from
dredged material can be estimated from the organic carbon content of the
material, the lipid content of the organism, and the relative affinities of
the chemical for sediment organic carbon and animal lipid content.
The calculation of TBP assumes that various lipids in different
organisms and organic carbon in different sediments are similar and have
similar distributional properties. Other simplifying assumptions are that
chemicals are freely exchanged between the sediments and tissues and that
compounds behave conservatively. In reality, compound size and structure
may influence accumulation, and portions of organic compounds present on
suspended particulates may have kinetic or structural barriers to
availability. Two important assumptions implicit in the TBP calculations
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-4
are: (1) there is no metabolic degradation or biotransformation of the
chemical, and (2) the sediment-associated chemical is totally bioavailable
to the organism. Calculations based on these assumptions present the
theoretical bioaccumulation potential if the dredged material in question
is the only source of the contaminant to the organism.
It is possible to relate concentration of a chemical in one phase of a
two-phase system to concentration in the second phase when the system is in
equilibrium. In calculating TBP, interest is focused on the equilibrium
distribution of a chemical between the dredged material or reference
sediment and the organism. By normalizing nonpolar organic chemical
concentration data for lipid content in organisms and organic carbon in
dredged material or reference sediment, it is possible to estimate the
preference of a chemical for either phase. Using this approach based on
the work of Konemann and van Leeuwen (1980) and Karickhoff (1981),
McFarland (1984) calculated the equilibrium concentration of nonpolar
organic chemicals that the lipids of an organism could accumulate as a
result of exposure to dredged material would be about 1.7 times the organic
carbon-normalized concentration of the chemical in the dredged material.
Concentrations are directly proportional to the lipid content of the
organism and the contaminant content of the dredged material or reference
sediment, and inversely proportional to the organic carbon content of the
dredged or reference material (Lake et al. 1987).
This means that the chemical concentration that could result .in an
organism's lipids (lipid bioaccumulation potential—LBP) would
theoretically be 1.7 times the concentration of that chemical in the
sediment organic carbon. Rubinstein et al. (1987) have shown, based on
field studies, that an value of 4 for calculating LBP is appropriate, and
this is the value used in this manual. LBP represents the potential
contaminant concentration in lipid if the sediment is the only source of
that contaminant to the organism. It is generally desirable to convert LBP
to whole body bioaccumulation potential for a particular organism of
interest. This is done by multiplying LBP by that organism's lipid
content, as determined by lipid analysis or from reported data. Therefore,
theoretical bioaccumulation potential (TBP) can be calculated as
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-5
TBP = 4 (C,/%TOC) %L
where
TBP is expressed on a whole body wet weight basis in the same
units of concentration as C,
C, = concentration of nonpolar organic chemical in the dredged
material or reference sediment (any. units of concentration
may be used)
%TOC = organic carbon content of the dredged material or reference
sediment expressed as a decimal fraction (i.e., 2% = 0.02)
%L = organism lipid content expressed as a decimal fraction (i.e.,
3% = 0.03) of whole body wet weight
This calculation is based on McFarland and Clarke (1987), who also
developed the nomograph in Figure 11.1 by which TBP can be determined
graphically. Using the nomograph, it is possible to quickly estimate TBP
for organisms of various lipid contents, providing the contaminant
concentration Cs and organic carbon content %TOC of the dredged material or
reference sediment are known. Even though the nomograph does not provide
as precise an answer as the equation, it is sufficient for Tier II
applications. Because TBP does not predict expected environmental
concentrations but indicates the upper range, exact evaluation is not
necessary. The procedure for using the nomograph is as follows:
Step 1. Determine the lipid content of an organism of interest, either
from previously reported values or from laboratory analysis,
and express the lipid content as percent of whole-body wet
weight, rather than as decimal fraction.
Step 2. Locate the value on the right hand vertical axis that
corresponds most closely to that lipid content.
Step 3. Follow the sloped line until it intersects the dredged
material or reference sediment concentration C,. C, may be
expressed in any units of concentration and may be selected
from any of the four ranges: 0-1-1-0; 1-10; 10-100; or 100-
1000.
Step 4. From that point, read across to the left hand vertical axis
and select the TBP value from the appropriate sediment organic
carbon column expressed as percent of sediment dry weight.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-6
«
+*
e
o>
Ł
Jo"
•2
SEDIMENT
ORGANIC CARBON
1%
400
370
350
325
300
280
260
230
210
185
160
140
115
93
70
47
23
5%
79
74
70
65
60
56
51
47
42
37
33
28
23
19
14
9.3
4.7
10%
40
37
35
33
30
28
26
23
21
19
16
14
12
9.3
7.0
4.7
2.3
20%
0
0.1
1
10
100
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
1 23 456789
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
1.0
10
100
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
Cs (any units)
Figure 11.1. Nomograph for determining theoretical bioaccumulation potential.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-7
Step 5. Multiply TBP by the factor (0.1, 1, 10, 100) corresponding to
the selected C, range. The TBP will then be in the same units
of concentration as Ca.
The lipid scale and the C, scale of the nomograph can be changed by
orders of magnitude by adjusting the TBP scale in the same manner. For
example, if the organism of interest is a mussel having 0.3 percent lipid
content, one would simply follow the 3 percent lipid line and divide the
appropriate resulting theoretical bioaccumulation value by 10. If the
dredged material or reference sediment concentration C, of a contaminant
lies above or below the C, ranges shown on the nomograph, the units of
concentration can be changed (e.g., change 0.02 parts per million to 20
parts per billion). Interpolation between lipid lines or between organic
carbon columns is straightforward because all relationships are
proportional. For example, for dredged material or reference sediment with
an organic carbon content of 3 percent, TBP would be 1/3 the TBP at 1
percent carbon, 5/3 the TBP at 5 percent organic carbon, 10/3 the TBP value
at 10 percent organic carbon, or 20/3 the TBP at 20 percent organic carbon.
The following illustration of the use of the nomograph determines the
TBP of total PCB by a fish of 6 percent lipid content exposed to a sediment
containing 4 ppm PCB and 4.6 percent total organic carbon. Follow the 6
percent lipid line to a C, value of 4 and then read across to the 5 percent
organic carbon column to obtain a TBP of about 19 x 1 or 19 ppm. Because
the organic carbon content of the sediment is actually 4.6 percent rather
than 5 percent, a more precise estimate can be made by multiplying 19 by
5/4.6 to obtain a TBP of 20.6 ppm. This would be evaluated under guidance
in Section 5.2 to determine whether a decision could be reached or further
testing was necessary.
11.2 TIER III: DETERMINATION OF BIOAVAILABILITY
Bioavailability tests are designed to evaluate the potential of
benthic organisms to bioaccumulate contaminants of concern from the
proposed dredged material. The'"Guidance Manual: Bedded Sediment
Bioaccumulation Tests," by Lee et al. (1989), discusses bioaccumulation
methodology in detail and may be followed on any matter that does not
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-8
conflict with this manual. Tier III bioavailability tests are based on
analysis of tissues of organisms after 10 or 28 days of exposure. The 10
day exposure test is appropriate when all contaminants of concern are
metals, whereas 28 day exposure tests should be used when any contaminant
of concern is organic or organometallic (i.e., not an element). As
discussed in Section 6.3, even though concentrations of these contaminants
may not be at steady state after 10 or 28 days, these tests determine the
potential for bioaccumulation and provide the information for decision
making in the Tier III bioaccumulation evaluation.
11.2.1 Species Selection and Apparatus
Bioaccumulation tests have to be conducted with appropriate sensitive
benthic marine organisms. Section 227.27(d) of the regulations defines
this to mean at least one species each representing filter-feeding,
deposit-feeding, and burrowing species chosen from among the most sensitive
species accepted by EPA and CE as being reliable test organisms to
determine the anticipated benthic impact. These are broad overlapping
general categories, and it is recommended that the species be selected to
include a burrowing polychaete and a deposit-feeding bivalve mollusc.
As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, many species can metabolize
PAH, thus giving a misleading indication of bioaccumulation potential.
Therefore, it is essential that bioaccumulation studies include one or
more species with very low ability to metabolize PAH. Bivalve molluscs
are widely accepted as meeting this requirement. Characteristics and
examples of appropriate species for bioaccumulation testing are presented
in Figure 11.2.
A minimum of several grams of tissue have to be available to allow
measurement of chemical concentrations. In samples that do not contain
sufficient tissue, it will be impossible to quantify the amount of
contaminant present. Because data in the form of "concentration below
detection limits" are not quantitative, it is vital that sufficient tissue
to allow definitive measurement of concentration be collected for each
species.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-9
Characteristics'"
. Comply with Section 227.27(d)
Readily available year-round
. Provide adequate biomass for analysis
Ingest sediments
Tolerate grain sizes of dredged material and control and reference
sediments equally well
Tolerate handling and laboratory conditions
Related phylogenetically and/or by ecological requirements to
species characteristic of thft disposal site area
Important ecologically, economically, and/or recreationally
Inefficient metabolizers of contaminants, particularly PAH
EXAMPLES""
Polychaetes Molluscs
* Neanthes sp. * Macoma clam, Macoma sp.
* Nereis sp. * Yoldia clam, Yoldia limatula
Nephthys sp. Nucula clam, Nucula.sp.
Arenicola sp.
Abarenicola sp.
"Neither characteristics nor examples are presented in order of importance,
except that the first characteristic is mandatory and recommended species
are marked by an asterisk.
FIGURE 11.2. CHARACTERISTICS AND EXAMPLES OF APPROPRIATE SPECIES FOR
DETERMINING BIOACCDMULATION FROM DEPOSITED DREDGED MATERIAL.
THE LISTS ARE ILLUSTRATIVE BUT NOT EXHAUSTIVE.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-10
The apparatus to be used are those described for benthic bioassays in
Section 10.2.2.2. In addition, aquaria with clean, sediment-free water are
necessary to hold the organisms during the period required to void their
digestive tracts. If the biological needs of the organisms require the
presence of sediment, control sediment should be used.
11.2.2 Experimental Conditions
The test conditions are those described in Sections 10.2.2.3 and
10.2.2.4 for benthic bioassays. Animals should not be provided food or
additional sediment during the test. Animals to be used to evaluate
bioavailability are taken from the dredged material samples after 10 or 28
days of exposure. In addition, a sample of each species taken from the
animal holding tanks at the time the test is initiated is also analyzed.
It is necessary to empty or remove the digestive tracts of the animals
immediately after sampling. Sediment in the digestive tracts may contain
inert constituents and the contaminants of concern in forms that do not
become biologically available during passage through the digestive tract.
If animals are large enough to make it practical, the best procedure
is to excise the digestive tracts as soon as possible after sampling.
However, test organisms are seldom large enough to allow this, and most
organisms have to be allowed to excrete the material. Organisms are placed
in separate aquaria in clean, sediment-free water to purge their digestive
tracts. Some polychaetes will pass material through the digestive tract
only if more material is ingested. These animals have to be purged in
aquaria with clean sand. Animals are not fed during the purging period.
Fecal material is siphoned from the aquaria twice during the 24 hr purging
period. To minimize the possibility of loss of contaminants from the
tissues, purging for longer periods is not recommended. The shells or
exoskeletons of molluscs or crustaceans are removed and not included in the
analysis. These structures generally contain low levels of contaminants
and would contribute weight but little contaminants to the analysis. This
would give an artificially low indication of bioavailability.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-11
11.2.3 Chemical Analysis
Contaminants of concern to be assessed for bioavailability are those
identified in Sections 4.2 and 9.5.1. Analytical procedures for
contaminants of concern in tissue are presented in Section 9.5.2.
11.2.4 Data Analysis
The data should be presented in a table that lists the tissue
concentration of each contaminant of concern measured in the organisms
exposed to the dredged material and reference sediment.
To determine whether there is an indication of bioaccumulation
potential, the tissue concentrations in animals in the reference sediment
have to be statistically compared with FDA Action Levels for Poisonous or
Deleterious Substances in Fish or Shellfish for Human Consumption.
Depending on the outcome of this comparison, tissue concentrations may also
be statistically compared with those in animals exposed to the dredged
material. Recommended statistical methods are presented in Section 12.3.1.
If mortality is 25 percent or more for animals exposed to either dredged
material or reference sediment, it is recommended that the test be
considered invalid. In some cases the mean tissue concentration in animals
exposed to one or more of the dredged material samples may be less than or
equal to that in animals exposed to the reference sediment. This in no way
reflects adversely on the quality of the evaluation, but simply gives no
indication of bioaccumulation potential for the contaminant, species, and
dredged material sample in question.
The sample of animals taken at the initiation of the exposure can be
useful in interpreting results. It can add perspective to the magnitude of
uptake during the exposure period, and in some cases has shown that
elevated body burdens were not due to the dredged material or reference
sediment, but were already present in the organisms at the start of the
test.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-12
11.2.5 Determination of Compliance
Guidance on the use of the results of the determination of
bioavailability in relation to FDA limits and bioavailability from
reference sediment to reach a decision in Tier III is presented in Section
6.3.
11.2.6 Quality Control Considerations
Reference toxicant tests should be performed routinely on all
groups of organisms used in dredged material bioaccumulation testing in
order to determine their relative health and vigor. Many chemicals may be
used satisfactorily as reference toxicants (Lee, 1980). Reference toxicant
tests are performed in the absence of sediment, even for animals to be used
in benthic bioaccumulation testing. The idea is to use short-term response
to a standardized exposure as an indication of the relative health of the
organisms. Sediment is unnecessary in the short reference toxicant tests
and, if used, would sorb the toxicant and invalidate the reference toxicant
test. A geometric dilution series of 5 unreplicated concentrations is
used. Nominal (rather than measured) concentrations are usually sufficient
for reference toxicant tests. The concentration range should be selected
to give greater than 50 percent mortality in at least one concentration and
less than 50 percent mortality in at least one concentration. An initial
pilot test using a very wide range of concentrations may be necessary to
determine the proper concentration range for the reference toxicant tests.
Test duration is 24 hr. Ten organisms per exposure chamber are sufficient.
Reference toxicant tests are usually conducted under static conditions.
For each species, mortality is determined and the LC50 is calculated as
described in Section 12.2.2.
When data for a particular reference toxicant have been generated on
at least 5 groups of organisms of a species, two standard deviations above
and below the mean is established as the bounds of acceptability. When the
next group of organisms of this species is tested with this reference
toxicant, if the LC50 is within the bounds of acceptability, the group of
organisms may be used for dredged material bioaccumulation testing. If
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-13
not, their response is atypical of the population, and that group of
organisms should not be used for testing. The data from each reference
toxicant test are added to the database and the bounds of acceptability are
recalculated after each test in order to continuously improve the
characterization of the typical response of the species. Reference
toxicant tests should be conducted at least monthly on each species
cultured in-house, and should be performed on each lot of purchased or
field-collected organisms. The basic concept and application of reference
toxicant tests is discussed by Lee (1980).
General quality assurance (QA) guidance applicable to bioaccumulation
testing is presented in Chapter 13.
11.3 TIER IV: DETERMINATION OF STEADY STATE BIOACCUMULATION
Bioaccumulation evaluation at Tier IV provides for determination,
either by laboratory testing or by collection of field samples, of the
steady state concentrations of constituents in organisms exposed to the
dredged material as compared with organisms exposed to the reference
material. Steady state concentrations determined in the laboratory or in
the field are used in the same way to make Tier IV decisions according to
the guidance in Section 7.2.
11.3.1 Laboratory Assessment of Steady State Bioaccumulation
Tier IV laboratory bioaccumulation testing is based on the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard practice for conducting
bioconcentration tests with fishes and saltwater bivalve molluscs (ASTM,
1984). The Tier IV test is a 28 day exposure to deposited dredged material
from which steady state concentration of contaminants in organism tissues
is calculated based on time-series sampling.
11.3.1.1 Species Selection and Apparatus
The necessary species and apparatus are those indicated in Section
11.2.1 for Tier III bioaccumulation testing.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-14
11.3.1.2 Experimental Conditions
Experimental conditions are the same as those described in Section
11.2.2 for determination of bioavailability. A series of tissue samples
taken during the exposure period provides the basis for determining the
rate of uptake and elimination of contaminants by the organism. From these
rate data, the steady state concentration of contaminants in the tissues
can be calculated, even though steady state might not have been reached
during the actual exposure. Steady state is defined for the purposes of
this test as the concentration of contaminant that would occur in tissue
after the organisms were exposed to the dredged or reference material for a
very long time under constant exposure conditions.
At the time the animals are placed in the aquaria to begin the
exposure phase, an initial time 0 sample of each species is collected for
tissue analysis. Additional tissue samples are collected from each of the
five replicate reference and dredged material aquaria at intervals of 2, 4,
7, 10, 18, and 28 days after exposure begins. Calculation of steady state
as described in Section 12.3.2 requires that the data describe the
inflection in the uptake curve. This might not require analysis of the
samples collected at the later time intervals given above. If logistically
practical, it may be cost-effective to submit the day 2, 4, 7, and 10
samples to the laboratory for analysis and continue the experiment to
collect the day 18 and 28 samples. If the data from the first sampling
times clearly include the inflection of the uptake curve, analysis of the
samples from later intervals may not be necessary.
11.3.1.3 Chemical Analysis
Contaminants of concern to be assessed for bioaccumulation are those
identified in Sections 4.2 and 9.5.1. Analytical procedures for
contaminants of concern in tissues are presented in Section 9.5.2. As
described in Section 11.2.2, sediment has to be removed from the digestive
tracts of the animals before they are preserved.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-15
11.3.1.4 Data Analysis
Complete tissue concentration data for all tissue samples should be
presented in a table. As in Tier III bioavailability tests, if the
mortality of animals exposed to dredged material or reference sediment is
greater than or equal to 25 percent, the test should be considered invalid.
Recommended statistical methods for fitting a curve to the data to
determine steady state concentration in the tissue are presented in Section
12.3.2. The statistical procedures use an iterative curve-fitting process
to determine the key variables (JqC,., the uptake rate constant times the
contaminant concentration in the sediment, and k2, the depuration rate
constant) . An initial value for C, has to be supplied. When the sediment
concentration of the contaminant of concern is used, the ratio of kj/k2 is
the sediment bioaccumulation factor or BAF (Lake et al. 1987; Rubinstein et
al., 1987), the ratio of steady state tissue concentration to sediment
concentration..
11.3.1.5 Determination of Compliance
Decisions are based on the magnitude of bioaccumulation from the
dredged material, and its comparison with FDA limits, steady state
bioaccumulation from the reference sediment, and the body burden of
reference organisms. Guidance for making decisions in Tier IV based on
these comparisons is presented in Section 7.2.
11.3.1.6 Other Considerations
Although procedures for performing bioavailability and steady state
bioaccumulation tests have been discussed separately, it may be practical
to combine these procedures in practice. This can be done by following the
steady state bioaccumulation procedure, but initially analyzing only the 10
or 28 day sample. If the use of the data from this analysis as part of the
Tier III bioavailability evaluation does not provide for decision-making,
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-16
then the remaining time-series samples may be analyzed and used in the Tier
IV steady state bioaccumulation evaluation.
11.3.1.7 Quality Control Considerations
Guidance on quality control considerations for bioaccumulation testing
is provided in Section 11.2.6.
11.3.2 Field Assessment of Steady State Bioaccumulation
Field sampling programs overcome difficulties related to quantita-
tively considering field exposure conditions in the interpretation of test
results, since the animals are exposed to the conditions of mixing and
sediment transport actually occurring at the disposal site in question.
Difficulties related to the time required to conduct laboratory bioac-
cumulation studies are also overcome if organisms already living at the
disposal site are used in the field bioaccumulation studies. The use of
this approach for predictive purposes is technically valid only where there
is a true historical precedent for the proposed operation being evaluated.
That is, it can be used only in maintenance dredging where the quality of
the sediment to be dredged can be shown not to have deteriorated or become
more contaminated since the last dredging and disposal operation. In
addition, the disposal has to be proposed for the site at which the dredged
material in question has been previously disposed or for a site of similar
sediment type supporting a similar biological community. Field assessments
are frequently of limited usefulness because of these constraints, but when
they can be met, field assessments can be valuable. Knowledge of the
organisms contaminant body burden living around the proposed disposal site
is used in evaluating bioaccumulation results in Tier IV (Section 7.2).
11.3.2.1 Apparatus
The following is a general description of the major items required for
field assessment of bioaccumulation potential. Additional miscellaneous
equipment will have to be furnished.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-17
. A vessel capable of operating at the disposal site and equipped to
handle benthic sampling devices. Navigation equipment has to be
sufficient to allow precise positioning.
. Sampling devices such as a box corer, Smith-Maclntyre or other
benthic grab. Corers are less satisfactory because they sample a
smaller surface area and have a greater penetration than is needed.
Stainless steel screens of 1 mm mesh to remove animals from the
sediment.
. Tanks for transporting the animals to the laboratory in collection
site water.
Laboratory facilities for holding the animals prior to analysis.
Chemical and analytical facilities as required for the desired
analyses.
11.3.2.2 Species Selection
The species selected for analysis have to occur in sufficient numbers
for collection of an adequate sample at all stations. The same species
have to be collected at all stations because bioaccumulation cannot be
compared across species lines.
For each species at each station, a minimum of several grams of tissue
has to be collected to allow measurement of chemical concentrations. In
samples that do not contain sufficient tissue, it will be impossible to
quantify the amount of contaminant present. Because data in the form of
"concentration below detection limits" are not quantitative, it is vital
that sufficient tissue to allow definitive measurement of concentration be
collected for each species at each station. The ability to obtain
sufficient tissue is a critical factor in selecting species for use in
bioaccumulation studies, and in determining the practicality of the field
assessment approach.
If possible, several samples of sufficient size for analysis should be
collected at each sampling station in order to provide a statistical
estimate of variability in tissue content of the contaminants of concern.
Collection of more than one sample per station, however, may prove
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-18
impractical if a composite of many small organisms have to be used or if
suitable organisms are not abundant at the disposal site.
To minimize the numbers and collection effort required, it is
desirable to select the largest appropriate species. However, highly
mobile epifauna (such as crabs, lobsters, shrimp, and fish) should not be
used, because a cause-and-effeet relationship cannot be established between
their location when collected and their body burden at the time of
collection. Therefore, relatively immobile species that are fairly large,
such as bivalves, some gastropods, large polychaetes, etc., are the most
desirable organisms. Any relatively immobile species collectable in
sufficient numbers at all stations may be used, but the required collection
effort increases sharply as organism size decreases.
As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, many species can
metabolize PAH, thus giving a misleading indication of bioaccumulation
potential. Therefore, it is essential that bioaccumulation studies include
one or more species with very low ability to metabolize PAH. Bivalve
molluscs are widely accepted as meeting this requirement.
11.3.2.3 Sampling Design and Conduct
Sufficient tissue to obtain definitive body burden values has to be
collected from each of at least three stations within the disposal site
boundaries. It is mandatory that several stations be sampled, rather than
collecting all of the animals at one station. This will provide a measure
of the variability that exists in tissue concentrations in the animals in
the area. Samples from all stations should be collected on the same day if
possible, and, in any case, within 4 days.
11.3.2.4 Basis for Evaluation of Bioaccumulation
Tier IV bioaccumulation, whether based on laboratory or field
assessment, is evaluated (Section 7.2) by comparison to contaminant
concentrations in field organisms living around, but not affected by, the
disposal site. This is very similar to the reference area approach
(Section 3.1.2.1). To generate these data, at least three stations have to
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-19
be located in an uncontaminated sediment sedimentologically similar to that
within the disposal site, in a direction perpendicular to the net bottom
transport. Data from these sites will provide the level of contaminants in
tissues to which those levels found in organisms exposed to the dredged
material may be compared. If the direction of net bottom transport is not
known, at least six stations surrounding the disposal site should be
established in sediments sedimentologically similar to those within the
disposal site.
In all cases it is mandatory that several stations be sampled, rather
than collecting all of the animals at one station. This will provide a
measure of the variability that exists in tissue concentrations in the
animals in the area. Samples from all stations should be collected on the
same day if possible, and, in any case, within 4 days.
11.3.2.5 Sample Collection and Handling
When the collection vessel has been positioned, make repeated
collections at the same spot until an adequate tissue volume is obtained.
Gently wash the sediment obtained by the sampler through 1 mm stainless
steel screens, and place the retained organisms of the desired species in
holding tanks. Never retain an animal that shows any indication of injury.
Label the samples clearly and return the animals to the laboratory,
being careful to keep them separated and to maintain nonstressful levels of
temperature and dissolved oxygen. In the laboratory, maintain the samples
in clean water in separate containers. Do not place any sediment in the
containers and do not feed the animals. Immediately discard any organisms
that die.
It is necessary to remove sediment from the digestive tracts of the
animals because it may contain inert constituents and the contaminants of
concern in forms that do not become biologically available during passage
through the digestive tract. If the animals are large enough to make it
practical, the best procedure is to excise the digestive tracts as soon as
possible after collection. However, animals are seldom large enough to
allow this, and most organisms have to be allowed to excrete the material.
Surviving organisms are placed in separate aquaria in clean, sediment-free
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-20
water to purge their digestive tracts. Some polychaetes will pass material
through the digestive tract only if more material is ingested. These
animals have to be purged in aquaria with clean sand. Animals are not fed
during the purging period. Siphon fecal material from the aquaria twice
during the 24 hr purging period. Purging for longer periods of time is not
recommended to minimize the possibility of loss of contaminants from the
tissues.
Also remove the shells or exoskeletons of molluscs or crustaceans.
These structures generally contain low levels of contaminants and would
contribute weight but few contaminants if they were included in the
analysis. This would give an artificially low indication of
bioaccumulation.
11.3.2.6 Chemical Analysis
The contaminants of concern to be assessed for bioaccumulation are
those identified in Sections 4.2 and 9.5.1. Analytical procedures for
specific constituents are presented in Section 9.5.2.
11.3.2.7 Data Analysis
Complete tissue concentration data for all samples should be presented
in table format. Recommended statistical methods are presented in Section
12.3.
11.3.2.8 Determination of Compliance
Decisions are based on the magnitude of bioaccumulation in organisms
collected within the boundaries of the disposal site, and its comparison
with bioaccumulation in organisms living around the disposal site, but not
affected by the site. Guidance for making regulatory decisions based on
this comparison is presented in Section 7.2.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-21
11.4 REFERENCES
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 1984. Standard
Practice for Conducting Bioconcentration Tests with Fishes and
Saltwater Bivalve Molluscs. Standard Practice No. E-1022-84.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA!
Clarke, J.U. and A.B. Gibson. 1987. Regulatory Identification of
Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Dredged Material; Proceedings of a
Workshop. Miscellaneous Paper D-87-3, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Geyer, H., P. Sheehan, D. Kotzias, and F. Korte. 1982. Prediction of
ecological behavior of chemicals: Relationship between physico-
chemical properties and bioaccumulation of organic chemicals in the
mussel Mytilus edulis. Chemosphere 11:1121-1134.
Karickhoff, S. 1981. Semi-empirical estimation of sorption of hydrophobic
pollutants on natural sediments and soils. Chemosphere 9:3-10.
Konemann, H. and K. van Leeuwen. 1980. Toxicokinetics in fish:
Accumulation and elimination of six chlorobenzenes by guppies.
Chemosphe re 9:3-19.
Lake, J.L., N. Rubinstein, and S. Pavignano. 1987. Predicting
bioaccumulation: Development of a simple partition model for use as a
screening tool for regulating ocean disposal of wastes. In: Dickson,
K.L., A.W. Maki, and W.A. Brungs (eds.), pp. 151-166. Fate and
Effects of Sediment-Bound Chemicals in Aquatic Systems. Pergamon
Press, New York, NY.
Lee, D.R., 1980. Reference toxicants in quality control of aquatic
bioassays, pp. 188-199. In: Aquatic Invertebrate Bioassays (A. L.
Burkema, Jr. and J. Cairns, Jr., Eds), ASTM STP 715. American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Lee, H., Ill, et al. 1989. Guidance manual: Bedded sediment
bioaccumulation tests. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pacific
Ecosystems Branch, Bioaccumulation Team. EPA-600/X-89-302. ERLN-
Nlll. Newport, OR.
Mackay, D. 1982. Correlation of bioconcentration factors.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 16:274-278.
McFarland, V.A. 1984. Activity-Based Evaluation of Potential
Bioaccumulation from Sediments. Dredging '84 Proceedings, American
Society of Civil Engineers, 345 East 47th Street, New York. 1:461-
467.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 11-22
McFarland, V.A. and J. Clarke. 1987. Simplified approach for evaluating
bioavailability of neutral organic chemicals in sediment,
Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Note EEDP-01-8. U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Rubinstein, N.I., J.L. Lake, R.J. Pruell, H. Lee II, B. Taplin, J. Heltshe,
R. Bowen, and S. Pavignano. 1987. Predicting bioaccumulation of
sediment associated organic contaminants: development of a regulatory
tool for dredged material evaluation. Technical Report D-87 prepared
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, RI for the
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
59 pp.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-1
12.0 STATISTICAL METHODS
This chapter presents the appropriate statistical methods for analyz-
ing the data from bioassays and bioaccumulation tests. The methodology is
not intended to be exhaustive, nor is it intended to be a "cook-book"
approach to data analysis. Statistical analyses are only routine under
ideal experimental conditions. The methods presented here will usually be
adequate for the tests conducted under the conditions specified in this
document. An experienced applied statistician should be consulted whenever
any questions arise. The 95 percent confidence level is used for all
statistical comparisons in this manual.
The following are examples of departures from ideal experimental
conditions that may require additions to or modifications of the straight-
forward statistical methods presented in this chapter:
Unequal numbers of experimental animals assigned to each treatment
container, or loss of animals during the experiment.
Unequal numbers of replications of the treatments (i.e., containers
or aquaria)
Measurements scheduled at selected time intervals actually per-
formed at other times
. Different conditions of salinity, pH, dissolved oxygen, tempera-
ture, etc. among exposure chambers
Differences in placement conditions of the testing containers, or
in the animals assigned to different treatments.
The following statistical methods will be presented as they apply to a
specific test procedure:
Sample size determinations
Data scale transformations
Variance homogeneity tests
»
Two-sample t-tests
Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
Multiple comparisons among treatment means
Confidence interval calculations
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-2
The statistical methods are illustrated in this manual with example IBM PC
computer programs using SAS (Statistical Analysis System) software (SAS
Institute, 1985). This does not constitute official endorsement or approv-
al of these commercial hardware or software products. Other equally
acceptable hardware and software products are commercially available and
may be used to perform the necessary analyses. Although it may be accept-
able to write original programs to do the calculations, the appropriateness
of the techniques and accuracy of the calculations have to be very careful-
ly verified and documented before use if this approach is chosen.
12.1 SAMPLE SIZE CONSIDERATION
Throughout this document five replications of test containers are
recommended as the minimum for each treatment level. Experience has shown
this number of replications to be cost-effective and easy to manage.
However, it is important to consider the statistical implications of this
recommendation.
In the simplest case, the goal is to determine whether the effect of
exposure to a dredged material is significantly greater than the effect of
exposure to the reference sediment. This situation can be viewed as a two-
sample statistical test where k organisms have been randomly assigned to
each of n containers or replicates. The adequacy of the test design is not
as sensitive to the value of k as it is to n. In Chapters 10 and 11, where
guidance for performing the various tests is provided, k has usually been
set at 10 or 20 organisms, depending on the test.
Choosing a value for n (i.e., sample size or numbers of replicates)
also requires choosing acceptable probabilities for making two kinds of
errors. A Type I error occurs if we conclude that effect in the dredged
material group is greater than in the reference group when, in fact, the
true effect is no greater. On the other hand, a Type II error occurs if we
conclude that effect in the dredged material group is no greater than in
the reference group when, in fact, the true effect is greater.
Under ideal circumstances the experimenter wants to minimize the
probability (P) of Type II error subject to a fixed probability (a) of Type
I error. The power of the statistical test is the probability of
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-3
concluding that effect is greater in the dredged material group when, in
fact, this is true. It is the probability of detecting a difference in
effect when there is one. This probability or the power of the test is
equal to 1 - 6.
Two formal hypotheses underlie the statistical analysis of data from
the example just discussed. Simply stated, the null hypothesis (H0) and the
alternative hypothesis (H^ are as follows:
H0: m = |I2
There is no difference in effect between the treatment (dredged
material) and reference groups of animals.
HI: Hi < H2
There is significantly greater effect among dredged material
treated animals than among reference animals. A "one-tailed" test
is used because there is little concern about identifying dredged
material with less effect than the reference sediment.
where \i^ is the average effect in the population of reference animals and [12
is the average effect in the population of dredged material treated ani-
mals.
The power of a statistical test is calculated for a specific dif-
ference in effect 8, where m - H2 = 5.
Because the power of a statistical test increases with sample size for
a fixed a and 8, it is essential to know the power of the statistical test
when, for example, the recommended sample size of five containers or
replicates is chosen.
We will assume that the difference (8) we wish to detect is directly
proportional to the standard deviation (a) in effect from replicate to
replicate. If the effect is highly variable we are likely to detect only
large differences in the true effect between dredged material and reference
groups. Conversely, if the effect is less variable we can detect smaller
differences in true effect between the dredged material and reference
groups. But relative to the variability, the detectable difference in
effect is constant; specifically, we will assume that 8/a = 1.
The standard deviation (CT) is often unknown. But suppose we want to
detect a difference in the average effect of 8 = la using a one-tailed
test. With a probability of Type I error of 5 percent (i.e., a = 0.05) and
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-4
the above assumptions, the power of the example test with five replicates
is 0.43. This means that a difference in average effect between the
dredged material and reference animals of one standard deviation would be
detected 43 percent of the time.
Table 12.1 presents the power calculations (Cohen 1977) for selected
sample sizes. For example, in order to detect a true difference in effect
of la 80 percent of the time at a = 0.05, the number of replicates would
have to be approximately 13.
The experimenter should consider this information, the statistical
power needed for decision making, and the cost and handling time per
container, before choosing the sample size for a test. Five replicates are
often considered useful for routine testing purposes.
12.2 BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
12.2.1 Tier III Water Column Bioassays
The objective of the analysis of Tier III water column toxicity test
data is to assess the evidence for reduced survival due to toxicity of
suspended plus dissolved dredged material constituents, and to calculate
the median lethal concentration (LC50) of the material from the serial
dilution experiment described in Section 10.2.1.
At the end of the exposure period, the effects, if any, on the sur-
vival of the test organisms should be clearly manifest in the 100 percent
concentration (undiluted) test container. If two controls have been used,
e.g., seawater from the disposal site and an artificial sea salt mixture,
the control using seawater from the disposal site is preferred for the
following statistical analyses. The appropriate statistical test for
detecting a significant difference in survival between two independent
samples, i.e., the control and the 100 percent concentration is the two-
sample t-test (Snedecor and Cochran, 1980) . The usual t statistic for
testing the equality of means Sq and x2 from two independent samples with nt
and n2 observations is:
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-5
TABLE 12.1. POWER CALCULATIONS FOR ONE TAILED
t-TESTS FOR SELECTED SAMPLE SIZES'"
(after Cohen, 1977)
Sample Size Power(%)
(a) Where a = 0.05 and 8/a = 1
(b) Power is (1 - 13)100.
(b)
30
25
20
15
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
99
97
93
86
71
66
62
56
50
43
36
28
20
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-6
t - (xj-^)/ Js2 (l/.^ + l/n2)
where s2, the pooled variance, is calculated as follows:
s2 - ((n-L - l)sx2 -i- (n2 - l)s|} + (nt +• n2 -2)
and where s and s are the sample variances of the two groups.
The use of this t statistic depends on the assumption that the variances
of the two groups are equivalent. This assumption can be tested using the
folded F statistic, F'.
F' = (larger of s2 , sf ) / (smaller of sf , sf )
with n: - 1 and n2 - 1 degrees of freedom
A test of F' is a two-tailed F test since we do not specify which
variance is expected to be larger.
Under the assumption of equal variances, the t statistic is computed
with the formula given above, using the pooled variance estimate s2.
Under the assumption of unequal variances, the t statistic is
computed as
t - (xt - x2)
The formula for Satterthwaites (1946) approximation for the degrees of
freedom for use with this t statistic is as follows:
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-7
df _
- 1) 1- (s|/n2)2/(n2 - 1)
Table 12.2 contains sample data from a 96 hr water column bioassay
using a seawater control and dissolved plus suspended dredged material
constituents at four serial dilutions. In this example, mean mortality in
the control is less than 10 percent, indicating the acceptability of the
test.
Figure 12.1 illustrates a SAS/PC program that will perform a two-
sample t-test and a Levene's test of the homogeneity of sample variances.
The results from this program are given in Figures 12.2 and 12.3. Figure
12.2 presents a listing of the data produced by the proc print; statement
and the two-sample t-test results produced by the statement proc ttest
cochran; and the next three statements.
Three t-test results are given: two versions of the t-test for
unequal variances, and one for use if the variances in the two treatments
are equal.
The F' statistic tests the hypothesis that the sample variances in the
control data and 100 percent concentration data are equal (Steel and
Torrie, 1980). The F' test in this example is significant at the 0.064
level, indicating that if the variances in the two groups are equal, then
we will obtain the data we did or data with still more unequal variances
only 6.4 percent of the time; i.e., the data suggest that variances in the
two groups are not equal. The test is on the verge of being significant,
if we are judging significance at the 0.05 level. In such cases it is
usually prudent to use the t-test for unequal variances. Choosing this
approach, the t-test, assuming unequal variances, indicates a significant
difference (Prob>|T| = 0.0001) in survival between these two treatments.
Significance probabilities for all of the t-tests in the SAS results are
two-tailed probabilities. For this application we are concerned about
dredged material samples with an effect greater than the control, and it is
not important to detect dredged material samples that have less effect than
the control. To obtain the one-tailed or directional probabilities which
we want here, divide the two-tailed probabilities and consider the sign of
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-8
TABLE 12.2. NUMBER OF SURVIVORS IN A HYPOTHETICAL WATER COLUMN
BIOASSAY AFTER 96 HOURS.
Concent rat ions
(c)
Total
Replicate
(a)
Control
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-9
This is an example SAS/PC program for a two-sample t-test of re- *
* suits from a 96-hour water column bioassay. The t-test compares *
* the number of surviving organisms in the control (seawater) *
* to the number of surviving organisms in the 100% concentration. *
options nodate pagesize-60;
data susphase;
input trtmnt num_sviv @@;
cards;
1 20 1 19 1 20 1 20 1 19 2627292528
proc print;
titlel 'Water Column Bioassay Data and t-test Results';
proc sort;
by trtmnt;
* The following two-sample t-test procedure will provide a t-statistic
for each of two conditions, viz., when the sample variances are equal
and when the sample variances are not equal. An F' test is also
provided which tests the hypothesis that the sample variances are,
in fact, equal;
proc ttest cochran;
class trtmnt;
var num_sviv;
label trtmnt='Control or 100% Concentration'
num_sviv-'Number of surviving animals';
* The following program performs a Levene's (1960) test for the
equality of two sample variances;
proc sort;
by trtmnt;
proc means noprint; /*Calculate treatment Means */;
by trtmnt;
var num_sviv;
output out=meanout mean=average;
* Next, merge treatment means with survival data;
data sustwo;
merge susphase meanout;
by trtmnt;
deviatns-abs(num_sviv-average);
drop _type freq_;
proc print;
titlel 'Levene''s Test on Water Column Bioassay Data';
* Levene's test consists of an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on
the absolute deviations of each observation from its respective
sample mean;
proc anova;
label deviatns='Absolute Deviations from Mean';
class trtmnt;
model deviatns=trtmnt;
run;
Rguro 12-1. Example SAS/PC program to perform two-sample t-test and Lean's Homogeneity of
Variance Test for a hypothetical water column bioassay from data In Table 12-2.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-10
Water Column Bioassay Data and t-test Results
DBS TRTMNT NUM SVIV
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
20
19
20
20
19
6
7
9
5
8
Water Column Bioassay Data and t-test Results
TTEST PROCEDURE
Variable: NUM_SVIV Number of surviving animals
TRTMNT N Mean Std Dev
For HO: Variances are equal, F' = 8.33 DF - (4,4)
Prob>F'
10
Std Error
1
2
Variances
Unequal
Equal
5
5
T
16.8375
16.8375
19.60000000
7.00000000
Method
Satterthwaite
Cochran
DF
4.9
4.0
8.0
0.54772256
1.58113883
Prob>|T|
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
0.24494897
0.70710678
0.0640
Rgure 12-2. Example data listing and SAS/PC program for a t-test between treatments based on
hypothetical water column bioassay data In Table 12-2.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-11
Levene's Test on Water Column Bioassay Data
DBS TRTMNT NUM_SVIV AVERAGE DEVIATNS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
20
19
20
20
19
6
7
9
5
8
19.6
19.6
19.6
19.6
19.6
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7-0
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.6
1.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
Levene's Test on Water Column Bioassay Data
Analysis of Variance Procedure
Dependent Variable: DEVIATNS Absolute Deviations from Mean
Source
Model
Error
Corrected Total
DP
1
8
9
R-Square
0.312741
1
2
4
Sum of
Squares
.29600000
.84800000
.14400000
C.V.
