-------
United States
Army Corps of Engineers
           Transmittal of the January, 1990 Draft Testing Manual


              "Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of

                    Dredged Material into Ocean Waters"


          In 1977,  the Environmental  Protection Agency  (EPA) and the US
     Army Corps of  Engineers (CE)  released the  testing  manual titled
     "Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged Materials
     Into Ocean Waters" (commonly referred to as the  "Green Book"). This
     manual was for  use in  determining the  suitability of  dredged
     materials for ocean disposal under  the Ocean Dumping Regulations
     (40 CFR 220-228) . Since 1977 the CE  and EPA have been improving on
     the methods in the 1977 testing manual and have developed  this
     revised draft  manual  to update  and eventually replace the  1977
     manual.

          This  document is  still  in draft  form and  is only  being
     distributed at this time for review. It has not been approved for
     use and is not to be used for decision making until it is revised
     based upon comments received and issued in final form.

          EPA and CE  intend to  revise and  finalize  this draft manual
     approximately six months after  its  release  (July,  1990).  At that
     time there will  be a  notice  in the Federal Register announcing
     availability of  and effective  date of the  new  manual.  The final
     manual would not be used to make decisions until several months
     after  the  Federal  Register  announcement  in  order  to  allow
     regulators and laboratories time  to gear up  for  the new procedures.

            ^7
                                               CLLtAJ*
          Tudor T.  Davies                    Patrick^. \Kellj
          Director,  OMEP                     Major General,"
          Environmental Protection Agency    Director of Civil Tfrorks

-------
DRAFT ECOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSED DISCHARGE
      OF DREDGED MATERIAL INTO OCEAN WATERS
                      Prepared by

       U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
            Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
                  Washington, DC 20460

                         and

              DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
                U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                Washington, DC 20314-1000

                      January, 1990
                     Prepared under

                    Contract No. 68-C8-0105

-------
                   STATUS OF THIS DRAFT MANUAL
     This is  a DRAFT  manual  printed solely  for the purpose  of
review. It is  not  to be used until that review  process  has been
completed, necessary revisions made, and the final manual approved
for use by both EPA and the CE.


     Mention  of  commercial products  in this  document  does  not
constitute official  endorsement  or approval  of  the use  of such
products.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                  PREFACE

     According to Section 103 of Public Law 92-532 (the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972), any proposed dumping of dredged
material into ocean waters must be evaluated through the use of criteria
published by the Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA)  in Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 220-228 (40 CFR 220-228).  This testing
guidance manual contains procedures applicable to the evaluation of
potential environmental impacts of the ocean disposal of dredged material.
It will be periodically revised and updated as warranted by advances in
regulatory practice and technical understanding.  When this manual is
approved by EPA and the Corps of Engineers (CE), it will replace the July
1977 manual entitled "Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of
Dredged Material into Ocean Waters," which will no longer be applicable.
     The manual was prepared by Battelle Memorial Institute  - Duxbury
Operations and EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. as part of a
contract between Battelle Memorial Institute - Duxbury Operations and EPA's
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (EPA Contract No.  68-C8-0105).
The EPA Work Assignment Manager was Mr. David Redford,  the Work Assignment
Leaders were Dr. Richard Peddicord and Ms. Nancy O'Mara, and the Technical
Monitors were Dr. Christine Werme and Dr. Carlton Hunt.  Development of the
manual was overseen by a group headed by Mr.  Redford and composed of Mr.
Norman Rubinstein and Dr. John Gentile of the EPA Environmental Research
Laboratory, Narragansett, RI, and Drs.  Robert Engler, Thomas Wright, and
Thomas Dillon of the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.  The manual was written by scientists at Battelle Memorial
Institute - Duxbury Operations and EA Engineering, Science,  and Technology,
Inc.  Although many staff members contributed to the manual, lead authors
contributed to each section, as follows:

-------
                                                              Draft  Revised
                                            Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                              January,  199°
          Chapters  1-7
          Chapter 8
          Chapter 9
          Chapter 10
          Chapter 11
          Chapter 12
          Chapter 13
Dr. Richard Peddicord
Mr. John Williams and Dr. Richard Peddicord
Dr. Grant Warner and Dr. Carlton Hunt
Dr. R. Scott Carr
Dr. Richard Peddicord
Dr. Carol Graves and Dr. Gary Tuckfield
Ms. Patricia Royal
     The assistance  of  Mr.  Peter Washburn and Ms. Deanna Neubauer  in
completing the manual is gratefully  acknowledged.
     Review of the manual was  conducted by EPA through the Marine
Operations Division  of  the  Office  of Marine  and Estuarine Protection,  and
by the Corps of Engineers through  the  Office, Chief of Engineers,  and  the
Environmental Laboratory of the Waterways Experiment Station.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                  CONTENTS

                                                                        Page

PART I  GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS    	     1-0

1.0   INTRODUCTION   	     1-1

      1.1   BACKGROUND	     1-1
      1.2   APPLICABILITY    	     1-1
      1.3   PURPOSE  AND  SCOPE    	     1-2
      1.4   CHANGES  AND  REVISIONS FROM THE PREVIOUS  MANUAL   ....     1-4
      1.5   DEFINITIONS	     1-4

2.0   OVERVIEW OF THE REGULATIONS	     2-1

      2.1   PART  225: CORPS  OF  ENGINEERS  (CE)  DREDGED
            MATERIAL PERMITS 	     2-1
      2.2   PART  227, SUBPART A: GENERAL	     2-2
      2.3   PART  227, SUBPART B: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT    	     2-2

            2.3.1  Trace Contaminants  	     2-2
            2.3.2  Biological Evaluations   	     2-3

      2.4   PART  227, SUBPART C: NEED  FOR OCEAN DUMPING   	     2-5
      2.5   PART  227, SUBPART D: IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED  DUMPING ON
            AESTHETIC, RECREATIONAL, AND  ECONOMIC VALUES 	     2-5
      2.6   PART  227, SUBPART E: IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED
            DUMPING  ON OTHER USES OF THE  OCEAN	     2-5
      2.7   PART  227, SUBPART G:  DEFINITIONS    	     2-6

            2.7.1  Limiting Permissible Concentration   	     2-6

                    2.7.1.1  Water  Column   	     2-6
                    2.7.1.2  Benthic Environment 	     2-7

            2.7.2  Estimation of Initial Mixing  	     2-8
            2.7.3  Species Selection	   '  2-8

PART II.  EVALUATION OF  POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT   	     3-0

3.0   OVERVIEW OF TESTING AND EVALUATION  	     3-1

      3.1   REFERENCE AND  CONTROL SEDIMENTS    	     3-1

            3.1.1  Control Sediments  	     3-1
            3.1.2  Reference Sediment  	     3-1

                    3.1.2.1  Reference Sediment Sampling Location      3-2
                    3.1.2.2  Reference Sediment Sampling Interval      3-3
                    3.1.2.3  Reference Sediment Sampling 	     3-4

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                            CONTENTS (Continued)


      3.2    TIER TESTING AND EVALUATION   	     3~4

4.0   TIER I   	     4~1

      4.1    COMPILATION OF EXISTING INFORMATION   	     4~2
      4.2    IDENTIFICATION OF CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN   	     4-4
      4.3    DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE   	     4-8

5.0   TIER II  EVALUATION   	     5-1

      5.1    WATER COLUMN EFFECTS  	     5-2

            5.1.1   Determination of Need for Additional Water
                    Column Testing  	     5-2
            5.1.2   Determination of Potential for Water Column
                    Impacts	     5-3

      5.2    BENTHIC IMPACTS   	     5-4

6.0   TIER III EVALUATION	     6-1

      6.1    WATER COLUMN BIOASSAYS  	     6-1
      6.2    BIOASSAYS ON BENTHOS	     6-2
      6.3    BIOACCUMULATION BY BENTHOS  	     6-4
      6.4    REFERENCES	     6-8

7.0   TIER IV EVALUATION   	     7-1

      7.1    BIOASSAYS   	     7-1
      7.2    BIOACCUMULATION BY BENTHOS  	     7-2
      7.3    REFERENCES	     7-5

PART III.   DATA GENERATION	     8-0

8.0   COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF SAMPLES   	     8-1

      8.1    BACKGROUND FOR A SAMPLING PLAN	     8-1
      8.2    COMPONENTS OF A SAMPLING PLAN    	     8-3

            8.2.1   Review of Project Specifications  	     8-4
            8.2.2   Historical Data	     8-4
            8.2.3   Subdivision of Dredging Area	     8-5
            8.2.4   Selection of Sampling Sites and Number of
                    Samples	     8-7
            8.2.5   Sample Collection Methods 	     8-12

                    8.2.5.1  Sediment Sample  Collection   	     8-13
                    8.2.5.2  Water Sample Collection  	     8-14
                    8.2.5.3  Organism Collection  	     8-14

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                            CONTENTS (Continued)


            8.2.6   Sample Handling,  Preservation,  and Storage  . .     8-15
            8.2.7   Logistical Considerations and Safety Precautions    8-19
            8.2.8   Quality Control	     8-20
                    8.2.8.1  Documentation   	     8-20
                    8.2.8.2  Standard Operating Procedures  ....     8-20
                    8.2.8.3  Sample Labels   	     8-20
                    8.2.8.4  Chain-of-Custody   	     8-21
                    8.2.8.5  Archived Samples   	     8-21

      8.3    REFERENCES	     8-21

9.0   PHYSICAL  ANALYSES  OF SEDIMENT AND  CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF
      SEDIMENT,  WATER AND  TISSUE  SAMPLES  	     9-1

      9.1    PHYSICAL ANALYSES OF SEDIMENT    	     9-1
      9.2    DETECTION LIMITS  	     9-3
      9.3    CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF SEDIMENT    	     9-3

            9.3.1   Selection of  Analytical  Targets (Sediment)   . .     9-3
            9.3.2   Selection of  Chemical Analytical
                    Techniques (Sediments)    	     9-4
            9.3.3   Quality Control	     9-12

      9.4    CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF WATER   	     9-14

            9.4.1   Recommended Analytical Targets (Water)  ....     9-14
            9-4.2   Selection of  Analytical  Techniques (Water)   . .     9-15
            9.4.3   Quality Control	     9-17

      9.5    CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF TISSUES     	     9-18

            9.5.1   Recommended Analytical Targets (Biota)  ....     9-18
            9.5.2   Selection of  Analytical  Techniques (Biota)   . .     9-24
            9.5.3   Quality Control	     9-26

      9.6    REFERENCES	     9-27

10.0  GUIDANCE  FOR PERFORMING BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS  TESTS   	    10-1

      10.1   TIER II:  WATER COLUMN EFFECTS	    10-2

            10.1.1  Determination of the Need for Additional Water
                    Column Testing  	    10-2

                    10.1.1.1 Chemical Analysis  	    10-2
                    10.1.1.2 Need  for Additional Testing  	    10-2

            10.1.2  Testing for Potential Water Column Impacts  .  .    10-3

                    10.1.2.1 Dredged Material Preparation
                              (Standard  Elutriate)   	    10-4

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                            CONTENTS (Continued)

                    10.1.2.2 Chemical Analysis  	    10~4
                    10.1.2.3 Determination of Compliance  	    10-4

      10.2   TIER III BIOASSAYS	    10~6

            10.2.1  Water Column Bioassays  	    10~6

                    10.2.1.1 Species Selection  	    10~6
                    10.2.1.2 Apparatus  	    10~8
                    10.2.1.3  Experimental Conditions  	    10~9
                    10.2.1.4  Experimental Procedures  	    10-9
                    10.2.1.5  Data Analysis 	    10-11
                    10.2.1.6  Determination of Compliance  	    10-11
                    10.2.1.7  Quality Control  Considerations  .  .  .    10-13

            10.2.2  Benthic Bioassays   	    10-17

                    10.2.2.1  Species Selection 	  .    10-17
                    10.2.2.2  Apparatus 	    10-20
                    10.2.2.3  Experimental Conditions  	    10-21
                    10.2.2.4  Experimental Procedure   	    10-22
                    10.2.2.5  Data Analysis 	    10-23
                    10.2.2.6  Determination of Compliance  	    10-24
                    10.2.2.7  Quality Control  Considerations  .  .  .    10-24

      10.3   TIER IV:  CASE-SPECIFIC TESTS   	    10-26
      10.4   REFERENCES	    10-27

11.0  GUIDANCE  FOR  PERFORMING  BIOACCUMULATION  TESTS  	    11-1

      11.1   TIER II:  THEORETICAL BIOACCUMULATION POTENTIAL  (TBP)
            OF NONPOLAR ORGANIC CHEMICALS   	    11-2
      11.2   TIER III: DETERMINATION OF BIOAVAILABILITY	    11-7

            11.2.1  Species Selection and Apparatus   	    11-8
            11.2.2  Experimental Conditions   	    11-10
            11.2.3  Chemical Analysis   	    11-11
            11.2.4  Data Analysis   	    11-11
            11.2.5  Determination of Compliance	  .  .    11-12
            11.2.6  Quality Control Considerations    .......    11-12

      11.3   TIER IV:  DETERMINATION OF STEADY STATE
            BIOACCUMULATION   	    11-13

            11.3.1-Laboratory Assessment  of Steady  State
                    Bioaccumulation   	    11-13

                    11.3.1.1  Species Selection and  Apparatus .  .  .    11-13
                    11.3.1.2  Experimental Conditions  	    11-14
                    11.3.1.3  Chemical Analysis 	    11-14
                    11.3.1.4  Data Analysis 	    11-15
                    11.3.1.5  Determination of Compliance  	    11-15