71.03064
Mean
Square
1.29600000
0.35600000
Root MSE
0.596657
F Value Pr > F
3.64 0.0928
DEVIATNS Mean
0.84000000
Source
TRTMNT
DF Anova SS
1 1.29600000
Mean Square F Value Pr > F
1.29600000 3.64 0.0928
Rgure 12-3. Example data listing and SAS/PC program output for a Levene's Test of Variance
Homogeneity for hypothetical water column bioassay data in Table 12-2.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-12
the t statistic. Here we are comparing the response in the control to the
response in the 100 percent concentration. In this case the control meanis
greater than the mean of the 100 percent concentration group, and there-
fore, the t statistic is positive. Considering the t-test for unequal
variances, the results are significant (p = 0.00005) and in the direction
we consider important, i.e., there is statistically significant increased
mortality in the 100 percent concentration.
The F' test of equality of variances is sensitive to departures from
the assumption that these samples have been taken from populations with an
underlying normal probability distribution. Figure 12.3 presents the
results of a Levene's test, which is not sensitive to this assumption for
reasonable samples sizes. This test is based on an ANOVA of the absolute
deviations from the mean. Larger sample variances indicate larger absolute
deviations. These results show that there is weaker evidence
(Pr > F = 0.093) than in the F' test discussed above favoring the con-
clusion that the sample variances are unequal. That is, there is almost a
10 percent chance of being wrong if we reject the null hypothesis and say
the variances are unequal. In this example, the t-test shows that there is
a statistically significant difference between the mean number surviving in
the control and 100 percent concentration groups whether equal variances
are assumed for the two groups or not.
12.2.2 Calculating Median Lethal Concentration
In the Tier III water column bioassays it is recommended (Section
10.2.1.5) that the median lethal concentration (LC50) be calculated for
each observation time of the experiment. These values and their upper and
lower 95 percent confidence limits are used to assess whether the toxicity
of the dredged material exceeds the limiting permissible concentration
(LPC). It is not possible to calculate LCSOs unless at least 50 percent of
the test organisms die in at least one of the serial dilutions. Experi-
ence indicates that often this does not occur for earlier time periods, and
in such cases, it is only possible to calculate LCSOs for later time
periods. If it is not possible to calculate an LC50, then the LC50 is
assumed to be 100 percent.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-13
LC50 calculations are also recommended for reference toxicant tests to
determine the relative health of the organisms used in bioassay and bioac-
cumulation testing.
Table 12.2 gives examples of data from a 96 hr water column bioassay.
We see from these data that intermediate concentrations of the dredged
material show intermediate proportions of surviving test organisms. The
aim, therefore, is to apply some statistical method to these data to
estimate the LC50 concentration at which 50 percent of the animals in the
population would die. Calculating a 95 percent confidence interval using
the sample LC50 signifies that there is only a 5 percent probability that
the true LC50 of the population of test organisms lies outside of this
interval.
Because opinions vary about the most appropriate statistical method
for calculating the LC50, this implementation manual recommends using two
or more of the procedures in the following citations to calculate the LC50.
Stephan (1977) and Gelber et al. (1985) provide careful reviews of LC50
estimation procedures. In addition, EPA (1985) discusses in detail the
mechanics of calculating LCSOs using current methods and contains, as an
appendix, computer programs for each statistical method.
Compliance with the regulations is determined according to the Tier
III guidance in Section 6.1.
12.2.3 Tier III Benthic Bioassays
The objective of a statistical analysis of Tier III benthic bioassay
data is to determine the strength of the evidence for concluding that the
dredged material samples are significantly more toxic to marine benthic
infauna than are the reference sediment samples. The test procedure is de-
scribed in Section 10.2.2.
This objective can be accomplished using an analysis of variance
(ANOVA) procedure and an associated multiple comparison procedure known as
the Dunnett's test. These statistical techniques are discussed in Sokal
and Rohlf (1981), Snedecor and Cochran (1980), Steele and Torrie (1980),
SAS Institute (1985), and Dunnett (1964).
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-14
Table 12.3 presents survival data from a hypothetical benthic bioas-
say. In this example, mean mortality in the control is less than 10
percent, indicating the acceptability of the test. The ANOVA procedure
assumes that the survival responses are independently and normally distrib-
uted with a common variance among treatment levels. That is:
Xi:, ~ N (li^oj
where X1:) is the number of survivors at the ith treatment level and the jth
replicate. For the ith treatment level, X±j is sampled from a normally
distributed population with a mean ^ and variance a2. In other words, the
treatment levels can have different means but all levels have the same
variance. The assumptions of normality and constant variance are not
always met. Although ANOVA is fairly robust to deviations from these
assumptions when sample sizes are equal, a test of the validity of these
assumptions is recommended before performing the ANOVA. Bartlett's test
(Snedecor and Cochran, 1980), the F' test (Section 12.2.1), or Levene's
test (12.2.1) may be used to test for homogeneity of variances. If the raw
data do not satisfy these assumptions, a mathematical transformation can
sometimes be applied to the data which will confer a more normal distribu-
tion to the transformed data and will stabilize the variance among treat-
ment levels (Natrella, 1963). For example, a common transformation for
proportions (such as percent survival) is:
Yy - arcslne ^/~jpjj
where p1;) is the proportion of survivors at the ith treatment level and for
the jth replicate, i.e., Pij = Xi:j/n. We recommend that the survival propor-
tion be used as the treatment response for analysis. If the data do not
satisfy the ANOVA assumptions of normality and constant variance, we
recommend that the arcsine/square root transformation be used prior to
performing the ANOVA, although any transformation that increases normality
and stabilizes variance among treatments may be used.
Another common transformation used to stabilize the variance is the
logarithmic transformation. It is used when the standard deviation in-
creases in direct proportion to the mean, i.e., when those treatments with
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-15
TABLE 12.3. NUMBER OF SURVIVORS IN THE HYPOTHETICAL BENTHIC BIOASSAY
Treatments
Replicate(1>
1
2
3
4
5
Dredged Material Locations
Reference Control Station 1 Station 2
20
20
19
19
20
20
19
20
20
20
17 15
16 16
18 13
17 17
15 11
Station 3
17
12
10
16
13
(a) 20 animals per replicate at initiation of test.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-16
larger means also have larger standard deviations. The transformation is
simply:
Y±j -
Either natural or base 10 logarithms are commonly used.
Figure 12.4 illustrates a SAS/PC program that performs an ANOVA on the
transformed survival proportions calculated from Table 12.3. In addition
to the ANOVA, this program includes an analysis of the total number of
survivors using a nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test (Daniel, 1978) for
comparison. The nonparametric test is often performed when the assumptions
of the commensurate parametric test, such as the ANOVA, cannot be verified.
The nonparametric test can actually be more powerful in detecting differ-
ences among treatment levels depending on the underlying parametric proba-
bility distribution model.
The output from the program is given in Figures 12.5-12.9. Figure
12.5 presents the data on the number of survivors for each treatment, the
proportion of survivors, and the arcsine/square root transformed propor-
tions. This output was produced by the proc print,; statement in the
program.
Figure 12.6 presents the arithmetic means and standard deviations of
these variables. Note that the survival (NUM-SVIV) is more variable (i.e.,
standard deviations are larger) in the Station, treatment groups than in the
reference sediment treatment groups. Note also that the variability among
treatment groups is more stable for the transformed variable (TRN-SVIV) .
Output in Figure 12.6 is produced by the proc means; statement and the two
following statements in the program.
Figure 12.7 contains the ANOVA results. These results were produced
by the proc an ova; statement and subsequent statements. The F Value is the
statistic of interest in these tables, where:
F = MST/MSE
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-17
This is an example SAS/PC program for an analysis of variance
using hypothetical benthic bioassay data.
*++++++++++++++++++++++++.
options nodate pagesize-60;
data solphase;
input trtmnt num_sviv @@;
* The following variable prp sviv is the proportion of survivors.
It is transformed to a different scale to stabilize the variance
within each trtmnt level using arcsine of the square root
transformation. This new variable is trn_sviv;
prp_sviv=num sviv/20;
trn sviv-arsTn(sqrt(prp_sviv));
card's;
20 1 19 1 19 1 20 2 20 2 19 2 20 2 20 2
*
*
*
k*;
20
17
3 15 4 15 4 16 4 13 4 17 4 11 5 17 5 12 5
20
10
3 17
5 16
3 16
5 13
3 18
proc print;
* Obtain the mean number of survivors per reference, control, or
station sample and the mean percent survival;
proc sort;
by trtmnt;
proc means;
by trtmnt;
var num_sviv prp_sviv trn_sviv;
* A one-way ANOVA follows with provisions for a Dunnett's multiple
comparison test of each sampling station mean versus the control
mean: trtmnt-1 is the reference sediment sample, trtmnt-2 is the
control sediment sample;
proc anova;
label trtmnt='Controls/Sampling Stations'
num_sviv-'Number of surviving animals'
prp_sviv= 'Proportion of surviving animals'
trn_sviv= 'Transformed survivorship proportion';
class trtmnt;
model num_sviv trn_sviv-trtmnt;
means trtmnt/ dunnettl;
titlel 'Benthic Bioassay ANOVA Results';
* A nonparametric analysis of variance of the same data follow for
comparison;
proc nparlway wilcoxon;
class trtmnt;
var num sviv;
titlel 'Benthic Bioassay Nonparametric Analysis Results ;
run;
Rgure 12-4. An example SAS/PC program for analyzing survival proportion from the hypothetical
benthic bioassay data in Table 12-3.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-18
SAS
DBS TRTMNT NUM_SVIV PRP_SVIV TRN_SVIV
1 1 20 1.00 1.57080
21 20 1.00 1.57080
31 19 0.95 1.34528
41 19 0.95 1.34528
51 20 1.00 1.57080
62 20 1.00 1.57080
72 19 0.95 1.34528
82 20 1.00 1.57080
92 20 1.00 1.57080
10 2 20 1.00 1.57080
11 3 17 0.85 1.17310
12 3 16 0.80 1.10715
13 3 18 0.90 1.24905
14 3 17 0.85 1.17310
15 3 15 0.75 1-04720
16 4 15 0.75 1.04720
17 4 16 0.80 1.10715
18 4 13 0.65 0.93774
19 4 17 0.85 1.17310
20 4 11 0.55 0.83548
21 5 17 0.85 1.17310
22 5 12 0.60 0.88608
23 5 10 0.50 0.78540
24 5 16 0.80 1.10715
25 5 13 0.65 0.93774
Figure 12-5. Example data listing from a SAS/PC program showing the treatment level (TRN,
number of survivors )(NUM_SVIV), survival proportional (PRP_SVIV), and the
transformed proportions (TRN_svivO from the hypothetical data given in Table 12-3.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-19
SAS
N Obs Variable
5 NUM SVIV
PRP SVIV
TRN_SVIV
N Obs Variable
5 NUM SVIV
PRP SVIV
TRN_SVIV
N Obs variable
5 NUM SVIV
PRP SVIV
TRN_SVIV
N Obs Variable
5 NUM SVIV
PRP SVIV
TRN_SVIV
N Obs Variable
5 NUM SVIV
PRP SVIV
TRN SVIV
N
5
5
5
N
5
5
5
N
5
5
5
N
5
5
5
N
5
5
5
Minimum
19.0000000
0.9500000
1.3452829
Minimum
19.0000000
0.9500000
1.3452829
Minimum
15.0000000
0.7500000
1.0471976
Minimum
11.0000000
0.5500000
0.8354819
Minimum
10.0000000
0.5000000
0.7853982
TKTnNT*!
Maximum
20.0000000
1.0000000
1.5707963
Maximum
20.0000000
1.0000000
1.5707963
Maximum
18.0000000
0.9000000
1.2490458
Maximum
17.0000000
0.8500000
1.1730969
Maximum
17.0000000
0.8500000
1.1730969
Mean
19.6000000
0.9800000
1.4805910
Mean
19.8000000
0.9900000
1.5256936
Mean
16.6000000
0.8300000
1.1499172
Mean
14.4000000
0.7200000
1.0201339
Mean
13.6000000
0.6800000
0.9778931
Std Dev
0.5477226
0-0273861
0.1235188
Std Dev
0.4472136
0.0223607
0.1008527
Std Dev
1.1401754
0.0570088
0.0762914
Std Dev
2.4083189
0.1204159
0.1347090
Std Dev
2.8809721
0.1440486
0.1596151
Flaure 12-6 Example of SAS/PC listing of arithmetic means and standard deviations for
' hypothetical benthic bloassay data given in Table 12-3.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-20
Benthic Bioassay ANOVA Results
Analysis of Variance Procedure
Dependent Variable: NUM_SVIV Number of surviving animals
Source
Model
Error
Corrected Total
Source
TRTMNT
DF
4
20
24
R-Square
0.721053
DF
4
Sum of
Squares
164.4000000
63.6000000
228.0000000
C.V.
10.61462
Anova SS
164.4000000
Mean
Square
41.1000000
3.1800000
Root MSE
1.783255
Mean Square
41.1000000
F Value
12.92
NUM
F Value
12.92
Pr > F
0.0001
_SVIV Mean
16.8000000
Pr > F
0.0001
Benthic Bioassay ANOVA Results
Analysis of Variance Procedure
Dependent Variable: TRN_SVIV Transformed survivorship proportion
Source
Model
Error
Corrected Total
Source
TRTMNT
DF
4
20
24
R-Square
0.815210
DF
4
Sum of
Squares
1.32120960
0.29948815
1.62069775
C.V.
9.941941
Anova SS
1.32120960
Mean
Square
0.33030240
0.01497441
Root MSE
0.122370
Mean Square
0.33030240
*
F Value
22.06
TRN_
1
F Value
22.06
Pr > F
0.0001
SVIV Mean
.23084575
Pr > F
0.0001
Figure 12-7. Example SAS/PC program output showing ANOVA results for hypothetical benthic
bioassay data given in Table 12-3.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-21
Benthic Bioassay ANOVA Results
Analysis of Variance Procedure
Dunnett's One-tailed T tests for variable: NUM_SVIV
NOTE: This tests controls the type I experimentwise error for
comparisons of all treatments against a control.
Alpha- 0.05 Confidence- 0.95 df= 20 MSE= 3.18
Critical Value of Dunnett's T=» 2.304
Minimum Significant Difference* 2.599
Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'.
Simultaneous Simultaneous
Lower Difference Upper
TRTMNT Confidence Between Confidence
Comparison Limit Means Limit
2 - 1
3 - 1
4 - 1
5 - 1
-2.399
-5.599
-7.799
-8.599
0.200
-3.000
-5.200
-6.000
2.799
-0.401
-2.601
-3.401
***
***
***
Benthic Bioassay ANOVA Results
Analysis of Variance Procedure
Dunnett's One-tailed T tests for variable: TRN_SVIV
NOTE: This tests controls the type I experimentwise error for
comparisons of all treatments against a control.
Alpha- 0-05 Confidence- 0.95 df= 20 MSB- 0.014974
Critical Value of Dunnett's T- 2.304
Minimum Significant Difference- 0.1783
Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'.
Simultaneous Simultaneous
Lower Difference Upper
TRTMNT
Comparison
1 - 2
3 - 2
4 - 2
5 - 2
Confidence
Limit
-0.2234
-0.5541
-0.6839
-0.7261
Between
Means
-0.0451
-0.3758
-0.5056
-0.5478
Confidence
Limit
0.1332
-0.1974 ***
-0.3272 ***
-0.3695 ***
Figure 12-8. Example SAS/PC program output showing Dunnett's Test for hypotehtlcal benthic
Ktnaeeau nluan In ToKIa 1O.4
bioassay given in Table 12-3.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-22
Benthic Bioassay Nonparametric Analysis Results
NPAR1WAY PROCEDURE
Wilcoxon Scores (Rank Sums) for Variable NUM_SVIV
Classified by Variable TRTMNT
TRTMNT
1
2
3
4
5
N
5
5
5
5
5
Sum of
Scores
100.000000
105.000000
55.500000
34.500000
30.000000
Expected
Under HO
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
Std Dev
Under HO
14.5028733
14.5028733
14.5028733
14.5028733
14.5028733
Average Scores were used for Ties
Kruskal-Wallis Test (Chi-Sguare Approximation)
CHISQ- 19.286 DF- 4 Prob > CHISQ-
Mean
Score
20.0000000
21.0000000
11.1000000
6.9000000
6.0000000
0.0007
Rgure 12-9.
Example SAS/PC program output showing non-parametric (Kruskal-Wallis) test results
for hypothetical benthic bioassay data given in fable 12-3.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-23
MST is the mean square (variance) for differences among treatment level
means (41.1 in this example with NUM_SIV as the dependent variable) and MSB
is the mean square for differences among replicates (3.18 in this same
example) . If survival is unaffected by the treatment levels, F is ap-
proximately equal to 1.0. If survival is less among treatments levels, F >
1.0. The probability of obtaining an F statistic as large or larger than
the one calculated for the transformed data (i.e., F = 22.06) is 0.0001.
That is, if there is no difference in survival among the stations and
controls, we would expect to observe survival data like those given in
Table 12.3, only 1 in 10,000. Thus we reject the hypothesis of equal
survival rates at the 0.0001 level of significance.
In this example there is strong evidence for concluding that there are
significant differences in survival among the reference sediment and
dredged material treatment groups. This conclusion would have been reached
regardless of whether the data are transformed or not (Figure 12.7) . It is
also important to know which sampling stations differed significantly from
the reference. The results of an appropriate multiple comparison analysis
known as the Dunnett's test (Dunnett, 1964) are given in Figure 12.8. This
test was requested in the SAS statements specifying the ANOVA, and the
results show that there is no difference in survival between the control
group and the reference sediment group either for transformed or untrans-
formed data. With only a 5 percent chance of being wrong, we can also
conclude from these results that survival in each dredged material treat-
ment group is significantly less than in the reference sediment group.
In this example, all comparisons are made to trtmnt=l which is the
reference sediment. The Dunnett's test in SAS compares all subsequent
treatment groups to the first group in the dataset, which in this case is
the reference sediment. If other software is used, care has to be taken to
see that comparisons are made to reference, not control, data.
Finally, because the number of survivors in each treatment group is
not always normally distributed, a nonparametric test that does not require
the assumption of normality can be performed. Figure 12.9 shows the
results from a nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test which was generated by the
proc nparlwav wilcoxon; statement. This test is a counterpart to the
parametric ANOVA procedure. It is based on the sum of the ranks for all
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-24
observations in each treatment group. If survival is consistently lower in
the station treatment groups, the sum of the ranks will be smaller. The
Kruskal-Wallis statistic is approximately distributed as a chi square.
Hence, the probability of obtaining this much or more evidence (CHISQ =
19.286) in favor of a difference in survival among the reference and
station treatment groups when, in fact, there is no difference is 0.0007,
or about 7 times in 10,000. This very small probability is strong evidence
that sediments from the proposed dredging site in our hypothetical example
truly are more toxic than the reference sediment.
Compliance with the regulations is determined according to the Tier
III guidance in Section 6.2.
12.3 BIQACCUMULATION
Bioaccumulation tests described in Chapter 11 are employed to deter-
mine whether an organism's exposure to the dredged material is likely to
cause an elevation of contaminants in its body, i.e., is bioaccumulation
likely to occur in organisms exposed to the dredged material. Bioaccumula-
tion tests conducted in the laboratory or in the field require statistical
analysis as described in Sections 12.3.1-3.
12.3.1 Tier III 10 or 28 Day Single Time Point Laboratory Study
The Tier III single time point laboratory bioaccumulation test produc-
es tissue concentration measurements for each contaminant of concern.
Table 12.4 presents the results from a hypothetical laboratory test.
Chemical analysis of the tissue samples from each replicate shows varying
concentrations of the example contaminant. Data, which are not shown here,
attest that mortality did not exceed 25 percent in any of the replicates
for the control or for any of the dredged material samples, indicating that
the test is acceptable.
The appropriate statistical test for these data is similar to that
given for benthic bioassays (Section 12.2.3), with several exceptions. In
-------
Dredged Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-25
TABLE 12.4. RESULTS FROM A HYPOTHETICAL SINGLE TIME POINT BIOACCUMULATION
TEST SHOWING AVERAGE CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry
weight) IN TISSUES OF ANIMALS EXPOSED TO DIFFERENT
TREATMENTS.
Replicate'"' ]
1
2
3
4
5
n
mean
standard error
upper 95%, one-
sided confidence limit
lower 95%, one-
sided confidence limit
Dredged Material Samples
Reference Control 123
0.06 0.04 0.16 0.24 0.13
0.05 0.03 0.19 0.10 0.05
0.05 0.09 0.18 0.13 0.17
0.08 0.04 0.22 0-18 0.08
0.09 0.05 0.31 0.30 0.22
5 555
0.066 0.212 0.190 0.130
0.008 0.026 0.036 0.030
0.083
0.156 0.113 0.065
(a) 20 animals per replicate
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-26
evaluating the results of Tier III bioaccumulation tests, average con-
taminant concentration in tissues of organisms exposed to dredged material
samples is compared to FDA action limits (when FDA limits exist), as well
as being statistically compared to average concentration in tissues of
organisms exposed to reference sediments. A second difference is that in
the benthic bioassays, we were concerned when survival was less in the
organisms exposed to dredged material than in those exposed to the refer-
ence sediment. In bioaccumulation tests, we are concerned when the effect
(bioaccumulation as measured by tissue concentration of contaminants) is
greater in the organisms exposed to dredged material than in those exposed
to the reference sediment.
12.3.1.I Confidence Interval Approach
Statistical comparison of the dredged material results to the FDA
action limits and the reference sediment results involves calculation of
confidence limits. If the confidence limits of a dredged material sample
overlap the FDA limit or the confidence limits of the reference sediment,
there is no statistically significant difference between the dredged
material sample and the FDA action limit or the reference sediment.
Conversely, if there is no overlap of confidence limits, the dredged
material is statistically significantly different from the FDA action limit
or the reference sediment. One-sided confidence limits are appropriate
since there is concern if the effect in the dredged material is greater
than in the reference sediment. There is little concern if the effect in
the dredged material is less than in the reference sediment.
In benthic bioassays, survival in the dredged material is considered
statistically significantly different from the reference sediments when the
upper 95 percent, one-sided confidence limit of survival in the dredged
material is less than the lower 95 percent, one-sided confidence limit of
survival the reference material. If the upper confidence limit for sur-
vival in the dredged material is greater than the lower confidence limit
for survival in the reference sediment, then the confidence intervals
overlap, and there is no statistically significant difference between
survival in the dredged material and the reference sediment.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-27
Bioaccumulation from the dredged material is considered statistically
significantly greater than the FDA limit or bioaccumulation from the
reference sediment when the lower 95 percent, one-sided confidence limit of
the dredged material samples is greater than the FDA limit or the upper 95
percent, one-sided confidence limit of the reference material samples. If
the lower confidence limit for the dredged material is less than the FDA
limit or the upper confidence limit for the reference sediment, then the
confidence intervals overlap and the difference between bioaccumulation
from the dredged material and the FDA limit or bioaccumulation from the
reference sediment is not considered statistically significant.
12.3.1.2 Confidence Internal Formulae
The statistics needed for the calculation of confidence limits includfe
the mean and the standard error. These calculations are simple, especially
with a small sample size, and can be calculated with paper and pencil.-
Many calculators include programmed mean and standard deviation calcula-
tions. The sequence of calculations necessary for the statistical analysis
is given in the following:
n = number of observations
xn = the nth observation, e.g., x2 is the second observation
Ix = sum of the x's = xl + x2 + x3 + ... + xn
Ex2 = sum of the squared x's = (x:) (x^ + (xz) (x2) + ... + (xn) (xn)
mean = Zx / n
variance = [Łx2 - (Łx)2/n] / [n-1]
standard deviation = V variance
standard error = standard deviation / Vn
upper 95%, one-sided confidence limit = mean + (t0.io,n-i) (std. error)
lower 95%, one-sided confidence limit - mean - (tQ.10in.i) (std. error)
The t-value (t0.io,n-i above) is a value from the t-distribution. The t-
distribution resembles the normal distribution in that it is bell-shaped.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-28
This distribution, rather than the normal distribution, is used in situa-
tions when the population variance of the distribution is not known and is
estimated from the sample values. Tables of the t-distribution can be
found in many statistical texts and references. The correct t-value to use
depends on two parameters, alpha (a is the probability of a type I error)
and the number of degrees of freedom, in the application presented here,
the number of degrees of freedom is always one less than the number of
observations, i.e., n - 1. The value of a depends on the probability
desired in the tails of the distribution, i.e., the probability of obtain-
ing a larger value than the t-value used. Here we are interested in a 95
percent, one-sided confidence limit, i.e., we want 5 percent of the proba-
bility in one tail or the other of the distribution. To obtain a one-
tailed probability of 0.05, an a value of 0.10 is found in standard tables
of the two-tailed t-distribution. This value gives 5 percent of the
probability in each tail of the distribution, and we use either the upper
or the lower tail as needed. Table 12.5 gives an abbreviated t-distribu-
tion table. The t-value which will give 95 percent, one-sided confidence
limits for five observations is 2.132 (a = 0.10 with n - 1 = 4 degrees of
freedom).
The bioaccumulation data in Table 12.4 can be analyzed using either
the confidence interval approach or the SAS/PC program given in Section
12.2.3. The confidence interval approach using the formulas above is used
when bioaccumulation from reference sediment samples using the reference
area approach has been determined previous to the determination of
bioaccumulation from dredged material samples. The statistics calculated
in this way are included in Table 12.4 and the confidence intervals are
illustrated in Figure 12.10. If dredged material and reference sediment
tests are run concurrently using the reference point approach, the program
in Figure 12.4 can be used by labeling the reference sediment data as
treatment = I and the dredged material samples as treatments 2,3, and 4.
The Dunnett's test compares bioaccumulation from each dredged material
sample to bioaccumulation from the reference sediment.
Figure 12.10 shows the relationship of bioaccumulation in the various
dredged material samples to both the reference sediment bioaccumulation and
the FDA action limit. Average tissue concentration in dredged material
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-29
TABLE 12.5. SELECTED VALUES OF THE TWO-TAILED t-DISTRIBUTION
Degrees of
Freedom Value of t-distribution"'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6.314
2.920
2.353
2.132
2.015
1.943
1.895
1.860
1.833
1.812
(a) Two-tailed probability = 0.10; one-tailed probability =0.05
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-30
.20-
.15-
.c
O)
1
Q
o
Ł .10'
s
I
:05-
i Mean
Q ) Mean
Lower 95%
-Confidence
Level
Hypothetical FDA Action Limit for
Contaminant of Concern
I Mean
Lower 95%
Confidence
Level
Upper 95%
Confidence
Level
I Mean
Lower 95%
• Confidence
Limit
•w 1
Reference
Sediment
Dredged
Material
Sample 1
Dredged
Material
Sample 2
Dredged
Material
Sample 3
Figure 12-10. Mean tissue concentration with 95 percent one-sided confidence
intervals calculated on hypothetical single time point bioaccumulation
data given in Table 12-4.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-31
sample number 1 is numerically higher than the FDA action limit, but the
concentration cannot be considered statistically different at the 95
percent level from the FDA limit since the lower 95 percent confidence
limit overlaps the FDA limit. The average tissue concentration in dredged
material sample 2 is below the FDA action limit, but the dredged material
is statistically significantly greater than the reference sediment; i.e.,
there is no overlap between the confidence intervals of the reference
sediment and dredged material sample 2. The average concentration in
dredged material sample 3 is less than the FDA action limit, and the
bioaccumulation from the dredged material does not statistically exceed
bioaccumulation from the reference sediment, i.e., the confidence limits of
sample 3 and the reference sediment overlap.
Compliance with the regulations is determined according to the Tier
III bioaccumulation guidance in Section 6.3.
12.3.2 Tier IV Time-Series Laboratory Bioaccumulation Study
The 28 day time-series laboratory bioaccumulation test in Tier IV is
designed to detect differences, if any, between steady state
bioaccumulation in organisms exposed to the dredged material and steady
state bioaccumulation in organisms exposed to reference sediment. If
organisms are exposed to biologically available contaminants under constant
conditions for a sufficient period of time, bioaccumulation will eventually
reach a steady state in which maximum bioaccumulation has occurred, and the
net exchange of the contaminant between sediment or dredged material and
the organism is zero.
A simple kinetic model (McFarland et. al., 1986; McFarland and Clarke,
1987) can be used with data collected over a relatively short period of
constant exposure to project tissue concentrations at steady state. This
model integrated for constant exposure is:
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-32
cv -
where
Ct = concentration of a compound in tissues of an organism at time t
kj = uptake rate constant
Cw = exposure concentration of the compound
k2 = elimination rate constant
t = time
As duration of exposure increases, the exponential term in the model
approaches zero, and the tissue concentration at steady state (i.e.,
infinite exposure) is calculated as follows:
where Css is an estimate of the whole-body concentration of the
compound at steady state (i.e., after infinitely long constant
exposure).
Table 12.6 presents tissue concentrations resulting from a hypotheti-
cal 28 day time series laboratory bioaccumulation test on three dredged
material samples. There are five replicates of each treatment, and tissue
samples were analyzed on days 2, 4, 7, 10, 18, and 28 of the test. Mor-
tality in all replicates did not exceed 25 percent, and therefore the test
is acceptable.
These data can be used with iterative nonlinear regression methods
such as those in the SAS NLIN procedure to solve for the parameters in the
model above. Then Css, the steady state concentration, is simply the ratio
of the estimated nonlinear regression parameters kx and k2 together with Cw.
In this iterative calculation method, the contaminant concentration in the
sediment is used as Cw_ Figure 12.11 provides a SAS/PC program to carry out
these calculations. Iterative curve fitting techniques will provide better
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-33
TABLE 12.6.
AVERAGE TISSUE CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM A HYPOTHETICAL
28-DAY TIME-SERIES BIOACCUMULATION TEST, SHOWING DIFFERENT
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS IN TISSUES OF ANIMALS EXPOSED TO
DIFFERENT TREATMENTS.w
Day
Replicate
Reference
Dredged Material Samples
ABC
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
0.054
0.163
0.391
0.734
0.634
0.159
0.292
0-428
0.558
0.256
0.869
0.726
0.394
1.232
0.977
0.745
1.703
2.045
1.855
1.135
4
4
4
4
4
7
7
7
7
7
10
10
10
10
10
18
18
18
18
18
28
28
28
28
28
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0.441
0.797
0.203
0.564
0.018
0.687
0.177
0.862
0.413
0.029
0.037
0.549
0.884
0.787
0.294
0.856
0.598
0.016
0.806
0.119
0.514
0.839
0.793
0.099
0.226
0.516
0.158
0.743
0-324
0.126
0.881
0.317
0.270
0.562
0.095
0.278
0.485
0.051
0.909
0.718
0.904
1.300
0.671
0.234
0.337
0.172
1.049
0.476
0.712
1.245
0.838
0.633
0.452
0.728
1.314
1.246
0.816
0.897
1.639
0.688
1.767
1.272
1.003
1.158
1.415
1.631
1.877
1.487
1.216
1.280
1.178
1.721
1.366
1.513
1.843
1.316
0.930
2.141
1.150
1.621
1.583
2.715
1.016
2.221
2.134
1.578
2.268
1.756
2.899
0.890
2.822
2.607
3.414
1.319
1.866
1.295
2.964
2.109
2.820
3.325
mean sediment
concent rat i on
0.45
4.0
33.0
44.0
(a) Total contaminant concentration in Jig/g dry weight.
Reference Sediment Statistics
Steady state mean tissue concentration = 0-473 \ig/g
Steady state upper 95%, one-sided confidence limit 0.590
Hypothetical FDA action level = 2 \ig/g
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-34
This is an example SAS/PC program which performs nonlinear
regression analysis on hypothetical 28-day bioaccumulation
laboratory test data.
H+++++++++++++++++++++-
options pagesize=60 linesize-80 nodate;
data bioaccum;
retain trtmnt t_days conc_sed;
input trtmnt $ t_days @;
if trtmnt='R' then cone sed = 0.
else if trtmnt-'A' tKen cone
else if trtmnt-'B
else if trtmnt-'C
do rep = 1 to 5;
input conc_tis @@;
output; end;
if t_days - 28 then do;
t_days = 999; rep = 1;
then conc_
then cone
45;
sed
sed
sed
4.0;
33.;
44.;
cone tis-.; output; end;
cards;
R 2
R 7
R 18
A 2
A 7
A 18
B 2
B 7
B 18
C 2
C 7
C 18
0.054
0.687
0.856
0.159
0.881
0.904
0.869
1.246
1.631
0.745
1.583
2.822
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
2
2
.163
.177
.598
.292
.317
.300
.726
.816
.877
.703
.715
.607
0.391
0.862
0.016
0.428
0.270
0.671
0.394
0.897
1.487
2.045
1.016
3.414
0.734
0.413
0.806
0.558
0.562
0.234
1.232
1.639
1.216
1.855
2.221
1.319
0.634
0.029
0.119
0.256
0.095
0.337
0.977
0.688
1.280
1.136
2.134
1.866
R 4
R 10
R 28
A 4
A 10
A 28
B 4
B 10
B 28
C 4
C 10
C 28
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
441
037
514
516
278
172
838
767
178
316
578
295
0.797
0.549
0.839
0.158
0.485
1.049
0.633
1.272
1.721
0.930
2.268
2.964
0.203
0.884
0.793
0.743
0.051
0.476
0.452
1.003
1.366
2.141
1.756
2.109
0.564
0.787
0.099
0.324
0.909
0.712
0-728
1.158
1.513
1.150
2.899
2.820
0.018
0.294
0.226
0.126
0.718
1.245
1.314
1.415
1.843
1.621
0.890
3.325
proc print data=bioaccum;
titlel '28-Day Bioaccumulation Data';
* The following procedure performs a nonlinear regression analysis
using a simple kinetic model on 28-day bioaccumulation laboratory
test data;
proc nlin data=bioaccum method-marquardt;
by trtmnt notsorted;
parameters kl = 0.1 k2 = 0.5;
kicks = kl * cone sed /k2;
exp_term - exp(-k2~ * t_days);
model conc_tis = kicks * (l-exp_term);
der.kl = (conc_sed / k2) * (l-exp_term);
der.k2 = kicks * (-l/k2 + exp_term/k2 + t days*exp_term);
output out-results p-pred_ct 195m-lo_9lj_2s u95m-up_95_2s;
* This data step calculates the 95%, 1-sided confidence limits from
the 95%, 2-sided limits produced by SAS. The t-values used here
must be changed if the sample size changes;
data results2;
set results;
drop rep conc_tis lo_95_2s up_95_2s;
if rep-1; ~~ ~ ~
lo_95_ls = pred_ct - (up_95_2s-pred_ct)*1.701/2 - 048 ;
up_95_ls = pred_ct + (up_95_2s-pred_ct)*1.701/2.048;
proc print data=results2;
Figure 12-11. Example SAS/PC program to perform nonlinear regression analysis
using hypothetical 28 day time-series bioaccumulation data.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-35
fits to some data than to others. If difficulties are encountered, ap-
proaches such as those discussed by SCI (1989) and Draper and Smith (1981)
should be considered. The advice of an applied statistician might be
appropriate.
Figures 12.12-12.17 present the results of the SAS program shown in
Figure 12.11. Figure 12.12 is a list of the data used in the program.
Figures 12.13 - 12.16 give the nonlinear regression analyses for the
reference and dredged materials A, B, and C, respectively. Results of the
regression analyses are listed in Figure 12.17.
In the data listing in Figure 12.12, a value of 999 days is used to
represent time infinity at which steady state concentrations would have
occurred.
The confidence limits calculated by the SAS nonlinear regression
procedure are 95 percent, two-sided confidence limits. A one-sided confi-
dence limit is calculated from the two-sided limits in the SAS statements
in the last data step of the program. The SAS statement incorporate
t-values for two-sided limits (t-value = 2.048, p-level =0.05 with 28
degrees of freedom) and for one-sided limits (t-value = 1.701, Figure 12.12
p-level = 0.10 with 28 degrees of freedom). If other than five replicates
on each of six days (resulting in 30 observations included in the nonlinear
regression analysis) are used, these t-values have to be altered to reflect
the correct number of degrees of freedom which is two less than the total
number of observations.
The summary in Figure 12.17 gives the value of the tissue concentra-
tion (pre__ct) predicted by nonlinear regression for each day of the test
and for steady state (estimated at 999 days). The summary also includes
the corresponding upper and lower 95 percent, one-sided confidence limits
(up_95_ls and lo_95_ls). The predicted steady state concentrations and
their lower confidence limits are compared to FDA action limits and to the
upper confidence limit calculated on steady state reference sediment
bioaccumulat ion.
Figure 12.18 graphically displays the results of the nonlinear regres-
sions of tissue concentration over time for the four treatments. The
nonlinear regression line for each treatment is shown with the lower 95
percent one-sided confidence bounds on the sample means. The regression
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-36
28-Day Bioaccumulation Data
OBS TRTMNT T_DAYS CONC_SED REP CONCJTIS
1 R 2 0.45 1 0.054
2 R 2 0.45 2 0.163
3 R 2 0-45 3 0.391
4 R 2 0.45 4 0.734
5 R 2 0.45 5 0.634
6 R 4 0.45 1 0.441
7 R 4 0.45 2 0-797
8 R 4 0.45 3 0.203
9 R 4 0.45 4 0.564
10 R 4 0.45 5 0-018
11 R 7 0.45 1 0.687
12 R 7 0.45 2 0.177
13 R 7 0.45 3 0.862
14 R 7 0.45 4 0-413
15 R 7 0.45 5 0.029
16 R 10 0.45 1 0.037
17 R 10 0.45 2 0.549
18 R 10 0.45 3 0.884
19 R 10 0.45 4 0.787
20 R 10 0.45 5 0.294
21 R 18 0.45 1 0.856
22 R 18 0.45 2 0.598
23 R 18 0.45 3 0.016
24 R 18 0.45 4 0.806
25 R 18 0.45 5 0.119
26 R 28 0.45 1 0.514
27 R 28 0.45 2 0.839
28 R 28 0.45 3 0.793
29 R 28 0.45 4 0.099
30 R 28 0.45 5 0.226
31 R 999 0.45 1
32 A 2 4.00 1 0.159
33 A 2 4.00 2 0.292
34 A 2 4.00 3 0.428
35 A 2 4.00 4 0.558
36 A 2 4.00 5 0.256
37 A 4 4.00 1 0.516
38 A 4 4.00 2 0.158
39 A 4 4.00 3 0.743
40 A 4 4.00 4 0.324
41 A 4 4.00 5 0.126
42 A 7 4.00 1 0.881
43 A 7 4.00 2 0.317
44 A 7 4.00 3 0.270
45 A 7 4.00 4 0.562
46 A 7 4.00 5 0.095
47 A 10 4.00 1 0.278
48 A 10 4.00 2 0.485
49 A 10 4.00 3 0-051
50 A 10 4.00 4 0.909
51 A 10 4.00 5 0.718
52 A 18 4.00 1 0.904
53 A 18 4.00 2 1.300
54 A 18 4.00 3 0.671
55 A 18 4.00 4 0.234
56 A 18 4.00 5 0.337
Figure 12-12. Example data listing from SAS/PC program showing sediment
concenration (CON_SED), treatment level (TRTMNT), time in days
(T_DAYS), and tissue concentration (CONCJTIS) for hypothetical
28 day bioaccumulation laboratory test data.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-37
28-Day Bioaccumulation Data
OBS TRTMNT T_DAYS CONC_SED REP CONCJTIS
57 A 28 41 0.172
58 A 28 42 1.049
59 A 28 43 0.476
60 A 28 44 0.712
61 A 28 45 1.245
62 A 999 41.
63 B 2 33 1 0.869
64 B 2 33 2 0.726
65 B 2 33 3 0.394
66 B 2 33 4 1.232
67 B 2 33 5 0.977
68 B 4 33 1 0.838
69 B 4 33 2 0.633
70 B 4 33 3 0.452
71 B 4 33 4 0.728
72 B 4 33 5 1.314
73 B 7 33 1 1.246
74 B 7 33 2 0.816
75 B 7 33 3 0.897
76 B 7 33 4 1.639
77 B 7 33 5 0*688
78 B 10 33 1 1.767
79 B 10 33 2 1.272
80 B 10 33 3 1.003
81 B 10 33 4 1.158
82 B 10 33 5 1.415
83 B 18 33 1 1.631
84 B 18 33 2 1.877
85 B 18 33 3 1.487
86 B 18 33 4 1.216
87 B 18 33 5 1.280
88 B 28 33 1 1.178
89 B 28 33 2 1.721
90 B 28 33 3 1.366
91 B 28 33 4 1.513
92 B 28 33 5 1.843
93 B 999 33 1
94 C 2 44 1 0.745
95 C 2 44 2 1.703
96 C 2 44 3 2.045
97 C 2 44 4 1.855
98 C 2 44 5 1.136
99 C 4 44 1 1.316
100 C 4 44 2 0.930
101 C 4 44 3 2.141
102 C 4 44 4 1.150
103 C 4 44 5 1.621
104 C 7 44 1 1-583
105 C 7 44 2 2.715
106 C 7 44 3 1.016
107 C 7 44 4 2.221
108 C 7 44 5 2.134
109 C 10 44 1 1.578
110 C 10 44 2 2.268
1H C 10 44 3 1-756
112 C 10 44 4 2.899
Figure 12-12. Cont.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-38-
28-Day Bioaccumulation Data
OBS TRTMNT T_DAYS CONC_SED REP CONCJTIS
113 C 10 44 5 0.890
114 C 18 44 1 2.822
115 C 18 44 2 2.607
116 C 18 44 3 3.414
117 C 18 44 4 1.319
118 C 18 44 5 1.866
119 C 28 44 1 1.295
120 C 28 44 2 2.964
121 C 28 44 3 2.109
122 C 28 44 4 2.820
123 C 28 44 5 3.325
124 C 999 44 1
Rgure 12-12. Cont.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-39
28-Day Bioaccumulation Data
TRTMNT=R
Non-Linear Least Squares Iterative Phase
Dependent Variable CONC TIS Method: Marquardt
Iter
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Kl
100000
685462
974848
785682
0.802025
0.811932
0.815045
0.815940
0.816195
NOTE: Convergence criterion met.
K2
0.500000
1.283176
0.687322
0.730668
0.761427
0.772154
0.775362
0.776284
0.776546
Sum of Squares
6.887855
4.167862
3.452842
2.755431
2.753115
2.753084
2.753082
2.753082
2.753082
Non-Linear Least Squares Summary Statistics
Source DF Sum of Squares
Regression
Residual
Uncorrected Total
(Corrected Total)
2 6.1793341786
28 2.7530818214
30 8.9324160000
29 2.7815808000
Dependent Variable CONCJTIS
Mean Square
3.0896670893
0.0983243508
Parameter
Kl
K2
Estimate
Asymptotic
Std. Error
0.8161949523 0.72854762039
0.7765458839 0.74248899959
Asymptotic 95 %
Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
-.67615585015 2.3085457547
-.74436232210 2.2974540900
Corr
Asymptotic Correlation Matrix
Kl
K2
Kl
K2
0.9899643378
0.9899643378
1
Rgure 12-13. Example results from SAS/PC program showing nonlinear regression analysis for
r,gur« ^—---, treatment level from 28 day bioaccumulation test.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-40
28-Day Bioaccumulation Data
TRTMNT=A
Non-Linear Least Squares Iterative Phase
Dependent Variable CONC_TIS Method: Marquardt
Iter
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Kl
.100000
.032072
.032303
,029106
.029372
.029488
.029522
.029532
.029534
0.
0.
0,
0,
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
500000
283014
157206
164033
167118
168038
168305
168382
168404
K2 Sum of Squares
4,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2.
2.
2,
511244
513831
041152
856415
856061
856044
856043
856043
856043
NOTE: Convergence criterion met.
Non-Linear Least Squares Summary Statistics
Source DF Sum of Squares
Regression 2
Residual 28
Uncorrected Total 30
(Corrected Total) 29
8.249353153
2.856042847
11.105396000
3.377693467
Dependent Variable CONCJTIS
Mean Square
4.124676577
0.102001530
Parameter
Kl
K2
Estimate Asymptotic Asymptotic 95 %
Std. Error Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
0.0295344074 0.01095794141 0.00708825264 0.05198056222
0.1684037645 0.08228376939 -.00014561487 0.33695314391
Corr
Asymptotic Correlation Matrix
Kl
K2
Kl
K2
0.9540322074
0.9540322074
1
Figure 12-14. Example results from SAS/PC program showing nonlinear regression
analysis for Treatment Level A from 28 day bioaccumulation test.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-41
28-Day Bioaccumulation Data
TRTMNT=B
Non-Linear Least Squares Iterative Phase
Dependent Variable CONC TIS Method: Marquardt
Iter
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Kl
100000
,010591
,013544
,010636
.010558
,010522
,010514
,010512
.010512
K2
0.500000
0.448632
0.250922
0.240108
0.235466
0.234465
0.234235
0.234181
0.234169
Sum of Squares
717.141922
10.506473
4.997893
2.892513
2.888916
2.888869
2.888867
2.888867
2.888867
NOTE: Convergence criterion met.
Non-Linear Least Squares Summary Statistics
Source DP Sum of Squares
Regression 2
Residual 28
Uncorrected Total 30
(Corrected Total) 29
43.269707380
2.888866620
46.158574000
4.913541467
Dependent Variable CONC_TIS
Mean Square
21.634853690
0.103173808
Parameter Estimate Asymptotic Asymptotic 95 %
Std. Error Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Kl 0.0105115591 0.00190839085 0.00660242738 0.01442069084
K2 0.2341690260 0.05242599994 0.12678004972 0.34155800218
Corr
Asymptotic Correlation Matrix
Kl
K2
Kl
K2
0.9631505062
0.9631505062
1
Figure 12-15. Example results from SAS/PC program showing nonlinear regression!
analysis for Treatment Level B from 28 day bioaccumulation test.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-42
28-Day Bioaccumulation Data
TRTMNT=C
Non-Linear Least Squares Iterative Phase
Dependent Variable CONC_TIS Method: Marquardt
Iter
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Kl
0.100000
0.018868
0.018655
0.017113
0.016869
0.016752
0.016701
0.016679
0.016670
016666
016664
0.
0.
K2
0.500000
0.469395
0.346769
0.332761
0.326314
0.323591
0.322416
0.321905
0.321683
0.321586
0.321544
Sum of Squares
1140.748958
17.304428
13.625363
13.308116
13.305225
13.304758
13.304669
13.304653
13.304649
13.304649
13.304649
NOTE: Convergence criterion met.
Non-Linear Least Squares Summary Statistics
Source DF Sum of Squares
Regression 2
Residual 28
Uncorrected Total 30
(Corrected Total) 29
116.06029440
13.30464860
129.36494300
16.29004137
Dependent Variable CONC_TIS
Mean Square
58.03014720
0.47516602
Parameter
Kl
K2
Estimate Asymptotic Asymptotic 95 %
Std. Error Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
0.0166638672 0.00451720105 0.00741087069 0-02591686376
0.3215436613 0.10241876561 0.11174992542 0.53133739719
Corr
Asymptotic Correlation Matrix
Kl
K2
Kl
K2
0.9717431252
0.9717431252
1
Figure 12-16. Example results from SAS/PC program showing nonlinear regression
analysis for Treatment Level C from 28 day bioaccumulation test.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-43
DBS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Nonlinear Regression Results:
TRTMNT T DAYS CONC SED
28-Day Bioaccumulation Data
PRED CT
LO 95 IS
UP 95 IS
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
2
4
7
10
18
28
999
2
4
7
10
18
28
999
2
4
7
10
18
28
999
2
4
7
10
18
28
999
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
33.00
33.00
33.00
33.00
33.00
33.00
33.00
44.00
44.00
44.00
44.00
44.00
44.00
44.00
0.37290
0.45180
0.47092
0.47278
0.47298
0.47298
0.47298
0.20060
0.34384
0.48570
0.57130
0.66766
0.69523
0.70151
0.55396
0.90075
1.19375
1.33888
1.45945
1.47923
1.48133
1.08161
1.65018
2.04014
2.18876
2.27329
2.28000
2.28028
0.15110
0.34211
0.36228
0.35700
0.35591
0.35591
0.35591
0.09895
0.20600
0.34973
0.45161
0.52438
0.50702
0.49310
0.42615
0.74901
1.06633
1.22659
1.31046
1.30878
1.30695
0.74408
1.31374
1.79589
1.94614
1.96056
1.95334
1.95269
0.59469
0.56149
0.57955
0.58855
0.59004
0.59005
0.59005
0.30225
0.48168
0.62167
0.69099
0.81094
0.88344
0.90993
0.68176
1.05250
1.32116
1.45117
1.60844
1.64967
1.65571
1.41914
1.98662
2.28438
2.43137
2.58602
2.60667
2.60788
Figure 12-17.
Example results from SAS/PC program showing data listing of
nonlinear regression results for 28 day bioaccumulation test.
Output includes predicted tissue concentration, i.e., bio-
accumulation (PRED_CT), and Upper (UP_CL) and lower
(LOW_CL)95 percent confidence bounds on the observation.
-------
.C
O)
•D
CD
D>
C
O
3.0-
2.5-
2.0-
Sample C Mean
Hypothetical FDA Action Limit
O)
D
ut
ut
F
2 1.5-
+->
I
1.0-
Sample C Lower Limit
*
/
/
/ /
Sample B Mean
Sample B Lower Limit
•••••••<
••••«••••
••••••••••<
Sample A Lower Limit
>•••••••
• •••••• A* •• 4
Sample A Mean
Reference Upper Limit
0.5-
..««»»»««•»»»**•*«»*»»«»«»»«»»«««»»»»««»»«
Reference Mean
0.0-
I
0
10
20
30
Days
Steady State
2
0)
rt
(D
M
H-
Figure 12.18. Non-linear regression lines with 95% one-sided confidence bounds on bioaccumulation data.
(-3
Q (5 O
B) W H
3 ft ft)
tJ C H- Hi
Q) P> 3 rt
a>
o (-• p.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-45
line and confidence bounds for the reference treatment are solid lines.
The lines for treatment A are dotted, for treatment B are dashed, and for
treatment C are long and short dashes. Because the endpoint of interest
isthe steady state concentration, the regression lines and confidence
bounds have been drawn beyond the time frame of the laboratory test (28
days) to illustrate the steady state tissue concentration. The hypotheti-
cal FDA action limit is shown on Figure 12.18 for comparison.
From Figure 12.18 it can be seen that at steady state bioaccumulation
from dredged material sample A does not differ from the reference sediment,
i.e., the 95 percent one-sided confidence interval of treatment A overlaps
the confidence interval of the reference sediment. At steady state, the
lower bound of sample A is less than the upper bound of the reference
sediment. Figure 12.18 also illustrates that the steady state tissue
concentration of sample A is less than the FDA action limit. For samples B
and C, the lower 95 percent one-sided confidence bounds on concentration at
steady state are completely above the confidence bounds of the reference
sediment. Since there is no overlap of confidence bounds at steady state,
samples B and C differ from the reference sediment at the statistical sig-
nificance level of 0.05.
The mean tissue concentration at steady state for dredged material
sample B is less than the FDA action limits. Steady state bioaccumulation
in sample B is statistically greater than steady state bioaccumulation in
the reference sediment because there is no overlap of confidence limits.
The predicted steady state tissue concentration in dredged material sample
C is not statistically different from the FDA action limit, as demonstrated
by the lower 95 percent one-sided confidence bound being lower than the
action limit.
Compliance with the regulations is determined in accordance with the
Tier IV bioaccumulation guidance in Section 7.2.
12.3.3 Steady State Bioaccumulation from Field Data
The field bioaccumulation test is designed to show differences, if
any, between organisms living at the proposed disposal site and organisms
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-46
living in the sediments in the reference area. This approach is valid only
under the specific conditions described in Section 11.3.2.
The mean tissue concentration in field organisms collected at the
disposal site is calculated along with lower 95 percent one-sided con-
fidence limits using the formulas given in Section 12.3.1. This mean and
confidence limit are compared to the mean and upper 95 percent one-sided
confidence limit calculated at steady state for organisms collected from
the reference area. Bioaccumulation in two groups of organisms is con-
sidered to be statistically different if the 95 percent, one-sided con-
fidence intervals do not overlap.
Compliance with the regulations is determined in accordance with Tier
IV bioaccumulation guidance in Section 7.2.
12.4 REFERENCES
Cohen, J., 1977. Statistical Power Analysis For the Behavioral Sciences.
Academic Press, Inc., New York, NY.
Daniel, W.W. 1978. Applied Nonparametric Statistics. Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston, MA. 503 pp.
Draper, N.R. and H. Smith. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. 2nd
Edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Dunnett, C.W., 1964. New tables for multiple comparisons with a control.
Biometrics 20:482-491.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1985. Methods for Measuring
the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine Organisms.
Third Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. EPA-600/4-85/013.
Gelber, R.D., P.T. Lavin, C.R. Mehta, andD.A. Schoenfeld. 1985.
Statistical analysis, Chapter 5. In: G.M. Rand and S.R. Petrocelli
(eds.), Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology: Methods and Applications.
pp. 110-123. Hemisphere Publishing Corp., Washington, DC.
McFarland, V.A., J.U. Clarke, and A.B. Gibson. 1986. Changing concepts
and improved methods for evaluating the importance of PCBs as
dredged sediment contaminants. Miscellaneous Paper D-86-5, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 12-47
bioavailability of neutral organic chemicals in sediment, Envi-
ronmental Effects of Dredging Technical Note EEDP-01-8. U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Natrella, M.G. 1963. Experimental Statistics, Handbook 91. U.S. National
Bureau of Standards. Washington, DC.
SAS Institute, Inc. 1985. SAS Users Guide: Statistics. Version 5
Edition. SAS Institute, Inc. Gary, NC. 956 pp.
Satterthwaite, F.W. 1946. An approximate distribution of estimates of
variance components. Biometrics Bull. 2:110-114.
SCI. 1989. PCNONLIN Version 3.0. Statistical Consultants, Inc.,
300 E. Main Street, Quality Place, Suite 400, Lexington, KY,
40507-1539.
Snedecor, G.W., and Cochran, G.C. 1980. Statistical Methods. 7th
edition. Iowa State University Press. Ames, IA. 507 pp.
Sokal, R.R., and F.J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. 2nd edition.
W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA. 859 pp.
Steele, R.G.D., and J.H. Torrie. 1980. 2nd edition. Principles and
Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York,
NY. 633 pp.
Stephan, C.E. 1977. Methods for Calculating an LC50. In: F.L. Mayer and
J.A. Hamelink (eds.), pp. 65-84. Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard
Evaluation, ASTM STP 634. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 13-1
13.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE CONSIDERATIONS
The purpose of a quality assurance program in a dredging study is to
ensure that the data produced by the study are of known and documented
quality. This is accomplished by ensuring that proper quality control
procedures are built into the study at the beginning and by verifying that
the procedures are followed during the study.
The distinction between quality assurance (QA) and quality control
(QC) is that the former is a management tool and the latter is a series of
procedures designed to implement that tool by measuring precision,
accuracy, comparability, completeness and representativeness. QA
activities insure that QC procedures have been implemented and documented.
QA reports to the upper management and operates independently of activities
involved with conduct of the tests. QC operates as an integral part of the
study and includes measurements of data quality using blanks, spikes, and
control test groups to which test results can be compared.
A complete QA effort in 4 dredging study has two components: a QA
program implemented by the responsible governmental agency (the data user)
and QA programs implemented by the laboratories performing the tests (the
data generators).
13.1 STRUCTURE OF QA PROGRAMS
The organization of the QA effort for a dredging study and the respon-
sibilities of each component are discussed in this section.
13.1.1 Government (Data User) QA Program
The function of the government QA program is to ensure that labora-
tories contracted for the dredging studies comply with the procedures in
this manual or with other specified guidelines. Oversight of the QA effort
for a dredging study should be the responsibility of a QA Coordinator to be
established in the Corps of Engineers District Office, working in conjunc-
tion with the EPA Regional QA Officer. District QA Coordinators should be
responsible for ensuring that data submitted with permit applications and
laboratories under contract to their Districts comply with the QA needs of
the regulations and guidelines governing dredged material studies. This
responsibility should be carried out in three ways: pre-award inspections,
inter-laboratory comparisons, and routine inspections during conduct of the
studies. Data quality objectives should be established for testing. The
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 13-2
QA program should be designed with the assistance of administrative and
scientific expertise from headquarters of CE and EPA, and other qualified
sources as appropriate. Some QA considerations in contractor selection are
discussed by Sturgis (1990).
13.1.1.1 Pre-award Inspections
Before a government contract is awarded, it is strongly recommended
that the District QA Coordinator inspect the laboratories seeking to work
on the study. This pre-award inspection assesses the laboratory's
capabilities, personnel, and equipment. It establishes the groundwork
necessary to ensure that tests will be conducted properly, provides the
initial contact between government and laboratory staff, and emphasizes the
importance that the government places on quality assurance.
This inspection is designed to establish that the laboratory has
implemented the following measures:
. An independent QA program
. Written work plans for each test
. Technically sound written standard operating procedures (SOPs) for
all study activities.
13.1.1.2 Interlaboratory Comparison
In dredging studies it is important for data collected and processed
at various laboratories to be comparable. To ensure this comparability,
proficiency testing of a laboratory is recommended before a contract is
signed and yearly thereafter. Each laboratory taking part in a proficiency
test analyzes samples, prepared to a known concentration, of a standard
from the National Institute for Standards and Technology or other
recognized source of Standard Reference Material (SRM) (refer to Table 9.4
for sources of reference material and standards). Results are compared
with predetermined criteria of acceptability. Proficiency testing programs
already established by EPA or CE may be used, or a program may be designed
specifically for dredging evaluations.
13.1.1.3 Routine Inspections
The purpose of routine surveillance inspections during conduct of
contract work is to ensure that laboratories are complying with the QA
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 13-3
Plan. It is suggested that the District QA Coordinator develop checklists
for review of training records, equipment specifications, quality control
procedures for analytical tasks, management organization, etc. The QA
Coordinator should also establish laboratory review files for quick
assessment of the laboratory's activity on a study, and to aid in
monitoring of the overall quality of the laboratory. Procedures for
inspections by the District QA Coordinator are similar to systems audits
(Section 13.3-4) conducted by the laboratories themselves.
13.1.2 Data Generator QA Program
Ideally, each laboratory participating in a dredged material study
should have a written QA Program Plan that describes the organization's QA
program, including its policies, areas of application, and authorities.
Individuals involved in the QA program should be identified, and their
responsibilities clearly stated. For any given study, QA personnel should
be entirely independent of the technical personnel engaged in the study to
ensure unbiased assessments of the work performed.
Where possible, the laboratory should have a QA Manager or Coordinator
who is responsible for the development, implementation, and administration
of the QA program. For dredging studies, the QA Manager/Coordinator should
ensure that the appropriate QA planning documents exist for each study
(Section 13.2.8); routine procedures that impact data quality are described
in SOPs; sufficiently detailed audits are conducted at frequent enough
intervals to ensure conformance with approved study plans and SOPs and to
identify deficiencies; and appropriate corrective actions are implemented
in a timely manner.
13.2 GENERAL COMPONENTS OF ALL QA PROGRAMS
A well-structured QA program defines the criteria data have to meet to
be acceptable. The procedures for collecting and analyzing those data
should be an integral part of the overall study plan. A good QA program
sets standards for personnel qualifications, facilities, equipment,
services, data generation, recordkeeping, and data quality assessments.
13.2.1 Organization
The QA program plan should describe the lines of authority and
responsibilities for technical personnel, including those responsible for
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 13-4
quality assurance. Procedures should be available to describe the
qualifications, training, job descriptions, etc. for all field and
laboratory personnel.
13.2.2 Personnel Qualifications
All personnel performing tasks and functions related to data quality
have to be appropriately qualified and adequately trained. It is generally
the responsibility of the contractor's QA staff to ensure that personnel
are qualified and trained. Records of qualifications and training of
personnel should be kept current, so that training can be verified by
internal quality assurance personnel or by CE and EPA.
13.2.3 Facilities
The QA program plan should provide a description of the physical
layout of the laboratory, define space for each area of testing, describe
traffic flow patterns, and document special laboratory needs.
13.2.4 Equipment and Supplies
The QA program plan should describe how field and laboratory equipment
essential to the performance of environmental measurements will be
maintained in proper working order. This is demonstrated through records
that document the reliability and performance characteristics of the
equipment. Such equipment should be subject to regular inspection and
preventive maintenance procedures to ensure proper working order.
Instruments should have periodic calibration and preventive maintenance
performed by qualified technical personnel, and a permanent record kept of
calibrations, problems diagnosed, and corrective actions applied. An
acceptance testing program for key materials used in the performance of
environmental measurements (chemical and biological materials) should be
applied prior to their use.
13.2.5 Test Methods and Procedures
All methods and procedures used in the field and laboratory should be
in written form, authorized, and readily available to all personnel. There
should be a mechanism to describe the circumstances under which non-stan-
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 13-5
dard methods or procedures may be used, and the appropriate approval and
documentation should be described,
13.2.6 Sample Handling and Tracking
Sample custody is a part of any good field or laboratory operation.
Where samples may be needed for potential litigation, chain of custody
procedures should be used. Sample custody is important for both parts of
the dredged material evaluation process - the field (sample collection) and
the laboratory (receipt, analysis and reporting). More detailed sample
handling guidance is provided in Sections 8.2.6 through 8.2.8.
13.2.7 Documentation and Recordkeeping
Records should be maintained to ensure that all aspects of the field
and laboratory work are documented. It is important to record all the
events that are associated with a sample so that the scope and validity of
the resulting data may be properly interpreted. A document trail is
generated to show the course of the sample from the field through the
laboratory.
All data should be recorded directly, promptly, legibly, and
indelibly, so that data are easily traceable. Data entries should be dated
on the date of entry and signed or initialed by the person making the
measurement and the person entering the data. Changes on entries should be
made so as not to obscure the original entry, and should indicate the
reason for the change, the person making the change, and the date of
change. In computer-driven data collection systems, the person responsible
for direct data input should be identified at the time of input.
13.2.8 Quality Assurance Study Plan
It is good practice for the government to require that QA study plans
be developed by the contractor for all dredged material evaluations. These
study plans may be developed in accordance with CE (1985) or EPA (1984).
EPA (1987) contains QA guidance that is generally applicable to sample
collection and laboratory aspects of dredged material evaluations and
should be considered in QA study plan development. Topics covered in these
documents include provisions for (I) name of the study, (2) what agency
requested it, (3) date of the request, (4) date of initiation, (5) program
officer, (6) quality assurance officer, (7) study description, (8) fiscal
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 13-6
information, (9) schedule of tasks and products, (10) organization and
responsibilities, (11) data quality requirements and assessments, (12)
sampling and analytical procedures, (13) sample custody procedures, (14)
equipment calibration and maintenance procedures, (15) documentation, data
reduction and reporting, (16) data validation, (17) performance and systems
audits, (18) corrective action, and (19) reports.
QA study plans are valuable documents because they provide in one
place an overall plan for conducting work, including standards of data
quality that have to be maintained. QA study plans are particularly useful
for work that involves many people or that lasts over a long time period.
When many people are involved, the plan ensures that everyone has a
thorough understanding of the goals and procedures of the program. When
work is conducted over a long period of time, the plan provides a basis of
continuity, ensuring that procedures do not slowly change over time without
the persons involved in the program evaluating the nature of the changes
and their possible impacts on data quality.
13.2.9 Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)
Standard operating procedures (SOP) are documents describing routine
study methods and procedures which affect data quality and integrity. Like
QA study plans, standard operating procedures (SOP) ensure that all persons
conducting work are following the same procedures and that the procedures
do not change over time. SOPs should be prepared for use of equipment and
facilities, measurements, and other aspects of work that impact data
quality.
13.3 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT
13.3.1 Data Validation
Data validation involves all procedures used to accept or reject data
after collection and prior to use, including editing, screening, checking,
auditing, verifying, and reviewing. Data validation procedures ensure that
the standards for data accuracy and precision were met, that data were
generated in accordance with the QA study plan and SOPs, and that data are
traceable and defensible. It is important for all reported data to be
properly validated following standardized procedures to ensure that data
are of consistent and documented quality.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 13-7
13.3.2 Chemical Quality Control
Chemical quality control specifications are the ranges considered
acceptable for instrument calibration, analyte recovery, data accuracy, and
data precision. Instrument calibration involves determining a linear
response over the range of data to be collected. Recovery is determined by
analyzing a sample spiked with a known amount of chemical. Procedural
accuracy is established by including a series of spiked and blank samples
in each analysis. Precision is established by analyzing replicate samples.
Quality control procedures are discussed in more detail for sediment, water
and tissue analyses in Sections 9.3.3, 9.4.3, and 9.5.3, respectively.
The CE District QA Coordinator or management authority for the program
may require that certain samples be submitted on a routine basis to govern-
ment laboratories for analysis, and EPA or CE may participate in some
studies. These activities provide an independent quality assurance check
on activities being performed and on data being generated.
13.3.3 Biological Quality Control (Reference Toxicant Testing)
Biological quality control involves periodic reference toxicant tests
conducted with all stocks of organisms to be used in the dredged material
tests to determine the relative health of the test organisms. The
application and benefits of reference toxicant tests are discussed by Lee
(1980). Detailed assistance in establishing a biological quality control
program can be provided by scientists from headquarters of CE and EPA.
When sufficient reference toxicant data have been generated for a
particular species, it may be possible to stipulate an acceptable LC50
range for that species with the reference toxicant.
13.3.4 Performance and System Audits
Performance and system audits are an essential part of the field and
laboratory quality assurance program. A performance audit independently
collects measurement data using performance evaluation (PE) samples, field
blanks, trip blanks, duplicate samples and spiked samples. A systems audit
consists of a review of the total data production process which includes
on-site reviews of field and laboratory operational systems. The purpose
of these inspections is to verify that (1) appropriate standard operating
procedures are in place, (2) training of the staff is appropriate and
documented, (3) all equipment is properly calibrated and maintained, (4)
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page 13-8
approved analytical procedures are being followed, and (5) all aspects of
the study are on schedule.
13.3.5 Management of Nonconformance Events
One purpose of any QA program is to identify a nonconformance event as
quickly as possible. A nonconformance event is defined as any event that
does not follow defined methods, procedures, protocols, or any occurrence
that may affect the quality of the data or study. A QA program should have
a corrective action plan to provide feedback channels to the appropriate
management authority defining how all nonconformance events were corrected.
13.3.6 Archiving of Data and Samples
A procedure should be established for the retention of all appropriate
field and laboratory records, specimens and samples as various tasks or
phases are completed. The archival procedure should indicate the storage
requirements, location, indexing codes, retention time, security and
environmental measures needed to preserve the data and samples.
13.4 REFERENCES
CE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1985. Chemical Quality Management —
Toxic and Hazardous Wastes. ER 1110-1-263 U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington, D.C.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1984. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards (OWRS) QA-1. Guidance for the Preparation
of Combined/Work Quality Assurance Project Plan for Environmental
Monitoring.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1987. Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) for 301(h) Monitoring Program:
Guidance on Field and Laboratory Methods. EPA 430/9-86-004. Prepared
for the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection by Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Bellvue, WA. NTIS Number PB 87-221164.
Lee, D.R. 1980. Reference toxicants in quality control of aquatic bioas-
says. In: A.L. Buikema, Jr., and J. Cairns, Jr. (eds.), pp. 188-199.
Aquatic Invertebrate Bioassays. ASTM.STP 715. American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Sturgis, T.C. 1990. Guidance for Contracting Biological and Chemical
Evaluations of Dredged Material. Technical Report. D-90-XX, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-0
APPENDIX A
Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 220-228
-------
§220.1
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-l
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
SUBCHAPTER H—OCEAN DUMPING
PART 220—GENERAL
Sec.
220.1 Purpose and scope.
220.2 Definitions.
220.3 Categories of permits.
220.4 Authorities to issue permits.
AUTHORITY: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.
SOURCE: 42 FR 2468, Jan. 11, 1977, unless
otherwise noted.
§ 220.1 Purpose and scope.
(a) General. This Subchapter H es-
tablishes procedures and criteria for
the issuance of permits by EPA pursu-
ant to section 102 of the Act. This
Subchapter H also establishes the cri-
teria to be applied by the Corps of En-
gineers in its review of activities in-
volving the transportation of dredged
material for the purpose of dumping it
in ocean waters pursuant to section
103 of the Act. Except as may be au-
thorized by a permit issued pursuant
to this Subchapter H, or pursuant to
section 103 of the Act, and subject to
other applicable regulations promul-
gated pursuant to section 108 of the
Act:
(1) No person shall transport from
the United States any material for the
purpose of dumping it into ocean
waters;
(2) In the case of a vessel or aircraft
registered in the United States or
flying the United States flag or in the
case of a United States department,
agency, or instrumentality, no person
shall transport from any location any
material for the purpose of dumping it
into ocean waters; and
(3) No person shall dump any mate-
rial transported from a location out-
side the United States:
(i) Into the territorial sea of the
United States; or
(ii) Into a zone contiguous to the ter-
ritorial sea of the United States, ex-
tending to a line twelve nautical miles
seaward from the base line from
which the breadth of the territorial
sea is measured, to the extent that it
may affect the territorial sea or the
territory of the United States.
(b) Relationship to international
agreements. In accordance with sec-
tion 102(a) of the Act, the regulations
and criteria included in this Subchap-
ter H apply the standards and criteria
binding upon the United States under
the Convention on the Prevention of
Marine Pollution by Dumping of
Wastes and Other Matter to the
extent that application of such stand-
ards and criteria do not relax the re-
quirements of the Act.
(c) Exclusions—(1) Fish wastes. This
Subchapter H does not apply to, and
no permit hereunder shall be required
for, the transportation for the purpose
of dumping or the dumping in ocean
waters of fish wastes unless such
dumping occurs in:
(i) Harbors or other protected or en-
closed coastal waters; or
(ii) Any other location where the Ad-
ministrator finds that such dumping
may reasonably be anticipated to en-
danger health, the environment or ec-
ological systems.
(2) Fisheries resources. This Sub-
chapter H does not apply to, and no
permit hereunder shall be required
for, the placement or deposit of oyster
shells or other materials for the pur-
pose of developing, maintaining or
harvesting fisheries resources; provid-
ed, such placement or deposit is regu-
lated under or is a part of an author-
ized State or Federal program certified
to EPA by the agency authorized to
enforce the regulation, or to adminis-
ter the program, as the case may be;
and provided further, that the Nation-
al Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concur
in such placement or deposit as it may
affect their responsibilities and such
concurrence is evidenced by letters of
concurrence from these agencies.
(3) Vessel propulsion and fixed struc-
tures. This Subchapter H does not
apply to, and no permit hereunder
shall be required for:
(i) Routine discharges of effluent in-
cidental to the propulsion of vessels or
the operation of motor-driven equip-
ment on vessels; or
(ii) Construction of any fixed struc-
ture or artificial island, or the inten-
tional placement of any device in
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-2
Environmental Protection Agency
ocean waters or on or in the sub-
merged land beneath such waters, for
a purpose other than disposal when
such construction or such placement is
otherwise regulated by Federal or
State law or made pursuant to an au-
thorized Federal or State program cer-
tified to EPA by the agency author-
ized to enforce the regulations or to
administer the program, as the case
may be.
(4) Emergency to safeguard life at
sea. This Subchapter H does not apply
to, and no permit hereunder shall be
required for, the dumping of material
into ocean waters from a vessel or air-
craft in an emergency to safeguard life
at sea to the extent that the person
owning or operating such vessel or air-
craft files timely reports required by
§ 224.2(b).
§ 220.2 Definitions.
As used in this Subchapter H:
(a) "Act" means the Marine Protec-
tion. Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972. as amended (33 U.S.C. 1401);
(b) "FWPCA" means the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended (33 U.S.C. 1251);
(c) "Ocean" or "ocean waters"
means those waters of the open seas
lying seaward of the baseline from
which the territorial sea is measured,
as provided for in the Convention on
the Territorial Sea and the Contigu-
ous Zone (15 UST 1606; TIAS 5639);
this definition includes the waters of
the territorial sea, the contiguous zone
and the oceans as defined in section
502 of the FWPCA.
(d) "Material" means matter of any
kind or description, including, but not
limited to, dredged material, solid
waste, incinerator residue, garbage,
sewage, sewage sludge, munitions, ra-
diological, chemical, and biological
warfare agents, radioactive materials,
chemicals, biological and laboratory
waste, wreck or discarded equipment,
rock, sand, excavation debris, industri-
al, municipal, agricultural, and other
waste, but such term does not mean
sewage from vessels within the mean-
ing of section 312 of the FWPCA. Oil
within the meaning of section 311 of
the FWPCA shall constitute "materi-
al" for purposes of this Subchapter H
only to the extent that it is taken on
§220.2
board a vessel or aircraft for the pri-
mary purpose of dumping.
(e) "Dumping" means a disposition
of material: Provided, That it does not
mean a disposition of any effluent
from any outfall structure to the
extent that such disposition is regulat-
ed under the provisions of the
FWPCA, under the provisions of sec-
tion 13 of the River and Harbor Act of
1899, as amended (33 U.S.C. 407), or
under the provisions of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42
U.S.C. 2011), nor does it mean a rou-
tine discharge of effluent incidental to
the propulsion of, or operation of
motor-driven equipment on, vessels:
Provided further, That it does not
mean the construction of any fixed
structure or artificial island nor the
intentional placement of any device in
ocean waters or on or in the sub-
merged land beneath such waters, for
a purpose other than disposal, when
such construction or such placement is
otherwise regulated by Federal or
State law or occurs pursuant to an au-
thorized Federal or State program;
And provided further, That it does not
include the deposit of oyster shells, or
other materials when such deposit is
made for the purpose of developing,
maintaining, or harvesting fisheries
resources and is otherwise regulated
by Federal or State law or occurs pur-
suant to an authorized Federal or
State program.
(f) "Sewage Treatment Works"
means municipal or domestic waste
treatment facilities of any type which
are publicly owned or regulated to the
extent that feasible compliance sched-
ules are determined by the availability
of funding provided by Federal, State,
or local governments.
(g) "Criteria" means the criteria set
forth in Part 227 of this Subchapter
H.
(h) "Dredged Material Permit"
means a permit issued by the Corps of
Engineers under section 103 of the Act
(see 33 CFR 209.120) and any Federal
projects reviewed under section 103(e)
of the Act (see 33 CFR 209.145).
(i) Unless the context otherwise re-
quires, all other terms shall have the
meanings assigned to them by the Act.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-3
§220.3
§ 220.3 Categories of permits.
This § 220.3 provides for the issu-
ance of general, special, emergency, in-
terim and research permits for ocean
dumping under section 102 of the Act.
(a) General permits. General permits
may be issued for the dumping of cer-
tain materials which will have a mini-
mal adverse environmental impact and
are generally disposed of in small
quantities, or for specific classes of
materials that must be disposed of in
emergency situations. General permits
may be issued on application of an in-
terested person in accordance with the
procedures of Part 221 or may be
issued without such application when-
ever the Administrator determines
that issuance of a general permit is
necessary or appropriate.
(b) Special permits. Special permits
may be issued for the dumping of ma-
terials which satisfy the Criteria and
shall specify an expiration date no
later than three years from the date
of issue.
(c) Emergency permits. For any of
the materials listed in § 227.6, except
as trace contaminants, after consulta-
tion with the Department of State
with respect to the need to consult
with parties to the Convention on the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter
that are likely to be affected by the
dumping, emergency permits may be
issued to dump such materials where
there is demonstrated to exist an
emergency requiring the dumping of
such materials, which poses an unac-
ceptable risk relating to human health
and admits of no other feasible solu-
tion. As used herein, "emergency"
refers to situations requiring action
with a marked degree of urgency, but
is not limited in its application to cir-
cumstances requiring immediate
action. Emergency permits may be
issued for other materials, except
those prohibited by §227.5, without
consultation with the Department of
State when the Administrator deter-
mines that there exists an emergency
requiring the dumping of such materi-
als which poses an unacceptable risk
to human health and admits of no
other feasible solution.
(d) Interim permits. Prior to April
23, 1978, interim permits may be
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
issued in accordance with Subpart A
of Part 227 to dump materials which
are not in compliance with the envi-
ronmental impact criteria of Subpart
B of Part 227, or which would cause
substantial adverse effects as deter-
mined in accordance with the criteria
of Subpart D or E of Part 227 or for
which an ocean disposal site has not
been designated on other than an in-
terim basis pursuant to Part 228 of
this Subchapter H; provided, however,
no permit may be issued for the ocean
dumping of any materials listed in
§ 227.5, or for any of the materials
listed in § 227.6, except as trace con-
taminants; provided further that the
compliance date of April 23, 1978, does
not apply to the dumping of wastes by
existing dumpers when the Regional
Administrator determines that the
permittee has exercised his best ef-
forts to comply with all requirements
of a special permit by April 23, 1978,
and has an implementation schedule
adequate to allow phasing out of
ocean dumping .or compliance with all
requirements necessary to receive a
special permit by December 31, 1981,
at the latest. No interim permit will be
granted for the dumping of waste
from a facility which has not previous-
ly dumped wastes in the ocean from a
new facility, or for the dumping of an
increased amount of waste from the
expansion or modification of an exist-
ing facility, after the effective date of
these regulations (except when the fa-
cility is operated by a municipality
now dumping such wastes). No interim
permit will be issued for the dumping
of any material in the ocean for which
an interim permit had previously been
issued unless the applicant demon-
strates that he has exercised his best
efforts to comply with all provisions of
the previously issued permits. Interim
permits shall specify an expiration
date no later than one year from the
date of issue.
(e) Research permits. Research per-
mits may be issued for the dumping of
any materials, other than materials
specified in § 227.5 or for any of the
materials listed in § 227.6 except as
trace contaminants, unless subject to
the exclusion of § 227.6(g), into the
ocean as part of a research project
when it is determined that the scien-
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-4
Environmental Protection Agency
tific merit of the proposed project out-
weighs the potential environmental or
other damage that may result from
the dumping. Research permits shall
specify an expiration date no later
than 18 months from the date of issue.
(f) Permits for incineration at sea.
Permits for incineration of wastes at
sea will be issued only as research per-
mits or as interim permits until specif-
ic criteria to regulate this type of dis-
posal are promulgated, except in those
cases where studies on the waste, the
incineration method and vessel, and
the site have been conducted and the
site has been designated for inciner-
ation at sea in accordance with the
procedures of § 228.4(b). In all other
respects the requirements of Parts 220
through 228 apply.
[42 PR 2468, Jan. 11, 1977; 43 FR 1071, Jan.
6,1978]
§ 220.4 Authorities to issue permits.
(a) Determination by Administrator.
The Administrator, or such other EPA
employee as he may from time to time
designate in writing, shall issue, deny,
modify, revoke, suspend, Impose condi-
tions on, initiate and carry out en-
forcement activities and take any and
all other actions necessary or proper
and permitted by law with respect to
general, special, emergency, interim,
or research permits.
(b) Authority delegated to Regional
Administrators. Regional Administra-
tors, or such other EPA employees as
they may from time to time designate
in writing, are delegated the authority
to issue, deny, modify, revoke, sus-
pend, impose conditions on, initiate
and carry out enforcement activities,
and take any and all other actions nec-
essary or proper and permitted by law
with respect to special and interim
permits for:
(1) The dumping of material in
those portions of the territorial sea
which are subject to the jurisdiction
of any State within their respective
Regions, and in those portions of the
contiguous zone immediately adjacent
to such parts of the territorial sea; and
in the oceans with respect to approved
waste disposal sites designated pursu-
ant to Part 228 of this Subchapter H,
and
§ 221.1
(2) Where transportation for dump-
ing is to originate in one Region and
dumping is to occur at a location
within another Region's jurisdiction
conferred by order of the Administra-
tor, the Region in which transporta-
tion is to originate shall be responsible
for review of the application and shall
prepare the technical evaluation of
the need for dumping and alternatives
to ocean dumping. The Region having
jurisdiction over the proposed dump
site shall take all other actions re-
quired by this Subchapter H with re-
spect to the permit application, includ-
ing without limitation, determining to
issue or deny the permit, specifying
the conditions to be imposed, and
giving public notice. If both Regions
do not concur in the disposition of the
permit application, the Administrator
will make the final decision on all
issues with respect to the permit appli-
cation, including without limitation,
issuance or denial of the permit and
the conditions to be imposed.
(c) Review of Corps of Engineers
Dredged Material Permits. Regional
Administrators have the authority to
review, to approve or to disapprove or
to propose conditions upon Dredged
Material Permits for ocean dumping
of dredged material at locations within
the respective Regional jurisdictions.
Regional jurisdiction to act under this
paragraph (c) of § 220.4 is determined
by the Administrator in accordance
with § 228.4(e).
PART 221—APPLICATIONS FOR
OCEAN DUMPING PERMITS UNDER
SECTION 102 OF THE ACT
Sec.
221.1 Applications for permits.
221.2 Other information.
221.3 Applicant.
221.4 Adequacy of information in applica-
tion.
221.5 Processing fees.
AUTHORITY: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.
SOURCE 42 FR 2470, Jan. 11, 1977, unless
otherwise noted.
§ 221.1 Applications for permits.