-------
                                                               Draft  Revised
                                            Dredged Material  Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                            CONTENTS  (Continued)


                    11.3.1.6  Other Considerations   	     11-15
                    11.3.1.7  Quality  Control  Considerations   .  .  .     11-16

            11.3.2  Field Assessment of  Steady State
                    Bioaccumulation  	     11-16

                    11.3.2.1 Apparatus  	     11-16
                    11.3.2.2 Species Selection  	     11-17
                    11.3.2.3 Sampling Design and Conduct  	     11-18
                    11.3.2.4 Basis for Evaluation of
                             Bioaccumulation  . .  .  . -	     11-18
                    11.3.2.5 Sample Collection and Handling   .  .  .     11-19
                    11.3.2.6 Chemical Analysis  	     11-20
                    11.3.2.7 Data Analysis  	     11-20
                    11.3.2.8 Determination of Compliance  	     11-20

      11.4   REFERENCES	     11-21

12.0  STATISTICAL  METHODS  :	     12-1

      12.1   SAMPLE SIZE CONSIDERATION   	     12-2
      12.2   BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS  	     12-4

            12.2.1  Tier III Water Column  Bioassays    	     12-4
            12.2.2  Calculating Median Lethal  Concentration  ....     12-12
            12.2.3  Tier III Benthic Bioassays  	     12-13

      12.3   BIOACCUMULATION   	     12-24

            12.3.1  Tier III 10 or 28  Day  Single Time Point
                    Laboratory Study	  .     12-24

                    12.3.1.1 Confidence Interval Approach   ....     12-26
                    12.3.1.2 Confidence Interval Formulae   ....     12-27

            12.3.2  Tier IV  Time-Series  Laboratory Bioaccumulation
                    Study	     12-31
            12.3.3  Steady State Bioaccumulation from Field Data  .     12-45

      12.4   REFERENCES	     12-46

13.0  QUALITY ASSURANCE  CONSIDERATIONS  	     13-1

      13.1   STRUCTURE OF QA PROGRAMS	     13-1

            13.1.1  Government  (Data User) QA Program   	     13-1

                    13.1.1.1  Pre-award  Inspections  	     13-2
                    13.1.1.2  Interlaboratory  Comparison  	     13-2
                    13.1.1.3  Routine  Inspections  	     13-2

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                            CONTENTS (Continued)



            13.1.2  Data Generator QA Program   	    13-3

      13.2  GENERAL COMPONENTS OF ALL LABORATORY QA PROGRAMS  . .  .    13-3

            13.2.1  Organization  .... 	    13-3
            13.2.2  Personnel Qualifications  	    13-4
            13.2.3  Facilities   	    13-4
            13.2.4  Equipment and Supplies  	    13-4
            13.2.5  Test Methods and Procedures  	    13-4
            13.2.6  Sample  Handling and Tracking   	    13-5
            13.2.7  Documentation and Recordkeeping 	    13-5
            13.2.8  Quality Assurance Plan  	    13-5
            13.2.9  Standard Operating Procedures  (SOP)  	    13-6

      13.3  DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT   	    13-6

            13.3.1  Data Validation	    13-6
            13.3.2  Chemical Quality Control  .	    13-7
            13.3.3  Biological Quality Control  (Reference
                    Toxicant Testing) 	    13-7
            13.3,4  Performance and System Audits  	    13-7
            13.3.5  Management of Nonconformance Events  	    13-8
            13.3.6  Archiving of Data and Samples	    13-8

      13.4  REFERENCES	    13-8

APPENDIX A	     A-0

APPENDIX B	     B-0

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                  LIST OF TABLES


Number                   Title                                           Page

8.1     Recommended Procedures for Sample Collection,
        Preservation, and Storage	    8-16

9.1     Priority Pollutants and 301(h) Pesticides Listed
        According to Structural Compound Class   	    9-5

9.2     Sediment Sample Size Requirements for Chemical
        and Physical Analyses  	    9-7

9.3     Polychlorinated Biphenyl  (PCB) Congeners Recommended
        for Quantitation as Potential Contaminants of Concern  ....    9-10

9.4     Marine Reference Materials and Standards   	    9-13

9.5     Potential for Bioaccumulation of Organic Priority Pollutants
        and 301(h) Pesticides Based on Octanol/Water Partition
        Coefficients (Kow)	    9-20

9.6     Potential for Bioaccumulation of Trace Metal Priority
        Pollutants Based on Empirical Mean Bioconcentration
        Factors  (BCF)  	    9-23

12.1    Power Calculations for One Tailed t-Tests for Selected
        Sample Sizes   	   12-5

12.2    Number of Survivors in the Hypothetical Water Column
        Bioassay After 96 Hours  	   12-8

12.3    Number of Survivors in the Hypothetical Benthic Bioassay   .  .   12-15

12.4    Results from a Hypothetical Single Time Point Bioaccumu-
        lation Test Showing Average Contaminant Concentrations
        (ug/g dry weight) in Tissues of Animals Exposed to
        Difference Treatments  	   12-25

12.5    Selected Values of the Two-Tailed t-Distribution   	   12-29

12.6    Average Tissue Concentration Resulting from a Hypothetical
        28-day Time-Series Bioaccumulation Test with Varying Total
        PCB Concentrations in Tissues of Animals Exposed to
        Different Treatments   	   12-33

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                 LIST OF FIGURES


Number               Title                                              Pa?e

3.1     Overview of Tiered Approach to Evaluating  Potential
        Impacts of Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material 	    3-9

3.2     Illustration of Tiered Approach  to  Evaluating Potential
        Water Column Impacts of Dredged  Material  	    3-10

3.3     Illustration of Tiered Approach  to  Evaluating Potential
        Impacts of Deposited Dredged Material 	    3-11

3.4     Key to Figures 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3	    3-12

10.1    Characteristics and Examples of  Appropriate  Species for
        Determining Potential Water Column  Impacts of Dredged
        Material Disposal  	   10-7

10.2    Comparison of Hypothetical Time-Concentration Mortality
        Curve with Hypothetical Dilution Curve  Illustrating
        Non-compliance with the LPC	   10-14

10.3    Comparison of Typical Time-Concentration Mortality Curve
        with Typical Dilution Curve Illustrating Compliance
        with the LPC	   10-15

10.4    Characteristics and Examples of  Appropriate  Species for
        Determining Potential Benthic Impacts of Dredged Material
        Disposal   	   10-18

11.1    Nomograph for Determining Theoretical Bioaccumulation
        Potential	   11-6

11.2    Characteristics and Examples of  Appropriate  Species for
        Determining Bioaccumulation from Deposited Dredged
        Material	   11-9

12.1    Example SAS/PC Program to Perform Two-Sample T-Test and
        Levene's Homogeneity of Variance Test for  a  Hypothetical           '
        Water Column Bioassay from Data  in  Table 12.2	   12-9

12.2    Example Data Listing and SAS/PC  Program Output for a
        T-Test Between Treatments based  on  Hypothetical  Bioassay
        Data in Table 12.2   	   12-10

12.3    Example Data Listing and SAS/PC  Program Output for a
        Levene's Test of Variance Homegeneity for  Hypothetical
        Bioassay Data in Table 12.2   	   12-11

-------
                                                                Draft  Revised
                                             Dredged Material  Testing Manual
                                                                January,  1990
                            LIST  OF FIGURES  (Continued)


Number               Title                                              Page

12.4    An Example SAS/PC Program for Analyzing Survival Proportion
        from a Hypothetical Benthic Bioassay Data in Table 12.3    .  .   12-17

12.5    Example Data Listing from a SAS/PC Program Showing the
        Treatment Level (TRTMNT), Number of Survivors (NUM_SVIV),
        Survival Proportion (PRP_SVIV),  and the Transformed
        Proportions (TRN_SVIV)  from Hypothetical Data Given in
        Table 12.3  	   12-18

12.6    Example SAS/PC Listing of Arithmetic Means and Standard
        Deviations for Hypothetical Benthic Bioassay Data Given
        In Table 12.3   	   12-19

12.7    Example SAS/PC Program Output Showing ANOVA Results for
        Hypothetical Benthic Bioassay Data Given in Table 12.3  ...   12-20

12.8    Example SAS/PC Program Output Showing Dunnett's Test
        for Hypothetical Benthic Bioassay Data Given in Table 12.3   .   12-21

12.9    Example SAS/PC Program Output Showing Nonparametric
        (Kruskal-Wallis)  Test Results for Hypothetical Benthic
        Bioassay Data Given in Table 12.3    	   12-22

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  	   12-30

12.11   Example SAS/PC Program to Perform Nonlinear Regression
        Analysis Using Hypothetical 28 Day Time-Series
        Bioaccumulation Data   	   12-34

12.12   Example Data Listing from SAS/PC Program Showing Sediment
        Concentration  (CONC_SED), Treatment Level (TRTMNT), Time in
        Days (T_DAYS), and Tissue Concentration (CONC-TIS) for
        Hypothetical 28 Day Bioaccumulation Laboratory Test Data   .  .   12-36

12.13   Example Results from SAS/PC Program Showing Nonlinear
        Regression Analysis for Reference Treatment Level from
        28 Day Bioaccumulation Test	   12-39

12.14   Example Results from SAS/PC Program Showing Non-Linear
        Regression Analysis for Treatment Level A from 28 Day
        Bioaccumulation Test   	   12-40

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                           LIST OF FIGURES  (Continued)


Number               Title                                              Page

12.15   Example Results from SAS/PC  Program Showing Non-Linear
        Regression Analysis for Treatment  Level  B  from 28  Day
        Bioaccumulation Test   	   12-41

12.16   Example Results from SAS/PC  Program Showing Non-Linear
        Regression Analysis for Treatment  Level  C  from 28  Day
        Bioaccumulation Test   	   12-42

12.17   Example Results from SAS/PC  Program Showing Data Listing of
        Non-Linear Regression Results  for  28-Day Bioaccumulation Test   12-43

12.18   Non-Linear Regression Lines  with 95 Percent One-Sided
        Confidence Bounds on  28 day  Bioaccumulation Data	   12-44

-------
                                    Draft Revised
                  Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                    January,  1990
                                         Page 1-0
        PART I
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 1-1
                              1.0   INTRODUCTION

                               1.1  BACKGROUND

      Section 103 of the Marine Protection,  Research,  and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972 (MPRSA), Public Law 92-532, specifies that all proposed operations
involving the transportation and dumping of dredged material into ocean
waters have to be evaluated to determine the potential environmental impact
of such activities.  This is done by the Secretary of the Army, using
criteria developed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency  (EPA) in consultation with the Secretary.  In accordance with
Section 103 of the MPRSA, the Corps of Engineers  (CE)  is the permitting
authority for dredged material, subject to EPA review.  Environmental
evaluations have to be in accordance with applicable criteria published in
Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 220-228  (40 CFR 220-228),
hereinafter referred to as "the regulations."  Proposed ocean disposal of
dredged material also has to comply with the permitting and dredging
regulations found in Title 33 CFR,  Parts 320-330 and 335-338.
      Appendix A of this manual contains a reprinting of 40 CFR Parts 220-
228.  However, this manual addresses only the technical requirements that
apply to dredged material bioassay and bioaccumulation testing (see 227.6
and 227.13).
      One of the main purposes of Section 103 of the MPRSA is to regulate
and limit adverse ecological effects of ocean dumping of dredged material.
Consequently, the regulations emphasize evaluative techniques such as
bioassays and bioaccumulation testing, which provide relatively direct
estimates of the potential for environmental impact.

                             1.2  APPLICABILITY

      This implementation manual is applicable to all activities involving
the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it in
ocean waters outside the baseline from which the territorial sea is
measured.  The guidance in this manual is applicable to dredging operations
conducted under permits as well as to Federal projects conducted by the CE.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 1-2

In this manual terms like "dredging project," etc. are used in the broadest
sense to include both Federal projects and operations conducted under
permits.  The procedures in this manual do not apply to activities excluded
in Section 220.1 of the regulations.
      Although it is important to remember that the regulations are legally
binding and that the guidance provided in this manual is necessarily
responsive to the specific requirements of these regulations, the manual is
not  intended to carry the force of law.  This document does, however,
contain jointly acceptable technological approaches for evaluating the
potential environmental impacts of the ocean disposal of dredged material
as agreed upon by CE and EPA.  Dredged material considered for ocean
disposal should be evaluated by the procedures described in this manual to
determine its potential for environmental impacts.
      This manual provides guidance on technical methods for testing
dredged material to assess its compliance with the applicable bioassay-
based provisions of the regulations (e.g., 40 CFR 227.6; 227.13).  Dredged
material evaluated under the procedures in this manual and found to comply
with those portions of the regulations may be disposed at a designated
ocean dredged material disposal site if it satisfies all other applicable
requirements of 40 CFR 220-228, the terms and conditions of the site
designation, and the requirements of Title 33 CFR, Parts 320-330 and 335-
338.
      Some dredged material evaluated in accordance with the technical
procedures of this manual may demonstrate a potential for unacceptable
adverse environmental impacts.  If so, a careful case-by-case evaluation of
management options for these materials will be necessary.  If the ocean
dumping option is to be pursued,  particular attention should be given to
utilizing specific management actions in order to minimize or eliminate
potentially unacceptable impacts.  The decision of whether such material
may be allowable for ocean disposal under the MPRSA and the applicable
regulations,  and the procedural steps to be followed in making this
determination,  are issues beyond the scope of this manual.

                           1.3  PURPOSE AND SCOPE

      This manual  was  developed under the direction of a joint EPA/CE work
group.   This  manual provides a balance between technical state-of-the-art

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 1-3

and routinely implementable guidance for using the evaluative procedures
specified in the regulations.  Guidance is included on the appropriate uses
and limitations of the various procedures and on sound interpretation of
the results.
      This manual contains.summaries and discussions of the procedures for
ecological evaluation of dredged material required by the regulations,
tests to implement them, definitions, sample collection and preservation
procedures, evaluative procedures, calculations, interpretive guidance, and
supporting references required for the evaluation of dredged material
discharge applications in  accordance with the regulations.  Even so, this
manual cannot stand alone.  It is imperative that the supporting references
be consulted for detailed  or more comprehensive guidance whenever
indicated.  Before any evaluations are begun, THIS MANUAL AND ESPECIALLY
THE REGULATIONS IN 40 CFR  220-228 SHOULD BE READ IN THEIR ENTIRETY, and
citations and references should be consulted to obtain an understanding of
the guidance the manual provides.  The technical procedures in this manual
are designed only for dredged material and should not be used for any other
materials unless definitive research demonstrates their applicability.
      This manual contains evaluative procedures considered to be
acceptable tools for regulation.  As warranted by experience with this
manual and the development of new procedures, sections of this manual will
be updated periodically and the availability of these updates will be
announced.  Because this manual is national in scope, it cannot address
every local concern, and cannot provide detailed guidance appropriate to
every such issue.  Therefore, development of more detailed implementation
guidance tailoring the procedures of this manual to local needs is
encouraged.  It is essential to the ecological evaluation approach in the
manual that detailed technical agreements on the approaches to be used for
all disposal applications  be developed jointly and cooperatively by the CE
District Engineer and the  EPA Regional Administrator, considering the input
of involved local parties  and the appropriate scientists in both agencies.
Local guidance has to comply with all applicable regulations, and should be
reviewed and approved by headquarters and be fully compatible with the
guidance in this manual.   If there is disagreement between a CE District
and EPA Region, disputes should be resolved jointly by CE and EPA
headquarters.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 1-4

             1.4  CHANGES AND REVISIONS FROM THE PREVIOUS MANUAL

      This manual will replace the document entitled "Ecological Evaluation
of Proposed Discharges of Dredged Material into Ocean Waters," published by
EPA and CE in 1977, with a second printing in 1978.  This draft revised
manual provides implementation guidance compatible with the 1977 Ocean
Dumping Regulations  (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 220-228).
The revised manual reflects  experience gained since 1977 with environmental
regulation of the ocean disposal of dredged material.  Although many
changes have been made in the format and content of the manual, the general
approach of providing the technical rationale of the regulations, test
procedures, and interpretive guidance is the same, and this manual is
consistent with the provisions of the existing regulations.  The test end
points and evaluative guidance have been refined,  but the basic concepts
are very similar to those of the earlier manual.
      The manual has been structured for better presentation of the
expanded information now available about environmental evaluation of
dredged material.  Part I of the manual is similar in content to Parts I
and II of the 1977 manual, with the addition of a chapter that discusses
the concepts of tiered testing and appropriate reference and control
materials.  Part II addresses how to evaluate potential environmental
impact at each tier of evaluation and provides guidance on how to use the
results at each tier to make decisions.   Part III is analogous to the
appendices of the 1977 manual.  It gives field and laboratory guidance for
gathering data and discusses quality assurance/quality control
considerations.  The regulations of 40 CFR 220-228 are reprinted in
Appendix A, and detailed technical guidance on mixing calculations is
contained in Appendix B.

                              1.5  DEFINITIONS

      The following terms are briefly defined and interpreted for purposes
of this guidance document.  See Subpart G of the regulations for complete
definitions of terms used in the regulations.

Constituents:   Chemical substances, solids, organic matter, and organisms
      associated with or contained in or on dredged material.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 1-5


Control sediment:  A natural sediment essentially free of contaminants and
      compatible with the biological needs of the test organisms such
      that it has no discernable influence on the response being
      measured in the test.  Test procedures are conducted with the
      control sediment in the same way as the reference sediment and
      dredged material.  The purpose of the control sediment is to
      confirm the biological acceptability of the test conditions and
      to help verify the health of the organisms during the test.
      Excessive mortality in the control sediment indicates a problem
      with the test conditions or organisms, and can invalidate the
      results of the corresponding dredged material test.

Disposal site:  An EPA approved precise geographical area within which
      ocean disposal of dredged material is permitted under conditions
      specified in permits issued under Section 103 of the MPRSA.  Such
      sites are identified 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.  Appropriate datum for latitude and longitude
      should be indicated.  Boundary coordinates shall be identified as
      precisely 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.

Dredged material:  Material excavated or dredged from waters of the United
      States and ocean waters.

Dumping:  The disposition  of material subject to the exclusions of
      paragraph 220.2 (e) of the regulations and 33 CFR Parts 320-330 and
      335-338.

Initial mixing:  That  dispersion or diffusion of liquid, suspended
      particulate, and solid phases of a waste which occurs within four
      hours after dumping.  The limiting 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 initial mixing.

Limiting permissible concentration  (LPC):   The concentration of dredged
      material in the water column that, after allowance for initial
      mixing, does not exceed applicable marine water-quality criteria or a
      toxicity threshold of 0.01 of the acutely toxic concentration.  The
      LPC of the suspended particulate and  solid phases will not cause
      unreasonable toxicity or bioaccumulation (see Section 227.27 of the
      regulations for the  complete definition).

Management Action:  Those  actions considered necessary to  rapidly  render
      harmless the material proposed for disposal in the marine
      environment  (e.g. non-toxic, non-bioaccumulative).

May:   May is used to mean "is allowed to"; can is used to mean "is able
      to" and might is used to mean "could  possibly."

Must:  Must in this manual refers to requirements that have to be  addressed
      in the context of compliance with the ocean dumping  regulations.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 1-6


Ocean:  Those waters of the open seas lying seaward of the baseline from
      which the territorial sea is measured (see  Section 220.2[c]  of the
      regulations).

Reference sediment:   A sediment,  substantially free of contaminants, that
      is as similar  to the grain  size of the  dredged material  and the
      sediment at the disposal  site as practical,  and reflects conditions
      that would exist in the vicinity of the disposal site  if no dredged
      material disposal had ever  occurred,  but all  other influences on
      sediment condition had taken place.   These  conditions  have  to be met
      to the maximum extent possible.   If it  is not possible to fully meet
      these conditions,  tests should use organisms  that  are  not sensitive
      to the grain size differences among the reference  sediment,  control
      sediment, and  dredged material.   The reference sediment  serves as a
      point of comparison to identify potential effects  of contaminants in
      the dredged material.

Regulations:  Procedures and concepts published in the Code  of Federal
      Regulations Title 40, Parts 220-228  for evaluating proposals for
      dumping dredged material  in the  ocean.

Should:  Should is used to state  that the specified condition  is
      recommended and ought to  be met  unless  there  are clear and  definite
      reasons not to do so.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 2-1
                      2.0  OVERVIEW OF THE REGULATIONS

      The potential effects of ocean disposal of dredged material on marine
organisms and human uses of the ocean may range from unmeasurable to
important.  These effects may differ at each disposal site and have to be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  The regulations provide the
requirements for such an evaluation, with an emphasis on the direct
assessment of biological impacts.  The permitting procedure for proposed
ocean disposal of dredged material is found in Part 225 of the regulations.
Part 227 summarizes the requirements that apply to dredged material
technical evaluation and contains procedural requirements for evaluating
all dredged materials proposed for ocean dumping.  Part 227.1 makes some,
but not all, sections of Part 227 applicable to dredged material
evaluations.  This chapter of the manual summarizes the major requirements
for dredged material evaluations.  However, it is essential that decisions
be based on a full reading and application of the regulations, and not on
this summary.

       2.1  PART 225:   CORPS  OF ENGINEERS  (CE) DREDGED MATERIAL PERMITS

      The application and authorization for ocean disposal of dredged
material is outlined in Part 225.  Section 225.2 establishes the
informational requirements for evaluating proposed dredged material actions
and Section 225.3 describes the procedure for evaluating the economic
feasibility of alternative methods or sites.  An especially important
aspect of Part 225 is that the regulations allow for a waiver of the
criteria to be sought if the proposed action is denied but dredging is
essential and no feasible alternatives are available.  EPA has to determine
that the proposed dumping will have no unacceptable adverse effect on
municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, fishery areas, wildlife areas or
recreational areas before granting the waiver.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 2-2
                     2.2  PART 227,  SUBPART A:   GENERAL

      Part 227,  Subpart A defines the purpose,  scope,  and applicability of
Part 227.  It also establishes general criteria applicable to disposal of
dredged material.

               2.3  PART 227, SUBPART B: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

      Subpart B sets general and specific criteria that has to be satisfied
for disposal of dredged material in the ocean.   Subpart B details
procedures to be used in evaluating whether dredged material proposed for
ocean dumping complies with the applicable provisions of Part 227.  Section
227.5 establishes important prohibitions applicable to dredged material.

                          2.3.1   Trace  Contaminants

      Section 227.6 prohibits dumping of certain constituents as other than
trace contaminants in an otherwise acceptable dredged material.  This is a
key section of the regulations.  TRACE CONTAMINANTS ARE NOT DEFINED IN
TERMS OF NUMERICAL CHEMICAL LIMITS,  BUT RATHER IN TERMS OF PERSISTENCE,
TOXICITY AND BIOACCUMULATION THAT WILL NOT CAUSE AN UNACCEPTABLE ADVERSE
IMPACT AFTER DUMPING.  This is expressed in regulatory language in
paragraphs 227.6(b) and  (c).
      By this definition of trace contaminants,  marine organisms are
regarded, in a sense, as analytical instruments for determining the
environmentally adverse consequences (if any) of any contaminants present.
This definition of trace contaminants requires that the lack of
unacceptable adverse effect in biological studies be taken to mean that
contaminants are absent, or present only in amounts and/or forms that are
not environmentally active, and therefore do not exceed the trace
contaminant definition.  When effects occur in dredged material tests, it
is not possible within the present state of knowledge to determine which
constituent(s)  caused the observed effects.  Therefore, it has to be
assumed that they are caused by materials described in Section 227.6,
because it cannot be established that this is not the case.  This would
mean that one or more contaminants are present in greater than trace
concentrations.   In practice, the exact identity of the contaminant(s)

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 2-3

causing the effect is of little concern under 40 CFR 227 because ocean
disposal of dredged material that causes an unacceptable effect should not
occur.  Following this reasoning, unacceptable bioaccumulation of any
potentially harmful constituent, whether listed in Section 227.6 or not,
could make the dredged material potentially undesirable.
      Because assessment of trace contaminants depends upon the
determination of the potential for effects, an assessment cannot be made
until the impact evaluation is completed and interpreted.  Only then can
effects, and thus the presence of materials as other than trace
contaminants, be determined.  Paragraphs 227.6(f) and (g) are important  in
relation to trace contaminants because they provide the possibility of
management techniques to deal with dredged materials that may contain some
constituents as other than trace contaminants.

                        2.3.2   Biological Evaluations

      As specified in paragraph 227.13(c)  the evaluation process emphasizes
potential biological effects, rather than chemical presence, of the
possible contaminants.  It is important to recognize that dredged material
bioassays are not precise predictors of environmental effects.  They are
best  regarded as quantitative estimators of these effects.  In order to
avoid adding more uncertainty to their interpretation, the bioassays given
in this manual use mortality as the primary endpoint.  The importance of
this  response to individual organisms involved is clear, but the state of
ecological understanding is such that it is difficult to predict the
ecological consequences of the death of a given percent of the test
population of a particular species.  That is, mortality of a certain
percent of the organisms of a particular species in a laboratory test does
not imply that the population of that species around the disposal site
would decline by the same percent if the proposed disposal took place.
Even  if such a decline were to occur, there is presently no good basis for
estimating whether the ecological effects of loss at the disposal site of
10 percent of a particular species would be inconsequential or major.  The
manual provides guidance under the regulations on determining the magnitude
of mortality that may be considered a real increase.  However, the manual
does not provide quantitative guidance on interpreting the ecological
meaning of the mortality observed.  The regulations consider statistically

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 2-4
significant increases above certain levels in mortality compared to the
reference sediment as potentially undesirable.
      Bioaccumulation is included in the  required evaluations by paragraphs
227.6(b)  and (c).   Bioaccumulation indicates biological availability of
contaminants in the dredged material.  It also assesses the potential for
long-term accumulation of contaminants in aquatic food webs to levels that
might be harmful to consumers,  which could include man,  without killing the
intermediate organisms.  To use bioaccumulation in a decision, it is
necessary to predict whether there will be a cause-and-effect relationship
between the animal's presence in dredged  material and a meaningful adverse
elevation of body burden of contaminants  above that of similar animals not
exposed to the dredged material.
      It is difficult to quantify either  the ecological  consequences of a
given tissue concentration of a bioaccumulated contaminant or the
consequences of that body burden to the animal.  This manual does not
provide quantitative guidance on interpreting the ecological meaning of the
bioaccumulation observed.  The regulations consider statistically
significant increases in bioaccumulation  in animals exposed to the dredged
material compared with animals exposed to the reference sediment as
potentially undesirable.  Because a statistically significant difference is
not a quantitative prediction that an ecologically important impact would
occur in the field, this manual discusses additional factors to be weighed
in evaluating potential ecological impact of bioaccumulation in Sections
6.2 and 7.2.  This is more likely to result in environmentally sound
evaluations than is reliance on statistical significance alone.  However,
the tests described in this manual can indicate the potential for such an
ecological impact on a case-specific basis.  As pointed out in the
preceding discussion of Part 227, Subpart B, the trace contaminants
determination cannot be made until bioaccumulation potential is evaluated.
      Biological evaluations serve to integrate the chemical and biological
interactions of the suite of contaminants present in a dredged material
sample by measuring their effects on test organisms.  In this way,
biological methods are more direct and specific than chemical evaluations,
which have to infer interactions and effects based on sediment contaminant
data alone.  Within the constraints of experimental conditions and the
endpoint of effect measured, biological evaluations provide for a

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 2-5

quantitative comparison of the effect of a dredged material and acceptable
conditions as represented by reference sediments.  Thus, a statistically
significant result in this comparison indicates that the dredged material
in question causes a direct and specific biological effect under test
conditions, and therefore, has the potential to cause an ecologically
unacceptable impact.  These results will be used to determine the
acceptability of the material for ocean disposal.