Applications for general, special,
emergency, interim and research per-
mits under section 102 of the Act may
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-5
§221.2
be filed with the Administrator or the
appropriate Regional Administrator,
as the case may be, authorized by
§ 220.4 to act on the application. Ap-
plications shall be made in writing and
shall contain, in addition to any other
material which may be required, the
following:
(a) Name and address of applicant;
(b) Name of the person or firm
transporting the material for dump-
ing, the name of the person(s) or
firm(s) producing or processing all ma-
terials to be transported for dumping,
and the name or other identification,
and usual location, of the conveyance
to be used in the transportation and
dumping of the material to be
dumped, including information on the
transporting vessel's communications
and navigation equipment;
(c) Adequate physical and chemical
description of material to be dumped,
including results of tests necessary to
apply the Criteria, and the number,
size, and physical configuration of any
containers to be dumped;
(d) Quantity of material to be
dumped;
(e) Proposed dates and times of dis-
posal;
(f) Proposed dump site, and in the
event such proposed dump site is not a
dump site designated in this Subchap-
ter H, detailed physical, chemical and
biological information relating to the
proposed dump site and sufficient to
support its designation as a site ac-
cording to the procedures of Part 228
of this Subchapter H;
(g) Proposed method of releasing the
material at the dump site and means
by which the disposal rate can be con-
trolled and modified as required;
(h) Identification of the specific
process or activity giving rise to the
production of the material;
(i) Description of the manner in
which the type of material proposed
to be dumped has been previously dis-
posed of by or on behalf of the
person(s) or firm(s) producing such
material;
(j) A statement of the need for the
proposed dumping and an evaluation
of short and long term alternative
means of disposal, treatment or recy-
cle of the material. Means of disposal
shall include without limitation, land-
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
fill, well injection, incineration, spread
of material over open ground; biologi-
cal, chemical or physical treatment;
recovery and recycle of material
within the plant or at other plants
which may use the material, and stor-
age. The statement shall also include
an analysis of the availability and en-
vironmental impact of such alterna-
tives; and
(k) An assessment of the anticipated
environmental impact of the proposed
dumping, including without limitation,
the relative duration of the effect of
the proposed dumping on the marine
environment, navigation, living and
non-living marine resource exploita-
tion, scientific study, recreation and
other uses of the ocean.
§ 221.2 Other information.
In the event the Administrator, Re-
gional Administrator, or a person des-
ignated by either to review permit ap-
plications, determines that additional
information is needed in order to
apply the Criteria, he shall so advise
the applicant in writing. All additional
information requested pursuant to
this § 221.2 shall be deemed part of
the application and for purposes of ap-
plying the time limitation of § 222.1,
the application will not be considered
complete until such information has
been filed.
§ 221.3 Applicant
Any person may apply for a permit
under this Subchapter H even though
the proposed dumping may be carried
on by a permittee who is not the appli-
cant; provided however, that the Ad-
ministrator or the Regional Adminis-
trator, as the case may be, may, in his
discretion, require that an application
be filed by the person or firm produc-
ing or processing the material pro-
posed to be dumped. Issuance of a
permit will not excuse the permittee
from any civil or criminal liability
which may attach by virtue of his
having transported or dumped materi-
als in violation of the terms or condi-
tions of a permit, notwithstanding
that the permittee may not have been
the applicant.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-6
Environmental Protection Agency
§ 221.4 Adequacy of information in appli-
cation.
No permit issued under this Sub-
chapter H will be valid for the trans-
portation or dumping of any material
which is not accurately and adequate-
ly described in the application. No per-
mittee shall be relieved of any liability
which may arise as a result of the
transportation or dumping of material
which does not conform to informa-
tion provided in the application solely
by virtue of the fact that such infor-
mation was furnished by an applicant
other than the permittee.
§ 221.5 Processing fees.
(a) A processing fee of $1,000 will be
charged in connection with each appli-
cation for a permit for dumping in an
existing dump site designated in this
Subchapter H.
(b) A processing fee of an additional
$3,000 will be charged in connection
with each application for a permit for
dumping in a dump site other than a
dump site designated in this Subchap-
ter H.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of this § 221.5, no agency or in-
strumentality of the United States or
of a State or local government will be
required to pay the processing fees
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section.
PART 222—ACTION ON OCEAN
DUMPING PERMIT APPLICATIONS
UNDER SECTION 102 OF THE ACT
Sec.
222.1 General.
222.2 Tentative determinations.
222.3 Notice of applications.
222.4 Initiation of hearings.
222.5 Time and place of hearings.
222.6 Presiding Of ficer.
222.7 Conduct of public hearing.
222.8 Recommendations of Presiding Offi-
cer.
222.9 Issuance of permits.
222.10 Appeal to adjudlcatory hearing.
222.11 Conduct of adjudicatory hearings.
222.12 Appeal to Administrator.
222.13 Computation of time.
AUTHORITY: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.
SOURCE 42 PR 2471, Jan. 11, 1977, unless
otherwise noted.
§222.3
§ 222.1 General.
Decisions as to the issuance, denial,
or imposition of conditions on general,
special, emergency, interim and re-
search permits under section 102 of
the Act will be made by application of
the criteria of Parts 227 and 228. Final
action on any application for a permit
will, to the extent practicable, be
taken within 180 days from the date a
complete application is filed.
§ 222.2 Tentative determinations.
(a) Within 30 days of the receipt of
his initial application, an applicant
shall be issued notification of whether
his application is complete and what,
if any, additional information is re-
quired. No such notification shall be
deemed to foreclose the Administrator
or the Regional Administrator, as the
case may be, from requiring additional
information at any time pursuant to
§ 221.2.
(b) Within 30 days after receipt of a
completed permit application, the Ad-
ministrator or the Regional Adminis-
trator, as the case may be, shall pub-
lish notice of such application includ-
ing a tentative determination with re-
spect to issuance or denial of the
permit. If such tentative determina-
tion is to issue the permit, the follow-
ing additional tentative determina-
tions will be made:
(1) Proposed time limitations, if any,
(2) Proposed rate of discharge from
the barge or vessel transporting the
waste;
(3) Proposed dumping site; and
(4) A brief description of any other
proposed conditions determined to be
appropriate for inclusion in the permit
in question.
§ 222.3 Notice of applications.
(a) Contents. Notice of every com-
plete application for a general, special,
interim, emergency and research
permit shall, in addition to any other
material, include the following:
(DA summary of the information
included in the permit application;
(2) Any tentative determinations
made pursuant to paragraph (b) of
§ 222.2;
(3) A brief description of the proce-
dures set forth in § 222.5 for request-
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-7
§222.3
ing a public hearing on the application
including specification of the date by
which requests for a public hearing
must be filed;
(4) A brief statement of the factors
considered in reaching the tentative
determination with respect to the
permit and, in the case of a tentative
determination to issue the permit, the
reasons for the choice of the particu-
lar permit conditions selected; and
(5) The location at which interested
persons may obtain further informa-
tion on the proposed dumping, includ-
ing copies of any relevant documents.
(b) Publication—(1) Special, interim
and research permits. Notice of every
complete application for special, inter-
im and research permits shall be given
by:
(i) Publication in a daily newspaper
of general circulation in the State in
closest proximity to the proposed
dump site; and
(ii) Publication in a daily newspaper
of general circulation in the city in
which is located the office of the Ad-
ministrator or the Regional Adminis-
trator, as the case may be, giving
notice of the permit application.
(2) General permits. Notice of every
complete application for a general
permit or notice of action proposed to
be taken by the Administrator to issue
a general permit, without an applica-
tion, shall be given by publication in
the FEDERAL REGISTER.
(3) Emergency permits. Notice of
every complete application for an
emergency permit shall be given by
publication in accordance with para-
graphs (b)(l)(i) and (ii) of this section;
Provided, however, That no such
notice and no tentative determination
in accordance with § 222.2 shall be re-
quired in any case in which the Ad-
ministrator determines:
(i) That an emergency, as defined in
paragraph (c) of § 220.3 exists;
(ii) That the emergency poses an un-
acceptable risk relating to human
health;
(iii) That the emergency admits of
no other feasible solution; and
(iv) That the public interest requires
the issuance of an emergency permit
as soon as possible.
Notice of any determination made by
the Administrator pursuant to this
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
paragraph (b)(3) shall be given as soon
as practicable after the issuance of the
emergency permit by publication in
accordance with paragraphs (b)dxi)
and (ii) and with paragraphs (a), (c)
through (i) of this section.
(c) Copies of notice sent to specific
persons. In addition to the publication
of notice required by paragraph (b) of
this section, copies of such notice will
be mailed by the Administrator or the
Regional Administrator, as the case
may be, to any person, group or Feder-
al, State or local agency upon request.
Any such request may be a standing
request for copies of such notices and
shall be submitted in writing to the
Administrator or to any Regional Ad-
ministrator and shall relate to all or
any class of permit applications which
may be acted upon by the Administra-
tor or such Regional Administrator, as
the case may be.
(d) Copies of notice sent to States. In
addition to the publication of notice
required by paragraph (b) of this sec-
tion, copies of such notice will be
mailed to the State water pollution
control agency and to the State
agency responsible for carrying out
the Coastal Zone Management Act, if
such agency exists, for each coastal
State within 500 miles of the proposed
dumping site.
(e) Copies of notice sent to Corps of
Engineers. In addition to the publica-
tion of notice required by paragraph
(b) of this section, copies of such
notice will be mailed to the office of
the appropriate District Engineer of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
purposes of section 106(c) of the Act,
(pertaining to navigation, harbor ap-
proaches, and artificial islands on the
outer continental shelf).
(f) Copies of notice sent to Coast
Guard. In addition to the publication
of notice required by paragraph (b) of
this section, copies of such notice wUl
be sent to the appropriate district
office of the U.S. Coast Guard for
review and possible suggestion of addi-
tional conditions to be included in the
permit to facilitate surveillance and
enforcement.
(g) Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act The Fish and Wildlife Coordina-
tion Act, Reorganization Plan No. 4 of
1970, and the Act require that the Ad-
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-8
Environmental Protection Agency
ministrator or the Regional Adminis-
trator, as the case may be, consult
with appropriate regional officials of
the Departments of Commerce and In-
terior, the Regional Director of the
NMPS-NOAA, and the agency exercis-
ing administrative jurisdiction over
the fish and wildlife resources of the
States subject to any dumping prior to
the issuance of a permit under this
Subchapter H. Copies of the notice
shall be sent to the persons noted in
paragraph (g) of this section.
(h) Copies of notice sent to Food and
Drug Administration. In addition to
the publication of notice required by
paragraph (b) of this section, copies of
such notice will be mailed to Food and
Drug Administration, Shellfish Sanita-
tion Branch (HF-417), 200 C Street
SW., Washington, DC 20204.
(i) Failure to give certain notices.
Failure to send copies of any public
notice in accordance with paragraphs
(c) through (h) of this section shall
not invalidate any notice given pursu-
ant to this section nor shall such fail-
ure invalidate any subsequent admin-
istrative proceeding.
(j) Failure of consulted agency to re-
spond. Unless advice to the contrary is
received from the appropriate Federal
or State agency within 30 days of the
date copies of any public notice were
dispatched to such agency, such
agency will be deemed to have no ob-
jection to the issuance of the permit
identified in the public notice.
§ 222.4 Initiation of hearings.
(a) In the case of any permit applica-
tion for which public notice in advance
of permit issuance is required in ac-
cordance with paragraph (b) of § 222.3,
any person may, within 30 days of the
date on which all provisions of para-
graph (b) of § 222.3 have been com-
plied with, request a public hearing to
consider the issuance or denial of, or
the conditions to be imposed upon,
such permit. Any such request for a
public hearing shall be in writing,
shall identify the person requesting
the hearing, shall state with particu-
larity any objections to the issuance or
denial of, or to the conditions to be im-
posed upon, the proposed permit, and
shall state the issues which are pro-
§222.6
posed to be raised by such person for
consideration at a hearing.
(b) Whenever (Da written request
satisfying the requirements of para-
graph (a) of this section has been re-
ceived and the Administrator or Re-
gional Administrator, as the case may
be, determines that such request pre-
sents genuine issues, or (2) the Admin-
istrator or Regional Administrator, as
the case may be, determines in his dis-
cretion that a public hearing is neces-
sary or appropriate, the Administrator
or the Regional Administrator, as the
case may be, will set a time and place
for a public hearing in accordance
with § 222.5, and will give notice of
such hearing by publication in accord-
ance with § 222.3.
(c) In the event the Administrator or
the Regional Administrator, as the
case may be, determines that a request
filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this
section does not comply with the re-
quirements of such paragraph (a) of
this section or that such request does
not present substantial issues of public
interest, he shall advise, in writing,
the person requesting the hearing of
his determination.
§ 222.5 Time and place of hearings.
Hearings shall be held in the State
in closest proximity to the proposed
dump site, whenever practicable, and
shall be set for the earliest practicable
date no less than 30 days after the re-
ceipt of an appropriate request for a
hearing or a determination by the Ad-
ministrator or the Regional Adminis-
trator, as the case may be, to hold
such a hearing without such a request.
§ 222.6 Presiding Officer.
A hearing convened pursuant to this
Subchapter H shall be conducted by a
Presiding Officer. The Administrator
or Regional Administrator, as the case
may be, may designate a Presiding Of-
ficer. For adjudicatory hearings held
pursuant to § 222.11, the Presiding Of-
ficer shall be an EPA employee who
has had no prior connection with the
permit application in question, includ-
ing without limitation, the perform-
ance of investigative or prosecuting
functions or any other functions, and
who is not employed in the Enforce-
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-9
§222.7
ment Division or any Regional en-
forcement office.
[42 PR 2471. Jan. 11, 1977; 42 PR 6583. Feb.
3,19771
§ 222.7 Conduct of public hearing.
The Presiding Officer shall be re-
sponsible for the expeditious conduct
of the hearing. The hearing shall be
an informal public hearing, not an ad-
versary proceeding, and shall be con-
ducted so as to allow the presentation
of public comments. When the Presid-
ing Officer determines that it is neces-
sary or appropriate, he shall cause a
suitable record, which may include a
verbatim transcript, of the proceed-
ings to be made. Any person may
appear at a public hearing convened
pursuant to § 222.5 whether or not he
requested the hearing, and may be
represented by counsel or any other
authorized representative. The Presid-
ing Officer is authorized to set forth
reasonable restrictions on the nature
or amount of documentary material or
testimony presented at a public hear-
ing, giving due regard to the relevancy
of any such information, and to the
avoidance of undue repetitiveness of
information presented.
§ 222.8 Recommendations of Presiding Of-
ficer.
Within 30 days following the ad-
journment of a public hearing con-
vened pursuant to §222.5, or within
such additional period as the Adminis-
trator or the Regional Administrator,
as the case may be, may grant to the
Presiding Officer for good cause
shown, and after full consideration of
the comments received at the hearing,
the Presiding Officer will prepare and
forward to the Administrator or to the
Regional Administrator, as the case
may be, written recommendations re-
lating to the issuance or denial of, or
conditions to be imposed upon, the
proposed permit and the record of the
hearing, if any. Such recommenda-
tions shall contain a brief statement of
the basis for the recommendations in-
cluding a description of evidence relied
upon. Copies of the Presiding Officer's
recommendations shall be provided to
any interested person on request,
without charge. Copies of the record
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
will be provided in accordance with 40
CPK Part 2.
[42 PR 2471. Jan. 11. 1977; 42 PR 6583, Peb
3,1977]
§ 222.9 Issuance of permits.
(a) Within 30 days following receipt
of the Presiding Officer's recommen-
dations or, where no hearing has been
held, following the close of the 30-day
period for requesting a hearing as pro-
vided in § 222.4, the Administrator or
the Regional Administrator, as the
case may be, shall make a determina-
tion with respect to the issuance,
denial, or imposition of conditions on,
any permit applied for under this Sub-
chapter H and shall give notice to the
applicant and to all persons who regis-
tered their attendance at the hearing
by providing their name and mailing
address, if any, by mailing a letter
stating the determination and stating
the basis therefor in terms of the Cri-
teria.
(b) Any determination to issue or
deny any permit after a hearing held
pursuant to § 222.7 shall take effect no
sooner than:
(1) 10 days after notice of such de-
termination is given if no request for
an adjudicatory hearing is filed in ac-
cordance with § 222.10(a); or
(2) 20 days after notice of such de-
termination is given if a request for an
adjudicatory hearing is filed in accord-
ance with paragraph (a) of § 222.10
and the Administrator or the Regional
Administrator, as the case may be,
denies such request in accordance with
paragraph (c) of § 222.10; or
(3) The date on which a final deter-
mination has been made following an
adjudicatory hearing held pursuant to
§ 222.11.
(c) The Administrator or Regional
Administrator, as the case may be,
may extend the term of a previously
issued permit pending the conclusion
of the proceedings held pursuant to
§§222.7 through 222.9.
(d) A copy of each permit issued
shall be sent to the appropriate Dis-
trict Office of the U.S. Coast Guard.
§ 222.10 Appeal to adjudicatory hearing.
(a) Within 10 days following the re-
ceipt of notice of the issuance or
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-10
Environmental Protection Agency
denial of any permit pursuant to
§ 222.9 after a hearing held pursuant
to § 222.7. any interested person who
participated in such hearing may re-
quest that an adjudicatory hearing be
held pursuant to § 222.11 for the pur-
pose of reviewing such determination,
or any part thereof. Any such request
for an adjudicatory hearing shall be
filed with the Administrator or the
Regional Administrator, as the case
may be, and shall be in writing, shall
identify the person requesting the ad-
judicatory hearing and shall state
with particularity the objections to
the determination, the basis therefor
and the modification requested.
(b) Whenever a written request satis-
fying the requirements of paragraph
(a) of this section has been received
and the Administrator or Regional Ad-
ministrator, as the case may be, deter-
mines that an adjudicatory hearing is
warranted, the Administrator or the
Regional Administrator, as the case
may be, will set a time and place for
an adjudicatory hearing in accordance
with § 222.5, and will give notice of
such hearing by publication in accord-
ance with § 222.3.
(c) Prior to the conclusion of the ad-
judicatory hearing and appeal process,
the Administrator or the Regional Ad-
ministrator, as the case may be, in his
discretion may extend the duration of
a previously issued permit until a final
determination has been made pursu-
ant to § 222.11 or § 222.12.
(d) In the event the Administrator
or the Regional Administrator, as the
case may be, determines that a request
filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this
section does not comply with the re-
quirements of such paragraph (a) of
this section or that such request does
not present substantial issues of public
interest, he shall advise, in writing,
the person requesting the adjudica-
tory hearing of his determination.
(e) Any person requesting an adjudi-
catory hearing or requesting admis-
sion as a party to an adjudicatory
hearing shall state in his written re-
quest, and shall by filing such request
consent, that he and his employees
and agents shall submit themselves to
direct and cross-examination at any
such hearing and to the taking of an
§222.11
oath administered by the Presiding
Officer.
§ 222.11 Conduct of adjudicatory hearings.
(a) Parties. Any interested person
may at a reasonable time prior to the
commencement of the hearing submit
to the Presiding Officer a request to
be admitted as a party. Such request
shall be in writing and shall set forth
the information which would be re-
quired to be submitted by such person
if he were requesting an adjudicatory
hearing. Any such request to be admit-
ted as a party which satisfies the re-
quirements of this paragraph (a) shall
be granted and all parties shall be in-
formed at the commencement of the
adjudicatory hearing of the parties in-
volved. Any party may be represented
by counsel or other authorized repre-
sentative. EPA staff representing the
Administrator or Regional Administra-
tor who took action with respect to
the permit application shall be
deemed a party.
(b) Filing and service. (1) An origi-
nal and two (2) copies of all documents
or papers required or permitted to be
filed shall be filed with the Presiding
Officer.
(2) Copies of all documents and
papers filed with the Presiding Officer
shall be served upon all other parties
to the adjudicatory hearing.
(c) Consolidation. The Administra-
tor, or the Regional Administrator in
the case of a hearing arising within his
Region and for which he has been del-
egated authority hereunder, may, in
his discretion, order consolidation of
any adjudicatory hearings held pursu-
ant to this section whenever he deter-
mines that consolidation will expedite
or simplify the consideration of the
issues presented. The Administrator
may, in his discretion, order consolida-
tion and designate one Region to be
responsible for the conduct of any
hearings held pursuant to this section
which arise in different Regions when-
ever he determines that consolidation
will expedite or simplify the consider-
ation of the issues presented.
(d) Pre-hearing conference. The Pre-
siding Officer may hold one or more
prehearing conferences and may issue
a prehearing order which may include
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-11
§222.11
without limitation, requirements with
respect to any or all of the following:
(1) Stipulations and admissions;
(2) Disputed issues of fact;
(3) Disputed issues of law;
(4) Admissibility of any evidence;
(5) Hearing procedures including
submission of oral or written direct
testimony, conduct of cross-examina-
tion, and the opportunity for oral ar-
guments;
(6) Any other matter which may ex-
pedite the hearing or aid in disposition
of any issues raised therein.
(e) Adjudicatory hearing procedures.
(1) The burden of going forward
with the evidence shall:
(i) In the case of any adjudicatory
hearing held pursuant to § 222.10(b)
(1), be on the person filing a request
under § 222.10(a) as to each issue
raised by the request; and
(ii) In the case of any adjudicatory
hearing held pursuant to § 223.2 or
pursuant to Part 226, be on the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency.
(2) The Presiding Officer shall have
the duty to conduct a fair and impar-
tial hearing, to take action to avoid
unnecessary delay in the disposition of
proceedings, and to maintain order. He
shall have all powers necessary or ap-
propriate to that end, including with-
out limitation, the following:
(i) To administer oaths and affirma-
tions;
(ii) To rule upon offers of proof and
receive relevant evidence;
(iii) To regulate the course of the
hearing and the conduct of the parties
and their counsel;
(iv) To consider and rule upon all
procedural and other motions appro-
priate to the proceedings; and
(v) To take any action authorized by
these regulations and in conf onnance
with law.
(3) Parties shall have the right to
cross-examine a witness who appears
at an adjudicatory hearing to the
extent that such cross-examination is
necessary or appropriate for a full dis-
closure of the facts. In multi-party
proceedings the Presiding Officer may
limit cross-examination to one party
on each side if he is satisfied that the
cross-examination by one party will
adequately protect the interests of
other parties.
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
(4) When a party will not be unfairly
prejudiced thereby, the Presiding Offi-
cer may order all or part of the evi-
dence to be submitted in written form.
(5) Rulings of the Presiding Officer
on the admissibility of evidence, the
propriety of cross-examination, and
other procedural matters, shall be
final and shall appear in the record.
(6) Interlocutory appeals may not be
taken.
(7) Parties shall be presumed to have
taken exception to an adverse ruling.
(8) The proceedings of all hearings
shall be recorded by such means as the
Presiding Officer may determine. The
original transcript of the hearing shall
be a part of the record and the sole of-
ficial transcript. Copies of the tran-
script shall be available from the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency in ac-
cordance with 40 CFR Part 2.
(9) The rules of evidence shall not
apply.
(f) Decision after adjudicatory hear-
ing. (1) Within 30 days after the con-
clusion of the adjudicatory hearing, or
within such additional period as the
Administrator or the Regional Admin-
istrator, as the case may be, may grant
to the Presiding Officer for good cause
shown, the Presiding Officer shall
submit to the Administrator or the
Regional Administrator, as the case
may be, proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law, his recommenda-
tion with respect to any and all issues
raised at the hearing, and the record
of the hearing. Such findings, conclu-
sions and recommendations shall con-
tain a brief statement of the basis for
the recommendations. Copies of the
Presiding Officer's proposed findings
of fact, conclusions of law and recom-
mendations shall be provided to all
parties to the adjudicatory hearing on
request, without charge.
(2) Within 20 days following submis-
sion of the Presiding Officer's pro-
posed findings of fact, conclusions of
law and recommendations, any party
may submit written exceptions, no
more than 30 pages in length, to such
proposed findings, concisions and rec-
ommendations and within 30 days fol-
lowing the submission of the Presiding
Officer's proposed findings, conclu-
sions and recommendations any party
may file written comments, no more
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-12
Environmental Protection Agency
than 30 pages in length, on another
party's exceptions. Within 45 days fol-
lowing the submission of the Presiding
Officer's proposed findings, conclu-
sions and recommendations, the Ad-
ministrator or the Regional Adminis-
trator, as the case may be, shall make
a determination with respect to all
issues raised at such hearing and shall
affirm, reverse or modify the previous
or proposed determination, as the case
may be. Notice of such determination
shall set forth the determination for
each such issue, shall briefly state the
basis therefor and shall be given by
mail to all parties to the adjudicatory
hearing.
§ 222.12 Appeal to Administrator.
(a) Within 10 days following receipt
of the determination of the Regional
Administrator pursuant to paragraph
(f X2) of § 222.11, any party to an adju-
dicatory hearing held in accordance
with § 222.11 may appeal such deter-
mination to the Administrator by
filing a written notice of appeal, or the
Administrator may, on his own initia-
tive, review any prior determination.
(b) The notice of appeal shall be no
more than 40 pages in length and shall
contain:
(1) The name and address of the
person filing the notice of appeal;
(2) A concise statement of the facts
on which the person relies and appro-
priate citations to the record of the
adjudicatory hearing;
(3) A concise statement of the legal
basis on which the person relies;
(4) A concise statement setting forth
the action which the person proposes
that the Administrator take; and
(5) A certificate of service of the
notice of appeal on all other parties to
the adjudicatory hearing.
(c) The effective date of any deter-
mination made pursuant to paragraph
(f )(2) of § 222.11 may be stayed by the
Administrator pending final determi-
nation by him pursuant to this section
upon the filing of a notice of appeal
which satisfies the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section or upon
initiation by the Administrator of
review of any determination in the ab-
sence of such notice of appeal.
(d) Within 20 days following the
filing of a notice of appeal in accord-
§222.13
ance with this section, any party to
the adjudicatory hearing may file a
written memorandum, no more than
40 pages in length, in response there-
to.
(e) Within 45 days following the
filing of a notice of appeal in accord-
ance with this section, the Administra-
tor shall render his final determina-
tion with respect to all issues raised in
the appeal to the Administrator and
shall affirm, reverse, or modify the
previous determination and briefly
state the basis for his determination.
(f) In accordance with 5 U.S.C. sec-
tion 704, the filing of an appeal to the
Administrator pursuant to this section
shall be a prerequisite to judicial
review of any determination to issue,
deny or impose conditions upon any
permit, or to modify, revoke or sus-
pend any permit, or to take any other
enforcement action, under this Sub-
chapter H.
§ 222.13 Computation of time.
In computing any period of time pre-
scribed or allowed in this part, except
unless otherwise provided, the day on
which the designated period of time
begins to run shall not be included.
The last day of the period so comput-
ed is to be included unless it is a Satur-
day, Sunday, or a legal holiday in
which the Environmental Protection
Agency is not open for business, in
which event the period runs until the
end of the next day which is not a Sat-
urday, Sunday, or legal holiday. Inter-
mediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal
holidays shall be excluded from the
computation when the period of time
prescribed or allowed is seven days or
less.
PART 223—CONTENTS OF PERMITS;
REVISION, REVOCATION OR LIMI-
TATION OF OCEAN DUMPING PER-
MITS UNDER SECTION 104(d) OF
THE ACT
Swbpart A—Content* of Oc*an Dumping
Permits Istuod Undor Soction 102 of tho Act
Sec.
223.1 Contents of special, interim, emer-
gency, general and research permits;
posting requirements.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-13
§223.1
Subpart B—Procedures for Revision, Revoca-
tion or Limitation of Ocoan Dumping Per-
mit* Under Section 104(d) of the Act
223.2 Scope of these rules.
223.3 Preliminary determination; notice.
223.4 Request for, scheduling and conduct
of public hearing; determination.
223.S Request for. scheduling and conduct
of adjudicatory hearing; determination.
AUTHORITY: Sees. 102. 104, 107, 108,
Marine Protection Research, and Sanctuar-
ies Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1412,
1414.1417.1418).
SOURCE: 42 FR 60702, Nov. 28, 1977, unless
otherwise noted.
Subpart A—Contents of Ocean
Dumping Permits Issued Under
Section 102 of the Act
§ 223.1 Contents of special, interim, emer-
gency, general and research permits;
posting requirements.
(a) All special, interim, emergency
and research permits shall be dis-
played on the vessel engaged in dump-
ing and shall include the following:
(1) Name of permittee;
(2) Means of conveyance and meth-
ods and procedures for release of the
materials to be dumped;
(3) The port through or from which
such material will be transported for
dumping;
(4) A description of relevant physical
and chemical properties of the materi-
als to be dumped;
(5) The quantity of the material to
be dumped expressed in tons;
(6) The disposal site;
(7) The times at which the permit-
ted dumping may occur and the effec-
tive date and expiration date of the
permit;
(8) Special provisions which, after
consultation with the Coast Guard,
are deemed necessary for monitoring
or surveillance of the transportation
or dumping;
(9) Such monitoring relevant to the
assessment of the impact of permitted
dumping activities on the marine envi-
ronment at the disposal site as the Ad-
ministrator or Regional Administra-
tor, as the case may be, determine to
be necessary or appropriate; and
(10) Any other terms and conditions
determined by the Administrator, or
Regional Administrator, as the case
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
may be, to be necessary or appropri-
ate, including, without limitation, re-
lease procedures and requirements for
the continued investigation or devel-
opment of alternatives to ocean dump-
ing.
(b) General permits shall contain
such terms and conditions as the Ad-
ministrator deems necessary or appro-
priate.
(c) Interim permits shall, in addition
to the information required or permit-
ted to be included in the permit pursu-
ant to paragraph (a) of this section, in-
clude terms and conditions which sat-
isfy the requirements of §§ 220.3(d)
and 227.8.
Subpart B—Procedures for Revision,
Revocation or Limitation of
Ocean Dumping Permits Under
Section 104(d) of the Act
§ 223.2 Scope of these rules.
(a) These rules of practice shall
govern all proceedings under Section
104(d) of the Marine Protection, Re-
search, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as
amended (33 U.S.C. 1414(d)), to revise,
revoke or limit the terms and condi-
tions of any permit issued pursuant to
section 102 of the Act. Section 104(d)
provides that "the Administrator * * *
may limit or deny the issuance of per-
mits, or he may alter or revoke partial-
ly or entirely the terms of permits
issued by him under this title, for the
transportation for dumping, or for the
dumping, or both of specified materi-
als or classes of materials, where he
finds that such materials cannot be
dumped consistently with the criteria
and other factors required to be ap-
plied in evaluating the permit applica-
tion."
(b) In the absence of specific provi-
sions in these rules, and where appro-
priate, questions arising at any stage
of the proceedings shall be resolved at
the discretion of the Presiding Officer,
the Regional Administrator, or the
Administrator, as appropriate.
§ 223.3 Preliminary determination; notice.
(a) General Any general, special.
emergency, interim or research permit
issued pursuant to section 102 of the
Act shall be subject to revision, revoca-
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-14
Environmental Protection Agency
tion or limitation, in whole or in part,
as the result of a determination by the
Administrator or Regional Administra-
tor that:
(1) The cumulative impact of the
permittee's dumping activities or the
aggregate impact of all dumping ac-
tivities at the dump site designated in
the permit should be categorized as
Impact Category I, as defined in
§ 228.10(c)(l) of this subchapter; or
(2) There has been a change in cir-
cumstances relating to the manage-
ment of the disposal site designated in
the permit; or
(3) The dumping authorized by the
permit would violate applicable water
quality standards; or
(4) The dumping authorized by the
permit can no longer be carried out
consistent with the criteria set forth
in Parts 227 and 228.
(b) Preliminary determination.
Whenever any person authorized by
the Administrator or Regional Admin-
istrator to (1) periodically review per-
mits pursuant to section 104(d) of the
Act or (2) otherwise assess the need
for revision, revocation or limitation of
a permit makes any of the determina-
tions listed in paragraph (a) of this
section with respect to a permit issued
pursuant to section 102 of the Act, and
additionally determines that revision,
revocation or limitation of such permit
is warranted, the Administrator or Re-
gional Administrator, as the case may
be, shall provide notification of such
proposed revision, revocation or limita-
tion to the permittee named in the
permit, if any, the public, and any cog-
nizant Federal/State agencies pursu-
ant to paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Form of notification. Notice of
any proposed revision, revocation or
limitation of a permit shall be sent to
the permittee by certified mail, return
receipt requested, and shall be pub-
lished and otherwise disseminated in
the manner described in § 222.3(b)
through (h).
(d) Contents of notice. The notice of
any proposed revision, revocation or
limitation of a permit issued pursuant
to paragraph (b) of this section shall
include, in addition to any other mate-
rials, the following:
§223.4
(1) A brief description of the con-
tents of the permit, as set forth in
§ 223.1;
(2) A description of the proposed re-
vision, revocation, or limitation;
(3) A statement of the reason for
such proposed revision, revocation, or
limitation; and
(4) A statement that within thirty
(30) days of the date of dissemination
of the notice, any person may request
a public hearing on the proposed revi-
sion, revocation or limitation.
§223.4 Request for, scheduling and con-
duct of public hearing; determination.
(a) Request for hearing. Within
thirty (30) days of the date of the dis-
semination of any notice required by
§ 223.2(b), any person may request the
Administrator or Regional Administra-
tor, as appropriate, to hold a public
hearing on the proposed revision, revo-
cation or limitation by submitting a
written request containing the follow-
ing:
(1) Identification of the person re-
questing the hearing and his interest
in the proceeding;
(2) A statement of any objections to
the proposed revision, revocation or
limitation or to any facts or reasons
identified as supporting such revision,
revocation or limitation; and
(3) A statement of the issues which
such person proposes to raise for con-
sideration at such hearing.
(b) Grant or denial of hearing; noti-
fication. Whenever (1) a written re-
quest satisfying the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section has been
received, and the Administrator or Re-
gional Administrator, as appropriate,
determines that such request presents
genuine issues, or (2) the Administra-
tor or Regional Administrator, as the
case may be, determines in his discre-
tion that a public hearing is necessary
or appropriate, the Administrator or
Regional Administrator, as the case
may be, will set a time and place for a
public hearing in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section and will
give notice of such hearing by publica-
tion in accordance with § 223.3(c). In
the event the Administrator or the Re-
gional Administrator, as the case may
be, determines that a request filed
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-15
§223.4
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion does not comply with the require-
ments of paragraph (a) or that such
request does not present genuine
issues, he shall advise, in writing, the
person requesting the hearing of his
determination.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-16
Environmental Protection Agency
person who registered his attendance
at the hearing by providing his name
and mailing address.
§223.5 Request for, scheduling and con-
duct of adjudicatory hearing; determi-
nation.
Within ten (10) days following the
receipt of the Administrator's or Re-
gional Administrator's determination
issued pursuant to § 223.4(g), any
person who participated in the public
hearing held pursuant to § 223.4 may
request that an adjudicatory hearing
be held for the purpose of reviewing
such determination or any part there-
of. Such request shall be submitted
and disposed of, and any adjudicatory
hearing convened shall be conducted
in accordance with the procedures set
forth in §§ 222.10(a), (b), (d), and (e)
and 222.11.
PART 224—RECORDS AND REPORTS
REQUIRED OF OCEAN DUMPING
PERMITTEES UNDER StCTION 102
OF THE ACT
Sec.
224.1 Records of permittees.
224.2 Reports.
AUTHORITY: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.
§ 224.1 Records of permittees.
Each permittee named in a special,
interim, emergency or research permit
under section 102 of the Act and each
person availing himself of the privi-
lege conferred by a general permit,
shall maintain complete records of the
following information, which will be
available for inspection by the Admin-
istrator, Regional Administrator, the
Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard,
or their respective designees:
(a) The physical and chemical char-
acteristics of the material dumped
pursuant to the permit;
(b) The precise times and locations
of dumping;
(c) Any other information required
as a condition of a permit by the Ad-
ministrator or the Regional Adminis-
trator, as the case may be.
C42 FR 2474, Jan. 11, 1977]
§224.2
§ 224.2 Reports.
(a) Periodic reports. Information re-
quired to be recorded pursuant to
§ 224.1 shall be reported to the Admin-
istrator or the Regional Administra-
tor, as the case may be, for the periods
indicated within 30 days of the expira-
tion of such periods:
(1) For each six-month period, if
any, following the effective date of the
permit;
(2) For any other period of less than
six months ending on the expiration
date of the permit; and
(3) As otherwise required in the con-
ditions of the permit.
(b) Reports of emergency dumping.
If material is dumped without a
permit pursuant to paragraph (c)(4) of
§ 220.1, the owner or operator of the
vessel or aircraft from which such
dumping occurs shall as soon as feasi-
ble inform the Administrator, Region-
al Administrator, or the nearest Coast
Guard district of the incident by radio,
telephone, or telegraph and shall
within 10 days file a written report
with the Administrator or Regional
Administrator containing the informa-
tion required under § 224.1 and a com-
plete description of the circumstances
under which the dumping occurred.
Such description shall explain how
human life at sea was in danger and
how the emergency dumping reduced
that danger. If the material dumped
included containers, the vessel owner
or operator shall immediately request
the U.S. Coast Guard to publish in the
local Notice to Mariners the dumping
location, the type of containers, and
whether the. contents are toxic or ex-
plosive. Notification shall also be given
to the Food and Drug Administration,
Shellfish Sanitation Branch, Washing-
ton, DC 20204, as soon as possible.
[42 PR 2474, Jan. 11,1977]
PART 225—CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DREDGED MATERIAL PERMITS
Sec.
225.1 General.
225.2 Review of Dredged Material Permits.
225.3 Procedure for invoking economic
impact.
225.4 Waiver by Administrator.
AUTHORITY: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-17
§225.1
SOURCE: 42 PR 2475, Jan. 11. 1977, unless
otherwise noted.
§225.1 General.
Applications and authorizations for
Dredged Material Permits under sec-
tion 103 of the Act for the transporta-
tion of dredged material for the pur-
pose of dumping it in ocean waters will
be evaluated by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers in accordance with the
criteria set forth in Part 227 and proc-
essed in accordance with 33 CPR
209.120 with special attention to
§ 209.120(g)(17) and 33 CFR 209.145.
§225.2 Review of Dredged Material Per-
mite.
(a) The District Engineer shall send
a copy of the public notice to the ap-
propriate Regional Administrator, and
set forth in writing all of the following
information:
(1) The location of the proposed dis-
posal site and its physical boundaries;
(2) A statement as to whether the
site has been designated for use by the
Administrator pursuant to section
102(c) of the Act;
(3) If the proposed disposal site has
not been designated by the Adminis-
trator, a statement of the basis for the
proposed determination why no previ-
ously designated site is feasible and a
description of the characteristics of
the proposed disposal site necessary
for its designation pursuant to Part
228 of this Subchapter H;
(4) The known historical uses of the
proposed disposal site;
(5) Existence and documented ef-
fects of other authorized dumpings
that have been made in the dumping
area (e.g., heavy metal background
reading and organic carbon content);
(6) An estimate of the length of time
during which disposal will continue at
the proposed site;
(7) Characteristics and composition
of the dredged material; and
(8) A statement concerning a prelim-
inary determination of the need for
and/or availability of an environmen-
tal impact statement.
(b) The Regional Administrator will
within 15 days of the date the public
notice and other information required
to be submitted by paragraph (a) of
§ 225.2 are received by him, review the
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
information submitted and request
from the District Engineer any addi-
tional information he deems necessary
or appropriate to evaluate the pro-
posed dumping.
(c) Using the information submitted
by the District Engineer, and any
other information available to him,
the Regional Administrator will
within 15 days after receipt of all re-
quested information, make an inde-
pendent evaluation of the proposed
dumping in accordance with the crite-
ria and respond to the District Engi-
neer pursuant to paragraph (d) or (e)
of this section. The Regional Adminis-
trator may request an extension of
this 15 day period to 30 days from the
District Engineer.
(d) When the Regional Administra-
tor determines that the proposed
dumping will comply with the criteria,
he will so inform the District Engineer
in writing.
(e) When the Regional Administra-
tor determines that the proposed
dumping will not comply with the cri-
teria he shall so inform the District
Engineer in writing. In such cases, no
Dredged Material Permit for such
dumping shall be issued unless and
until the provisions of § 225.3 are fol-
lowed and the Administrator grants a
waiver of the criteria pursuant to
§ 225.4.
§225.3 Procedure for invoking economic
impact
(a) When a District Engineer's deter-
mination to issue a Dredged Material
Permit for the dumping of dredged
material into ocean waters has been
rejected by a Regional Administrator
upon application of the Criteria, the
District Engineer may determine
whether, under section 103(d) of the
Act, there is an economically feasible
alternative method or site available
other than the proposed dumping in
ocean waters. If the District Engineer
makes any such preliminary determi-
nation that there is no economically
feasible alternative method or site
available, he shall so advise the Re-
gional Administrator setting forth his
reasons for such determination and
shall submit a report of such determi-
nation to the Chief of Engineers in ac-
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-18
Environmental Protection Agency
cordance with 33 CFR 209.120 and 227.13 Dredged materials.