              2.4  PART 227, SUBPART C: NEED FOR OCEAN DUMPING

       Subpart C is primarily an evaluation of the need for ocean dumping.
Initially, no disposal alternative is considered more desirable than any
other, and the evaluation is made on a case-by-case basis.  That is,
confined or upland disposal cannot be considered environmentally preferable
to ocean disposal unless consideration of potential environmental impacts
 (e.g., groundwater contamination, leachate and runoff impacts, permanent
alteration of the site) shows it to be so.  Similarly, ocean disposal
cannot automatically be considered the most desirable alternative.

          2.5  PART 227, SUBPART D: IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DUMPING
               ON AESTHETIC, RECREATIONAL, AND ECONOMIC VALUES

       Before a proposed disposal action may be approved, the probable
impacts on aesthetics, recreation, and economic values have to be
evaluated, as described in Subpart D.  Although this is a nontechnical
evaluation, information from the technical assessment described in Subpart
B may be useful.  Section 227.19 requires that the results of the Subpart D
assessment be expressed, insofar as possible, in quantitative terms.

          2.6  PART 227, SUBPART E: IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DUMPING
                          ON OTHER USES  OF THE  OCEAN

       Subpart E is related to Subpart D, but it requires evaluation of
specific actual or potential uses of the disposal site environs, including
but not limited to those listed in Section 227.21.  These are evaluations
for which specific quantitative tests cannot be given.  However, much
information developed in the Subpart B technical evaluations will be

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 2-6
relevant to the assessment of potential impacts on living resources and
their utilization.
                   2.7  PART 227,  SUBPART G:   DEFINITIONS

      Subpart G provides definitions  for the  concepts  used in test
protocols for performing the evaluations required by Section 227.6 and
227.13 of the regulations.  These evaluations are required to determine
compliance with the limiting permissible concentration as defined in Part
227.27.

                 2.7.1  Limiting Permissible Concentration

                           2.7.1.1  Water Column

      The limiting permissible concentration  (LPC)  applicable to potential
water column impacts is defined in Part 227.27(a).   The LPC for the portion
of dredged material that will remain in the water column is the
concentration of any dissolved dredged material  constituent which, after
allowance for initial mixing, will not exceed applicable marine water
quality criteria, and when there are contaminants of concern for which
there are no marine water quality criteria,  will not be acutely toxic.
Chemical analyses are performed for contaminants that may be released from
dredged material in dissolved form and the results are compared to water
quality criteria for these contaminants after allowance for initial mixing.
This provides an indirect evaluation of potential biological impacts,
because water quality criteria were derived from toxicity tests of
solutions of the various contaminants.  Section  4.2 discusses selection of
contaminants of concern in the water column,  Chapter 8 discusses sample
collection and preservation methods,  and Chapter 9 discusses analytical
procedures.
      When dredged material contains  contaminants of concern for which
there are no applicable marine water quality criteria or when synergistic
effects are suspected, the material remaining in the water column has to be
shown to be nontoxic and nonbioaccumulative after initial mixing.
Bioassays provide information on the toxicity of contaminants not included
in the water quality criteria, and also indicate possible interactive

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 2-7

effects of multiple contaminants.  Guidance on conducting water column
bioassays is contained in Chapter 10 of the manual.  Because concern about
bioaccumulation is focused on the possibility of impacts associated with
gradual uptake over long exposure times, primary attention is given to
dredged material deposited on the bottom.  Bioaccumulation from the
material remaining in the water column is considered to be of minor concern
due to the short exposure time and low exposure concentrations resulting
from rapid dispersion and dilution.  The discussion of biological
evaluations in Section 2.3.2 of this manual is critical to realistic
assessment of the potential for impacts in the water column.

                        2.7.1.2  Benthic Environment

      Research conducted by CE and EPA since the inception of MPRSA has
shown that the greatest potential for environmental impact from dredged
material lies in the benthic environment.  This is because deposited
dredged material is not mixed and dispersed as rapidly or as greatly as the
portion of the material that may remain in the water column, and bottom-
dwelling animals live and feed in and on deposited material for extended
periods.  Therefore, the major evaluative efforts should be placed on
deposited material and the benthic environment, unless there is reason to
do otherwise.  The regulations require that bioassays be used after initial
mixing to evaluate the potential impact of deposited dredged material,
except material excluded from testing.  Chemical analyses of dredged
material are needed to determine the presence and concentration of
contaminants that might be of environmental concern, including concerns
about bioaccumulation.  However, at present, chemical analyses cannot be
used to directly evaluate the biological effects of any contaminants or
combination of contaminants present in dredged material.  Therefore,
animals are used in bioassays to directly determine the biological
availability and potential for impacts of contaminants associated with
dredged material.  Guidance on conducting bioassays with deposited dredged
material is found in Chapter 10, and bioaccumulation guidance is contained
in Chapter 11.  Understanding the discussion of biological evaluations in
Section 2.3.2 is critical to realistic assessment of the potential for
impacts on the benthic environment.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 2-8

      While sediment chemistry cannot be used to predict biological
effects, it can be used to identify contaminants of concern.  Chemistry can
be used to demonstrate that there is "reasonable assurance that such
material has not been contaminated by such pollution" (227.13(b) (3) (ii) .

                     2.7.2  Estimation of Initial Mixing

      Part 227.29 describes methods for estimation of initial mixing.
These methods are applied in evaluating the potential for impacts of the
portion of dredged material that remains in the water column; all water
quality, bioassay, and bioaccumulation data have to be interpreted in light
of initial mixing according to Part 227.29.  This is necessary since
biological effects  (which are the basis for water quality criteria) are a
function of biologically available contaminant concentration and exposure
time of the organisms.  Laboratory bioassays expose organisms to constant
concentrations for fixed periods of time,  whereas in the field both
concentration and exposure time to a particular concentration change
continuously due to mixing and dilution.  Both factors interact to control
the degree of biological impact; thus it is necessary to incorporate the
mixing expected at the disposal site into the interpretation of data.

                          2.7.3  Species Selection

      Parts 227.27(c) and (d)  specify that  water column bioassays will use
appropriate sensitive water column marine organisms, and benthic bioassays
will use appropriate sensitive benthic marine organisms.
      Part 227.27 (c) defines appropriate sensitive water column marine
organisms as at least one species each representative of phytoplankton or
zooplankton, crustacean or mollusc, and fish species chosen from among the
most sensitive species accepted by EPA and CE as being reliable test
organisms to determine potential water column impacts.  Phytoplankton tests
can theoretically indicate the potential for stimulation or inhibition by
the dredged material in question.  However, phytoplankton tests with the
portion of dredged material remaining in the water column are extremely
difficult to conduct and interpret.  This is caused by interferences and
predation on the test species by protozoa in the dredged material being
tested.  It is widely believed that potential effects on phytoplankton are

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 2-9

generally of little environmental concern at ocean dredged material
disposal sites, due to the extremely variable characteristics of natural
phytoplankton assemblages and to the rapid mixing and dilution that occurs
in the water column.  Therefore, unless there is a specific reason to be
concerned about potential effects of the proposed operation on
phytoplankton, this manual recommends that a zooplankton species be
selected to fulfill that portion of the species requirement.  Laboratory
procedures for conducting water column bioassays are found in Chapter 10.
      Part 227.27(d) defines appropriate sensitive benthic marine organisms
as 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 organisms to determine potential benthic
impacts.  These are broad, overlapping categories, and the manual
recommends different species for bioassays and bioaccumulation testing.
Species for bioassays with deposited sediment generally should include a
deposit-feeding amphipod.  Bioaccumulation tests generally should include a
deposit- feeding  bivalve mollusc and a burrowing polychaete.  Procedures
for conducting bioassays are found in Chapter 10, and bioaccumulation
procedures are found in Chapter 11.

-------
                                    Draft Revised
                  Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                    January, 1990
                                         Page 3-0
        PART II

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 3-1

                  3.0  OVERVIEW OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

                    3.1  REFERENCE AND CONTROL SEDIMENTS

      It is important to distinguish clearly between reference and control
sediments in the context of testing for benthic impacts.  Test procedures
are conducted on the control and reference sediments in the same way as oh
the dredged material proposed for ocean disposal.

                          3.1.1  Control Sediments

      Control sediment is a natural sediment essentially free of
contaminants.  The essential characteristic of control sediment is that it
be fully compatible with the needs of the test organisms such that it have
no discernible influence on the response being measured in the test.  The
results of the control sediment tests are used to verify the health of
organisms used in testing and the acceptability of test conditions.
Excessive mortality in the control sediment indicates a problem with
testing conditions or organisms and can invalidate the corresponding test
results.

                          3.1.2  Reference Sediment

      Reference sediment is the key to the evaluation of dredged material.
Results of tests using reference sediment provide the point of comparison
(reference point) to which effects of dredged material are compared.  A
determination of the potential for dredged material proposed for disposal
to cause unacceptable adverse impact can be made by comparing results of
tests using reference material to the results of tests using dredged
material.
      A reference sediment is a sediment,  substantially free of
contaminants, that is as similar to the grain size of the dredged material
and the sediment at the' disposal site as practical, and reflects conditions
that would exist in the vicinity of the disposal site if no dredged
material disposal had ever occurred, but all other influences on sediment
condition had taken place.  These conditions have to be met to the maximum
extent possible.  If it is not possible to fully meet these conditions,

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 3-2

tests should use organisms that are not sensitive to grain size differences
among the reference sediment,  control sediment,  and dredged material.
Alternatively, grain size effects may be accounted for by an approach
similar to that taken by DeWitt, et al. (1988).   The reference sediment
serves as a point of comparison to identify potential effects of
contaminants in the dredged material.

               3.1.2.1  Reference Sediment Sampling Location

      According to the definition in Section 1.5,  reference sediment is
substantially free of contaminants, as similar to the grain size of the
dredged material and the sediment at the disposal site as practical, and
reflects conditions that would exist in the vicinity of the disposal site
if no dredged material disposal had ever, taken place, but all other
influences on sediment condition had occurred.  With this is mind,
reference sediment is collected outside the boundaries of the dredged
material disposal site, but near enough to the disposal site that the
reference sediment is in the same water mass and subject to all the same
influences  (except previously disposed dredged material) as the disposal
site.  If there is a potential for sediment migration, reference sediment
should not be collected from the area outside the disposal site in the
direction of net sediment transport.
      Reference sediment may be collected from a single reference sediment
sampling point that satisfies the conditions in this section and meets the
requirements of the reference sediment definition in Section 1.5.  This is
known as the reference point approach.
      Alternatively,  reference sediment may be collected from a number of
locations within a reference area that satisfies the conditions in this
section and meets the requirements of the reference sediment definition in
Section 1.5.  This is known as the reference area approach.
      In the reference area approach, the reference location is not viewed
as a single station or point,  but as the entire area in the environs of the
disposal site, excluding the disposal site itself.  Rather than
characterize the reference area by sampling at a single point, it is
characterized by a number of samples taken throughout the reference area.
The intensity of the reference sediment sample gathering should be tailored
to the physical,  chemical, and biological characteristics of the disposal

-------
                                                               Draft  Revised
                                             Dredged Material  Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                   Page 3-3

site,  particularly the dispersal characteristics of the site.   Reference
area samples may be composited according to the compositing guidance  in
Section 8.2.4.  The composited or individual samples are then tested for
chemistry, toxicity and bioaccumulation by the same methods used for
dredged material testing.  The reference data thus generated are compared
to the corresponding dredged material data in the same way reference  data
have traditionally been used.

                3.1.2.2   Reference Sediment Sampling Interval

      Reference sediment has to be collected and tested at the time of each
dredged material test if the reference point approach is used.  In this
approach, a new sample of reference sediment is collected from the
specified reference sediment sampling point for each test or test series
and is tested simultaneously with the dredged material being evaluated.
Logistical considerations might make it impractical to use the reference
area approach at the time of each test.
      The reference area approach may be implemented on a periodic basis.
Reference sediment is collected from the reference area and all appropriate
chemistry, bioassay, and bioaccumulation tests are performed on it.  The
reference data thus generated are used as the basis for evaluating all
dredged material tested during some specified time period.  The reference
area is resampled and retested to update the reference data periodically as
appropriate.
      Using the periodic reference area approach,  reference data are
established for each disposal site and for each type of test.   Reference
toxicity data have to be established for each benthic species that will be
required for testing of dredged material proposed for disposal at that site
during the specified time period.  Reference bioaccumulation data have to
be established for each species that will be required for bioaccumulation
testing of dredged material proposed for disposal at that site during the
specified time period.  Reference bioaccumulation data have to be
established for each contaminant likely to be of concern in dredged
material proposed for disposal at that site during the specified time
period.  Development of reference data using all appropriate species and
contaminants for all dredged material that may be proposed for a disposal
site during the specified time period will require planning and

-------
                                                               Draft  Revised
                                            Dredged Material  Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                   page 3-4

coordination.  However,  most ocean disposal sites receive dredged material
from relatively few locations so that standardization of species for
testing and advance identification of potential contaminants of concern for
bioaccumulation should be possible.