209.145.
(b) If the decision of the Chief of
Engineers is that ocean dumping at
the designated site is required because
of the unavailability of feasible alter-
natives, he shall so certify and request
that the Secretary of the Army seek a
waiver from the Administrator of the
Criteria or of the critical site designa-
tion in accordance with § 225.4.
§227.1
Subpart C—Need for Ocean Dumping
227.14 Criteria for evaluating the need for
ocean dumping and alternatives to
ocean dumping.
227.15 Factors considered.
227.16 Basis for determination of need for
ocean dumping.
§ 225.4 Waiver by Administrator.
The Administrator shall grant the
requested waiver unless within 30 days
of his receipt of the notice, certificate
and request in accordance with para-
graph (b) of § 225.3 he determines in
accordance with this section that the
proposed dumping will have an unac-
ceptable adverse effect on municipal
water supplies, shellfish beds and fish-
ery areas (including spawning and
breeding areas), wildlife, or recreation-
al areas. Notice of the Administrator's
final determination under this section
shall be given to the Secretary of the
Army.
PART 227—CRITERIA FOR THE EVAL-
UATION OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS
FOR OCEAN DUMPING OF MATE-
RIALS
Subpart A—General
Sec.
227.1 Applicability.
227.2 Materials which satisfy the environ-
mental impact criteria of Subpart B.
227.3 Materials which do not satisfy the
environmental impact criteria set forth
in Subpart B.
Subpart B—Environmental Impact
227.4 Criteria for evaluating environmental
impact.
227.S Prohibited materials.
227.6 Constituents prohibited as other
than trace contaminants.
227.7 Limits established for specific wastes
or waste constituents.
227.8 Limitations on the disposal rates of
toxic wastes.
227.9 Limitations on quantities of waste
materials.
227.10 Hazards to fishing, navigation,
shorelines or beaches.
227.11 Containerized wastes.
227.12 Insoluble wastes.
Subpart 0—Impact of the Proposed Dumping
on Esthetic, Recreational and Economic
Values
227.17 Basis for determination.
227.18 Factors considered.
227.19 Assessment of impact.
Subpart E—Impact of the Proposed Dumping
on Other Uses of the Ocean
227.20 Basis for determination.
227.21 Uses considered.
227.22 Assessment of impact.
Subpart F—Special Requirements for Interim
Permits Under Section 102 of the Act
227.23 General requirement.
227.24 Contents of environmental assess-
ment.
227.25 Contents of plans.
227.26 Implementation of plans.
Subpart G—Definitions
227.27 Limiting permissible concentration
(LPC).
227.28 Release zone.
227.29 Initial mixing.
227.30 High-level radioactive waste.
227.31 Applicable marine water quality cri-
teria.
227.32 Liquid, suspended particulate, and
solid phases of a material.
AUTHORITY: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.
SOURCE: 42 FR 2476, Jan. 11, 1977, unless
otherwise noted.
Subpart A—General
§ 227.1 Applicability.
(a) Section 102 of the Act requires
that criteria for the issuance of ocean
disposal permits be promulgated after
consideration of the environmental
effect of the proposed dumping oper-
ation, the need for ocean dumping, al-
ternatives to ocean dumping, and the
effect of the proposed action on es-
thetic, recreational and economic
values and on other uses of the ocean.
-------
§227.2
This Parts 227 and 228 of this Sub-
chapter H together constitute the cri-
teria established pursuant to section
102 of the Act. The decision of the Ad-
ministrator, Regional Administrator
or the District Engineer, as the case
may be, to issue or deny a permit and
to impose specific conditions on any
permit issued will be based on an eval-
uation of the permit application pur-
suant to the criteria set forth in this
Part 227 and upon the requirements
for disposal site management pursuant
to the criteria set forth in Part 228 of
this Subchapter H.
(b) With respect to the criteria to be
used hi evaluating disposal of dredged
materials, this section and Subparts C,
D, E, and G apply in their entirety. To
determine whether the proposed
dumping of dredged material complies
with Subpart B, only §§ 227.4, 227.5,
227.6, 227.9, 227.10 and 227.13 apply.
An applicant for a permit to dump
dredged material must comply with all
of Subparts C, D, E, G and applicable
sections of B, to be deemed to have
met the EPA criteria for dredged ma-
terial dumping promulgated pursuant
to section 102(a) of the Act. If, in any
case, the Chief of Engineers finds
that, in the disposition of dredged ma-
terial, there is no economically feasi-
ble method or site available other
than a dumping site, the utilization of
which would result in noncompliance
with the criteria established pursuant
to Subpart B relating to the effects of
dumping or with the restrictions es-
tablished pursuant to section 102(c) of
the Act relating to critical areas, he
shall so certify and request that the
Secretary of the Army seek a waiver
from the Administrator pursuant to
Part 225.
(c) The Criteria of this Part 227 are
established pursuant to section 102 of
the Act and apply to the evaluation of
proposed dumping of materials under
Title I of the Act. The Criteria of this
Part 227 deal with the evaluation of
proposed dumping of materials on a
case-by-case basis from information
supplied by the applicant or otherwise
available to EPA or the Corps of Engi-
neers concerning the characteristics of
the waste and other considerations re-
lating to the proposed dumping.
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-19
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
(d) After consideration of the provi-
sions of §§227.28 and 227.29, no
permit will be issued when the dump-
ing would result in a violation of appli-
cable water quality standards.
§227.2 Materials which satisfy the envi-
ronmental impact criteria of Subpart
B.
(a) If the applicant satisfactorily
demonstrates that the material pro-
posed for ocean dumping satisfies the
environmental impact criteria set
forth in Subpart B, a permit for ocean
dumping will be issued unless:
(1) There is no need for the dump-
ing, and alternative means of disposal
are available, as determined in accord-
ance with the criteria set forth in Sub-
part C; or
(2) There are unacceptable adverse
effects on esthetic, recreational or eco-
nomic values as determined in accord-
ance with the criteria set forth in Sub-
part D; or
(3) There are unacceptable adverse
effects on other uses of the ocean as
determined in accordance with the cri-
teria set forth in Subpart E.
(b) If the material proposed for
ocean dumping satisfies the environ-
mental impact criteria set forth in
Subpart B, but the Administrator or
the Regional Administrator, as the
case may be, determines that any one
of the considerations set forth in para-
graph (a)(l), (2) or (3) of this section
applies, he will deny the permit appli-
cation; provided however, that he may
issue an interim permit for ocean
dumping pursuant to paragraph (d) of
§ 220.3 and Subpart P of this Part 227
when he determines that:
(1) The material proposed for ocean
dumping does not contain any of the
materials listed in § 227.5 or listed in
§ 227.6, except as trace contaminants;
and
(2) In accordance with Subpart C
there is a need to ocean dump the ma-
terial and no alternatives are available
to such dumping; and
(3) The need for the dumping and
the unavailability of alternatives, as
determined in accordance with Sub-
part C, are of greater significance to
the public interest than the potential
for adverse effect on esthetic, recre-
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-20
Environmental Protection Agency
ational or economic values, or on other
uses of the ocean, as determined in ac-
cordance with Subparts D and E, re-
spectively.
§ 227.3 Materials which do not satisfy the
environmental impact criteria set forth
in Subpart B.
If the material proposed for ocean
dumping does not satisfy the environ-
mental impact criteria of Subpart B,
the Administrator or the Regional Ad-
ministrator, as the case may be, will
deny the permit application; provided
however, that he may issue an interim
permit pursuant to paragraph (d) of
§ 220.3 and Subpart F of this Part 227
when he determines that:
(a) The material proposed for dump-
ing does not contain any of the materi-
als listed in § 227.6 except as trace con-
taminants, or any of the materials
listed in § 227.5;
(b) In accordance with Subpart C
there is a need to ocean dump the ma-
terial; and
(c) Any one of the following factors
is of greater significance to the public
interest than the potential for adverse
impact on the marine environment, as
determined in accordance with Sub-
part B:
(1) The need for the dumping, as de-
termined in accordance with Subpart
C;or
(2) The adverse effects of denial of
the permit on recreational or econom-
ic values as determined in accordance
with Subpart D; or
(3) The adverse effects of denial of
the permit on other uses of the ocean,
as determined in accordance with Sub-
part E.
Subpart B—Environmental Impact
§227.4 Criteria for evaluating environ-
mental impact.
This Subpart B sets specific environ-
mental impact prohibitions, limits,
and conditions for the dumping of ma-
terials into ocean waters. If the appli-
cable prohibitions, limits, and condi-
tions are satisfied, it is the determina-
tion of EPA that the proposed disposal
will not unduly degrade or endanger
the marine environment and that the
disposal will present:
§227.6
(a) No unacceptable adverse effects
on human health and no significant
damage to the resources of the marine
environment;
(b) No unacceptable adverse effect
on the marine ecosystem;
(c) No unacceptable adverse persist-
ent or permanent effects due to the
dumping of the particular volumes or
concentrations of these materials; and
(d) No unacceptable adverse effect
on the ocean for other uses as a result
of direct environmental impact.
§ 227.5 Prohibited materials.
The ocean dumping of the following
materials will not be approved by EPA
or the Corps of Engineers under any
circumstances:
(a) High-level radioactive wastes as
defined in § 227.30;
(b) Materials in whatever form (in-
cluding without limitation, solids, liq-
uids, semi-liquids, gases or organisms)
produced or used for radiological,
chemical or biological warfare;
(c) Materials insufficiently described
by the applicant in terms of their com-
positions and properties to permit ap-
plication of the environmental impact
criteria of this Subpart B;
(d) Persistent inert synthetic or nat-
ural materials which may float or
remain in suspension in the ocean in
such a manner that they may inter-
fere materially with fishing, naviga-
tion, or other legitimate uses of the
ocean.
§227.6 Constituents prohibited as other
than trace contaminants.
(a) Subject to the exclusions of para-
graphs (f), (g) and (h) of this section,
the ocean dumping, or transportation
for dumping, of materials containing
the following constituents as other
than trace contaminants will not be
approved on other than an emergency
(1) Organohalogen compounds;
(2) Mercury and mercury com-
pounds;
(3) Cadmium and cadmium com-
pounds;
(4) Oil of any kind or in any form,
including but not limited to petrole-
um, oil sludge, oil refuse, crude oil,
fuel oil, heavy diesel oil, lubricating
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-21
§M7.6
oils, hydraulic fluids, and any mix-
tures containing these, transported for
the purpose of dumping insofar as
these are not regulated under the
FWPCA;
(5) Known carcinogens, mutagens, or
teratogens or materials suspected to
be carcinogens, mutagens, or terato-
gens by responsible scientific opinion.
(b) These constituents will be consid-
ered to be present as trace contami-
nants only when they are present in
materials otherwise acceptable for
ocean dumping in such forms and
amounts in liquid, suspended particu-
late, and solid phases that the dump-
ing of the materials will not cause sig-
nificant undesirable effects, including
the possibility of danger associated
with their bioaccumulation in marine
organisms.
(c) The potential for significant un-
desirable effects due to the presence
of these constituents shall be deter-
mined by application of results of
bioassays on liquid, suspended particu-
late, and solid phases of wastes accord-
ing to procedures acceptable to EPA,
and for dredged material, acceptable
to EPA and the Corps of Engineers.
Materials shall be deemed environ-
mentally acceptable for ocean dump-
ing only when the following conditions
are met:
(1) The liquid phase does not con-
tain any of these constituents in con-
centrations which will exceed applica-
ble marine water quality criteria after
allowance for initial mixing; provided
that mercury concentrations in the
disposal site, after allowance for initial
mixing, may exceed the average
normal ambient concentrations of
mercury in ocean waters at or near the
dumping site which would be present
in the absence of dumping, by not
more than 50 percent; and
<2) Bioassay results on the suspend-
ed particulate phase of the waste do
not indicate occurrence of significant
mortality or significant adverse suble-
thal effects including bioaccumulation
due to the dumping of wastes contain-
ing the constituents listed in para-
graph (a) of this section. These bioas-
says shall be conducted with appropri-
ate sensitive marine organisms as de-
fined in §227.27(0 using procedures
for suspended particulate phase bioas-
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
says approved by EPA, or, for dredged
material, approved by EPA and the
Corps of Engineers. Procedures ap-
proved for bioassays under this section
will require exposure of organisms for
a sufficient period of time and under
appropriate conditions to provide rea-
sonable assurance, based on consider-
ation of the statistical significance of
effects at the 95 percent confidence
level, that, when the materials are
dumped, no significant undesirable ef-
fects will occur due either to chronic
toxicity or to bioaccumulation of the
constituents listed in paragraph (a) of
this section; and
(3) Bioassay results on the solid
phase of the wastes do not indicate oc-
currence of significant mortality or
significant adverse sublethal effects
due to the dumping of wastes contain-
ing the constituents listed in para-
graph (a) of this section. These bioas-
says shall be conducted with appropri-
ate sensitive benthic marine organisms
using benthic bioassay procedures ap-
proved by EPA, or, for dredged materi-
al, approved by EPA and the Corps of
Engineers. Procedures approved for
bioassays under this section will re-
quire exposure of organisms for a suf-
ficient period of time to provide rea-
sonable assurance, based on consider-
ations of statistical significance of ef-
fects at the 95 percent confidence
level, that, when the materials are
dumped, no significant undesirable ef-
fects will occur due either to chronic
toxicity or to bioaccumulation of the
constituents listed in paragraph (a) of
this section; and
(4) For persistent organohalogens
not included in the applicable marine
water quality criteria, bioassay results
on the liquid phase of the waste show
that such compounds are not present
in concentrations large enough to
cause significant undesirable effects
due either to chronic toxicity or to
bioaccumulation in marine organisms
after allowance for initial mixing.
(d) When the Administrator, Re-
gional Administrator or District Engi-
neer, as the case may be, has reasona-
ble cause to believe that a material
proposed for ocean dumping contains
compounds identified as carcinogens,
mutagens, or teratogens for which cri-
teria have not been included in the ap-
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-22
Environmental Protection Agency
plicable marine water quality criteria,
he may require special studies to be
done prior to issuance of a permit to
determine the impact of disposal on
human health and/or marine ecosys-
tems. Such studies must provide infor-
mation comparable to that required
under paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(e) The criteria stated in paragraphs
(c)(2) and (3) of this section will
become mandatory as soon as an-
nouncement of the availability of ac-
ceptable procedures is made in the
FEDERAL REGISTER. At that time the in-
terim criteria contained in paragraph
(e) of this section shall no longer be
applicable.
NOTE: The remainder of this para-
graph has been made
inapplicable by the notice
of "Availability of Imple-
mentation Manual, 'Ecological
Evaluation of Proposed
Discharge of Dredged Material
into Ocean Waters,'" Federal
Register, Vo. 42, NO. 7, 7
September 1977, page 44835.
(f) The prohibitions and limitations
of this section do not apply to the con-
stituents identified in paragraph (a) of
this section when the applicant can
demonstrate that such constituents
are (1) present in the material only as
chemical compounds or forms (e.g.,
inert insoluble solid materials) non-
toxic to marine life and non-bioaccu-
mulative in the marine environment
upon disposal and thereafter, or (2)
present in the material only as chemi-
cal compounds or forms which, at the
time of dumping and thereafter, will
be rapidly rendered non-toxic to
marine life and non-bioaccumulative
in the marine environment by chemi-
cal or biological degradation in the
sea; provided they will not make edible
marine organisms unpalatable; or will
not endanger human health or that of
domestic anvmals, fish, shellfish, or
wildlife.
(g) The prohibitions and limitations
of this section do not apply to the con-
stituents identified in paragraph (a) of
this section for the granting of re-
search permits if the substances are
rapidly rendered harmless by physical,
§227.6
chemical or biological processes in the
sea; provided they will not make edible
marine organisms unpalatable and will
not endanger human health or that of
domestic animals.
(h) The prohibitions and limitations
of this section do not apply to the con-
stituents identified in paragraph (a) of
this section for the granting of per-
mits for the transport of these sub-
stances for the purpose of incineration
at sea if the applicant can demon-
strate that the stack emissions consist
of substances which are rapidly ren-
dered harmless by physical, chemical
or biological processes in the sea. In-
cinerator operations shall comply with
requirements which will be established
on a case-by-case basis.
[42 FR 2476, Jan. 11, 1977; 43 PR 1071, Jan.
6,19781
§227.7 Limits established for specific
wastes or waste constituents.
Materials containing the following
constituents must meet the additional
limitations specified in this section to
be deemed acceptable for ocean dump-
ing:
(a) Liquid waste constituents immis-
cible with or slightly soluble in sea-
water, such as benzene, xylene, carbon
disulfide and toluene, may be dumped
only when they are present in the
waste in concentrations below their
solubility limits in seawater. This pro-
vision does not apply to materials
which may interact with ocean water
to form insoluble materials;
(b) Radioactive materials, other
than those prohibited by § 227.5, must
be contained in accordance with the
provisions of § 227.11 to prevent their
direct dispersion or dilution in ocean
waters;
(c) Wastes containing living orga-
nisms may not be dumped if the orga-
nisms present would endanger human
health or that of domestic animals,
fish, shellfish and wildlife by:
(1) Extending the range of biological
pests, viruses, pathogenic microorga-
nisms or other agents capable of in-
festing, infecting or extensively and
permanently altering the normal pop-
ulations of organisms;
(2) Degrading uninfected areas; or
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-23
§227.7
§227.7 Limits established for specific
wastes or waste constituents.
Materials containing the following
constituents must meet the additional
limitations specified in this section to
be deemed acceptable for ocean dump-
ing:
(a) Liquid waste constituents immis-
cible with or slightly soluble in sea-
water, such as benzene, xylene, carbon
disulfide and toluene, may be dumped
only when they are present in the
waste in concentrations below their
solubility limits in seawater. This pro-
vision does not apply to materials
which may interact with ocean water
to form insoluble materials;
(b) Radioactive materials, other
than those prohibited by § 227.5, must
be contained in accordance with the
provisions of § 227.11 to prevent their
direct dispersion or dilution in ocean
waters;
(c) Wastes containing living orga-
nisms may not be dumped if the orga-
nisms present would endanger human
health or that of domestic animals,
fish, shellfish and wildlife by:
(1) Extending the range of biological
pests, viruses, pathogenic microorga-
nisms or other agents capable of in-
festing, infecting or extensively and
permanently altering the normal pop-
ulations of organisms;
(2) Degrading uninfected areas; or
(3) Introducing viable species not in-
digenous to an area.
(d) In the dumping of wastes of
highly acidic or alkaline nature into
the ocean, consideration shall be given
to:
(1) The effects of any change in
acidity or alkalinity of the water at
the disposal site; and
(2) The potential for synergistic ef-
fects or for the formation of toxic
compounds at or near the disposal site.
Allowance may be made in the permit
conditions for the capability of ocean
waters to neutralize acid or alkaline
wastes; provided, however, that dump-
ing conditions must be such that the
average total alkalinity or total acidity
of the ocean water after allowance for
initial mixing, as defined in § 227.29,
may be changed, based on stoichiomet-
ric calculations, by no more than 10
percent during all dumping operations
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
at a site to neutralize acid or alkaline
wastes.
(e) Wastes containing biodegradable
constituents, or constituents which
consume oxygen in any fashion, may
be dumped in the ocean only under
conditions in which the dissolved
oxygen after allowance for initial
mixing, as defined in § 227.29, will not
be depressed by more than 25 percent
below the normally anticipated ambi-
ent conditions in the disposal area at
the time of dumping.
§227.8 Limitations on the disposal rates
of toxic wastes.
No wastes will be deemed acceptable
for ocean dumping unless such wastes
can be dumped so as not to exceed the
limiting permissible concentration as
defined in §227.27; Provided, That
this § 227.8 does not apply to those
wastes for which specific criteria are
established in §227.11 or §227.12.
Total quantities of wastes dumped at a
site may be limited as described in
§ 228.8.
§ 227.9 Limitations on quantities of waste
materials.
Substances which may damage the
ocean environment due to the quanti-
ties in which they are dumped, or
which may seriously reduce amenities,
may be dumped only when the quanti-
ties to be dumped at a single time and
place are controlled to prevent long-
term damage to the environment or to
amenities.
§227.10 Hazards to fishing, navigation,
shorelines or beaches.
(a) Wastes which may present a seri-
ous obstacle to fishing or navigation
may be dumped only at disposal sites
and under conditions which will insure
no unacceptable interference with
fishing or navigation.
(b) Wastes which may present a
hazard to shorelines or beaches may
be dumped only at sites and under
conditions which will insure no unac-
ceptable danger to shorelines or
beaches.
§ 227.11 Containerized wastes.
(a) Wastes containerized solely for
transport to the dumping site and ex-
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-24
Environmental Protection Agency
pected to rupture or leak on impact or
shortly thereafter must meet the ap-
propriate requirements of §§227.6,
227.7, 227.8, 227.9, and 227.10.
(b) Other containerized wastes will
be approved for dumping only under
the following conditions:
(1) The materials to be disposed of
decay, decompose or radiodecay to en-
vironmentally innocuous materials
within the life expectancy of the con-
tainers and/or their inert matrix; and
(2) Materials to be dumped are
present in such quantities and are of
such nature that only short-term lo-
calized adverse effects will occur
should the containers rupture at any
time; and
(3) Containers are dumped at depths
and locations where they will cause no
threat to navigation, fishing, shore-
lines, or beaches.
§ 227.12 Insoluble wastes.
(a) Solid wastes consisting of inert
natural minerals or materials compati-
ble with the ocean environment may
be generally approved for ocean dump-
ing provided they are insoluble above
the applicable trace or limiting per-
missible concentrations and are rapid-
ly and completely settleable, and they
are of a particle size and density that
they would be deposited or rapidly dis-
persed without damage to benthic, de-
mersal, or pelagic biota.
(b) Persistent inert synthetic or nat-
ural materials which may float or
remain in suspension in the ocean as
prohibited in paragraph (d) of § 227.5
may be dumped in the ocean only
when they have been processed in
such a fashion that they will sink to
the bottom and remain in place.
§227.13 Dredged materials.
(a) Dredged materials are bottom
sediments or materials that have been
dredged or excavated from the naviga-
ble waters of the United States, and
their disposal into ocean waters is reg-
ulated by the U.S. Army Corps of En-
gineers using the criteria of applicable
sections of Parts 227 and 228. Dredged
material consists primarily of natural
sediments or materials which may be
contaminated by municipal or indus-
trial wastes or by runoff from terres-
§227.13
trial sources such as agricultural
lands.
(b) Dredged material which meets
the criteria set forth in the following
paragraphs (b)(l), (2), or (3) of this
section is environmentally acceptable
for ocean dumping without further
testing under this section:
(1) Dredged material is composed
predominantly of sand, gravel, rock, or
any other naturally occurring bottom
material with particle sizes larger than
silt, and the material is found in areas
of high current or wave energy such as
streams with large bed loads or coastal
areas with shifting bars and channels;
or
(2) Dredged material is for beach
nourishment or restoration and is
composed predominantly of sand,
gravel or shell with particle sizes com-
patible with material on the receiving
beaches; or
(3) When: (i) The material proposed
for dumping is substantially the same
as the substrate at the proposed dis-
posal site; and
(ii) The site from which the material
proposed for dumping is to be taken is
far removed from known existing and
historical sources of pollution so as to
provide reasonable assurance that
such material has not been contami-
nated by such pollution.
(c) When dredged material proposed
for ocean dumping does not meet the
criteria of paragraph (b) of this sec-
tion, further testing of the liquid, sus-
pended particulate, and solid phases,
as defined in § 227.32, is required.
Based on the results of such testing,
dredged material can be considered to
be environmentally acceptable for
ocean dumping only under the follow-
ing conditions:
(1) The material is in compliance
with the requirements of § 227.6; and
(2)(i) All major constituents of the
liquid phase are in compliance with
the applicable marine water quality
criteria after allowance for initial
mixing; or
(ii) When the liquid phase contains
major constituents not included in the
applicable marine water quality crite-
ria, or there is reason to suspect syner-
gistic effects of certain contaminants,
bioassays on the liquid phase of the
dredged material show that it can be
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-25
§ 227.14
discharged so as not to exceed the lim-
iting permissible concentration as de-
fined in paragraph (a) of § 227.27; and
(3) Bioassays on the suspended par-
ticulate and solid phases show that it
can be discharged so as not to exceed
the limiting permissible concentration
as defined in paragraph (b) of § 227.27.
(d) For the purposes of paragraph
(c)(2) of this section, major constitu-
ents to be analyzed in the liquid phase
are those deemed critical by the Dis-
trict Engineer, after evaluating and
considering any comments received
from the Regional Administrator, and
considering known sources of dis-
charges in the area.
Subpart C—N««d for Ocean Dumping
§227.14 Criteria for evaluating the need
for ocean dumping and alternatives to
ocean dumping.
This Subpart C states the basis on
which an evaluation will be made of
the need for ocean dumping, and alter-
natives to ocean dumping. The nature
of these factors does not permit the
promulgation of specific quantitative
criteria of each permit application.
These factors will therefore be evalu-
ated if applicable for each proposed
dumping on an individual basis using
the guidelines specified in this Sub-
part C.
§ 227.15 Factors considered.
The need for dumping will be deter-
mined by evaluation of the following
factors:
(a) Degree of treatment useful and
feasible for the waste to be dumped,
and whether or not the waste material
has been or will be treated to this
degree before dumping;
(b) Raw materials and manufactur-
ing or other processes resulting in the
waste, and whether or not these mate-
rials or processes are essential to the
provision of the applicant's goods or
services, or if other less polluting ma-
terials or processes could be used;
(c) The relative environmental risks,
impact and cost for ocean dumping as
opposed to other feasible alternatives
including but not limited to:
(1) Land mi;
(2) Well injection;
(3) Incineration;
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
(4) Spread of material over open
ground;
(5) Recycling of material for reuse;
(6) Additional biological, chemical,
or physical treatment of intermediate
or final waste streams;
(7) Storage.
(d) Irreversible or irretrievable con-
sequences of the use of alternatives to
ocean dumping.
§227.16 Basis for determination of need
for ocean dumping.
(a) A need for ocean dumping will be
considered to have been demonstrated
when a thorough evaluation of the
factors listed in § 227.15 has been
made, and the Administrator, Region-
al Administrator or District Engineer,
as the case may be, has determined
that the following conditions exist
where applicable:
(1) There are no practicable im-
provements which can be made in
process technology or in overall waste
treatment to reduce the adverse im-
pacts of the waste on the total envi-
ronment;
(2) There are no practicable alterna-
tive locations and methods of disposal
or recycling available, including with-
out limitation, storage until treatment
facilities are completed, which have
less adverse environmental impact or
potential risk to other parts of the en-
vironment than ocean dumping.
(b) For purposes of paragraph (a) of
this section, waste treatment or im-
provements in processes and alterna-
tive methods of disposal are practica-
ble when they are available at reason-
able incremental cost and energy ex-
penditures, which need not be com-
petitive with the costs of ocean dump-
ing, taking into account the environ-
mental benefits derived from such ac-
tivity, including the relative adverse
environmental impacts associated with
the use of alternatives to ocean dump-
ing.
(c) The duration of permits issued
under Subchapter H and other terms
and conditions imposed in those per-
mits shall be determined after taking
into account the factors set forth in
this section. Notwithstanding compli-
ance with Subparts B, D, and E of this
Part 227 permittees may, on the basis
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-26
Environmental Protection Agency
of the need for and alternatives to
ocean dumping, be required to termi-
nate all ocean dumping by a specified
date, to phase out all ocean dumping
over a specified period or periods, to
continue research and development of
alternative methods of disposal and
make periodic reports of such research
and development in order to provide
additional information for periodic
review of the need for and alternatives
to ocean dumping, or to take such
other action as the Administrator, the
Regional Administrator, or District
Engineer, as the case may be, deter-
mines to be necessary or appropriate.
Subpart D—Impact of the Proposed
Dumping on Esthetic, Recreation-
al and Economic Values
§ 227.17 Basis for determination.
(a) The impact of dumping on es-
thetic, recreational and economic
values will be evaluated on an individ-
ual basis using the following consider-
ations:
(1) Potential for affecting recre-
ational use and values of ocean waters,
inshore waters, beaches, or shorelines;
(2) Potential for affecting the recre-
ational and commercial values of
living marine resources.
(b) For all proposed dumping, full
consideration will be given to such
nonquantifiable aspects of esthetic,
recreational and economic impact as:
(1) Responsible public concern for
the consequences of the proposed
dumping;
(2) Consequences of not authorizing
the dumping including without limita-
tion, the impact on esthetic, recre-
ational and economic values with re-
spect to the municipalities and indus-
tries involved.
§ 227.18 Factors considered.
The assessment of the potential for
impacts on esthetic, recreational and
economic values will be based on an
evaluation of the appropriate charac-
teristics of the material to be dumped,
allowing for conservative rates of dilu-
tion, dispersion, and biochemical deg-
radation during movement of the ma-
terials from a disposal site to an area
of significant recreational or commer-
cial value. The following specific fac-
§ 227.19
tors will be considered in making such
an assessment:
(a) Nature and extent of present and
potential recreational and commercial
use of areas which might be affected
by the proposed dumping;
(b) Existing water quality, and
nature and extent of disposal activi-
ties, in the areas which might be af-
fected by the proposed dumping;
(c) Applicable water quality stand-
ards;
(d) Visible characteristics of the ma-
terials (e.g., color, suspended particu-
lates) which result in an unacceptable
estetic nuisance in recreational areas;
(e) Presence in the material of path-
ogenic organisms which may cause a
public health hazard either directly or
through contamination of fisheries or
shellfisheries;
(f) Presence in the material of toxic
chemical constituents released in vol-
umes which may affect humans direct-
ly;
(g) Presence in the material of
chemical constituents which may be
bioaccumulated or persistent and may
have an adverse effect on humans di-
rectly or through food chain interac-
tions;
(h) Presence in the material of any
constituents which might significantly
affect living marine resources of recre-
ational or commercial value.
§ 227.19 Assessment of impact.
An overall assessment of the pro-
posed dumping and possible alterna-
tive methods of disposal or recycling
will be made based on the effect on es-
thetic, recreational and economic
values based on the factors set forth in
this Subpart D, including where appli-
cable, enhancement of these values,
and the results of the assessment will
be expressed, where possible, on a
quantitative basis, such as percentage
of a resource lost, reduction in use
days of recreational areas, or dollars
lost in commercial fishery profits or
the profitability of other commercial
enterprises.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-27
§227.20
Subpart E—Impact of the Proposed
Dumping on Other Uses of the
Ocean
§ 227.20 Basis for determination.
(a) Based on current state of the art,
consideration must be given to any
possible long-range effects of even the
most innocuous substances when
dumped in the ocean on a continuing
basis. Such a consideration is made in
evaluating the relationship of each
proposed disposal activity in relation-
ship to its potential for long-range
impact on other uses of the ocean.
(b) An evaluation will be made on an
individual basis for each proposed
dumping of material of the potential
for effects on uses of the ocean for
purposes other than material disposal.
The factors to be considered in this
evaluation include those stated in Sub-
part D, but the evaluation of this Sub-
part E will be based on the impact of
the proposed dumping on specific uses
of the ocean rather than on overall es-
thetic, recreational and economic
values.
§ 227.21 Uses considered.
An appraisal will be made of the
nature and extent of existing and po-
tential uses of the disposal site itself
and of any areas which might reason-
ably be expected to be affected by the
proposed dumping, and a quantitative
and qualitative evaluation made,
where feasible, of the impact of the
proposed dumping on each use. The
uses considered shall include, but not
be limited to:
(a) Commercial fishing in open
ocean areas;
(b) Commercial fishing in coastal
areas;
(c) Commercial fishing in estuarine
areas;
(d) Recreational fishing in open
ocean areas;
(e) Recreational fishing in coastal
areas;
(f) Recreational fishing in estuarine
areas;
(g) Recreational use of shorelines
and beaches;
(h) Commercial navigation;
(i) Recreational navigation;
(j) Actual or anticipated exploitation
of living marine resources;
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
(k) Actual or anticipated exploita-
tion of non-living resources, including
without limitation, sand and gravel
places and other mineral deposits, oil
and gas exploration and development
and offshore marine terminal or other
structure development; and
(1) Scientific research and study.
§ 227.22 Assessment of impact
The assessment of impact on other
uses of the ocean will consider both
temporary and long-range effects
within the state of the art, but par-
ticular emphasis will be placed on any
irreversible or irretrievable commit-
ment of resources that would result
from the proposed dumping.
Subpart F—Special Requirements for
Interim Permits Under Section
102 of the Act
§ 227.23 General requirement
Each interim permit issued under
section 102 of the Act will include a re-
quirement for the development and
implementation, as soon as practica-
ble, of a plan which requires, at the
discretion of the Administrator or Re-
gional Administrator, as the case may
be, either:
(a) Elimination of ocean disposal of
the waste, or
(b) Bringing the waste into compli-
ance with all the criteria for accepta-
ble ocean disposal.
§ 227.24 Contents of environmental assess-
ment
A plan developed pursuant to this
Subpart F must include an environ-
mental assessment of the proposed
action, including without limitation:
(a) Description of the proposed
action;
(b) A thorough review of the actual
need for dumping;
(c) Environmental impact of the pro-
posed action;
(d) Adverse impacts which cannot be
avoided should the proposal be imple-
mented;
(e) Alternatives to the proposed
action;
(f) Relationship between short-term
uses of man's environment and the
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-28
Environmental Protection Agency
maintenance and enhancement of
long-term productivity;
(g) Irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources which
would be involved in the proposed
action should it be implemented; and
(h) A discussion of problems and ob-
jections raised by other Federal, State
and local agencies and by interested
persons in the review process.
§ 227.25 Contents of plans.
In addition to the environmental as-
sessment required by § 227.24, a plan
developed pursuant to this Subpart F
must include a schedule for eliminat-
ing ocean dumping or bringing the
wastes into compliance with the envi-
ronmental impact criteria of Subpart
B, including without limitation, the
following:
(a) If the waste is treated to the
degree necessary to bring it into com-
pliance with the ocean dumping crite-
ria, the applicant should provide a de-
scription of the treatment and a
scheduled program for treatment and
a subsequent analysis of treated mate-
rial to prove the effectiveness of the
process.
(b) If treatment cannot be effected
by post-process techniques the appli-
cant should, determining the offend-
ing constituents, examine his raw ma-
terials and his total process to deter-
mine the origin of the pollutant. If the
offending constituents are found in
the raw material the applicant should
consider a new supplier and provide an
analysis of the new material to prove
compliance. Raw materials are to in-
clude all water used in the process.
Water from municipal sources comply-
ing with drinking water standards is
acceptable. Water from other sources
such as private wells should be ana-
lyzed for contaminants. Water that
has been used in the process should be
considered for treatment and recycling
as an additional source of process
water.
(c) If offending constituents are a
result of the process, the applicant
should investigate and describe the
source of the constituents. A report of
this information will be submitted to
EPA and the applicant will then
submit a proposal describing possible
alternatives to the existing process or
§ 227.27
processes and level of cost and effec-
tiveness.
(d) If an acceptable alternative to
ocean dumping or additional control
technology is required, a schedule and
documentation for implementation of
the alternative or approved control
process shall be submitted and shall
include, without limitation:
(1) Engineering plan;
(2) Financing approval;
(3) Starting date for change;
(4) Completiodate;
(5) Operation starting date.
(e) If an acceptable alternative does
not exist at the time the application is
submitted, the applicant will submit
an acceptable in-house research pro-
gram or employ a competent research
institution to study the problem. The
program of research must be approved
by the Administrator or Regional Ad-
ministrator, as the case may be, before
the initiation of the research. The
schedule and documentation for im-
plementation of a research program
will include, without limitation:
(1) Approaches;
(2) Experimental design;
(3) Starting date;
(4) Reporting intervals;
(5) Proposed completion date;
(6) Date for submission of final
report.
§ 227.26 Implementation of plans.
Implementation of each phase of a
plan shall be initiated as soon as it is
approved by the Administrator or Re-
gional Administrator, as the case may
be.
Subpart 6—Definitions
§227.27 Limiting permissible concentra-
tion (LPC).
(a) The limiting permissible concen-
tration of the liquid phase of a materi-
al is:
(1) That concentration of a constitu-
ent which, after allowance for initial
mixing as provided in § 227.29, does
not exceed applicable marine water
quality criteria; or, when there are no
applicable marine water quality crite-
ria,
(2) That concentration of waste or
dredged material in the receiving
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-29
§227.28
water which, after allowance for ini-
tial mixing, as specified in § 227.29,
will not exceed a toxicity threshold de-
fined as 0.01 of a concentration shown
to be acutely toxic to appropriate sen-
sitive marine organisms in a bioassay
carried out in accordance with ap-
proved EPA procedures.
(3) When there is reasonable scien-
tific evidence on a specific waste mate-
rial to justify the use of an application
factor other than 0.01 as specified in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, such
alternative application factor shall be
used in calculating the LPC.
(b) The limiting permissible concen-
tration of the suspended particulate
and solid phases of a material means
that concentration which will not
cause unreasonable acute or chronic
toxicity or other sublethal adverse ef-
fects based on bioassay results using
appropriate sensitive marine orga-
nisms in the case of the suspended
particulate phase, or appropriate sen-
sitive benthic marine organisms in the
case of the solid phase; and which will
not cause accumulation of toxic mate-
rials in the human food chain. These
bioassays are to be conducted in ac-
cordance with procedures approved by
EPA, or, in the case of dredged materi-
al, approved by EPA and the Corps of
Engineers.1
(c) "Appropriate sensitive marine or-
ganisms" means at least one species
each representative of phytoplankton
or zooplankton, crustacean or mollusk,
and fish species chosen from among
the most sensitive species documented
in the scientific literature or accepted
by EPA as being reliable test orga-
nisms to determine the anticipated
impact of the wastes on the ecosystem
at the disposal site. Bioassays, except
on phytoplankton or zooplankton,
shall be run for a mini*""™ of 96
hours under temperature, salinity, and
•An implementation manual is being de-
veloped jointly by EPA and the Corps of
Engineers, and announcement of the avail-
ability of the manual will be published in
the FEDERAL REGISTER. Until this manual is
available, interim guidance on the appropri-
ate procedures can be obtained from the
Marine Protection Branch, WH-548, Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street
SW, Washington, DC 20460, or the Corps of
Engineers, as the case may be.
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
dissolved oxygen conditions represent-
ing the extremes of environmental
stress at the disposal site. Bioassays on
phytoplankton or zooplankton may be
run for shorter periods of time as ap-
propriate for the organisms tested at
the discretion of EPA, or EPA and the
Corps of Engineers, as the case may
be.
(d) "Appropriate sensitive benthic
marine organisms" means at least one
species each representing filter-feed-
ing, deposit-feeding, and burrowing
species chosen from among the most
sensitive species accepted by EPA as
being reliable test organisms to deter-
mine the anticipated impact on the
site; provided, however, that until suf-
ficient species are adequately tested
and documented, interim guidance on
appropriate organisms available for
use will be provided by the Adminis-
trator, Regional Administrator, or the
District Engineer, as the case may be.
[42 PR 2476, Jan. 11, 1977; 43 PR 1071, Jan.
6. 1978]
§ 227.28 Release zone.
The release zone is the area swept
out by the locus of points constantly
100 meters from the perimeter of the
conveyance engaged in dumping activi-
ties, beginning at the first moment in
which dumping is scheduled to occur
and ending at the last moment in
which dumping is scheduled to occur.
No release zone shall exceed the total
surface area of the dumpsite.
§ 227.29 Initial mixing.
(a) Initial mixing is defined to be
that dispersion or diffusion of liquid,
suspended particulate, and solid
phases of a waste which occurs within
four hours after dumping. The limit-
ing permissible concentration shall not
be exceeded beyond the boundaries of
the disposal site during initial mixing,
and shall not be exceeded at any point
in the marine environment after ini-
tial mixing. The maximum concentra-
tion of the liquid, suspended particu-
late, and solid phases of a dumped ma-
terial after initial mixing shall be esti-
mated by one of these methods, in
order of preference:
(1) When field data on the proposed
dumping are adequate to predict ini-
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-30
Environmental Protection Agency
tial dispersion and diffusion of the
waste, these shall be used, if neces-
sary, in conjunction with an appropri-
ate mathematical model acceptable to
EPA or the District Engineer, as ap-
propriate.
(2) When field data on the disper-
sion and diffusion of a waste of char-
acteristics similar to that proposed for
discharge are available, these shall be
used in conjunction with an appropri-
ate mathematical model acceptable to
EPA or the District Engineer, as ap-
propriate.
(3) When no field data are available,
theoretical oceanic turbulent diffusion
relationships may be applied to known
characteristics of the waste and the
disposal site.