                    3.1.2.3  Reference Sediment Sampling

      The importance of thoughtful selection of the  approach to reference
sediment sampling cannot be overemphasized. To ensure that the reference
sediment is properly located, information gathered during the site
designation process or other similar studies should be completed for both
the disposal site and the reference area.  Information on the potential for
migration of dredged material from the disposal site is particularly
important in this regard.
      As discussed in Chapter 8,  a well-designed sampling plan is essential
to the collection, preservation,  and storage of samples so that potential
toxicity and bioaccumulation can be accurately assessed.  The
implementation of such a plan is equally essential for dredged material,
control sediment, and reference sediment sampling.  The sample collection,
preservation, and storage guidance of Chapter  8 is applicable to dredged
material, control sediment and reference sediment.
                     3.2  TIERED TESTING AND EVALUATION

      The tiered approach1to testing used in this  manual  is  designed to aid
in generating necessary toxicity and bioaccumulation information,  but not
more information than necessary.  This allows optimal use of resources by
focusing the least effort on dredging operations where potential (or lack
thereof) for unacceptable adverse impacts is clear,  and expending the most
effort on operations requiring more extensive investigation to determine
the potential (or lack thereof)  for impacts.  To achieve this objective,
the procedures in this manual are arranged in a series of tiers, or levels
of intensity of investigation.  The initial tier uses readily available
information that can be sufficient for evaluation in some cases.  Dredging
operations that obviously have very low potential for unacceptable adverse
environmental impact generally should not require intensive investigation

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 3-5

to reach a decision.  Evaluation at successive tiers is based on more
extensive and specific information that may be more time consuming and
expensive to generate, but that allows more and more comprehensive
evaluations of the potential for environmental effects.
      A tiered,  or hierarchical, approach to testing and evaluation allows
the use of a necessary and sufficient level of testing for each specific
dredging operation.  The initial tiers  (Tiers I and II) use existing
information and relatively simple, rapid procedures for determining
potential environmental impact of the dredged material in question.  For
certain dredged materials with readily apparent potential for environmental
impact  (or lack thereof), information collected in the initial tiers may be
sufficient for making decisions.  However, more extensive evaluation  (Tiers
III and IV) may be needed for other materials with less clear potential for
impact or for which inadequate information exists.  Successive tiers use
more intensive evaluation procedures that provide more detailed information
about potential impacts of the dredged material.  The intent of the tiered
approach is to use resources efficiently by testing only as intensely as
necessary to provide sufficient information for making decisions.  The
tiered approach minimizes excessive testing of dredging operations for
which this is unnecessary and appropriately directs more intense testing to
operations that require more technical information for evaluation.  Tiered
testing results in more efficient completion of required evaluations and
reduced costs, especially to low risk operations.
      It is neither necessary nor desirable that evaluation of every
dredged material proceed through all tiers in sequence.  If information
warrants, it is acceptable to proceed directly to Tiers II, III, or IV.  It
is also fully acceptable to carry water column and benthic evaluations, or
toxicity and bioaccumulation evaluations, to different tiers to generate
the information necessary and sufficient to determine compliance with the
regulations.  Prior to initiating testing, it is essential that the
informational requirements of preceding tiers be thoroughly understood and
that the information necessary for decision-making at the advanced tier be
assembled.  For example, it is always appropriate to gather all relevant
existing information and identify the chemicals of concern for the dredged
material in question.  Although these activities are components of Tier I,
they have to be conducted even if a complete evaluation at the initial
tiers is not considered appropriate.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material  Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 3-6

      It is only necessary to proceed through the tiers until  information
sufficient to determine compliance or noncompliance with the regulations
has been obtained.  For example, if existing information is sufficient to
demonstrate there is no potential for unacceptable adverse impact,
compliance with the regulations can be determined without additional
testing.  Similarly, if historical data have consistently shown a
particular dredged material to be obviously unacceptable, an exhaustive
evaluation may not be necessary to determine that the material is not in
compliance with the regulations.
      After any of the first three tiers is completed,  one of  three
decisions can be made according to the evaluative guidance in  Chapters 4-7
of this manual:   (1) information is sufficient to determine compliance with
the regulations,  (2) information is sufficient to determine noncompliance
with the regulations, or  (3) information is insufficient to make a
determination.  In the last case, the evaluation may proceed to the next or
higher tier for further testing.  Upon completion of testing at Tier IV,
two decisions are possible:   (1) the information is sufficient to determine
compliance with the regulations, or (2) the information is sufficient to
determine noncompliance with the regulations.  The decision to terminate
the process may be made at any point.
      Tiered testing will be most useful in situations where increased
technical information will provide for better decision-making.  This does
not mean that the most controversial dredging operations will  always
benefit from testing in the later or higher-numbered tiers because a large
part of the controversy surrounding an operation may not be due to a lack
of test information, but to the influence of nontesting issues on the
decision-making process.
      The Tier I evaluation helps to identify the needed information, and
to determine appropriate tiers and tests necessary to collect  this
information.  In all cases it is appropriate to gather the existing
information used in Tier I, although it may be clear without formal Tier I
evaluation that further assessment will be necessary.  It is,  however,
always necessary to identify the contaminants of concern, if any, at the
Tier I level.  Tiers I-III are intended to suffice for almost  all
evaluations.  Tier IV is not intended for routine use.  Use of Tier IV on
more than rare occasions could indicate a reluctance to use adequate
information to make appropriate decisions at earlier tiers.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 3-7

      With some dredged materials, biological effects will be easily
determined, but bioaccumulation potential will require more investigation,
or vice versa.  In other cases, determinating potential benthic effects may
require more investigation than evaluating water column effects.  The
tiered testing approach used in the manual accommodates such situations by
providing for independent evaluation of biological effects and
bioaccumulation, and water column and benthic effects, only to the extent
needed to make a decision about each.
      The tests in the tiers presented in the manual reflect appropriate
practice for regulation at this time and will be refined in the future as
knowledge increases.  The testing guidance for each tier in Part III of the
manual includes specific guidance on topics such as appropriate types of
tests, test design and conditions, determining acceptability of tests, and
statistical frameworks for interpretation of results.  Part II of the
manual provides evaluative guidance for using bioassay and bioaccumulation
data from each tier of testing to determine compliance with the
regulations.
      It is important to emphasize that testing at every tier is not
required for every situation.  A dredged material may enter the tiered
testing hierarchy at any point.  At any tier, failure to satisfactorily
determine the potential for unacceptable environmental impacts results in
additional testing at a subsequent, more complex tier unless a decision is
made to seek other disposal alternatives.  If there is reason to believe
that contamination exists and existing information is not adequate to
support a decision, testing can begin at Tier II, III, or IV without
conducting the evaluation at each preceding tier.  It would be rare to
immediately go to Tier IV.  The tiered testing approach permits the
flexibility to most efficiently evaluate dredged materials in a time-
effective way.  More complex evaluation techniques are necessary only in
those situations where the potential effects of contaminants in the dredged
materials can only be evaluated with additional technical information.
      Although the tiered testing approach outlined in this manual provides
an effective means of implementing the regulations, it is recognized that
the evaluation of dredged material is an evolving field.  It is anticipated
that as new methods of evaluation are developed and accepted, they can be
integrated into the tiered framework.  With the advent of acceptable new

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material  Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                         «* A
                                                                    Page 3-8

evaluation procedures,  the tiered approach will be maintained due to the
efficiency afforded by its hierarchical design.
      The specific tiered approach used in the manual is summarized in
Figure 3.1, and presented in more detail in Figures 3.2 and 3.3.  These
figures are intended only as generalized summaries and do not contain all
the details provided in the text.  The figures have to be used in close
conjunction with a careful reading of the complete discussions in text.
The figures refer to sections of the text with key discussions of major
points.
      The following discussion briefly overviews the testing and evaluation
guidance in the manual, and integrates the figures with the text.  By
necessity this overview is not detailed, and cannot be used as a stand-
alone basis for regulation.  The only acceptable basis for regulation is
the full text of the regulations and the manual.
      As illustrated in Figure 3.1,  the evaluation begins in Tier I with
the compilation of all existing information relevant to the operation in
question  (Section 4.1).  If existing chemical information is not adequate,
a chemical analysis of the dredged material should be performed on
contaminants of concern.  Information collected in Tier I is evaluated to
determine whether it is sufficient for decision-making, as described in
Section 4.3.  If the information is sufficient, a determination is made
(Figure 3.1) as to whether the material is (1) sand, (2) suitable for beach
nourishment, or (3) similar to the disposal site and from an area far
removed from pollution sources  (Section 4.3).  If so, the material meets
the Section 227.13 (b) criteria and is acceptable for ocean disposal at a
designated site if all other requirements of the regulations are satisfied.
If not, the existing information  (which has already been judged sufficient
for decision-making) is used to determine whether the dredged material can
be disposed without exceeding the LPC in compliance with Section 227.13(c)
of the regulations  (Figure 3.1 and Section 4.3).  This is the same standard
used to judge acceptability in Tiers II-IV when new data are necessary.
The dredged material is acceptable for ocean disposal if it can meet the
LPC and Section 227.13(c), and if it cannot meet the LPC and Section
227.13(c) ocean disposal without management action is not acceptable
(Section 4.3).  If the initial decision is that the information is not
sufficient for decision-making, further evaluation in Tiers II, III, and/or
IV,  as appropriate, is required (Figure 3.1).

-------
                                                                                                 Draft  Revised
                                                                   Dredged Material  Testing Manual
                                                                                                 January,   1990
                                                                                                         Page  3-9
Evaluate Existing Information
             (4.1?
     Sand from
Area, or (2) for Beach
 or (3) Similar to Disposal Site and
  from Area Far Removed from
       Pollution Sources
            (4.3)
       Information Sufficient
       to Make a Decision?
             (4.3)
                                                  Does DM* Meet
                                                    theLPC"?
                                                      (4.3)
                         Water Column
                              yes  s' Synergistic \   no
                                   Effects Suspected?
                                         (5.1.2)
   Use Chemical Characteristics
     to Evaluate Potential for
   Water Column and Deposited
       Sediment Impacts
        (5.1.1 & 10.1.1)
                                                                             Deposited Sediment
                                Model the Dissolved
                                 Concentrations of
                            Contaminants of Concern in
                           Water Column after Initial Mixing
                                    (10.1.2)
                             Calculate Theoretical
                           Bioaccumulalion Potential
                                  (11.1)
                                                        N on polar
Organics
                                                                                                                Tier
                                                                                                                  II
                                Estimate Toxicity in
                                Water Column After
                                   Initial Mixing
                                    (10.2.1)
                            Determine Potential for
                             Deposited Sediment
                          Toxicity and Bioaccumulation
                                (10.2.2 &11.2)
                                                                                                                Tier
                                                                                                                 III
                     Conduct Case-Specific
                         Bioassays
                           (10.3)
                                 Enter Findings Into Evaluation of Acceptability for Ocean Disposal
Figure 3-1.    Overview of tiered approach to evaluating potential impacts of ocean disposal of dredged material.
              Sections in which applicable discussions begin in the manual are indicated.

-------
                                                                                              Draft  Revised
                                                                Dredged Material  Testing Manual
                                                                                              January,  1990
                                                                                                     Page  3-10
 Evaluate Existing Information
             (4.1)
                                                                       yes
                                                                                                              Tier
                                                                                                                I
         DM* b
-------
                                                                                               Draft  Revised
                                                                    Dredged  Material  Testing Manual
                                                                                               January,   1990
                                                                                                      Page  3-11
     Evaluate Existing Information
                 (4.1)
                                                                        yes
                                                                                                              Tier
                                                                                                                I
Information Sufficient
to Make a Decision?
      (4.3)
                                                                Evaluate Potential Water Column and
                                                                   Deposited Sediment Impacts
                                                                        (5.1.1410.1.1)
                          Bioaccumulation
                                                                          ^.Deposited
                                                                          Sediment
Toxicity
                                                                            DM*
                                                                            Ref* by More
                                                                   Than 10 Percentage Points?
                                                                            (6.2)
                      Determine Empirical Steady
                        State Bioaccum illation
                              (11.3)
                              Are
                           Case-Specific
                           Criteria Met?
                              (7.2)
                                                           Conduct Case-Specific
                                                                Bioassays
                                                                 (10.3)
                                                                                                              Tier
                                                                                                               IV
                              Enter Findings into Evaluation of Acceptability for Ocean Disposal
Figure 3.3.  Illustration of tiered approach to evaluating potential benthlc impacts of deposited dredged material.
            Sections in which applicable discussions begin in the manual are Indicated.

-------
                                                           Draft  Revised
                                   Dredged Material Testing Man^
                                                           January,  ly^u
                                                                Page  3-12
          *KEY TO NOMENCLATURE
 DM  — Dredged material
 LPC — It is necessary to demonstrate, using
         existing data comparable to the data
         that would be generated if testing were
         conducted, that the limiting permissible
         concentration (LPC) would not be
         exceeded.
 >    — Is statistically greater than
 ^    — Is not statistically greater than
 WQC — Applicable Marine Water Quality Criteria
 LC50 — Acutely toxic concentration,
         i.e., lethal concentration to
         50% of test organisms
 Ref  — Reference material
 FDA — Food and Drug Administration
         Action Levels for Poisonous
         or Deleterious Substances in
         Fish and Shellfish for Human
         Consumption

 NOTES:

 A.  Ocean disposal at a designated site is
    acceptable if all other requirements of
    the regulations are satisfied.