(b) When no other means of estima-
tion are feasible.
(1) The liquid and suspended partic-
ulate phases of the dumped waste may
be assumed to be evenly distributed
after four hours over a column of
water bounded on the surface by the
release zone and extending to the
ocean floor, thermocline, or halocline
if one exists, or to a depth of 20
meters, whichever is shallower, and
(2) The solid phase of a dumped
waste may be assumed to settle rapidly
to the ocean bottom and to be distrib-
uted evenly over the ocean bottom in
an area equal to that of the release
zone as defined in § 227.28.
(c) When there is reasonable scien-
tific evidence to demonstrate that
other methods of estimating a reason-
able allowance for initial mixing are
appropriate for a specific material,
such methods may be used with the
concurrence of EPA after appropriate
scientific review.
§ 227.30 High-level radioactive waste.
High-level radioactive waste means
the aqueous waste resulting from the
operation of the first cycle solvent ex-
traction system, or equivalent, and the
concentrated waste from oubsequent
extraction cycles, or equivalent, in a
facility for reprocessing irradiated re-
actor fuels or irradiated fuel from nu-
clear power reactors.
§ 227.32
§ 227.31 Applicable marine water quality
criteria.
Applicable marine water quality cri-
teria means the criteria given for
marine waters in the EPA publication
"Quality Criteria for Water" as pub-
lished in 1976 and amended by subse-
quent supplements or additions.
§227.32 Liquid, suspended particulate,
and solid phases of a material.
(a) For the purposes of these regula-
tions, the liquid phase of a material,
subject to the exclusions of paragraph
(b) of this section, is the supernatant
remaining after one hour undisturbed
settling, after centrifugation and fil-
tration through a 0.45 micron filter.
The suspended particulate phase is
the supernatant as obtained above
prior to centrifugation and filtration.
The solid phase includes all material
settling to the bottom in one hour.
Settling shall be conducted according
to procedures approved by EPA.
(b) For dredged material, other ma-
terial containing large proportions of
insoluble matter, materials which may
interact with ocean water to form in-
soluble matter or new toxic com-
pounds, or materials which may re-
lease toxic compounds upon deposi-
tion, the Administrator, Regional Ad-
ministrator, or the District Engineer,
as the case may be, may require that
the separation of liquid, suspended
particulate, and solid phases of the
material be performed upon a mixture
of the waste with ocean water rather
than on the material itself. In such
cases the following procedures shall be
used:
(1) For dredged material, the liquid
phase is considered to be the centri-
fuged and 0.45 micron filtered super-
natant remaining after one hour un-
disturbed settling of the mixture re-
sulting from a vigorous 30-minute agi-
tation of one part bottom sediment
from the dredging site with four parts
water (vol/vol) collected from the
dredging site or from the disposal site,
as appropriate for the type of dredg-
ing operation. The suspended particu-
late phase is the supernatant as ob-
tained above prior to centrifugation
and filtration. The solid phase is con-
sidered to be all material settling to
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-31
§228.1
the bottom within one hour. Settling
shall be conducted by procedures ap-
proved by EPA and the Corps of Engi-
neers.
(2) For other materials, the propor-
tion of ocean water used shall be the
minimum amount necessary to
produce the anticipated effect (e.g.,
complete neutralization of an acid or
alkaline waste) based on guidance pro-
vided by EPA on particular cases, or in
accordance with approved EPA proce-
dures. For such materials the liquid
phase is the filtered and centrifuged
supernatant resulting from the mix-
ture after 30 minutes of vigorous shak-
ing followed by undisturbed settling
for one hour. The suspended particu-
late phase is the supernatant as ob-
tained above prior to centrifugation
and filtration. The solid phase is the
insoluble material settling to the
bottom in that period.
PART 228—CRITERIA FOR THE MAN-
AGEMENT OF DISPOSAL SITES FOR
OCEAN DUMPING
Sec.
228.1 Applicability.
228.2 Definitions.
228.3 Disposal site management responsi-
bilities.
228.4 Procedures for designation of sites.
228.5 General criteria for the selection of
sites.
228.6 Specific criteria for site selection.
228.7 Regulation of disposal site use.
228.8 Limitations on times and rates of dis-
posal.
228.9 Disposal site monitoring.
228.10 Evaluating disposal impact.
228.11 Modification in disposal site use.
228.12 Delegation of management author-
ity for interim ocean dumping sites.
228.13 Guidelines for ocean disposal site
baseline or trend assessment surveys
under section 102 of the Act.
AUTHORITY: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.
SOURCE 42 PR 2482, Jan, 11, 1977, unless
otherwise noted.
§228.1 Applicability.
The criteria of this Part 228 are es-
tablished pursuant to section 102 of
the Act and apply to the evaluation of
proposed ocean dumping under Title I
of the Act. The criteria of this Part
228 deal with the evaluation of the
proposed dumping of material in
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
ocean waters in relation to continuing
requirements for effective manage-
ment of ocean disposal sites to prevent
unreasonable degradation of the
marine environment from all wastes
being dumped in the ocean. This Part
228 is applicable to dredged material
disposal sites only as specified in
§§ 228.4(e), 228.9, and 228.12.
§ 228.2 Definitions.
(a) The term "disposal site" means
an interim or finally approved and
precise geographical area within
which ocean dumping of wastes is per-
mitted under conditions specified in
permits issued under sections 102 and
103 of the Act. Such sites are identi-
fied by boundaries established by (1)
coordinates of latitude and longitude
for each corner, or by (2) coordinates
of latitude and longitude for the
center point and a radius in nautical
miles from that point. Boundary co-
ordinates shall be identified as precise-
ly as is warranted by the accuracy
with which the site can be located
with existing navigational aids or by
the implantation of transponders,
buoys or other means of marking the
site.
(b) The term "baseline" or "trend as-
sessment" survey means the planned
sampling or measurement of param-
eters at set stations or in set areas in
and near disposal sites for a period of
time sufficient to provide synoptic
data for determining water quality,
benthic, or biological conditions as a
result of ocean disposal operations.
The minimum requirements for such
surveys are given in § 228.13.
(c) The term "disposal site evalua-
tion study" means the collection, anal-
ysis, and interpretation of all perti-
nent information available concerning
an existing disposal site, including but
not limited to, data and information
from trend assessment surveys, moni-
toring surveys, special purpose surveys
of other Federal agencies, public data
archives, and social and economic
studies and records of affected areas.
(d) The term "disposal site designa-
tion study" means the collection, anal-
ysis and interpretation of all available
pertinent data and information on a
proposed disposal site prior to use, in-
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-32
Environmental Protection Agency
eluding but not limited to, that from
baseline surveys, special purpose sur-
veys of other Federal agencies, public
data archives, and social and economic
studies and records of areas which
would be affected by use of the pro-
posed site.
(e) The term "management author-
ity" means the EPA organizational
entity assigned responsibility for im-
plementing the management functions
identified in § 228.3.
(f) "Statistical significance" shall
mean the statistical significance deter-
mined by using appropriate standard
techniques of multivariate analysis
with results interpreted at the 95 per-
cent confidence level and based on
data relating species which are present
in sufficient numbers at control areas
to permit a valid statistical comparison
with the areas being tested.
(g) "Valuable commercial and recre-
ational species" shall mean those spe-
cies for which catch statistics are com-
piled on a routine basis by the Federal
or State agency responsible for compil-
ing such statistics for the general geo-
graphical area impacted, or which are
under current study by such Federal
or State agencies for potential devel-
opment for commercial or recreational
use.
(h) "Normal ambient value" means
that concentration of a chemical spe-
cies reasonably anticipated to be
present in the water column, sedi-
ments, or biota in the absence of dis-
posal activities at the disposal site in
question.
§228.3 Disposal site management respon-
sibilities.
(a) Management of a site consists of
regulating times, rates, and methods
of disposal and quantities and types of
materials disposed of; developing and
maintaining effective ambient moni-
toring programs for the site; conduct-
ing disposal site evaluation and desig-
nation studies; and recommending
modifications in site use and/or desig-
nation (e.g., termination of use of the
site for general use or for disposal of
specific wastes).
(b) Each site, upon interim or con-
tinuing use designation, will be as-
signed to either an EPA Regional
office or to EPA Headquarters for
§228.4
management. These designations will
be consistent with the delegation of
authority in § 220.4. The designated
management authority is fully respon-
sible for all aspects of the manage-
ment of sites within the general re-
quirements specified in § 220.4 and
this section. Specific requirements for
meeting the management responsibil-
ities assigned to the designated man-
agement authority for each site are
outlined in §§ 228.5 and 228.6.
§ 228.4 Procedures for designation of
sites.
(a) General Permits. Geographical
areas or regions within which materi-
als may be dumped under a general
permit will be published as part of the
promulgation of each general permit.
(b) Special and Interim Permits.
Areas where ocean dumping is permit-
ted subject to the specific conditions
of individual special or interim per-
mits, will be designated by promulga-
tion in this Part 228, and such designa-
tion will be made based on environ-
mental studies of each site, regions ad-
jacent to the site, and on historical
knowledge of the impact of waste dis-
posal on areas similar to such sites in
physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics. All studies for the
evaluation and potential selection of
dumping sites will be conducted in ac-
cordance with the requirements of
§§ 228.5 and 228.6.
The Administrator may, from time to
time, designate specific locations for
temporary use for disposal of small
amounts of materials under a special
permit only without disposal site des-
ignation studies when such materials
satisfy the Criteria and the Adminis-
trator determines that the quantities
to be disposed of at such sites will not
result in significant impact on the en-
vironment. Such designations will be
done by promulgation in this Part 228,
and will be for a specified period of
time and for specified quantities of
materials.
(c) Emergency Permits. Dumping
sites for materials disposed of under
an emergency permit will be specified
by the Administrator as a permit con-
dition and will be based on an individ-
ual appraisal of the characteristics of
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-33
§228.5
the waste and the safest means for its
disposal.
(d) Research Permits. Dumping sites
for research permits will be deter-
mined by the nature of the proposed
study. Dumping sites will be specified
by the Administrator as a permit con-
dition.
(e) Dredged Material Permits.
(1) Areas where ocean dumping of
dredged material is permitted subject
to the specific conditions of Dredged
Material permits issued by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers will be desig-
nated by EPA promulgation in this
Part 228, and such designation will be
made based on environmental studies
of each site, regions adjacent to the
site, and on historical knowledge of
the impact of dredged material dispos-
al on areas similar to such sites in
physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics. All studies for the
evaluation and potential selection of
dredged material disposal sites will be
conducted in accordance with the ap-
propriate requirements of §§ 228.5 and
228.6, except that:
(i) Baseline or trend assessment re-
quirements may be developed on a
case-by-case basis from the results of
research, including that now in
progress by the Corps of Engineers.
(ii) An environmental impact assess-
ment for all sites within a particular
geographic area may be prepared
based on complete disposal site desig-
nation or evaluation studies on a typi-
cal site or sites in that area. In such
cases, sufficient studies to demon-
strate the generic similarity of all sites
within such a geographic area will be
conducted.
(2) In those cases where a recom-
mended disposal site has not been des-
ignated by the Administrator, or
where it is not feasible to utilize a rec-
ommended disposal site that has been
designated by the Administrator, the
District Engineer shall, in consultation
with EPA, select a site in accordance
with the requirements of §§ 228.5 and
228.6(a). Concurrence by EPA in per-
mits issued for the use of such site for
the dumping of dredged material at
the site will constitute EPA approval
of the use of the site for dredged ma-
terial disposal only.
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-68 Edition)
(3) Sites designated for the ocean
dumping of dredged material in ac-
cordance with the procedures of para-
graph (e)(l) or (2) of this section shall
be used only for the ocean dumping of
dredged material under permits issued
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
§228.5 General criteria for the selection
of sites.
(a) The dumping of materials into
the ocean will be permitted only at
sites or in areas selected to minimize
the interference of disposal activities
with other activities in the marine en-
vironment, particularly avoiding areas
of existing fisheries or shellfisheries,
and regions of heavy commercial or
recreational navigation.
(b) Locations and boundaries of dis-
posal sites will be so chosen that tem-
porary perturbations in water quality
or other environmental conditions
during initial mixing caused by dispos-
al operations anywhere within the site
can be expected to be reduced to
normal ambient seawater levels or to
undetectable contaminant concentra-
tions or effects before reaching any
beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or
known geographically limited fishery
or shellf ishery.
(c) If at any time during or after dis-
posal site evaluation studies, it is de-
termined that existing disposal sites
presently approved on an interim basis
for ocean dumping do not meet the
criteria for site selection set forth in
§§ 228.5 through 228.6, the use of such
sites will be terminated as soon as suit-
able alternate disposal sites can be
designated.
(d) The sizes of ocean disposal sites
will be limited in order to localize for
identification and control any immedi-
ate adverse impacts and permit the im-
plementation of effective monitoring
and surveilance programs to prevent
adverse long-range impacts. The size,
configuration, and location of any dis-
posal site will be determined as a part
of the disposal site evaluation or desig-
nation study.
(e) EPA will, wherever feasible, des-
ignate ocean dumping sites beyond the
edge of the continental shelf and
other such sites that have been his-
torically used.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-34
Environmental Protection Agency
§ 228.6 Specific criteria for site selection.
(a) In the selection of disposal sites,
in addition to other necessary or ap-
propriate factors determined by the
Administrator, the following factors
will be considered:
(1) Geographical position, depth of
water, bottom topography and dis-
tance from coast;
(2) Location in relation to breeding,
spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage
areas of living resources in adult or ju-
venile phases;
(3) Location in relation to beaches
and other amenity areas;
(4) Types and Quantities of wastes
proposed to be disposed of, and pro-
posed methods of release, including
methods of packing the waste, if any;
(5) Feasibility of surveillance and
monitoring;
(6) Dispersal, horizontal transport
and vertical mixing characteristics of
the area, including prevailing current
direction and velocity, if any;
(7) Existence and effects of current
and previous discharges and dumping
in the area (including cumulative ef-
fects);
(8) Interference with shipping, fish-
ing, recreation, mineral extraction, de-
salination, fish and shellfish culture,
areas of special scientific importance
and other legitimate uses of the ocean;
(9) The existing water quality and
ecology of the site as determined by
available data or by trend assessment
or baseline surveys;
(10) Potentiality for the develop-
ment or recruitment of nuisance spe-
cies in the disposal site;
(11) Existence at or in close proximi-
ty to the site of any significant natural
or cultural features of historical im-
portance.
(b) The results of a disposal site
evaluation and/or designation study
based on the criteria stated in para-
graphs (bXl) through (11) of this sec-
tion will be presented in support of
the site designation promulgation as
an environmental assessment of the
impact of the use of the site for dis-
posal, and will be used in the prepara-
tion of an environmental impact state-
ment for each site where such a state-
ment is required by EPA policy. By
publication of a notice in accordance
with this Part 228, an environmental
§ 228.9
impact statement, in draft form, will
be made available for public comment
not later than the time of publication
of the site designation as proposed
rulemaking, and a final EIS will be
made available at the time of final
rulemaking.
§ 228.7 Regulation of disposal site use.
Where necessary, disposal site use
will be regulated by setting limitations
on times of dumping and rates of dis-
charge, and establishing a disposal site
monitoring program.
§228.8 Limitations on times and rates of
disposal.
Limitations as to time for and rates
of dumping may be stated as part of
the promulgation of site designation.
The times and the quantities of per-
mitted material disposal will be regu-
lated by the EPA management author-
ity so that the limits for the site as
specified in the site designation are
not exceeded. This will be accom-
plished by the denial of permits for
the disposal of some materials, by the
imposition of appropriate conditions
on other permits and, if necessary, the
designation of new disposal sites under
the procedures of § 228.4. In no case
may the total volume of material dis-
posed of at any site under special or
interim permits cause the concentra-
tion of the total materials or any con-
stituent of any of the materials being
disposed of at the site to exceed limits
specified in the site designation.
§ 228.9 Disposal site monitoring.
(a) The monitoring program, if
deemed necessary by the Regional Ad-
ministrator or the District Engineer,
as appropriate, may include baseline
or trend assessment surveys by EPA,
NOAA, other Federal agencies, or con-
tractors, special studies by permittees,
and the analysis and interpretation of
data from remote or automatic sam-
pling and/or sensing devices. The pri-
mary purpose of the monitoring pro-
gram is to evaluate the impact of dis-
posal on the marine environment by
referencing the monitoring results to a
set of baseline conditions. When dis-
posal sites are being used on a continu-
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-35
§228.10
ing basis, such programs may consist
of the following components:
(1) Trend assessment surveys con-
ducted at intervals frequent enough to
assess the extent and trends of envi-
ronmental impact. Until survey data
or other information are adequate to
show that changes in frequency or
scope are necessary or desirable, trend
assessment and baseline surveys
should generally conform to the appli-
cable requirements of § 228.13. These
surveys shall be the responsibility of
the Federal government.
(2) Special studies conducted by the
permittee to identify immediate and
short-term impacts of disposal oper-
ations.
(b) These surveys may be supple-
mented, where feasible and useful, by
data collected from the use of auto-
matic sampling buoys, satellites or in
situ platforms, and from experimental
programs.
(c) EPA will require the full partici-
pation of permittees, and encourage
the full participation of other Federal
and State and local agencies in the de-
velopment and implementation of dis-
posal site monitoring programs. The
monitoring and research programs
presently supported by permittees
may be incorporated into the overall
monitoring program insofar as feasi-
ble.
§ 228.10 Evaluating disposal impact
(a) Impact of the disposal at each
site designated under section 102 of
the Act will be evaluated periodically
and a report will be submitted as ap-
propriate as part of the Annual
Report to Congress. Such reports will
be prepared by or under the direction
of the EPA management authority for
a specific site and will be based on an
evaluation of all data available from
baseline and trend assessment surveys,
monitoring surveys, and other data
pertinent to conditions at and near a
site.
(b) The following types of effects, in
addition to other necessary or appro-
priate considerations, will be consid-
ered in determining to what extent
the marine environment has been im-
pacted by materials disposed of at an
ocean disposal site:
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
(1) Movement of materials into estu-
aries or marine sanctuaries, or onto
oceanf ront beaches, or shorelines;
(2) Movement of materials toward
productive fishery or shellfishery
areas;
(3) Absence from the disposal site of
pollution-sensitive biota characteristic
of the general area;
(4) Progressive, non-seasonal,
changes in water quality or sediment
composition at the disposal site, when
these changes are attributable to ma-
terials disposed of at the site;
(5) Progressive, non-seasonal,
changes in composition or numbers of
pelagic, demersal, or benthic biota at
or near the disposal site, when these
changes can be attributed to the ef-
fects of materials disposed of at the
site;
(6) Accumulation of material con-
stituents (including without limita-
tion, human pathogens) in marine
biota at or near the site.
(c) The determination of the overall
severity of disposal at the site on the
marine environment, including with-
out limitation, the disposal site and
adjacent areas, will be based on the
evaluation of the entire body of perti-
nent data using appropriate methods
of data analysis for the quantity and
type of data available. Impacts will be
categorized according to the overall
condition of the environment of the
disposal site and adjacent areas based
on the determination by the EPA
management authority assessing the
nature and extent of the effects iden-
tified in paragraph (b) of this section
in addition to other necessary or ap-
propriate considerations. The follow-
ing categories shall be used:
(1) Impact Category I: The effects of
activities at the disposal site shall be
categorized in Impact Category I when
one or more of the following condi-
tions is present and can reasonably be
attributed to ocean dumping activities;
(i) There is identifiable progressive
movement or accumulation, in detecta-
ble concentrations above normal ambi-
ent values, of any waste or waste con-
stituent from the disposal site within
12 nautical miles of any shoreline,
marine sanctuary designated under
Title III of the Act, or critical area
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-36
Environmental Protection Agency
designated under section 102(c) of the
Act; or
(ii) The biota, sediments, or water
column of the disposal site, or of any
area outside the disposal site where
any waste or waste constituent from
the disposal site is present in detecta-
ble concentrations above normal ambi-
ent values, are adversely affected by
the toxicity of such waste or waste
constituent to the extent that there
are statistically significant decreases
in the populations of valuable com-
mercial or recreational species, or of
specific species of biota essential to
the propagation of such species,
within the disposal site and such other
area as compared to populations of
the same organisms in comparable lo-
cations outside such site and area; or
(ill) Solid waste material disposed of
at the site has accumulated at the site
or in areas adjacent to it, to such an
extent that major uses of the site or of
adjacent areas are significantly im-
paired and the Federal or State
agency responsible for regulating such
uses certifies that such significant im-
pairment has occurred and states in its
certificate the basis for its determina-
tion of such impairment; or
(iv) There are adverse effects on the
taste or odor of valuable commercial
or recreational species as a result of
disposal activities; or
(v) When any toxic waste, toxic
waste constituent, or toxic byproduct
of waste interaction, is consistently
identified in toxic concentrations
above normal ambient values outside
the disposal site more than 4 hours
after disposal.
(2) Impact Category II: The effects
of activities at the disposal site which
are not categorized in Impact Catego-
ry I shall be categorized in Impact
Category II.
§ 228.11 Modification in disposal site use.
(a) Modifications in disposal site use
which involve the withdrawal of desig-
nated disposal sites from use or perma-
nent changes in the total specified
quantities or types of wastes permitted
to be discharged to a specific disposal
site will be made through promulga-
tion of an amendment to the disposal
site designation set forth in this Part
228 and will be based on the results of
§228.12
the analyses of impact described in
§ 228.10 or upon changed circum-
stances concerning use of the site.
(b) Modifications in disposal site use
promulgated pursuant to paragraph
(a) of this section shall not automati-
cally modify conditions of any out-
standing permit issued pursuant to
this Subchapter H, and provided fur-
ther that unless the EPA management
authority for such site modifies, re-
vokes or suspends such permit or any
of the terms or conditions of such
permit in accordance with the provi-
sions of § 232.2 based on the results of
impact analyses as described in
§ 228.10 or upon changed circum-
stances concerning use of the site,
such permit will remain in force until
its expiration date.
(c) When the EPA management au-
thority determines that activities at a
disposal site have placed the site in
Impact Category I, the Administrator
or the Regional Administrator, as the
case may be, shall place such limita-
tions on the use of the site as are nec-
essary to reduce the impacts to accept-
able levels.
(d) The determination of the Admin-
istrator as to whether to terminate or
limit use of a disposal site will be
based on the impact of disposal at the
site itself and on the Criteria.
[42 PR 2482, Jan. 11, 1977; 43 FR 1071, Jan.
6,19781
§ 228.12 Delegation of management au-
thority for interim ocean dumping
sites.
(a) The following sites are approved
for dumping the indicated materials
on an interim basis pending comple-
tion of baseline or trend assessment
surveys and designation for continuing
use or termination of use. Manage-
ment authority for all sites is delegat-
ed to the EPA organizational entity
under which each site is listed. The
sizes and use specifications are based
on historical usage and do not neces-
sarily meet the criteria stated in this
part.
(1) The following sites for disposal
of dredged material under Corps of
Engineers permits under section 103 of
the Act will remain in force according
to the following schedule:
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-37
§228.12
(i) Until such time as formal rule-
making is completed or until Decem-
ber 31,1988, whichever is sooner:
(A) [Reserved] (See editorial note
three at end of section.)
(B) Georgetown, SC.
(C) Pascagoula, MS.
(D) Humboldt Bay, CA.
(E) Long Beach, CA.
(P) San Diego, CA (2 sites).
(G) New Jersey/Long Island Sites (8
sites): Absecon Inlet, NJ; Cold Spring
Inlet, NJ; Manasquan Inlet, NJ; East
Rockaway, NY; Jones Inlet, NY; Fire
Island, NY; Shark River, NJ; and
Rockaway Inlet, NY.
(H) [Reserved]
(ii) Until such time as formal rule-
making is completed or until July 31,
1988, whichever is sooner:
(A)-(O) [Reserved] (See editorial
note three at end of section.)
(2) The interim designations of the
following sites are terminated effec-
tive immediately:
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
(i) Both Region I industrial waste
sites.
(ii) Region II wreck site.
(iii) Region III acid wastes site.
(iv) Region IV industrial wastes site.
(v) The Region VI industrial waste
site located at 28d 00' to 28d 10' N, and
89d 15' to 89d 30' W.
(vi) Port Mansfield Channel Dispos-
al Area 1-A.
(3) The interim designations of all
other dredged material sites listed in
§ 228.12(a) and the Region II wood in-
cineration site are extended indefinite-
ly, pending completion of the present
studies and determination of the need
for continuing use of these sites, the
completion of any necessary studies,
and evaluation of their suitability.
Designation studies for particular sites
within this group will begin as soon as
feasible after the completion of
nearby sites presently being studied.
APPROVED INTERIM DUMPING SITES
Location (latitude, longitude)
43'33'00" N , 69'55'00" W 1 nautical mile radius
42*25'42" N 70"35'00" W 1 nautical mile radius
40*22'30" N to 40'25'00" N 73'41'30" W to 78*45'00" W
40'16'00" N to 40'20'00" N 73'36'00" W to 73'40'00" W
40*23'00" N 73'49'00" W 0 6 nautical mile radius
40*10'00" N 73'4?00" W 0 5 nautical mile radius
19*10'00" N to 19°20TJO" N 66"35'00" W to 66"50'00" W
38*30*00" N to 38*35'00" N 74°15'00" W to 74"2S'00" W
38'20'00" N to 38*25'00" N 74'10'00" W to 74'20'00" W
•llMfi'nn" M BO'TOTJO" W ai'47'06" N aO'29'00" W 31'48'00" N
SO'30'30" V-'., 3V46'30" N., 80-32W' W.
97*1 9'nO" N tn 97*2fl'0ft" N 94*28'00" W to 94"44'00" W
9»*00'OO" N tn MMfyOO" N B9'15'00" W to 89*30'00" W _
4n*IYV*W' Kl tn 4fWW9fV' N 7VA1'OQ" W to 73*38*10" W
EPA
region
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
Ml
Ill
IV
VI
VI
II
Primary use
Industrial wastes.
Do.
Municipal sewage sludge.
Acid wastes.
Cellar dirt.
Wrecks.
Industrial wastes.
Acid wastes.
Municipal sewage sludge.
Industrial wastes.
Do.
Do.
Incineration of wood.
DREDGED MATERIAL SITES
(All dredged material sites will be retained
under EPA Headquarters management until
formally approved for continuing use or
otherwise assigned for Regional manage-
ment prior to such designation.)
LOCATION (LAT., LONG.)
Newburyport, MA-42°48'50" N., 70"47'00"
W.;(%N. Mi. square).
Marblehead, MA-42'25'42" N., 70"34'00" W.
(2 N. Mi. diameter).
Boston. MA—41'49'00" N., 70°25'00" W. (1 N.
Mi. diameter).
Cape Arundel, ME—43*17'45" N., 70*27'12"
W. (500 yds. diameter).
Absecon Inlet-39"21'07" N., 74'23'40" W.;
39°21'18" N., 74°23'53" W.
Cold Spring Inlet-38'55'41" N., 74'53'05"
W.; 38'55'33" N., 74°53'23" W.
Manasquan Inlet—40°06'22" N., 74*01'46" W.;
40'06'38" N., 74°01'39" W.
East Rockaway—40"34'36" N., 73'49'00" W.;
40"35'06" N., 73°47'06" W.; 40'34'10" N.,
73'48'36" W.; 40'34'12" N., 73*47'17" W.
Jones Inlet—40'34'32" N., 73'39'14" W.;
40'34'32" N., 73'37'06" W.; 40'33'48" N..
73*37'06" W.; 40°33'48" N., 73"39'14" W.
Fire Island—40°36'49" N., 73'23'50" W.;
40°37'12" N.. 73'21'30" W.; 40°36'41" N.,
73'21'20" W.; 40°36'10" N., 73°23'40" W.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-38
Environmental Protection Agency
Mud Dump—40°23'48" N., 73"51'28" W.;
40'21'48" N., 73'50'00" W.; 40"21'48" N..
73°51'28" W.; 40°23'48" N., 73°50'00" W.
Shark River-40'12'48" N., 73°59'45" W.;
40'12'44" N., 73"59'06" W.; 40°11'36" N.,
73-59'28" W.; 40'11'42" N., 74°00'12" W.
Rockaway Inlet—40°32'30" N., 73°55'00" W.;
40"32'30" N., 73°54"00" W., 40°32'00" N.,
73'54'00" W.; 40°32'00" N., 73°55'00" W.
Mayaguez Harbor, PR—18"15'30" N.,
67°14'31" W.; 18-15'30" N., 67°13'29" W.;
18'14'30" N., 67-13'29" W.; 18°14'30" N.,
67° 14'31" W.
Arecibo Harbor, PR-18°30'00" N., 66°42'45"
W.; 18°30'00" N., 66°43'47" W.; 18°31'00" N.,
66-43'47" W.; 18°31'00" N., 66°42'45" W.
Ponce Harbor, PR—17'55'30" N., 66°38'29"
W.; 17-55'30" N., 66'39'31" W.; 17°54'30" N.,
66°38'29" W.; 17°54'30" N., 66°39'31" W.
Yabucoa Harbor, PR—18'00'54" N.,
65°44'23"W.; 18°01'33" N., 65°45'58" W.;
18°03'12" N., 65°45'42" W.; 18"02'30" N.,
65'43'43" W.
Georgetown Harbor—33° 11'18" N., 79°07'20"
W.; 33°11'18" N., 79°05'23" W.; 33°10'38"N.,
79'07'21" W.; 33°10'38" N., 79°07'21" W.
Port Royal Harbor—32°10'11" N., 80°36'00"
W.; 32°10'06" N., 80°36'35" W.; 32°08'38" N.,
80°36'23" W.; 32'08'41" N., 80'35'49" W.
Port Royal Harbor—32°05'46" N., 80°35'30"
W.; 32-05-42" N., 80°36'27" W.; 32'04'22" N.,
80-36-16" W.; 32°04'27" N., 80°35'18" W.
Brunswick Harbor—Atlantic outlet, Ga., St.
Simons Sound, Brunswick Harbor Bar
Channel, maintenance dredging disposal
area 1 nautical mile wide by 2 nautical
miles long adjacent to the channel located
on the south side of the entrance and
being 6.6 nautical miles from shore at a
point of beginning at 31°02'35" N. and
8117'40" W., thence due east to 31°02'35"
N. and 81°16'30" W., thence due south to
31"00'30" N. and 81°16'30" W., thence due
west to 31°00'30" N. and 81°17'40" W.,
thence due north to the point of begin-
ning.
Canaveral Harbor—28°19'53" N., 80°31'08"
W.; 28°18'50" N., 80°29'40" W.; 28°17'35" N.,
80°30'52" W.; 28'18'38" N., 80"32'20" W.
Port Pierce Harbor—27°28'30" N., 80°12'33"
W.; 27°28'30" N., 80°11'27" W.; 27°27'30" N.,
80'11'27" W.; 27'27'30" N., 80"12'33" W.
JacksonvUle Harbor—30°21'30" N., 81*18'34"
W.; 30°21'30" N., 81°17'26" W.; 30°20'30" N.,
81°17'26" W.; 30°20'30" N., 81°18'34" W.
Miami Beach— 25°45'30" N., 80'03'54" W.;
25'45'30" N., 80°02'50" W.; 25°44'30" N.,
80°02'50" W.; 25°44'30" N., 80°03'54" W.
Palm Beach Harbor—26°46' 10" N., 80°02'00"
W.; 26"45'54" N., 80°02'06" W.; 26°45'54" N.,
80"02'13" W.; 26°46'10" N., 80°02'07" W.
Port Everglades Harbor—26°07'00" N.,
80'04'30" W.; 26°07'00" N., 80'03'30" W.;
26'06'00" N., 80°03'30" W.; 26°06'00" N.,
80'04'30" W.
§ 228.12
Charlotte Harbor—26°37'36" N., 82'19'55"
W.; 26'37'36" N., 82°18'47" W.; 26°36'36" N.,
82°18'47" W.; 26°36'36" N., 82"19'55" W.
Tampa Harbor—27°38'08" N., 82°55'06" W.;
27°38'08" N., 82°54'00" W.; 27"37'08" N.,
82-54'QO" W.; 2703T08" N., 82°55'06" W.
Tampa Harbor—27"37'28" N., 83"00'09" W.;
27"37'34" N., 82°59'19" W.; 27"36'43" N..
82°5913" W.; 27''36'37" N., 83'00'03" W.
Palm Beach Harbor—26°46'00" N., 79°58'55"
W.; 26046'00" N., 79°57'47" W.; 26'45'00" N.,
79°57'47" W.; 26°45'00" N., 79'58'55" W.
Key West—24"27'24" N., 81°45'38" W.;
24°27'24" N., 81°44'32" W.; 24°26'20" N.,
81-44-32" W.; 24'26'20" N.. 81'45'38" W.
Pascagoula, MS—SO'11.9' N., 88°33.1' W.;
30*11.9' N., 88'32.3' W.; 30°11.6' N., 88°32.4'
W.; 30'11.6' N., 88-32.1' W.; 30°10.5' N.,
88-33.2' W.: 30-10.6' N., 88°34.0' W.
Panama City, FL—30°07.1' N., 85°45.9' W.;
30-07.2' N., 85-45.5' W.; 30°06.9' N., 85-45.1'
W.; 30-06.7' N., 85°45.6' W.
Port St. Joe, FL—29-50.9' N., 85°29.9' W.;
29-51.3' N., 85°29.5' W.; 29°49.2' N., 85°28.2'
W.; 29-49.0' N., 85°28.8' W.
Port St. Joe, FL—29-53.9' N., 85-31.8' W.;
29-54.1' N., 85° 31.3' W.; 29°52.2' N., 85'30.1'
W.; 29-52.2' N., 85°30.8' W.
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TEXAS
Disposal Area No. 1—Beginning at lat.
29°18'00". long. 94°39'30" thence to lat.
29-15-54", long. 94°37'06" thence to lat.
29-14-24", long. 94038'42" thence to lat.
29"16'54", long. 94°41'30"; thence to point
of beginning.
FREEPORT HARBOR, TEXAS
Disposal Area No. 1—Beginning at lat.
28-54-42", long. 95°17'38" thence to lat.
28°54'-3"; long. 95'16'54" thence to lat.
28°53'48", long. 95°17'27" thence to lat.
28'54'21", long. 95°18'03"; thence to point
of beginning.
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL
Disposal Area No. 1—Beginning at lat.
28-24'31", long. 96°18'48" thence to lat.
28°23-27", long. 96°17'38" thence to lat.
28-23-15", long. 96°17'54" thence to lat.
28-24-18", long. 96°19'03"; thence to point
of beginning.
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL
Disposal Area No. 1—Beginning at lat.
27°49'34", long. 97°01'51"; thence to lat.
27-48-28", long. 96'59'49"; thence to lat.
27-48'lS", long 96°59'56"; thence to lat.
27-49'23", long. 97'01'58"; thence to point
of beginning.
PORT MANSFIELD CHANNEL
Disposal Area No. 1—Beginning at lat.
26-34-09", long. 97°15'52"; thence to lat.
26-34-09", long. 97'15'18"; thence to lat.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-39
§228.12
26*33'57", long. 97*1518"; thence to lat
26*33'57", long. 97*15'52"; thence to point
of beginning.
Disposal Area No. 1-A—Beginning
26*3417",
26*3418",
26*33'59",
long.
long.
long.
97*1612"
97*15'55"
97*15'52"
thence
thence
thence
at
to
to
to
lat.
lat.
lat.
lat.
26*33'58", long. 97*1611"; thence to point
of beginning.
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR
Disposal Area No. 1—Beginning at lat.
26*04'38", long. 97*07'52" thence to lat.
26°04'38", long. 97*07'42" thence to lat.
26*04'05", long. 97*06'42" thence to lat.
26*04'05", long. 97*07'52"; thence to point
of beginning.
Mississippi River, Gulf Outlet, La.—Breton
Sound and Bar Channel. Maintenance
dredging disposal area 0.5 mile wide by
12.S miles long, parallel to the channel
and located on the south side. Beginning
at 29*32'23" N.-and 89*12'20" W., following
channel centerline (azimuth 308*47') in
Breton Sound to 29*2915" N. and 89*07'06"
W., following centerline (azimuth 300°36')
of the gulf entrance channel to 29°25'06"
N. and 88*59'54" W., thence to 29°24'45" N.
and 89*00'09" W., thence to 29*28'53" N.,
and 89*08'08" W., thence to 29*31'41" N.
and 89*12-09" W., thence to the point of
beginning.
Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf
of Mexico, La.—South Pass. Maintenance
dredging disposal area 0.5 mile square,
parallel to the channel and located on the
west side. Beginning at 28*58'33" N. and
89*07'00" W., following channel centerline
(azimuth 295°41') of the gulf entrance
channel to 28*58'24" N. and 89*06'30" W.,
thence to 28*57'54" N. and 89°08'42" W.,
thence to 28*58'06" N. and 89*0718" W.,
thence to the point of beginning.
Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf
of Mexico, La.—Southwest Pass. Mainte-
nance dredging disposal area 2 miles
square, parallel to the channel and locat-
ed on the west side. Beginning at 28°54'24"
N. and 89°26'03" W., following channel
centerline (azimuth 0*09') of the gulf en-
trance channel to 28*5218" N. and
89*26'03" W., thence to 28*5218" N. and
89*27'48" W., thence to 28'54'24"N. and
89*27'48"W., thence to the point of begin-
ning.
Mississippi River Outlets, Venice, La.—Tiger
Pass. Maintenance dredging disposal area
0.5 mile wide by 2.5 miles long, parallel
and adjacent to the channel and located
on the south side. Beginning at 29*08'24"
W. and 89*25'35" N. following 270* azimuth
to 29*08'24" W. and 89*28'05" N., thence to
29*07'54" W. and 89*28'05" N., thence to
29*07'54" W. and 89*25'35" N., thence to
the point of beginning.
Waterway from Empire, La. to the Gulf of
Mexico—Bar channel. Maintenance dredg-
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
ing disposal area 0.5 mile wide by 1 mile
long, parallel to the channel and located
on the west side. Beginning at 29°15'06" N
and 89*36'30" W., following channel cen-
terline (azimuth 11°08') of the gulf en-
trance channel to 29*14'30" N. and
89°36'36" W., thence to 29*14'36" N. and
89*36'48" W., thence to 29*1512" N. and
89*36'42" W., thence to the point of begin-
ning.
Barataria Bay Waterway, La.—Bar channel.
Maintenance dredging disposal area 0.5
miles wide by 2 miles long, parallel to the
channel and located on the east side 1,500
feet distance from the channel. Beginning
at 29*1613" N. and 89"55'54" W., following
azimuth 312°07' to 29°14'45" N. and
89*54'05" W., thence to 2914'30.5" N. and
89°53'45" W., thence to 29*15'54" N. and
89*55'34", thence to the point of begin-
ning.
Bayou Lafourche and Lafourche—Jump
Waterway, La.—Bell Pass. Maintenance
dredging disposal area 2,000 feet wide by
1.5 miles long, parallel to the channel and
located on the west side. Beginning at
29*05'00" N. and 90°13'45" W., following
Bell Pass centerline (azimuth 12*55') in
the gulf entrance channel to 29°03'51" N.
and 90*14'06" W.. thence to 29*03'57" N.
and 90*14'21" W., thence to 29*05'06" N.
and 90*14'03" W., thence to the point of
beginning.
Houma Navigation Canal, La.—Cat Island
Pass. Maintenance dredging disposal area
approximately 0.5 miles wide by 5 miles
long parallel to the Cat Island Channel
and located on the west side 1,000 feet
from the channel centerline. Beginning at
29*05'30" N. and 90*34'41" W., following
azimuth 358*41' to 29*03'39.5" N. and
90*34'38.5" W., following azimuth 354* to
29*0110" N. and 90*34'20" W.. thence to
29*01'10" N. and 90*34'54" W.. thence to
29*03'39.5" N. and 90*35'12" W., thence to
29'05'30" N. and 90*3514" W., thence to
the point of beginning.
Atchafalaya River—Morgan City to the
Gulf of Mexico, La. and Atchafalaya
River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and
Black, La.—Bar channel. Maintenance
dredging disposal area 0.5 mile wide by 12
miles long, parallel to the bar channel and
located on the east side. Beginning at
29*20'50" N. and 91"24'03" W., following
channel centerline (azimuth 37*57') of the
gulf entrance channel to 29°11'35" N. and
91*3210" W., thence to 29*11'21" N. and
91*31'37" W., thence to 29°20'36" N. and
91*23'27" W., thence to the point of begin-
ning.
Freshwater Bayou, La,—Bar channel. Main-
tenance dredging disposal area 2,000 feet
wide by 3.5 miles long, parallel to the
channel and located on the west side. Be-
ginning at 29*32'00" N. and 92*18'48" W.,
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-40
Environmental Protection Agency
following channel centerline (azimuth
09*25') of the gulf entrance to 29*28'24" N.
and 92*19-30" W., thence to 29'28'25" N.
and 92*19-42" W., thence to 29'32'01" N.
and 92°19'00" W., thence to the point of
beginning.