 B.  Ocean disposal without management action
    is not acceptable.

 C.  Ocean disposal is not acceptable.
Figure 3.4. Key to Figures 3.1,3.2, and 3.3.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                   Page  3-13

      Tier II begins with a determination of the need for additional water
column testing.  The need for additional testing is determined, as
described in Section 10.1.1, using a dispersion model of the disposal site
and the physical and chemical characteristics of the dredged material, and
considering initial mixing.  If the contamination is sufficiently low and
initial mixing is sufficiently great according to the evaluative guidance
in Section 10.1.1, additional water column testing is not required.  If
additional water column testing is required, the potential for impacts is
determined in Tier II  (Figure 3.2) if there are water quality criteria for
all contaminants of concern and synergistic effects are not suspected (see
paragraph 227.13(c) of the regulations).  The potential for water column
impacts is determined in Tier II by comparison to applicable marine water
quality criteria after consideration of initial mixing, as described in
Section 10.1.2  (Figure 3.2).  If the concentrations predicted by modeling
of all contaminants of concern for which applicable marine water quality
criteria exist are below the appropriate criteria, the findings are entered
into the evaluation of acceptability for ocean disposal (Section 5.1.2 and
Figure 3.2).  If the modeled concentration of any contaminant exceeds its
criterion after consideration of initial mixing, ocean disposal without
management action is unacceptable  (Section 5.1.2 and Figure 3.2).
      In Tier II, the potential for benthic impacts related to
bioaccumulation of nonpolar organic, compounds is evaluated according to the
guidance in Section 11.1  (Figure 3.3).  This involves calculation of
theoretical bioaccumulation potential of nonpolar organics based on
partitioning between the organic carbon in sediments and the lipids in
organisms, as discussed in Section 11.1.  If theoretical bioaccumulation
potential from the dredged material is lower than from the reference
sediment, further testing for bioaccumulation of these nonpolar organic
contaminants is not required.  If theoretical bioaccumulation potential of
the dredged material exceeds that of the reference sediment, or if there
are contaminants of concern that are not non-polar organics,
bioaccumulation testing in Tier III and/or IV is required  (Section 5.2 and
Figure 3.3).
      Testing continues in Tier III if the information generated in Tier II
is not adequate for decision-making  (Figure 3.1).  Tier III water column
testing consists of evaluation of the toxicity of the suspended and
dissolved portions of the dredged material that remain in the water column,

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material  Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                   Page 3-14

after consideration of initial mixing,  as described in Section 10.2.1
(Figure 3.2).   If the concentration of dredged material predicted by
modeling to remain in the water column after initial mixing is greater than
0.01 of the corresponding LC50, ocean disposal without management action is
not acceptable (Section 6.1 and Figure 3.2).   If the predicted
concentration is less than 0.01 of the LC50,  the findings are entered into
the evaluation of acceptability for ocean dumping (Section 6-1 and Figure
3.2) .
      Tier III benthic tests consist of bioassays (Section 10.2.2)  and
bioaccumulation tests (Section 11.2), as illustrated in Figure 3.3.
Benthic bioassays are evaluated by comparison to the toxicity of the
reference sediment  (Figure 3.3).  Ocean disposal without management action
is not acceptable (Section 6.2, and Figure 3.3)  if the dredged material
toxicity:  (1) is statistically greater than the reference sediment, and
(2) exceeds reference toxicity by at least 10 percentage points (or another
specified value - see Section 6.2).   This approach is discussed in more
detail in Section 6.2.  If both conditions (I) and (2) are not met, the
findings are entered into the evaluation of acceptability for ocean
disposal  (Section 6.2 and Figure 3.3).   Tier III bioaccumulation results
render ocean disposal without management action not acceptable if FDA
limits are statistically exceeded (Section 6.3 and Figure 3.3).  If body
burdens in animals exposed to the dredged material do not statistically
exceed FDA limits or body burdens in animals exposed to the reference
sediment, the findings are entered into the evaluation of acceptability for
ocean disposal (Section 6.3 and Figure 3.3).   If results do not
statistically exceed FDA limits but statistically exceed reference values,
further evaluation using specific criteria is required (Section 6.3 and
Figure 3.3).
      Tier IV bioassay testing is intended for only occasional use in
unusual circumstances warranting specifically designed special case studies
(Figure 3.1).  Tier IV water column and benthic bioassays are discussed in
Chapter 10, and interpretive guidance is discussed in Sections 7.1 and 7.2.
Tier IV benthic and water column bioassays have to be interpreted in
relation to case-specific criteria  (Figures 3.2 and 3.3)  developed as
discussed in Section 7.1.  Tier IV bioaccumulation evaluation consists of
determination of steady state bioaccumulation (Figure 3.3) as described in
Section 11.3.   If steady state body burdens statistically exceed an FDA

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                   Page 3-15

limit,  ocean disposal without management action is not acceptable  (Section
7.2 and Figure 3.3) .  If body burdens in animals exposed to dredged
material do not exceed FDA limits or body burdens of reference animals, the
findings are entered into the evaluation of acceptability for ocean
disposal (Section 7.2 and Figure 3-3).  Body burdens not statiscally
exceeding FDA limits but statistically higher than reference are compared
to body burdens in similar organisms living around, but not in, the
proposed disposal site.  If body burdens from the dredged material do not
statistically exceed the body burden of these field organisms, the findings
are entered into the evaluation of acceptability for ocean disposal
 (Section 7.2 and Figure 3.3).  If body burdens from the dredged material
exceed those of field organisms, it is determined whether the dredged
material meets the case-specific criteria that have been developed for this
particular dredging operation  (Section 7.2 Figure 3.3).  If so, the
 findings are entered into the evaluation of acceptability for ocean
disposal.  If not, ocean disposal without management action is not
acceptable  (Section 7.2 and Figure 3.3).
      This tiered, or hierarchical, testing approach allows the appropriate
 level of testing to be used  for each  specific dredging operation.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 4-1
                                 4.0   TIER I

     The purpose of Tier I is to determine whether a decision on compliance
with the LPC can be made on the basis of existing information.  Another
purpose of Tier I is to identify the contaminants of concern  (if any) in
that particular dredged material.  Tier I is based on existing information
but includes a physical and chemical inventory of the dredged material if
such information is not already assembled.  Existing data and information,
such as historical records of activities that reasonably could have
introduced contaminants into the dredged material, may provide sufficient
evidence to make a decision on compliance with the regulations about
certain dredged materials with readily apparent potential for impacts.
Conversely, material with no history of contamination can be excluded from
testing and found to be in compliance with the regulations.  Tier I
evaluation may show that further evaluation at subsequent tiers is
appropriate, or the Tier I evaluation may lead to the conclusion under
Section 227.13(b) of the regulations  (see Appendix A) that no further
testing for contaminant-related impacts is required.  Alternatively, Tier I
can show that existing information is sufficient to determine compliance or
lack of compliance with Section 227.13(c) of the regulations.
     As illustrated in Figure 3.1, Tier I is based on a compilation of all
relevant existing information.  This information gathering includes
chemical and physical analysis of the dredged material if adequate data do
not already exist, and identification of the contaminants of concern in
that particular dredged material.  All of the information is evaluated to
determine whether it provides adequate basis for decision making.  If not,
testing in Tiers II-IV, as appropriate, is necessary (Figure 3.1).  If the
information is adequate for decision making, the acceptability of the
dredged material according to the criteria set forth in Section 227.13 of
the regulations can be determined (Figure 3.1).  On the other hand, the
dredged material can be shown by existing information to pose high
potential impact on the marine environment in which case ocean disposal
without management action is not acceptable. (Figure 3.1).

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 4-2
                  4.1  COMPILATION OF EXISTING INFORMATION


     The focus of the Tier I evaluation is on 227.13(b)  and the potential
for contaminant-associated impacts upon ocean dumping.   The information-
gathering phase of Tier I evaluations has to be as complete as is
reasonably possible and existing information from all reasonably available
sources has to be included.  Although no minimum requirements exist,  a more
complete inventory of available information will increase the likelihood
that decisions concerning the impacts of dredged material may be made at
initial tiers.  Sources of available information include the following,
without limitation:


        Available results of prior physical,  chemical,  and biological tests
        of the material proposed to be dumped or of materials shown to be
        similar to the material proposed to be dumped.

        Available results of prior field monitoring studies of the material
        proposed to be dumped or of materials shown to  be similar to  the
        materials proposed to be dumped.

        Available information describing the source of  the material to be
        dumped which would be relevant to identification of potential
        contaminants of concern.

        Existing data contained in files with EPA or CE or otherwise
        available from public or private sources.   Examples of sources from
        which relevant information might be obtained include:

                  Selected Chemical Spill Listing  (EPA)
                  Pesticide Spill Reporting System (EPA)
                  Pollution Incident Reporting System (U.S. Coast Guard)
                  Identification of In-place Pollutants and
                  Priorities for Removal (EPA)
                  Hazardous waste sites and management
                  facilities reports  (EPA)
                  CE studies of sediment pollution and
                  sediments
                  STORET, BIOS, CETIS, and ODES (EPA)
                  Water and sediment data on major
                  tributaries  (U.S. Geological Survey)
                  NPDES permit records
                  Section 404(b)(1) evaluations
                  Pertinent and applicable research
                  reports
                  Section 103 evaluations
                  Port Authorities
                  Colleges/Universities

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 4-3
                  Records of state environmental agencies
                  Published scientific literature

     Evaluation of all reasonably available information allows determina-
tion of the potential for contaminants to have been introduced to the
dredged material.  This information, evaluated with consideration of the
physical nature of the dredging site, dredged material, and the proposed
disposal site, allows a determination of whether the dredged material
complies with Section 227.13(b)  (Appendix A).  Decisions about compliance
will be made on a case-by-case basis for each proposed disposal operation,
and specific quantitative guidance applicable to all situations nationwide
cannot be offered.  More detailed guidance for reaching decisions about
compliance may be developed by the CE District and EPA Region considering
available scientific information and locally important concerns.  This
information will be important in reaching an administrative decision that
complies with the requirements of Section 227.13(b).  In evaluating the
likelihood that disposal of a dredged material may cause contaminant-
associated impacts, concern decreases with the increase of factors such as
the following:

        Isolation of the dredging operation from known existing and
        historical sources of pollution
        Time since historical sources of pollution have been remediated
        Number and frequency of maintenance dredging operations since
        remediation
     .  Mixing and dilution occurring between the pollution source and the
        dredging site
        Transport and potential deposition of sediment in the dredging area
        from sources other than those potentially affected by pollution
        Grain size of the dredged material.

Concern regarding contaminant-associated impact  increases with the increase
of factors such as the following:

        Number, amount, and toxicological importance of contaminants known
        to have been introduced to the dredging site

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 4-4
        Number,  amount,  and toxicological importance of contaminants
        suspected to have been introduced to the dredging site
        Number,  amount,  and toxicological importance of contaminants with
        continuing input from existing sources
        Number,  amount,  and toxicological importance of contaminants from
        historical sources no longer active
     These and other considerations are complexly interrelated; i.e., the
acceptable degree of isolation from sources of pollution depends on the
number, amount, and importance of the contaminants as well as on all other
factors.  These considerations have to be evaluated for every dredged
material.  Even so, it is desirable that guidance be developed, based on
technical evaluations, that describes the emphasis on factors deemed
appropriate in each area.  In all cases, the decisions based on these
factors have to comply with the requirements of Section 227.13(b).
     To provide an adequate basis for determining compliance or lack of
compliance with the environmental impact criteria of Section 227.13(c),
existing information should reflect current conditions and should be
comparable to the data that would be generated if the dredged material were
to be tested in Tiers II, III, or IV, as appropriate.  Toxicity relative to
the reference sediment and bioaccumulation of contaminants of concern
relative to the reference sediment should be known.  There should be
sufficient information to determine that the potential for water column
impacts is low enough that additional data are unnecessary or that water
quality criteria would not be exceeded or the concentration would not
exceed 0.01 of the applicable LC50 after consideration of initial mixing.
               4.2  IDENTIFICATION OF CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

     In the Tier I decision sequence (Figure 3.1), the first possibility is
that more information is required to determine compliance with the
regulations.  A critical prerequisite to generating this information is
deciding, on a case-by-case basis, which contaminants are of concern in the
particular dredged material being evaluated.  To determine the contaminants

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 4-5
of concern,  it may be necessary to supplement available information with
additional chemical analyses of the dredged material.
     On a national scale, dredged material may contain a variety of
chemicals.  It is difficult to specify a single suite of contaminants that
adequately addresses all environmental concerns about all dredged materials
in the country.  The contaminants of concern in a particular dredged
material has to be identified on a case-by-case basis.  In some dredged
materials there may be no contaminants of concern.  Different dredging
operations may have their own set of contaminants of environmental concern
that should be adequately evaluated for each operation.  The selection of
the appropriate contaminants of concern for each dredged material is
crucial to the success of the testing program.
     Identifying specific contaminants,  if any,  that are of concern in a
particular dredged material relies on the information collected for Tier I,
which provides a preliminary basis for determining potential contamination
of the dredged material.  In some instances, it may be sufficient to
perform confirmatory analyses for specific contaminants of concern.  In
other cases, where the initial evaluation indicates a variety of
contaminants of concern may be present,  chemical analysis of the dredged
material could provide a useful inventory, and a bulk chemical scan
conducted according to the guidance in Section 9.3 may be appropriate.
     From the list of contaminants shown by existing information and
additional analyses to be potentially present in the regions dredged
material, it is necessary to determine which specific contaminants are of
concern in terms of potential environmental impacts.  Some contaminants are
always of interest because of provisions of the Convention on the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter
(London Dumping Convention) and the incorporation of these contaminants
into the MPRSA and Sections 227.5 and 227.6 of the regulations.  In
identifying contaminants of concern, contaminants necessary to determine
compliance with the requirements of Section 227.6 of the regulations have
to be included.  Other contaminants that might reasonably be expected to
cause unacceptable adverse impacts if the dredged material in question were
placed in the ocean should be included.
     Current knowledge is inadequate to predict biological effect based on
the presence of contaminants in dredged material.  Therefore, those