Mermentau River. La. Maintenance dredg-
ing disposal areas 0.5 mile wide and 1.5
miles long, parallel to the entrance
channels in the Lower Mermentau River
and in the Lower Mud Lake, both locat-
ed on the west side:
Disposal Area "A", Mermentau River, La.
Beginning at 29*44'48" N. and 93*0712"
W., following channel centerline (azi-
muth 256*59') of the gulf entrance to
29*43'39" N. and 93*07'36" W., thence to
29*43'42" N. and 93*07'48" W., thence to
29'44'51" N. and 93*07'24" W., thence to
the point of beginning.
Disposal Area "B", Mermentau River, La.
Beginning at 29*43'24" N. and 93'01'54"
W., following channel centerline (azi-
muth 359*50') of the gulf centerline to
29*42'33" N. and 93°02'12" W., thence to
29"42'36" N. and 93°02'24" W., thence to
29*43'36" N. and 93'02'06" W., thence to
the point of beginning.
Crescent City Harbor—41°43'15" N.,
124*1210" W., (1,000 yd. diameter)
Humboldt Bay Harbor—40*45'44" N.,
124*15'42" W. (500 yd. diameter)
Noyo River—39*25'45" N., 123°49'42" W. (500
yd. diameter)
Parallon Islands—37°31'45" N., 122*59'00" W.
(1,000 yd. radius)
San Francisco Channel Bar—37°45'06" N.,
122*35-45" W. (5,000 yds. x 1,000 yds.)
Moss Landing 100 fathom—36*47'53" N.,
121*49'04" W. (500 yd. radius)
Moss Landing—36*48'05" N., 121*47'22" W.
(50 yds. seaward of pier)
Port Hueneme—34*05'00" N., 119*14'00" W.
(1.000yd. radius)
Los Angeles—33*37'06" N., 118*17'24" W.
(1,000yd. radius)
Newport Beach—33*31'42" N., 117'54'48" W.
(1,000 yd. radius)
San Diego—Point Loma—32*35'00" N.,
117*17'30" W., (1,000 yd. radius)
San Diego 100 fathom—32°36'50" N.,
117*20-40" W. (1,000 yd. radius)
Honolulu Harbor—21*14'30" N., 157°54'30"
W. (1,000 yd. radius)
Kauai—Nawiliwili—21*55'30" N., 159°17'00"
W. (1,000 yd. radius)
Kauai—Hanapepe—21°50'18" N., 159°35'30"
W. (1,000yd. radius)
Guam—Apra Harbor—13°29'30" N.,
144°34'30" E. (1,000 yd. radius)
Mouth of Columbia River—46° 14'37" N.,
124'10'34" W.; 46*13'53" N., 124°10'01" W.;
46*13'43" N., 124*10'26" W.; 46°14'28" N.,
124°10'59" W.
Mouth of Columbia River—46°13'03" N.,
124*06'17" W.; 46*12'50" N., 124°05'55" W.;
§ 228.12
48*1213" N., 124*06'43" W.; 46*12'26" N.,
124°07'05"W.
Mouth of Columbia River—46* 15'43" N.,
124*05'21" W.; 46*15'36" N., 124*0511" W.;
46*1511" N., 124*05'53" W.; 46*1518" N.,
124°06'03" W.
Mouth of Columbia River—46*1212" N.,
124°09'00" W.; 46*12'00" N., 124°08'42" W.;
46*11'48" N., 124°09'00" W.; 46*12'00" N.,
124*0918" W.
Mouth of Columbia River—46*12'05" N.,
124°05'46" W.; 46°11'52" N., 124*05'25" W.;
46*1115" N., 124*0614" W.; 46°11'28" N.,
124*06'35" W.
Chetco River Entrance—42°01'56" N..
124*16'33" W.; 42°01'56" N., 124°16'09" W.;
42*01'38" N., 124*16'09" W.; 42*01'38" N.,
12416'33" W.
Rogue River Entrance—42*2416" N.,
124*26'48" W.; 42*24'04" N., 124°26'35" W.;
42*23-40" N.. 124*27-13" W.; 42*23-52" N.,
124*27-26" W.
Coquille River Entrance—43°07'54" N.,
124*27'04" W.; 43*07'30" N., 124°26'27" W.;
43*07-20" N., 124*26'40" W.; 43°07'44" N.,
124*27'17" W.
Coos Bay Entrance—43*21'59" N., 124*22'45"
W.; 43*21-48" N., 124*21'59" W.; 43*21'35"
N., 124*22'05" W.; 43*21'46" N.,
124*22'51"W.
Coos Bay Entrance—43°22'44" N., 124*2218"
W.; 43*22-29" N., 124*21'34" W.; 43*2216"
N., 124*21'42" W.; 43*22'31" N., 124°22'26"
W.
Umpqua River Entrance—43°40'07" N.,
124*1418" W.; 43°40'07" N., 124*13'42" W.;
43*39'53" N., 124*13'42" W.; 43°39'53" N..
124*1418"W.
Suislaw River Entrance—44*01'32" N.,
124°09'37" W.; 44°01'22" N., 124*09'02" W.;
44*0114" N., 124*09'07" W.; 44*01'24" N.,
124*09'42" W.
Tillamook Bay Entrance—45°34'09" N.,
123*59'37" W.; 45*34'09" N., 123*58'45" W.;
45*33'55" N., 123*58'45" W.; 45°33'55" N.,
123*59-37" W.
Depoe Bay—44*48'33" N., 124°03'53" W.;
44°48'32" N., 124°03'43" W.; 44*48'15" N.,
124*03'45" W.; 44*48'16" N., 124°03'55" W.
Depoe Bay—44°48'09" N., 124*05'05" W.;
44°48'09"N., 124*04'55" W.; 44°47'53" N.,
124°04'55" W.; 44*47'53" N., 124°05'05" W.
Yaquina Bay and Harbor Entrance—
44°36'31" N., 124*06'04" W.; 44*36'31" N.,
124*05-16" W.; 44*3617" N., 124*0516" W.;
44*3617" N., 124°06'04" W.
Port Orford—42'44'08" N., 124*29'38" W.;
42°44'08" N.. 124*29'28" W.; 42°43'52" N.,
124°29'28" W.; 42*43'52"N., 124*29'38" W.
Willapa Bay—46'44'00" N., 124°10'00" W.;
46°39'00" N., 124°09'00" W.
Nome—West Site—64*30'04" N.
Nome—East Site—64°29'54" N., 165°24'41"
W., 64*29'45" N., 165*23'27" W., 64'28'57"
N., 165'23'29" W., 64°29'07" N., 165*24'25"
W.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-41
§ 228.12
Anchorage Harbor—61'14'07" N., 149"53'56"
W.; 61*1416" N., 149°54'15" W.; 61'14'45"
N.. 149*53'36" W.; 61'14'36" N.. 149'53'17"
W.
Pish Cannery Wastes Site—Region IX.
Location:
Latitude—14d22'S;
Longitude—170d41'W (center point).
Size: 1 nautical mile in diameter.
Depth: 1,200 meters (4,000 feet).
Primary Use: Pish cannery wastes.
Period of Use: Site will expire (36 months
after date of publication).
Restriction: Disposal shall be limtied to not
more than 130,000 tons per year of fish
cannery wastes generated on the island of
Tutuila, American Samoa.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-42
Environmental Protection Agency
not form or include a significant solid
phase.
(8) South Oahu Site—Region IX.
Location (center point):
Latitude—21°15'10" N.
Longitude—157'56'50" W.
Size: 2 kilometers wide and 2.6 kilometers
long.
Depth: Ranges from 400 to 475 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material.
(9) Nawiliwili Site—Region IX.
Location (center point):
Latitude—21'55'00" N.
Longitude—159*17-00" W.
Size: Circular with a radius of approximate-
ly 920 meters.
Depth: Ranges from 840 to 1,120 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material.
(10) Port Allen Site—Region IX.
Location (center point):
Latitude—21°50'00" N.
Longitude—159*35'00" W.
Size: Circular with a radius of approximate-
ly 920 meters.
Depth: Ranges from 1,460 to 1,610 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material.
(11) Kahului Site-Region IX.
Location (center point):
Latitude— 21*04'42" N.
Longitude—156*29'00" W.
Size: Circular with a radius of approximate-
ly 920 meters.
Depth: Ranges from 345 to 365 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material.
(12) Hilo Site-Region IX.
Location (center point):
Latitude—19°48'30" N.
Longitude—154*58'30" W.
Size: Circular with a radius of approximate-
ly 920 meters.
Depth: Ranges from 330 to 340 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material.
(13) Cellar Dirt Site—Region II.
Location (center point):
Latitude—40* 23' 00" N.
Longitude—73' 49' 00" W.
Size: 1.1 square nautical miles.
Depth: Ranges from 29 to 38 meters.
Primary Use: Cellar dirt.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
§ 228.12
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to ex-
cavation dirt and rock, broken concrete,
rubble, tile, and other nonfloatable debris.
(14) Tampa Harbor Site 4—Region IV.
Location:
27°32'27"N., 83°03'46"W.;
27°30'27"N., 83°03'46"W.;
27°30'27"N., 83°06'02"W;
27*32'27"N., 83°06'02"W.
Size: 4 nautical square miles.
Depth: Ranges from 21.8 to 24.1 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Three years.
Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material from the Tampa Harbor
Project.
(15) New York Bight Dredged Material Dis-
posal Site—Region II.
Location:
40*23'48" N., 73*51-28" W.;
40*21-48" N., 73*50'00" W.;
40*21-48" N., 73*51-28" W.;
40*23-48" N., 73*50-00" W.
Size: 2.2 square nautical miles.
Depth: Ranges from 16 to 29 meters.
Use Restricted to Disposal of: Dredged ma-
terials.
Period of Use: Continuing use, subject to
volumetric restriction as noted below.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to 100
million cubic yards of dredged materials
generated in the Port of New York and
New Jersey and nearby harbors. Dumping
within the area described by the following
coordinates shall be limited to projects de-
termined by the Corps and EPA to demon-
strate a specific need, such as research or
final capping. 40*23'48" N., 73*51'28" W.;
40*23-23" N., 73*51'28" W.; 40*23'23" N.,
73*51-06" W.; 40*23'48" N., 73*51-06" W.
Dumping in the southeast quadrant of the
site shall not be authorized except as part
of a research project on capping.
(16) Gulf of Mexico Platform jacket site-
Region VI.
Location:
27d 39'44.665' N, 91d 10'03.059" W;
27d 39'42.304' N, 91d OT06.927" W;
27d 37-05.471' N, 91d 07-09.610' W;
27d 37-07.828' N, 91d 10'05.672' W.
Size: 3 statute miles on the side (9 square
statute miles total area).
Depth: 600 fathoms.
Primary Use: One-time disposal of damaged
platform jacket. Period of Use: Until the
one-time dump of the damaged jacket is
concluded; however, the period of use
shall not exceed three years from the date
of publication of this Notice.
(17) Deepwater Industrial Wastes Dump
Site—Region II.
Location (center point):
Latitude—38*45'00"N.
Longitude—72*20'00"W.
Size: Circular with a radius of 3.0 nautical
miles—28.3 square nautical miles.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-43
§ 228.12
Depth: Ranges from 2,250 to 2,750 meters.
Use Restricted To: Aqueous industrial mate-
rials.
Period of Use: Continuing: use.
Definition: Aqueous industrial materials are
defined as those wastes generated by a
manufacturing or processing plant (i) with
solid concentrations sufficiently low so
that waste material is dispersed within the
upper water column; or (ii) neutrally
buoyant or slightly denser than seawater,
such that, upon mixing with seawater. the
material does not float.
(18) Deepwater Municipal Sludge Dump
Site—Region II.
Location:
Latitude—38*40'00" to 39'00'00"N;
Longitude—72*00'00" to 72'05'00"W.
Size: 100 square nautical miles.
Depth: Ranges from 2,250 to 2,750 meters.
Use Restricted To: Municipal sewage treat-
ment sludge.
Period of Use: Five years after commence-
ment of dumping of municipal sewage
treatment sludge at the site.
Restriction: Municipal sludges generated at
Publicly Owned or Operated Treatment
Works (POTW's). Biologically treated in-
dustrial waste sludges are to be excluded.
(19) Jacksonville Dredged Material Site-
Region IV.
Location:
30'21'30' N., 81'18'34- W.;
30'21'30" N., 81*17'26* W.;
SO'20'30" N., 81*17'26' W.;
30'20'30' N., 81'18'34' W.
Size: One square nautical mile.
Depth: Ranges from 12 to 16 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material from the Jacksonville,
Florida, area.
(20) Galveston Dredged Material Site-
Region VI.
Location:
29'18'00" N., 94'39'30" W.;
29'15'54" N.. 94*37'06" W.;
29*14'24" N., 94'38'42" W.;
29*16'54" N., 94'41'30" W.
Size: 6.6. square nautical miles.
Depth: Ranges from 10 to 15.5 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material from the Galveston.
Texas, area.
(21) Drilling muds and cuttings site—Region
IX.
Center point location: 33'34'30" N latitude,
118'27'30" W longitude.
Size: A circle with a diameter of 3.0 nautical
miles.
Depth: Approximately 485 fathoms (2910
feet).
Primary Use: Drilling muds and cuttings.
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
Period of Use: 3 years from effective date of
site designation.
Volumes: To be determined by EPA Region-
al Administrator, Region IX.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
water-based drilling muds and cuttings
which meet the requirements of the
Ocean Dumping Evaluation Criteria of-40
CFR Part 227. Permittee(s) must imple-
ment monitoring program acceptable to
EPA Regional Administrator responsible
for management of the site.
(22) San Francisco Channel Bar Dredged
Material Site—Region IX
Location:
37°44'55" N, 122'37'18' W;
37'45'45' N, 122*34'24' W;
37'44'24" N, 122'37'06* W;
37'45'15' N, 122'34'12' W.
Size: 4,572 x 914 meters.
Depth: Ranges from 11 to 14.3 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to ma-
terial from required dredging operations
at the entrance of the San Francisco main
ship channel which is composed primarily
of sand having grain sizes compatible with
naturally occurring sediments at the dis-
posal site and containing approximately 5
percent of particles having grain sizes
finer than that normally attributed to
very fine sand (.075 millimeters). Other
dredged materials meeting the require-
ments of 40 CFR 227.13 but having small-
er grain sizes may be dumped at this site
only upon completion of an appropriate
case-by-case evaluation of the impact of
such material on the site which demon-
strates that such impact will be accepta-
ble.
(23) Mouth of Columbia River Dredged Ma-
terial Site A—Region X.
Location:
46d 13' 03" N.. 124d 06' 17" W.;
46d 12' 50' N., 124d 05' 55" W.;
46d 12' 13' N., 124d 06' 43' W.;
46d 12' 26' N, 124d 07' 05' W.
Size: 0.27 square nautical miles.
Depth: Ranges from 14-25 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material from the Columbia
River entrance channel and adjacent
areas.
(24) Mouth of Columbia River Dredged Ma-
terial Site B—Region X.
Location:
46d 14' 37" N., 124d 10- 34' W.;
46d 13' 53' N., 124d 10' 01' W.;
46d 13' 43' N., 124d 10' 26" W.;
46d 14' 28* N., 124d 10' 59' W.
Size: 0.25 square nautical miles.
Depth: Ranges from 24-39 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-44
Environmental Protection Agency
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material from the Columbia
River entrance channel and adjacent
areas.
(25) Mouth of Columbia River Dredged Ma-
terial Site E—Region X.
Location:
46d 15' 43' N.. 124d 05' 21" W.
46d 15' 36' N.. 124d 05' 11" W.
46d 15' 11" N., 124d 05' 53* W.
46d 15' 18' N., 124d 06' 03' W.
Size: 0.08 square nautical miles.
Depth: Ranges from 16-21 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material from the Columbia
River entrance channel and adjacent
areas.
(26) Mouth of Columbia River Dredged Ma-
terial Site F—Region X.
Location:
46d 12' 12' N., 124d 09' 00' W.;
46d 12' 00- N., 124d 08' 42' W.;
46d 11' 48' N., 124d 09' 00' W.;
46d 12' 00' N., 124d 09' 18* W.
Size: 0.08 square nautical miles.
Depth: Ranges from 38-42 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material from the Columbia
River entrance channel and adjacent
areas.
(27) Coos Bay Dredged Material Site E—
Region X.
Location:
43d 21' 59* N., 124d 22' 45* W.;
43d 21' 48' N., 124d 21' 59* W.;
43d 21' 35* N., 124d 22' 05* W.;
43d 21' 46* N, 124d 22' 51' W.
Size: 0.13 square nautical mile.
Depth: Averages 17 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material in the Coos Bay area of
type 1, as defined in the site designation
final EIS.
(28) Coos Bay Dredged Material Site F—
Region X.
Location:
43d 22' 44* N., 124d 22' 18* W.;
43d 22' 29* N., 124d 21' 34* W.;
43d 22' 16* N., 124d 21' 42' W.;
43d 22' 31" N., 124d 22' 26* W.
Size: 0.13 square nautical mile.
Depth: Averages 24 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material in the Coos Bay area of
type 1, as defined in the site designation
final EIS.
(29) Coos Bay Dredged Material Site H—
Region X.
§ 228.12
Location:
43d 23' 53* N., 124d 22' 48* W.:
43d 23' 42' N., 124d 23' 01* W.;
43d 24' 16* N., 124d 23' 26* W.;
43d 24' 05* N., 124d 23' 38* W.
Size: 0.13 square nautical mile.
Depth: Averages 55 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material in the Coos Bay area of
type 2 and 3, as defined in the site desig-
nation final EIS.
(30) Pernandina Beach, Florida Dredged
Material Disposal Site—Region IV.
Location:
30'33'00* N.; 81*16'52*W.
30*31'00* N.; 81'16'52* W.
30'31'00* N.; 81"19'08* W.
30'33'00* N.; 81'19'08* W.
Size: 4 square nautical miles
Depth: Average 16 meters
Primary use: Dredged Material
Period of Use: Continuing use
Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material which meets the criteria
given in the Ocean Dumping Regulations,
Part 227.
(31) Morehead City, North Carolina,
Dredged Material Disposal Site-Region IV.
Location:
34°38'30" N., 76°45'0" W.;
34°38'30" N., 76°41'42" W.;
34°38'09" N.. 76°41'0" W;
34"36'0" N., 76°41'0" W., 34'36'0" N.,
76°45'0" W.
Size: 8 square nautical miles.
Depth: Average 12.0 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material from the Morehead City
Harbor, North Carolina area. All material
disposed must satisfy the requirements of
the ocean dumping regulations.
(32) Savannah, GA, Dredged Material Dis-
posal Site—Region IV.
Location:
31d, 55' 53"N., 80d 44' 20"W.;
31d 57' 55"N., 80d 46' 48"W.;
31d 57' 55"N., 80d 44' 20"W.;
3 Id 55' 53"N., 80d 46' 48"W.
Size: 4.26 square nautical miles.
Depth: Averages 11.4 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material from the Savannah
Harbor area,
(33) Charleston, SC. Dredged Material Dis-
posal Site—Region IV.
Location:
32d 40' 27"N., 79d 47' 22"W.;
32d 39' 04"N., 79d 44' 25"W.;
32d 38' 07"N., 79d 45' 03"W.;
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-45
§ 228.12
32d 39' 30"N., 79d 48' 00"W.
Size: 3 square nautical miles.
Depth: Averages 11 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material from the Charleston
Harbor area.
(34) Charleston, SC, Harbor Deepening
Project Dredged Material Disposal Site-
Region IV.
Location:
32d 38' 06"N., 79d 41' 57"W.;
32d 40' 42"N.. 79d 47' 30"W.;
32d 39' 04"N., 79d 49' 21"W.;
32d 36' 28"N., 79d 43' 48"W.
Size: 11.8 square nautical miles.
Depth: Averages 11 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material from the
Charleston Harbor deepening project.
Period of Use: Not to exceed seven years
from the initiation of the Charleston
Harbor deepening project.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material from the Charleston
Harbor deepening project.
(35) Wilmington, NC. Dredged Material Dis-
posal Site—Region IV.
Location:
33d 49' 30"N., 78d 03' 06"W.;
33d 48' 18"N.. 78d 01' 39"W.;
33d 47' 19"N.. 78d 02' 48"W.;
33d 48' 30"N., 78d 04' 16"W.
Size: 2.3 square nautical miles.
Depth: Averages 13 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material from Wilmington
Harbor area.
(36)—(41) [Reserved]
(42) Sabine-Neches Dredged Material Site
1—Region VI.
Location:
29*28'03" N., 93"41'14" W.;
29*26'11" N., 93'41' 14" W.;
29'28'H" N.. 93'44'11" W.
Size: 2.4 square nautical miles.
Depth: Ranges from 11-13 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing Use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material from the Sabine-Neches
area.
(43) Sabine-Neches Dredged Material Site
2—Region VI.
Location:
29*30'41" N., 93'43'49" W.;
29'28'42" N., 93'41'33" W.;
29'28'42" N., 93*44'49" W.;
29'30'08" N., 93'46'27" W.
Size: 4.2 square nautical miles.
Depth: Ranges from 9-13 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing Use.
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material from the Sabine-Neches
area.
(44) Sabine-Neches Dredged Material Site
3—Region VI.
Location:
29°34'24" N., 93"48'13" W.:
29"32'47" N., 93"46'16" W.;
29"32'06" N., 93"46'29" W.;
29*31'42" N.. 93"48'16" W.;
29°32'59" N., 93'49'48" W.
Size: 4.7 square nautical miles.
Depth: 10 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing Use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material from the Sabine-Neches
area.
(45) Sabine-Neches Dredged Material Site
4—Region VI.
Location:
29°38'09" N., 93'49'23" W.;
29"35'53" N., 93°48'18" W.;
29*35'06" N.. 93'50'24" W.;
29'36'37" N., 93*51*09" W.;
29'37'00" N., 93*50'06" W.;
29-3T46" N., 93"50'26" W.
Size: 4.2 square nautical miles.
Depth: Ranges from 5-9 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing Use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material from the Sabine-Neches
area.
(46) [Reserved]
(47) Portland, Maine, Dredged Material Dis-
posal Site—Region 1
Location:
43*33'36" N, 70'02'42" W;
43'33'36" N, 70'01'18" W;
43'34'36" N, 70'02'42" W;
43'34'36" N, 70'01'18" W;
Size: 1 square nautical mile.
Depth: 50 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing Use.
Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material.
(48) Pensacola, Florida Dredged Material
Disposal Site—Region IV.
Location:
30'17'24" N., 87°18'30" W.
30'17'00" N., 87'19'50" W.
30'15'36" N., 87"17'48" W.
3015'15" N.. 87*19'18" W.
Size: 2.48 nmi2.
Depth: Average 11 m.
Primary use: Dredged Material.
Period of use: Continuing use.
Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged materials which are shown to be
predominantly sand (defined by median
grain size greater than 0.125 mm and a
composition of less than 10% fines) and
meet the Ocean Dumping Criteria.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-46
Environmental Protection Agency
(49) Mobile, Alabama Dredged Material Dis-
posal Site—Region IV.
Location:
30'10'OQ" N., 88°07'42" W.
30'10'24" N., 88°05'12" W.
30°09'24" N., 88°04'42" W.
30'08'30" N., 88°05'12" W.
30"08'30" N., 88°08'12" W.
Size: 4.8 nmi2.
Depth: Average 14 m.
Primary use: Dredged materials.
Period of use: Continuing use.
Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged materials which meet the Ocean
Dumping Criteria.
(50) Gulfport, Mississippi Dredged Material
Disposal Sites—Region IV.
Location: Eastern Site
SO'11'10" N.. 88°58'24" W.
30'11'12" N., 88'57'30" W.
30'07'36" N., 88'54'24" W.
30'07'24" N., 88°54'48" W.
Western Site
30'12'00" N., 89*00'30" W.
30'12'00" N., 88°59'30" W.
30"11'00" N., 89°00'00" W.
30'07'00" N., 88°56'30" W.
30°06'36" N., 88°57'00" W.
30'10'30" N., 89°00'36" W.
Size: Eastern—2.47 nmi2. Western—5.2 nmi".
Depth: Eastern—9.1 m. Western—8.2 m.
Primary use: Both sites—Dredged material.
Period of use: Both sites—Continuing use.
Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged materials which meet the Ocean
Dumping Criteria.
(51) Calcasieu Dredged Material Site 1—
Region VI.
Location:
29d 45' 39" N, 93d 19' 36" W;
29d 42' 42" N, 93d 19' 06" W;
29d 42' 36" N, 93d 19" 48" W;
29d 44' 42" N, 93d 20' 12" W;
29d 44' 42" N, 93d 20' 24" W;
29d 45' 27" N, 93d 20' 33" W.
Size: 1.76 square nautical miles
Depth: Ranges from 2-8 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material from the vicinity of the
Calcasieu River and Pass Project.
(52) Calcasieu Dredged Material Site 2—
Region VI.
Location:
29d 44' 31" N, 93d 20' 43" W;
29d 39' 45" N, 93d 19' 56" W;
29d 39' 34" N, 93d 20' 46" W;
29d 44' 25" N, 93d 21' 33" W.
Size: 3.53 square nautical miles.
Depth: Ranges from 2-11 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material from the vicinity of the
Calcasieu River and Pass Project.
§ 228.12
(53) Calcasieu Dredged Material Site 3—
Region VI.
Location:
29d 37' 50" N, 93d 19' 37" W;
29d 37'25" N, 93d 19' 33" W;
29d 33' 55" N, 93d 16" 23" W;
29d 33' 49" N, 93d 16" 25" W;
29d 30' 59" N, 93d 13' 51" W;
29d 29' 10" N, 93d 13' 49" W;
29d 29' 05" N, 93d 14' 23" W;
29d 30' 49" N, 93d 14' 25" W;
29d 37' 26" N, 93d 20' 24" W;
29d 37' 44" N, 93d 20' 27" W.
Size: 5.88 square nautical miles.
Depth: Ranges from 11-14 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material from the vicinity of the
Calcasieu River and Pass Project.
(54) San Juan Harbor, PR Dredged Material
Site—Region II
Location:
18d 30'10" N*, 66d 09'31" W;
18d 30'10- N% 66d 08'29' W;
18d 31*10' N", 66d 08'29' W;
18d 31'10' N°, 66d 09'31' W.
Size: 0.98 square nautical miles.
Depth: Ranges from 200-400 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredge material from the Port of San
Juan, Puerto Rico, and coastal areas
within 20 miles of said port entrance.
(55) Dam Neck, Virginia, Dredged Material
Disposal Site—Region III.
Location:
36°51'24.1" N., 75'54'41.4" W.;
36°51'24.1" N., 75°53'02.9" W.;
36°50'52.0" N., 75°52'49.0" W.;
36°46'27.4" N., 75°51'39.2" W.;
36°46'27.5" N., 75°54'19.0" W.;
36°50'05.0" N., 75°54'19.0" W.
Size: 8 square nautical miles.
Depth: Averages 11 meters.
Primary Use: Dredged material.
Period of Use: Continuing use.
Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to
dredged material from the mouth of the
Chesapeake Bay.
[42 FR 2482, Jan. 11, 1977]
EDITORIAL NOTES: 1. For FEDERAL REGISTER
citations affecting § 228.12, see the List of
CFR Sections Affected in the Finding Aids
section of this volume.
2. At 53 FR 6990, Mar. 4, 1988, § 228.12
was amended by adding paragraphs (b)(48),
(b)(49) and (b)(50) and at 53 FR 8185, Mar.
14, 1988, paragraphs designated (b)(48),
(b)(49) and (b)(50) were added again. The
paragraphs added in the March 14, 1988
document appear above as newly added
paragraphs (b)(51), (b)(52) and (b)<53). The
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-47
§228.13
Environmental Protection Agency will pub-
lish a correction document in the FEDERAL
REGISTER at a later date.
3. The following interim dredged material
sites became approved ocean dumping sites
when EPA published final rules in the FED-
ERAL REGISTER. These sites, formerly found
in paragraph (a), are now found in para-
graph (b) of § 228.12:
interim site Paragraph
Morehead City, NC (a)(i)(i)
Portland. ME (a)(i)(ii), (a)(3)
San Juan, PR (a)(1)fii). (aM3)
Charleston/Savannah/Wilmington (a)(l)(8), (a)(3)
Mouth o« Columbia River, OR (aMD(S), (a){3)
QuHport, MS/MobJte. AL/Pensacota, FL (a)(3)
Sabine Necnas Waterway, TX (aH3)
At a later date, EPA will publish docu-
ments in the FEDERAL REGISTER corredtly re-
moving these interim sites from paragraph
(a).
§ 228.13 Guidelines for ocean disposal site
baseline or trend assessment surveys
under section 102 of the Act
The purpose of a baseline or trend
assessment survey is to determine the
physical, chemical, geological, and bio-
logical structure of a proposed or ex-
isting disposal site at the time of the
survey. A baseline or trend assessment
survey is to be regarded as a compre-
hensive synoptic and representative
picture of existing conditions; each
such survey is to be planned as part of
a continual monitoring program
through which changes in conditions
at a disposal site can be documented
and assessed. Surveys will be planned
in coordination with the ongoing pro-
grams of NOAA and other Federal,
State, local, or private agencies with
missions in the marine environment.
The field survey data collection phase
of a disposal site evaluation or desig-
nation study shall be planned and con-
ducted to obtain a body of information
both representative of the site at the
time of study and obtained by tech-
niques reproducible in precision and
accuracy in future studies. A full plan
of study which will provide a record of
sampling, analytical, and data reduc-
tion procedures must be developed,
documented and approved by the EPA
management authority. Plans for all
surveys which will produce informa-
tion to be used in the preparation of
environmental impact statements will
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
be approved by the Administrator or
his designee. This plan of study also
shall be incorporated as an appendix
into a technical report on the study,
together with notations describing de-
viations from the plan required in
actual operations. Relative emphasis
on individual aspects of the environ-
ment at each site will depend on the
type of wastes disposed of at the site
and the manner in which such wastes
are likely to affect the local environ-
ment, but no major feature of the dis-
posal site may be neglected. The ob-
servations made and the data obtained
are to be based on the information
necessary to evaluate the site for
ocean dumping. The parameters meas-
ured will be those indicative, either di-
rectly or indirectly, of the immediate
and long-term impact of pollutants on
the environment at the disposal site
and adjacent land or water areas. An
initial disposal site evaluation or desig-
nation study should provide an imme-
diate baseline appraisal of a particular
site, but it should also be regarded as
the first of a series of studies to be
continued as long as the site is used
for waste disposal.
(a) Timing. Baseline or trend assess-
ment surveys will be conducted with
due regard for climatic and seasonal
impact on stratification and other con-
ditions in the upper layers of the
water column. Where a choice of
season is feasible, trend assessment
surveys should be made during those
months when pollutant accumulation
within disposal sites is likely to be
most severe, or when pollutant impact
within disposal sites is likely to be
most noticeable.
(1) Where disposal sites are near
large riverine inflows to the ocean,
surveys will be done with due regard
for the seasonal variation in river flow.
In some cases several surveys at vari-
ous river flows may be necessary
before a site can be approved.
(2) When initial surveys show that
seasonal variation is not significant
and surveys at greater than seasonable
intervals are adequate for characteriz-
ing a site, resurveys shall be carried
out in climatic conditions as similar to
those of the original surveys as possi-
ble, particularly in depths less than
200 meters.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-48
Environmental Protection Agency
(b) Duration. The actual duration of
a field survey will depend upon the
size and depth of the site, weather
conditions during the survey, and the
types of data to be collected. For ex-
ample, for a survey of an area of 100
square miles on the continental shelf,
including an average dump site and
the region contiguous to it, an on-site
operation would be scheduled for com-
pletion within one week of weather
suitable for on-site operations. More
on-site operating time may be sched-
uled for larger or highly complex sites.
(c) Numbers and locations of sam-
pling stations. The numbers and loca-
tions of sampling stations will depend
in part on the local bathymetry with
minimum numbers of stations per site
fixed as specified in the following sec-
tions. Where the bottom is smooth or
evenly sloping, stations for water
column measurements and benthic
sampling and collections, other than
trawls, shall be spaced throughout the
survey area in a manner planned to
provide maximum coverage of both
the disposal site and contiguous con-
trol areas, considering known water
movement characteristics. Where
there are major irregularities in the
bottom topography, such as canyons
or gullies, or in the nature of the
bottom, sampling stations for sedi-
ments and benthic communities shall
be spaced to provide representative
sampling of the major different fea-
tures.
Sampling shall be done within the
dump site itself and in the contiguous
area. Sufficient control stations out-
side a disposal site shall be occupied to
characterize the control area environ-
ment at least as well as the disposal
site itself. Where there are known per-
sistent currents, sampling in contigu-
ous areas shall include at least two sta-
tions downcurrent of the dump site,
and at least two stations upcurrent of
the site.
(d) Measurements in the water
column at and near the dump site—(I)
Water quality parameters measured.
These shall include the major indica-
tors of water quality, particularly
those likely to be affected by the
waste proposed to be dumped. Specifi-
cally included at all stations are meas-
urements of temperature, dissolved
§ 228.13
oxygen, salinity, suspended solids, tur-
bidity, total organic carbon, pH, inor-
ganic nutrients, and chlorophyll a.
(i) At one station near the center of
the disposal site, samples of the water
column shall be taken for the analysis
of the following parameters: Mercury,
cadmium, copper, chromium, zinc,
lead, arsenic, selenium, vanadium, be-
ryllium, nickel, pesticides, petroleum
hydrocarbons, and persistent organo-
halogens. These samples shall be pre-
served for subsequent analysis by or
under the direct supervision of EPA
laboratories in accordance with the ap-
proved plan of study.
(ii) These parameters are the basic
requirements for all sites. For the
evaluation of any specific disposal site
additional measurements may be re-
quired, depending on the present or
intended use of the site. Additional pa-
rameters may be selected based on the
materials likely to be in wastes
dumped at the site, and on parameters
likely to be affected by constituents of
such wastes. Analysis for other con-
stituents characteristic of wastes dis-
charged to a particular disposal site, or
of the impact of such wastes on water
quality, will be included in accordance
with the approved plan of study.
(2) Water quality sampling require-
ments. The number of samples collect-
ed from the water column should be
sufficient to identify representative
changes throughout the water column
such as to avoid short-term impact due
to disposal activities. The following
key locations should be considered in
selecting water column depths for
sampling:
(i) Surface, below interference from
surface waves;
(ii) Middle of the surface layer;
(iii) Bottom of the surface layer,
(iv) Middle of the thermocline or ha-
locline, or both if present;
(v) Near the top of the stable layer
beneath a thermocline or halocline;
(vi) Near the middle of a stable
layer;
(vii) As near the bottom as feasible;
(viii) Near the center of any zone
showing pronounced biological activity
or lack thereof.
In very shallow waters where only a
few of these would be pertinent, as a
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-49
§ 228.13
minimum, surface, mid-depth and
bottom samples shall be taken, with
samples at additional depths being
added as indicated by local conditions.
At disposal sites far enough away from
the influence of major river inflows,
ocean or coastal currents, or other fea-
tures which might cause local pertur-
bations in water chemistry, a mini-
mum of 5 water chemistry stations
should be occupied within the bound-
aries of a site. Additional stations
should be added when the area to be
covered in the survey is more than 20
square miles or when local perturba-
tions in water chemistry may be ex-
pected because of the presence of one
of the features mentioned above. In
zones where such impacts are likely,
stations shall be distributed so that at
least 3 stations are occupied in the
transition from one stable regime to
another. Each water column chemis-
try station shall be replicated a mini-
mum of 2 times during a survey except
in waters over 200 meters deep.
(3) Water column biota. Sampling
stations for the biota in the water
column shall be as near as feasible to
stations used for water quality; in ad-
dition at least two night-time stations
in the disposal site and contiguous
area are required. At each station ver-
tical or oblique tows with appropriate-
ly-meshed nets shall be used to assess
the microzooplankton, the nekton, and
the macrozooplankton. Towing times
and distances shall be sufficient to
obtain representative samples of orga-
nisms near water quality stations. Or-
ganisms shall be sorted and identified
to taxonomic levels necessary to iden-
tify dominant organisms, sensitive or
indicator organisms, and organism di-
versity. Tissue samples of representa-
tive species shall be analyzed for pesti-
cides, persistent organohalogens, and
heavy metals. Discrete water samples
shall also be used to quantitatively
assess the phytoplankton at each sta-
tion.
These requirements are the minimum
necessary in all cases. Where there are
discontinuities present, such as ther-
moclines, haloclines, convergences, or
upwelling, additional tows shall be
made in each water mass as appropri-
ate.
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
(e) Measurements of the benthic
region—(1) Bottom sampling. Samples
of the bottom shall be taken for both
sediment composition and structure,
and to determine the nature and num-
bers of benthic biota.
(i) At each station sampling may
consist of core samples, grab samples,
dredge samples, trawls, and bottom
photography or television, where
available and feasible, depending on
the nature of the bottom and the type
of disposal site. Each type of sampling
shall be replicated sufficiently to
obtain a representative set of samples.
The minimum numbers of replicates
of successful samples at each conti-
nental shelf station for each type of
device mentioned above are as follows:
Cores 3
Grabs 5.
Dredge 3.
Tr&wl 20-min. tow.
Lesser numbers of replicates may be
allowed in water deeper than 200
meters, at those sites where pollution
impacts on the bottom are unlikely in
the judgment of the EPA management
authority.
(11) Selection of bottom stations will
be based to a large extent on the
bottom topography and hydrography
as determined by the bathymetric
survey. On the continental shelf,
where the bottom has no significant
discontinuities, a bottom station densi-
ty of at least three times the water
column stations is recommended, de-
pending on the type of site being eval-
uated. Where there are significant dif-
ferences in bottom topography, addi-
tional stations shall be occupied near
the discontinuity and on each side of
it. Beyond the continental shelf, lesser
densities may be used.
(2) Bathymetric survey. Sufficient
tracklines shall be run to develop com-
plete bottom coverage of bathymetry
with reasonable assurance of accurate
coverage of bottom topography, with
trackline direction and spacing as close
as available control allows. The site
itself is to be developed at the greatest
density possible, with data to be col-
lected to a suitable distance about the
site as is required to identify major
changes in bathymetry which might
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-50
Environmental Protection Agency
affect the site. Specifications for each
bathymetric survey will vary, depend-
ing on control, bottom complexity,
depths, equipment, and map scale re-
quired. In most cases, a bathymetric
map at a scale of 1:25,000 to 1:10,000
will be required, with a minimum of 1-
5 meter contour interval except in
very flat areas. When the foregoing
bathymetric detail is available from
recent surveys of the disposal site, ba-
thymetry during a baseline or trend
assessment survey may be limited to
sonar profiles of bathymetry on tran-
sects between sampling stations.
(3) Nature of bottom. The size distri-
bution of sediments, mineral character
and chemical quality of the bottom
will be determined to a depth appro-
priate for the type of bottom. The fol-
lowing parameters will be measured at
all stations: Particle size distribution,
major mineral constituents, texture,
settling rate, and organic carbon.
(i) At several stations near the
center of the disposal site, samples of
sediments shall be taken for the analy-
sis of the following parameters: Mer-
cury, cadmium, copper, chromium,
zinc, lead, arsenic, selenium, vanadi-
um, beryllium, nickel, pesticides, per-
sistent organohalogens, and petroleum
hydrocarbons. These samples shall be
preserved for subsequent analysis by
or under the direct supervision of EPA
laboratories in accordance with the ap-
proved plan of study.
(ii) These parameters are the basic
requirements for all sites. For the
evaluation of any specific disposal site
additional measurements may be re-
quired, depending on the present or
intended use of the site. Additional pa-
rameters may be selected based on the
materials likely to be in wastes
dumped at the site, and on parameters
likely to be affected by constituents of
such wastes. Such additional param-
eters will be selected by the EPA man-
agement authority.
(4) Benthic biota. This shall consist
of a quantitative and qualitative eval-
uation of benthic communities includ-
ing macroinf auna and macroepif auna,
meiobenthos, and microbenthos, and
should include an appraisal, based on
existing information, of the sensitivity
of indigenous species to the waste pro-
posed to be discharged. Organisms,
§228.13
shall be sorted, and identified to taxo-
nomic levels necessary to identify
dominant organisms, sensitive or indi-
cator organisms, and organism diversi-
ty. Tissue samples of the following
types of organisms shall be analyzed
for persistent organohalogens, pesti-
cides, and heavy metals:
(i) A predominant species of demer-
sal fish;
(ii) The most abundant macroin-
f aunal species; and
(iii) A dominant epifaunal species,
with particular preference for a spe-
cies of economic importance.