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material  Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 4-6
chemicals identified as contaminants of concern will be evaluated according
to the biological effects-based criteria in Section 227.13 (Appendix A).
Sediment chemistry data describing the concentration of contaminants of
concern should not be directly used to make decisions regarding the
acceptability of dredged material for ocean disposal.  This information
should be considered when selecting appropriate bioassay/bioaccumulation
testing procedures and species to be evaluated,  and when reviewing the
results obtained from these tests.  That is,  the presence and levels of
contaminants of concern can be used on a case by case basis when reviewing
the validity of bioassay/bioaccumulation results.   Chemistry data should
only be used as a feedback trigger to indicate the need for further
evaluation of the QA/QC to assist in determining if the bioassay/
bioaccumulation tests were conducted properly.  If the QA/QC review
indicates that the tests were improperly conducted,  re-testing would be
appropriate.
     The contaminants of concern in each dredged material should be
identified on the basis of the following,  keeping in mind the discussion in
Sections 9.4.1 and 9-5.1 and the requirements of Section 227.6 of the
regulations:

        Presence in the dredged material
        Presence in the dredged material relative  to the concentration in
        the reference material
        Toxicological importance
        Persistence in the environment
        Propensity to bioaccumulate from sediments.   The major chemical
        properties controlling this are:
               Hydrophobicity:   Literally,  "fear of  water"; the  property  of
               neutral (i.e.,  uncharged) organic molecules  that  causes them
               to associate with surfaces  or  organic solvents  rather than to
               be in aqueous solution.   The presence of a neutral surface
               such as an uncharged organic molecule causes water molecules
               to become structured around the intruding entity.   This
               structuring is energetically unfavorable,  and the neutral
               organic molecule tends  to be partitioned to  a  less energetic
               phase if one is  available.   In an operational sense,
               hydrophobicity is the reverse  of  aqueous solubility.   The
               octanol/water partition coefficient  (K^,,  log Kow,  or log P)
               is a measure of hydrophobicity.   The  tendency  for organic
               chemicals to bioaccumulate  is  related to their

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 4-7
              hydrophobicity.  Bioaccumulation  factors  increase with
              increasing hydrophobicity up  to a log K^,  of  about 6.00.  At
              hydrophobicities greater than about  log Kou = 6.00
              bioaccumulation factors tend  to not  increase due, most
              likely, to reduced bioavailability.

              Aqueous Solubility:   Chemicals such  as acids, bases, and
              salts that speciate  (dissociate)  as  charged  entities tend to
              be water  soluble and those  that do not speciate  (neutral and
              nonpolar  organic compounds) tend  to  be insoluble, or nearly
              so.  Solubility favors rapid  uptake  of chemicals by
              organisms, but at  the same  time favors rapid elimination,
              with the  result that soluble  chemicals generally do not
              bioaccumulate to a great extent.   The soluble free ions of
              certain heavy metals are exceptional in that they bind with
              tissues and  thus are actively bioaccumulated by organisms.

              Stability:   For chemicals to  bioaccumulate they must be
              stable, conservative, and resistant  to degradation.  Organic
              compounds with structures that protect them  from the
              catalytic action of  enzymes or from  nonenzymatic hydrolysis
              tend to bioaccumulate.  Phosphate ester pesticides do not
              bioaccumulate because they  are easily hydrolyzed.
              Unsubstituted polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons  (PAH) can be
              broken down  by an  initial enzymatic  opening  of ring
              structures.  The presence of  electron-withdrawing
              substituents tends to stabilize an organic molecule.
              Chlorines, for example, are bulky, highly electronegative
              atoms that tend to protect  the nucleus of an organic molecule
              against chemical attack.  Chlorinated organic compounds
              bioaccumulate to high levels  because they are easily taken up
              by organisms, and  once in the body,  they  cannot be readily
              broken down  and eliminated.

              Stereochemistry:   The spatial configuration,  i.e.,
              stereochemistry, of  a neutral molecule affects its tendency
              to bioaccumulate.  Molecules  that are planar tend to be more
              lipid soluble  (lipophilic)  than globular  molecules of similar
              molecular weight.  For neutral organic molecules, planarity
              generally correlates with higher  bioaccumulation unless the
              molecule  is  easily metabolized by an organism.


     These and other  considerations important to identifying contaminants

of concern are complexly interrelated and have to be evaluated individually

for each dredged material.   Even so, it is desirable that guidance be
developed, based on technical evaluations, that  describes the emphasis on

various factors  deemed appropriate for identifying contaminants of concern

in each area.  In all cases,  decisions based on these factors have to

comply with the  requirements of Section 227.13  (Appendix A).

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 4-8
                      4.3  DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE


     After consideration of all available information one of the following

conclusions is reached (Figure 3.1):


        Existing information does not provide  a sufficient basis for
        making a decision about whether dredged material complies
        with Section 227.13 of the regulations.   In this case,
        further evaluation in Tiers II,  III, and/or IV is
        appropriate.

        Existing information provides a sufficient  basis for making
        a decision about whether the dredged material complies  with
        Section 227.13 of the regulations.

     In the latter case,  based on consideration of  available information,

one of the following conclusions is reached (Figure 3.1):


        The material complies with the Section 227.13 (b)  criteria
        for exclusion from further testing (Appendix A).   If so,  no
        further information on contaminants is necessary to
        determine compliance.

        The material does not comply with the  Section 227.13(b)
        criteria, but does comply with the Section  227.13(c)
        criteria and the limiting permissible  concentration
        (Appendix A).  If so, no further information on contaminants
        is necessary to determine compliance.

        The material does not comply with either the Section
        227.13(b) or 227.13(c)  criteria and the limiting permissible
        concentration (Appendix A).  If so,  no further information
        is necessary to determine non-compliance.   The decisions of
        whether such material might be allowable for ocean disposal
        under the MPRSA and the applicable regulations,  and the
        procedural steps to be following in making  this
        determination, are issues which are beyond  the scope of this
        manual.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 5-1
                           5.0   TIER II  EVALUATION
     At Tier II,  the chemical and physical characteristics of the dredged
material and the general environmental conditions at the disposal site are
evaluated.  Tier II consists of a determination of the necessity for, and
perhaps conduct of, additional water column testing  (Figure 3.2), and an
evaluation of the potential for benthic impacts (Figure 3.3).  Water column
testing should be conducted only if shown by the evaluation to be
necessary.  If water quality criteria exist for all contaminants of concern
and synergistic effects are not suspected, water column impacts are
evaluated (if necessary) by comparison of applicable marine water quality
criteria to the dissolved contaminant concentration within the site
boundary using the 4 hr initial mixing period, or anywhere after initial
mixing  (Figure 3.2).  If water quality criteria do not exist for all
contaminants of concern, or synergistic effects are suspected, water column
impacts are evaluated by toxicity testing (Section 227.13(c)(2)(ii) of the
Regulations) in Tier III, rather than in Tier II (Figure 3.2).  Current
water quality criteria for the protection of marine life can be obtained
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations
and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division, Standards Branch (WH-585),
401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
     The conceptual purpose of Tier II is to provide a reliable,  rapid
screen  for potential impacts and thus eliminate the need for further
testing.  In relation to the water column evaluations, applicable marine
water quality criteria serve this purpose.  However, for benthic
evaluations, there is not widespread agreement that any single dredged
material evaluative procedure fully satisfies this objective and is
suitable for use in Tier II.  If technically sound sediment quality
criteria can be developed and promulgated by EPA, these criteria might be
incorporated into Tier II evaluations.  At present, the biological
availability of nonpolar organic compounds in dredged material to benthic
organisms is evaluated on the basis of theoretical bioaccumulation
potential in Tier II (Figure 3.3).  This procedure provides  for decisions
as well as indicating the magnitude of bioaccumulation likely to be
associated with nonpolar organic contaminants in the dredged material.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 5-2
                         5.1  WATER COLUMN EFFECTS

     Tier I evaluation may  lead to the conclusion that  the existing
information is not sufficient to make a decision.  In this case,  Section
227.13(c) of the regulations (Appendix A)  calls for testing to determine
the potential for water column and benthic impacts.   This potential is
determined in Tiers II, III, and/or IV, as appropriate.
     The Tier II evaluation of potential water column effects is  a two step
process.  The first step is to determine whether additional testing is
necessary  (Sections 5.1.1 and 10.1.1).  The testing guidance in Section
10.1.2 and/or 10.2.1,  and the evaluation guidance in Section 5.1.2 and/or
6.1, are implemented only if additional testing is shown in Section 5.1.1
to be necessary.

      5.1.1  Determination  of Need for Additional Water Column Testing

     The first step of Tier II is to determine whether  evaluation of the
potential for water column impacts (Figure 3.2) requires additional
testing.  In most cases the potential for  water column impacts is so low
that existing test data will suffice.   A standardized calculation approach
is used to determine whether additional water column testing is required.
This approach uses the bulk chemical concentrations of the dredged material
and the dilution predicted to occur in the water column at the proposed
disposal site to determine  whether additional testing for potential water
column impacts is necessary.  The procedures for this standardized
calculation are described in detail in Section 10.1.1.2.
     If the final results of this calculation based on bulk chemistry for
all contaminants of concern for which applicable marine water quality
criteria exist are less than- the criteria  after consideration of initial
mixing,  no additional testing for potential water column impacts is
necessary  (Figure 3.2).  If the calculation for any contaminant of concern
exceeds its applicable marine water quality Criterion after consideration
of initial mixing, additional testing for  water column impacts in Tiers  II,
III, and/or IV is necessary to determine compliance  (Figure 3.2).  This

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 5-3
calculation cannot be used to predict water column impacts; it can be used

only to determine whether additional testing for potential water column

impacts, as described in the following section, is necessary.


         5.1.2  Determination of Potential for Water Column Impacts


     If additional water column testing of dredged material is determined

to be necessary in Section 5.1.1, the regulations  (Appendix A) are very

specific about tests to be performed and criteria to be met:


     Section 227.13

     (c)...dredged material can be considered to be environmentally
     acceptable for ocean dumping only under' the following conditions:

     (1) The material is in compliance with the requirements of Section
     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 criteria, or there
     is reason to suspect synergistic effects of certain contaminants,
     bioassays on the liquid phase of the dredged material show that it
     can be discharged so as not to exceed the limiting permissible
     concentration as defined in paragraph (a)  of Section 227.27...

     (d) For the purposes of paragraph (c)(2),  major constituents to be
     analyzed in the liquid phase are those deemed critical by the
     District Engineer, after evaluating and considering any comments
     received from the Regional Administrator,  and considering known
     sources of discharges in the area.


     Evaluation by comparison to applicable marine water quality criteria

is conducted in Tier II, whereas bioassays, which are somewhat more

complex, are conducted in Tier III.  The first step in testing for

potential water column impacts is determination of the appropriate test to

apply.  According to Section 227.13(c)(2) of the regulations, evaluation in

comparison to applicable marine water quality criteria in Tier II is

appropriate only when there are applicable marine water quality criteria

for all contaminants of concern and there is no reason to suspect

synergistic effects (Figure 3.2).  If these conditions are not met,

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 5-4
bioassays are conducted in Tier III (Figure 3.2), and evaluated according

to guidance in Section 6.1.
     If additional water column testing is necessary,  applicable marine

water quality criteria exist for all contaminants of concern, and there is

no reason to suspect synergistic effects,  one of the following conclusions

is reached on the basis of concentrations of dissolved contaminants of
concern  (Section 9.4) after consideration of initial mixing  (Section

10.1.2):

        Concentrations of dissolved contaminants of concern in the dredged
        material, after allowance for initial mixing,  do not exceed
        applicable marine water quality criteria beyond the boundaries of
        the disposal site within the first 4 hr after dumping or at any
        point after the first 4 hr.   Therefore,  the dredged material
        complies with the water quality criteria requirements of Section
        227.13(c)(2)(i)  (Appendix A).   If so,  no further information is
        necessary to determine compliance with the regulations regarding
        water column impacts, but benthic impacts have to be considered.
        If the information warrants, it is acceptable to determine
        compliance with the water column effects criteria of Section
        227.13(c)(2)(i)  at Tier II,  and determine compliance with the
        benthic effects criteria at another tier.

        Concentrations of dissolved contaminants of concern in the dredged
        material, after allowance for initial mixing,  exceed applicable
        marine water quality criteria beyond the boundaries of the disposal
        site within the first 4 hr after dumping and/or at any point after
        the first 4 hr.   In this case, the dredged material does not comply
        with the water quality criteria requirements of Section
        227.13(c)(2)(i)  (Appendix A),  and ocean disposal is not acceptable.
                            5.2  BENTHIC IMPACTS


     As discussed in Section 5.0,  the currently available Tier II procedure
for evaluating potential benthic impacts consists of evaluation of
theoretical bioaccumulation potential (TBP).   The TBP is calculated

according to the guidance in Section 11.1.  At present,  this calculation

can be performed for nonpolar organic compounds, but not polar organic

compounds, organometals, or metals.  If such constituents are contaminants

of concern in a dredged material requiring bioaccumulation evaluation, that
evaluation has to take place in Tier III and/or IV.