(f) Other measurements—<1) Hydro-
dynamic features. The direction and
speed of water movement shall be
characterized at levels appropriate for
the site and type of waste to be
dumped. Where depths and climatic
conditions are great enough for a ther-
mocline or halocline to exist the rela-
tionship of water movement ;o such a
feature shall be characterized.
(i) Current measurements. When
current meters are used as the pri-
mary source of hydrodynamic data, at
least 4 current meter stations with at
least 3 meters at depths appropriate
for the observed or expected disconti-
nuities in the water column should be
operated for as long as possible during
the survey. Where feasible, current
meters should be deployed at the initi-
ation of the survey and recovered
after its completion. Stations should
be at least a mile apart, and should be
placed along the long axis of the
dumping site. For dumping sites more
than 10 miles along the long axis, one
current meter station every 5 miles
should be operated. Where there are
discontinuities in surface layers, e.g.,
due to land runoff, stations should be
operated in each water mass.
(ii) Water mass movement Accepta-
ble methods include: dye, drogues, sur-
face drifters, side scan sonar, bottom
drifters, and bottom photography or
television. When such techniques are
the primary source of hydrodynamic
data, coverage should be such that all
significant hydrodynamic features
likely to affect waste movement are
measured.
(2) Sea state. Observations of sea
state and of standard meteorological
-------
§229.1
parameters shall be made at 8-hour in-
tervals.
(3) Surface phenomena. Observa-
tions shall be made of oil slicks, float-
ing materials, and other visible evi-
dence of pollution; and, where possi-
ble, collections of floating materials
shall be made.
(g) Survey procedures and tech-
niques. Techniques and procedures
used for sampling and analysis shall
represent the state-of-the-art in ocean-
ographic survey and analytical prac-
tice. Survey plans shall specify the
methods to be used and will be subject
to approval by EPA.
(h) Quality assurance. The EPA
management authority may require
that certain samples be submitted on a
routine basis to EPA laboratories for
analysis as well as being analyzed by
the surveyor, and that EPA personnel
participate in some field surveys.
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page A-51
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-0
APPENDIX B
NUMERICAL MODELS FOR INITIAL MIXING
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-l
Bl.0 INTRODUCTION
This appendix presents guidance for the use of numerical models for
evaluation of mixing as part of the Tier II and Tier III water column
evaluations. The versions of the models in this appendix are a part of the
Automated Dredging and Disposal Alternatives Management System (ADDAMS)
(Schroeder 1988) and can be run on a personal computer (PC) . ADDAMS is an
interactive computer-based design and analysis system in the field of
dredged material management. The general goal of the ADDAMS is to provide
state-of-the-art computer-based tools that will increase the accuracy,
reliability, and cost-effectiveness of dredged material management
activities in a timely manner.
Bl.l MODEL APPLICATIONS
Any evaluation of potential water column effects has to consider the
effects of initial mixing. Section 227.29 defines initial mixing as
follows:
Initial mixing is defined to be that dispersion or diffusion of
liquid, suspended particulate, and solid phases of a waste which
occurs within 4 hr after dumping. The limiting permissible
concentration (LPC) shall not be exceeded beyond the boundaries of
the disposal site during initial mixing, and shall not be exceeded at
any point in the marine environment after initial mixing.
Versions of the models described in this appendix for use on IBM-
compatible microcomputers are found on the floppy disk in the pocket inside
the back cover of this manual. The disk contains models appropriate for
instantaneous discharges, continuous discharges, and hopper dredge
discharges. Each of the models described in this appendix has been
designed to evaluate initial mixing for each of the following applications,
as discussed in the remainder of Section Bl.l:
a) determination of the need for additional water column testing
under Tier II,
b) evaluation of dissolved contaminant concentrations by comparison
with water quality criteria after allowance for initial mixing under Tier
II, and
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-2
c) evaluation of concentrations of suspended plus dissolved
constituents by comparison with bioassay results after allowance for
initial mixing under Tier III.
Bl.1.1 Determination of Need for Additional Water Column Testing
The evaluation of the potential for water column impacts in Tier II
begins with a determination of the necessity of additional water column
testing. This determination is based on a standardized calculation
comparing contamination of the dredged material with water quality
criteria, considering the effects of initial mixing. The models need only
be run for the contaminant requiring the greatest dilution to meet its
water quality criterion. The key parameter derived from the dispersion
models is the maximum concentration of the contaminant in the water column
outside the boundary of the disposal site. This concentration is compared
with the applicable marine water quality criterion according to the
guidance in Section 10.1.1.2 to determine if additional water column
testing is necessary. This evaluation cannot be used to predict water
column impacts, but only to determine the need for additional water column
testing.
Bl.1.2 Evaluation of Dissolved Contaminant Concentrations
by Comparison with Water Quality Criteria
If additional water column testing is necessary, the potential for
water column impacts may be evaluated under Tier II by comparison of
predicted dissolved contaminant concentrations with water quality criteria,
considering the effects of initial mixing. This approach is used if there
are water quality criteria for all contaminants of concern and if
synergistic effects are not suspected; if these conditions are not met, the
procedure in Section Bl.1.3 is used. The models need only be run for the
contaminant requiring the greatest dilution to meet its water quality
criterion. The key parameters derived from the models are the maximum
dissolved concentration of the contaminant outside the boundary of the
disposal site during the 4 hr initial mixing period, and the maximum
concentration anywhere in the marine environment after the 4 hr initial
mixing period. These concentrations are compared to the applicable marine
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-3
water quality criterion according to the guidance in Section 10.1.2.3 to
determine if the discharge is acceptable.
Bl.1.3 Evaluation of Concentrations of Suspended Plus Dissolved
Constituents by Conparison with Bioassay Results
If additional water column testing is necessary, the potential for
water column impacts may be evaluated under Tier III by comparison of
predicted concentrations of the suspended plus dissolved constituents of
the dredged material with bioassay results, considering the effects of
initial mixing. For this case, the models calculate the dilution of the
dredged material expressed as a percent of the initial concentration. The
key parameters derived from the model are the maximum concentration of
dredged material in the water column outside the boundary of the disposal
site during the 4 hr initial mixing period, and the maximum concentration
anywhere in the marine environment after the 4 hr initial mixing period.
These concentrations are compared to 0.01 of the LC50 as determined by the
bioassay tests according to the guidance in Section 10.2.1.6 to determine
if the discharge is acceptable.
B1.2 MODEL DESCRIPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
The models account for the physical processes determining the short-
term fate of dredged material disposed at open water sites. The models
provide estimates of water column concentrations of dissolved contaminants
and suspended sediment, and the initial deposition of material on the
bottom.
Two of the models were developed by Brandsma and Divoky (1976) under
the Corps of Engineers (CE) Dredged Material Research Program to handle
both instantaneous dumps and continuous discharges. The models were based
on work by Koh and Chang (1973) . A third model which utilized features of
the two earlier models was constructed later to handle a semicontinuous
disposal operation from a hopper dredge. These models are known as DIFID
(Disposal From an Instantaneous Dump), DIFCD (Disposal From a Continuous
Discharge), and DIFHD (Disposal From a Hopper Dredge). Collectively, the
models are known within ADDAMS as the Open Water Disposal (DUMP) Models.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-4
For evaluation of initial mixing for ocean disposal, the models need
only be run for the contaminant requiring the greatest dilution to meet its
water quality criterion. A data analysis routine is contained in the
models for calculating the required dilutions and determining which
contaminant should be modeled.
In all three models the behavior of the material is assumed to be
separated into three phases: convective descent, during which the dump
cloud or discharge jet falls under the influence of gravity and the initial
momentum of the discharge; dynamic collapse, occurring when the descending
cloud or jet either impacts the bottom or arrives at a level of neutral
buoyancy where descent is retarded and horizontal spreading dominates; and
passive transport-dispersion, commencing when the material transport and
spreading are determined more by ambient currents and turbulence than by
the dynamics of the disposal operation.
These models simulate movement of the disposed material as it falls
through the water column, spreads over the bottom and finally is
transported and diffused by the ambient current. DIFID is designed to
simulate the movement of material from an instantaneous dump which falls as
a hemispherical cloud. Thus, the total time required for the material to
leave the disposal vessel should not be greater than the time required for
the material to reach the bottom. DIFCD is designed to compute the
I
movement of material disposed in a continuous fashion at a constant
discharge rate. Thus, it can be applied to pipeline disposal operations in
which the discharge jet is below the water surface or perhaps to the
discharge of material from a single bin of a hopper dredge. If the initial
direction of disposal is vertical, either the disposal source has to be
moving or the ambient current has to be strong enough to result in a
bending of the jet before the bottom is encountered. DIFHD has been
constructed to simulate the fate of materials disposed from stationary
hopper dredges. Here, the normal mode of disposal is to open first one
pair of doors, then another, etc., until the complete dump is made, which
normally takes on the order of a few minutes to complete. DIFHD should not
be applied to disposal operations that differ significantly from that
described above.
In addition, it should be noted that the disposed material is
expected to behave as a dense liquid. This will only be true if the
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-5
material is composed of primarily fine-grained solids. Thus, the models
should not be applied to the disposal of purely sandy material. A major
limitation of these models is the basic assumption that once solid
particles are deposited on the bottom, they remain there. Therefore, the
models should only be applied over time frames in which erosion of the
newly deposited material is unimportant.
The passive transport and diffusion phase in all three models is
handled by allowing material settling from the descent and collapse phases
to be stored in small Gaussian clouds. These clouds are then diffused and
transported at the end of each time step. Computations on the long-term
grid are only made at those times when output is desired.
The use and limitations of the models along with theoretical
discussions are presented in detail in Johnson (1988). Additional
technical references for the models are provided in the bibliography of
this appendix and online in the system. Their review is strongly
recommended.
B1.4 MODEL INPUT
Input data for the models is grouped into the following general
areas: (I) description of the disposal operation, (2) description of the
disposal site, (3) description of the dredged materials, (4) model
coefficients, and (5) controls for input, execution, and output.
Ambient conditions include current velocity, density stratification,
and water depths over a computational grid. The dredged material is
assumed to consist of a number of solid fractions, a fluid component, and
conservative contaminants. Each solid fraction has to have a volumetric
concentration, a specific gravity, a settling velocity, a void ratio for
bottom deposition, and information on whether or not the fraction is
cohesive. For initial mixing calculations, information on initial
concentration, background concentration and water quality criterion for the
constituent to be modeled have to be specified. The description of the
disposal operations for the DIFID model includes position of the disposal
barge on the grid, the barge velocity, and draft, and volume of dredged
material to be dumped. Similar descriptions for hopper dredge and pipeline
operations are required for the DIFCD and DIFHD models. Coefficients are
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-6
required for the models to accurately specify entrainment, settling, drag,
dissipation, apparent mass, and density gradient differences. These
coefficients have default values which should be used unless other site-
specific information is available. Table Bl lists the necessary input
parameters with their corresponding units. More detailed descriptions and
guidance for selection of values for many of the parameters is provided
directly online in the system.
B1.5 MODEL OUTPUT
The output starts by echoing the input data and then optionally
presenting the time history of the descent and collapse phases. In descent
history for the DIFID model, the location of the cloud centroid, the
velocity of the cloud centroid, the radius of the hemispherical cloud, the
density difference between the cloud and the ambient water, the
conservative constituent concentration and the total volume and
concentration of each solid fraction are provided as functions of time
since release of the material. Likewise, the location of the leading edge
of the momentum jet, the centerline velocity of the jet, the radius of the
jet, the density difference between material in the jet and the ambient
water, the contaminant concentration, and the flux and concentration of
each solid fraction are provided as functions of time at the end of the jet
convection phase in DIFCD and DIFHD.
At the conclusion of the collapse phase in DIFID and DIFHD, time-
dependent information concerning the size of the collapsing cloud, its
density, and its centroid location and velocity as well as contaminant and
solids concentrations can be requested. Similar information is provided by
DIFCD at the conclusion of the jet collapse phase. These models perform
the numerical integrations of the governing conservation equations in the
descent and collapse phases with a minimum of user input. Various control
parameters that give the user insight into the behavior of these
computations are printed before the output discussed above is provided.
At various times, as requested through input data, output concerning
suspended sediment concentrations can be obtained from the transport-
diffusion computations. With Gaussian cloud transport-diffusion, only
-------
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-7
TABLE Bl. MODEL INPUT PARAMETERS
Parameter Models* Units
Disposal Site Descriptions
Descriptive title I,C,H
Gridpoints (left to right) I,C,H
Gridpoints (top to bottom) I,C,H
Distance between gridpoints I,C,H ft
Constant water depth I,C,H ft
Gridpoints depths I,CeE ft
Points in density profile I,C,H
Depth of density point I,C,H ft
Density at profile point I,C,H g/cc
Bottom slope in x-direction I,H degrees
Bottom slope in z-direction I,H degrees
Site boundary grid locations I/C/H
Disposal Operation Descriptions
Volume of material in barge I cu yd
Discharge flow rate C,H ftVsec
Radius of discharge C,H ft
Discharge depth C,H ft
Angle of discharge C degrees
Vessel course C degrees
Vessel speed C ft/sec
Barge velocity in x-direction I ft/sec
Barge velocity in z-direction I ft/sec
Barge length I ft
Barge width I ft
Port-disposal depth I ft
Bottom depression length in x-direction I,H ft
Bottom depression length in z-direction I,H ft
Bottom depression depth I/H ft
X-coordinate of disposal operation I/C,H ft
Z-coordinate of disposal operation I/C,H ft
Disposal duration I/C,H sec
Time from start of tidal cycle I,C,H sec
Number of hopper bins opening together H
Distance between bins H ft
Option
**
C
V
Optional
Optional
Optional
* The use of a parameter in the DIFID, DIFCD, and DIFHD models is indicated
in the table by an I, C or H, respectively.
** The use of a parameter for the constant depth option or variable depth
option is indicated in the table by a C or V, respectively. Other optional
uses for parameters are so indicated.
-------
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-8
TABLE Bl. MODEL INPUT PARAMETERS (Continued)
Parameter
Disposal Site Velocity Descriptions
Type of velocity profile
Tidal cycle time of velocity if
constant profile not used
Vertically averaged velocity in
x-direction at gridpoints
Vertically averaged velocity in
z-direction at gridpoints
Velocity in x-direction at upper
point
Depth of upper point for
x-direction velocity
Velocity in x-direction at lower
point
Depth of lower point for
x-direction velocity
Velocity in z-direction at upper
point
Depth of upper point for
z-direction velocity
Velocity in z-direction at lower
point
Depth of lower point for
z-direction velocity
Material Descriptions
Water density at dredging site
Number of solid fractions
Solid fraction descriptions
Solid fraction specific gravity
Solid fraction volumetric
concentration
Solid fraction settling velocity
Solid fraction deposited void ratio
Moisture content of material in barge
as multiple of liquid limit
Bulk density of dredged material
Dissolved contaminant concentration
Background dissolved contaminant
concentration
Sediment contaminant concentration
Contaminant water quality criterion
0.01 of the acutely toxic concentration
(LC50)
Models*
I,C,H
I,C,H
I,C,H
I,C,H
I,C,H
I,C,H
I,C,H
I,C,H
I,C,H
I,C,H
I,C,H
I,C,H
I,C,H
I,C,H
I,C,H
I,C,H
I,C,H
I,C,H
I,C,H
I
I,C,H
I,C,H
I,C,H
I,C,H
I,C,H
I,C,H
Units
sec
ft /sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft
ft/sec
ft
ft/sec
ft
ft/sec
ft
g/cc
ftVft3
ft/sec
g/cc
mg/1
mg/1
mg/kg
mg/1
%
Option**
V
V
V
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Cohesive
Optional
Optional
Optional
Optional
Optional
-------
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-9
TABLE Bl. MODEL INPUT PARAMETERS (Concluded)
Parameter Models* Units option'
Model coefficient
Settling coefficient I,C,H
Apparent mass coefficient I/C,H
Drag coefficient I,C,H
Form drag for collapsing cloud I,C,H
Skin friction for collapsing cloud I/C/H
Drag for an ellipsoidal wedge I,C,H
Drag for a plate I,C,H
Friction between cloud and bottom I,C,H
Horizontal diffusion coefficient I,C,H
Cloud/ambient density gradient ratio I,C,H
Turbulent thermal entrainment I,H
Entrainment in collapse I,H
Jet entrainment H,C
Thermal entrainment H,C
Entrainment by convection in collapse C
Entrainment due collapse of element C
Input, Output and Execution Descriptions
Processes to simulate I,C,H
Type of computations to perform
for initial mixing I,C,H
Number of depths for initial
mixing calculations I,C,H
Depths for initial mixing calculations I,C,H ft
Duration of simulation I,C,H sec
Time steps for mixing calculations I»C,H
Convective descent output option I,C,K
Collapse phase output option IfC,H
Number of print times for
initial mixing output I»C,H
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-10
concentrations at the water depths requested are provided at each grid
point.
For evaluations of initial mixing for ocean disposal, results for
water column concentrations can be computer in terms of mg/L of dissolved
constituent for Tier II evaluations or in percent of initial concentration
of suspended plus dissolved constituents in the dredged material for Tier
III evaluations. The maximum concentration within the grid and the maximum
concentration at or outside the boundary of the disposal site are tabulated
for specified time intervals.
Bl.6 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR RUNNING THE MODELS
Bl.6.1 Target Hardware Environment
The system is designed for the IBM PC-AT (including compatibles)
class of personal computers. This does not constitute official endorsement
or approval of these commercial products. In general, the system requires
a mathematics coprocessor, 640 KB of RAM and a hard disk. The models are
written primarily in FORTRAN 77 but some of the higher level operations and
file management operations are written in BASIC and some of the screen
control operations in the FORTRAN 77 programs are performed using an
assembly language utility program.
Bl.6.2 Installation and Starting
All files contained on the disk in the folder in the back of this
manual should be saved in a directory on the hard disk dedicated for the
ADDAMS system, e.g. C:\ADDAMS. The files are archived on the disks and
have to be de-archived prior to running the models. To de-archive the
files, copy the files from each disk onto the hard drive, call README for
each disk, and follow the instructions.
Bl.6.3 User Interface
The models in the DUMP application of ADDAMS employ a menu-driven
environment with a full screen data entry method. In general, single
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-ll
keystrokes (usually the F1-F10 function keys, the number keys, Esc key or
the arrow keys and the Enter key) are required to select menu options in
the system. Menus are displayed on the screen. Cursor keys are used to
select between highlighted input fields (displayed in inverted video) much
like a spreadsheet program. To enter alphanumeric data, the user moves the
cursor to the cell of interest using the up and down arrows to move
respectively up and down, the Tab and Shift-Tab to move respectively right
and left. The Enter key also will move forward through the cells. The
left and right arrow keys are used to move the cursor within a selected
cell in order to edit the cell's contents. The Backspace key deletes
character in a cell. The Delete and Insert keys delete and insert a row of
data on a screen of tabular data. The Pg Dn key moves the cursor to the
next screen of data entry and the Pg Up key moves the cursor to the
previous screen of data entry. The Esc key permits the user to quit data
entry on the present operation and to exit to the previous menu. The Home
key exits from the current data entry activity screen to the main menu for
the application without loss of data. Results from computations are
generally displayed in tabular format on the screen and/or written to print
files or devices.
B1.7 STEPS IN USING THE MODEL
The menu driven environment for applying the models is illustrated in
the menu tree in Figure Bl. The model can be applied'by performing the
desired operations at several levels. The general steps in applying the
model for a disposal operation are as follows:
a. Starting. Change directory to make the ADDAMS directory the
default directory. Start the program by entering ADDAMS. The program will
display the ADDAMS logo and then an Application Selection Menu. An
application in the ADDAMS program consists of one or more stand-alone
computer programs or numerical models used to perform a specific analysis.
The only ADDAMS application provided on diskette with this manual is named
DUMP and consists of programs for evaluating open water disposal of dredged
material. Select the DUMP application (Option 4). The program will
display a File Manager Menu for the DUMP application input data files.
-------
Application Selection Menu
SETTLE - Confined Disposal Facilities (CFSs) Design.
DYECON - Hydraulic Retention and Efficiency of CDFs.
PCDDF - Consolidation and Desiccation of Dredged Fill.
DUMP - Plume Dispersion from Disposal in Open Water.
D2M2 - Dredged Material Disposal Management.
EFQUAL - Modified Elutriate Test Analysis.
WET - Wetlands Evaluation Technique.
List all data file names for all applications.
Esc End current ADDAMS session.
DUMP File Manager Menu
1. Continue to the selected application.
2. Select or name data file for use here or in application.
3. Enter DOS path for data file storage location.
4. Display directory of data files on current path.
5. Copy current data file.
6. Delete current data file.
7. Rename current data file.
Esc Return to Application Selection Menu.
I
Activity Selection Menu for DUMP Module
F1 - Compute dilution required for contaminants.
F2 - Enter/edit/build execution data file.
F3 - Execute open water disposal model.
F4 - Print output data file.
Esc - Quit.
Menu for Selection of a Contaminant for Modeling
F1 - Enter/edit bulk sediment data.
F2 - Enter/edit elutriate water quality data.
F3 - Compute bulk sediment dilutions.
F4 - Compute elutriate dilutions.
Esc - Return to present menu?
Disposal Type Selection Menu
F1 - Disposal from a Hopper Dredge
F2 - Continuous Discharge from a Pipeline.
F3 - Instantaneous Dump from a Barge or Scow.
Esc - Return to previous menu?
i
DUMP Input Activity Selection Menu
Perform Input Data File Selection and Operations.
Inpu
F1
F2 - Enter/edit Input Data.
Esc - Return to Activity Selection Menu?
DUMP Activity File Manager Menu
F1 - Select or name file for use here or in application.
F2 - Enter DOS path for data file storage location.
F3 - Display directory of data files.
F4 - Print data from the active data file.
F5 - Save data in (OR TO) the active data file.
Esc - Read selected file and return to DUMP Activity Menu.
DUMP Input Selection Menu
F1 - Enter Site Description.
F2 - Enter Velocity Data.
F3 - Set Input, Execution and Output Keys.
F4 - Enter Material Description Data.
F5 - Enter Disposal Sequence Data.
F6 - Change Coefficients (Default Values).
F7 - Write Input Data Rle.
F8 - Write Execution Data File.
Esc - Return to Main Menu.
0
h(
a>
s
(a
rt
(D
H
ci w h
3 rt p>
d H- H)
J» 3 rf
C M
I-1 vo fl) (D
Figure B-1. Menu tree for DUMP models.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-13
b- File manager menu. At this point an input data file or DOS path
for data storage may be selected or named. An existing input data file may
be selected by displaying a directory of data files (Option 4 on the File
Manager Menu) on the specified DOS path. Other file management operations
may also be performed on input data files. Input data file names are given
an extension of .DUI by the program. After completing all file management
operations, if any, select the option to continue (Option 1). The program
will display a reference screen with points of contact and then the DUMP
Activity Selection Menu.
c. Activity selection menu. The activity selection menu may be
considered the main menu for the DUMP application. Option Fl is used to
select a specific contaminant for modeling, and a menu for Dilution
Requirements by Initial Mixing will be displayed (see step d) . Option F2
is used to enter data and build, edit or write input and execution data
files. A Disposal Type Selection Menu will be displayed to initiate this
process (see step e) . Option F3 is used to execute the analysis (see step
k) , Option F4 is used to print or review output files (see step 1) .
d. Dilution Requirements for Initial Mixing Menu. A data analysis
routine controlled by this menu is used to select a specific contaminant
for modeling. Such a selection is necessary under the Tier II analysis
both for evaluation of the need for additional testing and for water
quality comparisons with criteria. Execution of the open water disposal
models for these Tier II analyses allow use of only one contaminant; this
option is used to select that contaminant.
Options Fl and F3 are used for the evaluation of the need for
additional testing. Bulk sediment contaminant and suspended solids
concentrations and water quality criteria are required to compute the
required dilutions. The contaminant requiring the largest dilution should
be subsequently modeled.
Options F2 and F4 are used for the analysis to compare dissolved
contaminant concentrations with water quality criteria. Elutriate and
background concentrations and water quality criteria are required to
compute the required dilutions. The contaminant requiring the largest
dilution should be subsequently modeled.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-14
e. Disposal Type Selection Menu. The selection of a disposal type
under this menu controls the input data requests, the type of execution
data file that will be built, and the open water disposal model that will
be executed. Select the appropriate type of disposal: Fl Disposal from a
hopper Dredge, F2 Continuous Discharge from a Pipeline, or F3 Instantaneous
Dump from a Barge or Scow. The input data file last used by the program or
selected earlier in step b will be read. If the file is new, the input
data will be initialized. A DUMP Input Activity Selection Menu will then
be displayed.
f. Input Activity Selection Menu. Option Fl may be used to change
the input data file or initialize a new data file. This option will call
the DUMP Input File Manager Menu to permit file selection (see step g for
description). After selecting or initializing an input data file, if
needed, select Option F2 to enter or edit input data and write data files.
A DUMP Input Selection Menu will be displayed.
g. Activity File Manger Menu. A similar file manager is used for
input, execution, and output data file selection and saving. Option Fl is
used to specify the name of the file to be saved, read, or printed. The
file specified in this option becomes the active data file. Option F2 is
used to specify the DOS path to the location where the data file should be
read or saved. Option F3 is used to display a directory of DUMP
application data files for the current path. An existing data file name
may be selected from the list to use as the active data file name for
overwriting or reading existing data. Option F4 is used to save the
existing data in a file having the active data file name. The input data
which are stored in files with an extension of .DUI are displayed in the
input data screens displayed under this option. This option is also used
to build execution data files. Execution data files are the actual input
data files used by the open disposal model to perform the analysis and
generate output. These files are unique in structure to the input
requirements of a particular open water disposal model, either DIFHD, DIFCD
or DIFID. The files are stored with an extension of .DUE.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-15
h- input Selection Menu. Six types of input data (Options Fl to F6)
have to be entered before an execution data file can be written. Default
values are included for all of the model coefficients requested in Option
F6; therefore, data entry for Option F6 is optional. Values or answers
have to be entered for all requests in Options Fl to F5. An input data
file may be written at any point to save all the data that has been entered
up that point. Enter data for Options Fl through F6 by paging down through
the data entry screens and filling in the cells for each option.
*• Write input data file. Write an input data file to save the
input data for future editing and use by selecting Option F7 under the DUMP
Input Selection Menu. A DUMP Activity File Saving Menu will be displayed
(see step g).
j. Write execution data file. Write an execution data file to save
the input data in the data structure used by the selected open water
disposal model. This is performed by selection Option F8 on the DUMP Input
Selection Menu. A DUMP Activity File Saving Menu will be displayed (see
step g) . All steps required for data entry or editing have been completed
and the program is ready to execute the analysis.
k. Execute. Return to the DUMP Activity Selection Menu by
repeatedly pressing the Esc key. Select the option to execute the open
water disposal model by Selection Option F3. This option uses an execution
data file to generate an output file of the same name as the execution data
file selected but with an extension of .DUO instead of .DUE. An Execution
Data File Selection Menu will be displayed that is similar to the file
manager menu described in step g. The only difference is that Option F4
will execute the disposal model instead of saving and writing the data
file. The program will then execute the analysis using the selected
execution data file and generate an output file. Depending on the
structure of the execution data file, either the DIFHD, DIFID, or DIFCD
model will be executed. The execution may take a few minutes or several
hours depending on the simulation selected and the computer hardware used.
For long-term transport diffusion computations the DIFCD program may
require about 5 times as long to run as the other disposal models.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-16
1. Print results. Return to the DUMP Activity Selection Menu.
Print output by selecting Option F4. A DUMP Output Data File Selection
Menu will be displayed that is similar to the file manager menu described
in step g. The only difference is that Option F4 will print the output.
The output has 132 characters per line and should be printed using
compressed print or wide paper. The program will automatically use
compressed print on some printers, mainly Epson and IBM printers. It may
be necessary to turn on compressed printing on your printer prior to
printing the output, or to print the output outside of the AADAMS program
using the DOS print command or a word processor. This step completes
execution of the DUMP application. In addition, the DUMP Output Data File
Selection Menu has an F5 Option to view the output using the LIST.COM
utility program.
m. Ending. To exit the program, press Esc repeatedly until you
obtain a DOS prompt. During execution of a particular application's
program, the user has to wait until the sometimes lengthy computations are
computed. The program can also be terminated by a Control-Break or by
turning off the computer, but loss of data may occur. These methods of
ending are not recommended. Similar methods are available during printing
of output.
B1.8 EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS
Three example applications are presented in this appendix. The
examples illustrate the use of DIFID to evaluate for the need for
additional water column testing (Tier II), DIFCO for a comparison of
dissolved contaminant concentrations with water quality criteria (Tier II),
and a DIFHD for comparison of water column concentrations of dredged
material with bioassay results (Tier III). Descriptions of the examples
and a discussion of the model results follow. The input and output files
for each of the examples are saved on the disk in the folder in the back of
this manual.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-17
Bl.8.1 Example Application of DIFID
This example demonstrates the application of the instantaneous dump
model DIFID and the evaluation of the need for additional water column
testing under Tier II. The input and output files for this example are
named DIFID.DUI and DIFID.DUO, respectively.
Bl.8.1.1 Operations Information
Disposal from a split hull barge at a disposal site with a constant
water depth is modeled. The total volume of the dredged material is 1000
cu yd and is contained in a barge 100 ft long and 50 ft wide. The barge is
stationary at the point of release. The unloaded draft of the barge is 5.0
ft, and the time required to empty the barge is 5.0 sec.
Bl.8.1.2 Disposal Site Information
The disposal site is 6000 ft by 6000 ft. A 30 x 30 grid with a 1500
ft grid spacing was selected, with the disposal site centered in the grid.
The total water depth is 100 ft and no bottom slope exists. The ambient
water current is 2.0 ft/sec directed from south to north for the upper 40
ft of the water column. The current then reverses direction over the next
20 ft to become 2.0 ft/sec directed from north to south at a depth of 60 ft
below the surface. A linear decrease to a value of zero at the bottom
follows. The ambient density profile is a constant 1.018 g/cc from the
surface to depth of 40 ft, increasing to 1.022 g/cc at a depth of 60 ft,
and a constant of 1.022 g/cc to the bottom.
Bl.8.1.3 Dredged Material Information
The dredged material is composed of a sand and a silty clay solid
fraction. The sand volumetric concentration is 0.14 ftVft3 and silty clay
volumetric concentration is 0.17 ftVft3. The remaining 0.69 ftVft3 is
composed of water (both void spaces and entrained water). The settling
velocity of the sand is taken to be 0.07 ft/sec, whereas the silty clay
fraction is treated as a cohesive fraction with the settling velocity
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-18
internally computed. Following deposition on the bottom, a void ratio of
4.0 is specified for the silty clay fraction, whereas a void ratio of 0.8
is specified for the sand. The required dilutions of all contaminants of
concern to meet their respective water quality criteria were computed.
Cadmium was found to be the contaminant of concern requiring the highest
dilution to meet its water quality criterion, and was selected as the
parameter to be modeled for evaluation of the need for additional water
column testing. The sediment concentration for cadmium is 20 mg/kg and the
acute marine water quality criterion for cadmium is 0.043 mg/L.
Bl. 8.1.4 Coefficients
Default values were used for all coefficients.
Bl.8.1.5 Controls for Execution and Output
The total simulation time is specified as 4 hr or 14400 sec, with a
600 sec computational time step. Output is specified for depths of 10, 50,
and 99 ft, which correspond to near surface, mid-depth and near bottom,
respectively.
Bl.8.1.6 Summary of Output
As can be seen from the output, the disposal cloud strikes the bottom
in 7.19 sec and grows from an initial radius of 23.44 ft to a final radius
at the bottom encounter of 47.58 ft. Collapse on the bottom then occurs
with the collapse phase terminated at 58.53 sec after the disposal with the
final cloud having a diameter of 364.32 ft. During the initial mixing
period of 4 hr, the calculated maximum concentration of cadmium outside the
disposal site boundary is 0.00164 mg/L occurring 50 minutes after disposal
at a depth of 50 feet. This concentration is less than the acute water
quality criterion of 0.043 mg/L, therefore there is no need for additional
water column testing according to the guidance in Sections 10.1.1.2 and
4.3.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-19
Bl.8.2 Example Application of DIFCD
This example demonstrates the application of the continuous discharge
model DIFCD and the comparison of dissolved contaminant concentrations with
water quality criteria under Tier II. The input and output files for this
example are named DIFCD.DUI and DIFCD.DUO, respectively.
Bl.8.2.1 Operations Information
A pipeline disposal operation from a stationary barge at a disposal
site with constant water depth is modeled. The pipeline is 1.0 ft in
diameter with a discharge rate of 5 ftVsec. The end of the pipe is located
at a water depth 10 ft below the surface at an angle of 90° with respect to
the water surface.
Bl.8.2.2 Disposal Site Information
The disposal site is 3000 ft by 3000 ft. A 30 x 30 grid with a 250
ft grid spacing was selected. The disposal site is located within one
corner at a distance of 2250 ft from the northern edge of the grid and 500
ft from the western edge of the grid and with the opposite corner 5250 ft
from the northern edge of the grid and 3500 ft from the western edge of the
grid. The discharge point is located 4000 ft from the northern edge of the
grid and 1500 ft from the western edge of the grid. The disposal site is a
constant-depth site of 50 ft. The ambient water current is directed from
west to east with a magnitude of 0.5 ft/sec over the upper 45 ft of the
water column. The velocity then linearly decreases to 0.25 ft/sec at 1 ft
above the bottom and finally to zero at the bottom. The ambient density is
assumed to vary linearly from 1.0 g/cc at the surface to 1.010 g/cc at the
bottom.
Bl.8.2.3 Dredged Material Information
The dredged material is a slurry with an average bulk density of 1.32
g/cc and is composed of two solid fractions, sand and silt. The
concentration of each is 0.10, ft3/ft3. The settling velocity is 0.07 ft/sec
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-20
for sand and 0.02 ft/sec for silt. The void ratio after bottom deposition
is 3.0 for silt and 0-8 for sand. A previous evaluation indicated a need
to conduct additional water column testing. Tests were performed to
determine initial dissolved contaminant concentrations in the water column
under Tier II. The required dilutions of all contaminants of concern to
meet their respective water quality criteria were computed. Cadmium was
found to require the highest dilution and was selected as the parameter to
be modeled and compared with its water quality criterion. The initial
water column concentration of dissolved cadmium was determined to be 0.9
mg/L, the background concentration for cadmium was 0.001 mg/L, and the
acute marine water quality criterion for cadmium is 0.043 mg/L.
Bl.8.2.4 Coefficients
Default values were used for all coefficients.
Bl.8.2.5 Controls for Execution and Output
The total simulation time is specified as 4 hr or 14400 sec, with a
900 sec computational time step. Output is specified for depths of 30 and
49 ft, which correspond to mid-depth and near bottom, respectively.
Bl.8.2.6 Summary of Output
As indicated in the output, the momentum jet strikes the bottom after
10.29 sec with a radius of 4.496 ft. Collapse on the bottom terminates
after 29.66 sec. The calculated maximum concentration of cadmium after the
4 hr initial mixing period is 0.00914 mg/L above background, and the
maximum concentration of cadmium outside the disposal site boundary during
the 4 hr initial mixing period is 0.000058 mg/L above background. Both of
these values are less than the water quality criterion of 0.043 mg/L, and
are acceptable according to the guidance in Sections 10.1.2.3 and 5.1.2.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-21
Bl.8.3 Example Application of DIFHD
This example demonstrates the application of the hopper dredge model
DIFHD and the comparison of water column concentrations of dredged material
with water column bioassay results under Tier III. The input and output
files for this example are named DIFHD.DUI and DIFHD.DUO, respectively.
Bl.8.3.1 Operations Information
A disposal operation is modeled from a Stationary hopper dredge
containing eight bins configured in four pairs of two bins, with pairs of
bins opened sequentially. Disposal is assumed to occur from pairs of bins
with the disposal from one pair essential complete before the disposal from
the next pair begins. The total discharge takes 120 sec and occurs through
bin doors with a cross-sectional area of 16 ft2 which yields an equivalent
circular geometry with a radius of 2.26 ft. The center-line distance
between the bins is 14 ft. The loaded draft is 10 ft. The discharge rate
from each bin is taken to be 75 ftVsec.
Bl.8.3.2 Disposal Site Information
The disposal site is 5250 ft by 5250 ft. A 30 x 30 grid with a 750
ft grid spacing was selected. The disposal site is located within the grid
with one corner at a distance of 8250 ft from the northern edge of the grid
and 2250 ft from the western edge of the grid and with the opposite corner
13,500 ft from the northern edge of the grid and 7500 ft from the western
edge of the grid. The location of the hopper dredge is 4500 ft from the
western edge of the grid and 11,250 ft from the northern edge of the grid.
The disposal site is a constant depth site with a water depth of 75 ft and
no bottom slope. The ambient current is 0.9 ft/sec over the upper 70 ft of
the water column and is directed from west to east. The velocity then
decreases linearly over the next 4 ft to 0.2 ft/sec, then linearly over the
next foot to zero. The ambient density is 1.00 g/cc at the surface and
increases linearly to 1.01 g/cc at the bottom.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-22
Bl.8.3.3 Dredged Material Information
The dredged material is composed of sand and clay solid fractions,
each having a. concentration of 0.10 ftVft3. The setting velocity of the
sand is 0.07 ft/sec while the clay is considered cohesive with the settling
velocity computed internally. The void ratio on deposition is 4.0 for the
clay and 0.8 for the sand. The model is used to estimate the
concentrations of dissolved plus suspended dredged material constituents in
the water column expressed as a percent of the initial concentration.
Water column bioassays indicated that the LC50 was 30 percent of the
original dredged material concentration.
Bl.8.3.4 Coefficients
Default values were used for all coefficients.
Bl.8.3.5 Controls for Execution and Output
The total simulation time is specified as 4 hr or 14400 sec, with a
600 sec computational time step. Output is specified for depths of 50 and
74 ft, which correspond to near mid-depth and near bottom, respectively.
Bl.8.3.6 Coefficients
Default values were used for all coefficients.
Bl.8.3.7 Summary of Output
As can be seen from the output, the jet of material from a bin
reaches the bottom after 9.53 sec and has a radius of 7.21 ft. The
resulting bottom collapse continues as long as the bottom cloud is fed by
the continuous discharge of material from the remaining bins. The maximum
concentration of suspended plus dissolved constituents of the dredged
material after 4 hr is 0.0006 percent of the original concentration, and
the maximum concentration outside the disposal site boundary during the 4
hr initial mixing period is 0.0125 percent of original occurring 70 minutes
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-23
after disposal at a depth of 74 ft. Both of these values are below 0.3
percent (0.01 of the LC50); therefore the discharge is acceptable according
to the guidance in Sections 10.2.1.6 and 6.1.
Bl.9 REFERENCES
Brandsma, M. G., and Divoky, D. J. 1976. Development of models for
prediction of short-term fate of dredged material discharged in the
estuarine environment, Contract Report D-76-5, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Johnson, B. H. 1988. User's guide for models of dredged material disposal
in open water, Draft Technical Report, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Koh, R. C. Y., and Chang, Y. C. 1973. Mathematical model for barged ocean
disposal of waste, Environmental Protection Technology Series EPA
660/2-73-029. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Schroeder, P. R. 1988. Automated dredging and disposal alternatives
management system, User's Guide, Technical Report in preparation,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Bl.10 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adamec, S. A., Jr., Johnson, B. H., and Trawle, M. J. 1988.
Numerical modeling of material from Everett, Washington Naval Port
disposed in Puget Sound, Draft Report, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Bokuniewicz, H.J. et al. 1978. Field study of the mechanics of the
placement of dredged material at open-water disposal sites, Technical
Report D-78-7, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Bowers, G. W., and Goldenblatt, M. K. 1978. Calibration of a predictive
model for instantaneously discharged dredged material, EPA-699/3-78-
089, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.
Johnson, B. H. 1978. Application of the instantaneous dump dredged
material disposal^model to the disposal of Stamford and New Haven
Harbor material from a scow in the Long Island Sound, Internal
Working Document prepared for New England Division, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Johnson, B. H. 1979. Application of the instantaneous dump dredged
material disposal model to the disposal of San Diego Harbor material
at the 45 and 100 fathom disposal sites, Internal Working Document,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
-------
Draft Revised
Dredged Material Testing Manual
January, 1990
Page B-24
Johnson, B. H., and Holliday, B. W. 1977. Numerical model results of
dredged material disposal at ten proposed ocean disposal sites in the
Hawaiian Islands, Miscellaneous Paper H-77-6, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Johnson, B. H., and Holliday, B. W. 1978. Evaluation and calibration of
the Tetra Tech dredged material disposal models based on field data,
TR-D-78-47, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Trawle, M. J. and Johnson, B. H. 1986. Alcatraz disposal site
investigation, MP HL-86-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Trawle, M. J. and Johnson, B. H. 1986. Puget sound generic dredged
material disposal alternatives, MP HL-86-5, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
-------