     In the Tier II benthic impact evaluation,  a comparison is made between

TBP calculated for the nonpolar organic contaminants of concern in dredged

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 5-5
material and for the same constituents in the reference sediment.  if all

the contaminants of concern in the dredged material are nonpolar organics,

one of the following conclusions is reached based on this comparison:


     .   The theoretical bioaccumulation potential (TBP) for the nonpolar
        organic contaminants of concern in the dredged material does not
        exceed the TBP for the reference sediment and therefore, the
        dredged material complies with bioaccumulation aspects of the
        benthic criteria in Section 227.13(c)(3).  If so,  no further
        information is necessary to determine compliance with the
        bioaccumulation regulations, but biological effects also have to be
        considered to determine compliance with the benthic criteria in
        Section 227.13(c)(3)  (Appendix A).  If the information warrants, it
        is acceptable to determine compliance with the bioaccumulation
        aspects of the benthic criteria of Section 227.13 (c) (3) at Tier II,
        and determine compliance with the biological effects aspects of the
        benthic criteria at another tier.  Potential water column impacts
        also have to be considered.

        The theoretical bioaccumulation potential (TBP) for the
        contaminants of concern in the dredged material exceeds the TBP of
        reference sediment.  In this case, the information is not
        sufficient to determine whether the dredged material complies with
        the bioaccumulation aspects of the benthic criteria in Section
        227.13(c)(3) and further evaluation of bioaccumulation in Tiers III
        and/or IV is appropriate.  Potential water column impacts also have
        to be considered.

     Although the calculation of TBP is used to evaluate nonpolar organic

compounds  in Tier II, a particular  dredged material may contain

contaminants of  concern  for which  it may be inappropriate to make this
calculation.  For these  contaminants, bioaccumulation  has to be evaluated

in  Tiers III and/or  IV.  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 the  TBP.   TBP provides  an
indication of the magnitude of bioaccumulation of nonpolar  organics  that

may be encountered in Tier  III and/or IV testing.  Additionally,  if  the TBP
of  the nonpolar  organics meets the  decision guidance in this  section,  the

calculation may  eliminate the need for  further evaluation  of  these

compounds  and thereby reduce  efforts in Tier III  and/or  IV.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 6-1
                          6.0  TIER III EVALUATION

     Tier III testing assesses the impacts of contaminants in the dredged
material on appropriate sensitive organisms to determine if there is
potential for the dredged material to have an unacceptable adverse impact.
The Tier III assessment methods are bioassays and bioaccumulation tests
(Figures 3.1-3.3)..  The bioassays use lethality as the primary endpoint
because the importance of this endpoint is easily interpreted.  The
bioassays are acute tests using organisms representative of the water
column and benthic environments at the disposal site.  The recommended
procedures for water column bioassays (Figure 3.2) use appropriate
sensitive marine water column organisms.  The assay for benthic impacts
(Figure 3.3) uses deposited sediment and appropriate sensitive benthic
marine organisms.
     Both toxicity and bioaccumulation have to be considered to fully
evaluate the potential for impact  (Figure 3.1).  An evaluation of
bioaccumulation potential will determine the potential for uptake of
contaminants by organisms.  Bioaccumulation tests may be conducted in the
laboratory  (Section 11.2).  The Tier III information is usually sufficient
for decision making, or it may, in rare cases, indicate that further
information on toxicity or bioaccumulation  (or both) is required at Tier
IV.

                        6.1  WATER COLUMN BIOASSAYS

     If additional water column testing has been shown necessary (Section
5.1.1), and the water quality criteria approach cannot be used (Section
5.1.2), the Tier III water column evaluation  (Figure 3.2) considers the
effects, after allowance for initial mixing, of dissolved contaminants plus
those associated with suspended particulates on water column organisms.
According to Section 227.13(c)(2)(ii) of the regulations  (Appendix A), the
bioassay approach is used when there are not applicable marine water
quality criteria for all contaminants of concern or there is reason to
suspect synergistic effects of certain contaminants.  The bioassay and
initial mixing data results are generated as described in Section 10.2.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 6-2
The limiting permissible concentration (LPC)  is defined in Section

227.27(a)(2) (Appendix A)  as:

     That concentration of dredged material in the receiving water which,
     after allowance for initial mixing,  as specified in Section 227.29,
     will not exceed a toxicity threshold defined as 0.01 of a
     concentration shown to be acutely toxic to appropriate sensitive
     marine organisms in a bioassay carried out in accordance with approved
     EPA procedures.


     After considering this requirement,  one of the following conclusions

is reached:


        The concentration of dissolved plus suspended contaminants,  after
        allowance for initial mixing,  does not exceed 0.01 of the acutely
        toxic concentration beyond the boundaries of the disposal site
        within the first 4 hr after dumping or at any point after the first
        4 hr.  Therefore,  the dredged material complies with the water
        column toxicity criteria of Sections 227.13(c)(2)(ii)  and
        227.13(c)(3) (Appendix A).  If so, no further information is
        necessary to determine compliance with the regulations regarding
        water column impacts, but benthic impacts have to be considered.
        If the information warrants,  it is acceptable to determine
        compliance with the water column effects criteria of Sections
        227.13(c)(2)(ii) and 227.13(c)(3)  at Tier III and determine
        compliance with the benthic effects criteria at another tier.

        The concentration of dissolved plus suspended contaminants,  after
        allowance for initial mixing,  exceeds 0.01 of the acutely toxic
        concentration beyond the boundaries of the disposal site within the
        first 4 hr after dumping, and/or at any point after the first 4 hr.
        Therefore,  the dredged material does not comply with the water
        column toxicity criteria of Sections 227.13(c)(2)(ii)  or
        227.13(c)(3) (Appendix A).  The decision of whether such material
        might be allowable for ocean disposal under MPRSA, and the
        applicable regulations and the procedural steps to be followed in
        making this determination are issues which are beyond the scope of
        this manual.
                          6.2  BIOASSAYS ON BENTHOS


     Evaluation of benthic bioassays in Tier III (Figure 3.3) is based on

data generated according to the guidance in Section 10.2.2.  For benthic

effects evaluation, the LPC of the solid phase of dredged material is

applicable and is defined in Section 227.27(b)  (Appendix A) as:

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 6-3
     ...that  concentration which will not cause unreasonable acute or
     chronic  toxicity or sublethal adverse effects based on bioassay
     results  using...appropriate sensitive benthic marine organisms...

     Bioassay results are judged unreasonable when mortality in the dredged
material is both (1)  statistically greater than in the reference sediment,
and (2)  exceeds mortality in the reference sediment by at least 10
percentage points.   That is, if reference mortality in a particular test
were 7 percent, dredged material mortality would be judged unreasonable if
it were statistically higher than in the reference sediment and was 17
percent or greater.  Ten percentage points is to be used unless another
value is developed for use.  Statistically significant increases are
considered unreasonable when they exceed reference mortality in the test by
a margin at least as large as the mortality typically observed in the
reference sediment.  Therefore, if values other than 10 percent are to be
used, they should be derived for each reference sediment, and should be
specific to each test species and test endpoint.  The data supporting the
values should meet quality assurance standards and provide an adequate
basis for regulation.
     After considering this guidance, one of the following conclusions is
reached:

     .  Mortality in the dredged material is not statistically greater than
        in the reference sediment, or does not exceed mortality in the
        reference sediment by at least 10* percentage points.   Therefore,
        the dredged material complies with the benthic bioassay criteria of
        Section 227.13(c)(3) (Appendix A).  If so,  no further information
        is necessary to determine compliance with the bioassay regulations,
        but bioaccumulation also has to be considered under Section
        227.13(c)(3).  If the information warrants,  it is acceptable to
        determine compliance with the benthic bioassay criteria of Section
        227.13(c)(3)  at Tier III,  and to determine compliance with the
        bioaccumulation criteria of Section 227.13(c)(3)  at another tier.
        Potential water column impacts also have to be considered.
   This value may be  replaced in local  decision  guidance by  the  species-
   and reference sediment-specific  values  discussed in  the preceding  text
   paragraph if such  values  are  developed.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 6-4
     Mortality in the dredged material is statistically greater than in the
     reference sediment and exceeds the mortality in the reference sediment
     by at least 10* percentage points.   In  this  case,  the dredged material
     does not comply with the benthic bioassay  criteria of Section
     227.13(c)(3)  (Appendix A).  The decision of  whether such material
     might be allowable for ocean disposal under  the MPRSA and the
     applicable regulations and the procedural  steps to be followed in
     making this determination, are issues which  are beyond the scope of
     this manual.
                      6.3  BIOACCUMULATION BY BENTHOS

     The potential for bioaccumulation,  as well  as  toxicity,  has  to be in
compliance with the regulations before a dredged material can be  considered
acceptable for ocean dumping.   The Tier III  benthic bioaccumulation tests
provide for the determination of bioavailability through 10 day exposure
tests if all contaminants of concern are metals  or  28  day exposure tests if
any contaminants of concern are organic or organometallic compounds.
Information for evaluating bioaccumulation potential in Tier III  for each
of the contaminants of concern comes from Section 11.2.  Identification of
the specific contaminants of concern in each dredged material is  discussed
in Section 4.2.
     Bioaccumulation of  most compounds,  if it occurs,  will be detectable
after the Tier III 10 or 28 day exposure period, even  though steady state
may not have been reached.  Thus, while the  Tier III tests may not
determine steady state bioaccumulation,  they provide useful information
about the potential for bioaccumulation (i.e., bioavailability).
     Concentrations of contaminants of concern determined in tissues of
benthic organisms following 10 or 28 day exposure to the dredged material
are compared initially to applicable Food and Drug Administration  (FDA)
Action Limits for Poisonous or Deleterious  Substances  in Fish and Shellfish
for Human Consumption, if such limits exist  for  the contaminants.
*  This value may be  replaced in local decision guidance, by the species-
   and reference sediment-specific values discussed in tljie preceding  text
   paragraph if such  values are developed.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 6-5
Current action limits may be obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, Industry Programs Branch, Bureau of Foods (HFF-326) 266 C
Street S.W., Washington DC  20204.
     Action levels for poisonous or deleterious substances are established
by the FDA for levels of contaminants in human food and animal feed.  The
action levels are established and revised according to criteria specified
in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 109 and 509.  Action levels
are levels above which FDA can take legal action to remove products from
the market.  Limits are based on human health and economic considerations,
and do not consider the potential for environmental impacts on the
contaminated organisms or their nonhuman predators.  Because contamination
of seafood in excess of FDA limits is considered a threat to human health,
the guidance in this manual is that concentrations in excess of FDA limits
in any test species may be considered unacceptable.  This guidance applies
even though the test species may not be a typical human food item, because
contaminants can be transferred through aquatic food webs and uptake to FDA
levels in one species indicates the potential for accumulation in other
species.  However, because FDA limits  take economic impacts on fisheries
into account and do not consider  ecological effects, the limits cannot be
used to judge the acceptability or unacceptability for ocean disposal of
dredged material that results in body burdens less than the FDA limits.
     Based on the comparison to FDA limits, one of the following
conclusions is reached:
         Tissue  concentrations  of one  or more  contaminants  of  concern  are
         statistically greater  than applicable FDA action limits.
         Therefore,  the dredged material does  not  comply with  the
         bioaccumulation aspects of the  benthic criteria of Section
         227.13(c)(3)  (Appendix A).  The decision  of  whether such  material
         might be  allowable  for ocean  disposal under  the MPRSA and the
         applicable  regulations,  and the procedural steps to be followed in
         making  this determination,  are  issues which  are beyond the  scope of
         this manual.
         Tissue  concentrations  of all  contaminants of concern  are  not
         statistically greater  than applicable FDA action limits or  there
         are no  FDA  limits  for  the contaminants of concern. In this case,
         the information is  insufficient to  determine compliance with  the
         bioaccumulation aspects of the  benthic criteria of Section
         227.13(c)(3)  (Appendix A)  and the dredged material has to be
         further evaluated  in Tier III as described below for
         bioaccumulation potential before a  decision  can be made.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 6-6
     Concentrations of contaminants determined in tissues of organisms

following the 10 or 28 day exposure to dredged material and less than FDA

action limits or in the absence of FDA limits are compared to contaminant

concentrations in tissues of organisms similarly exposed to reference

sediment.   One of the following conclusions is reached based on this

comparison:


        Tissue concentrations of contaminants of concern in organisms
        exposed to dredged material do not statistically exceed those of
        organisms exposed to the reference sediment and therefore the
        dredged material complies with the bioaccumulation aspects of the
        benthic criteria of Section 227.13(c)(3)  (Appendix A).  If so, no
        further information is necessary to determine compliance with
        bioaccumulation regulations, but benthic toxicity effects also have
        to be considered to determine compliance with the benthic criteria
        of Section 227.13(c)(3).  Potential water column impacts also have
        to be considered.

        Tissue concentrations of contaminants of concern in organisms
        exposed to dredged material statistically exceed those of organisms
        exposed to the reference material.  In this case, it is desirable
        that the District Engineer and Regional Administrator develop and
        agree upon case-specific evaluative criteria, based on technical
        evaluations made with local input, that emphasize the various
        factors deemed appropriate in each area for determining compliance
        with the bioaccumulation aspects of the benthic criteria of Section
        227.13(c)(3)  (Appendix A).

In evaluating bioaccumulation potential to determine compliance with the
benthic criteria of Section 227.13(c) (3)  when bioaccumulation of

contaminants of concern in organisms exposed to dredged material

statistically exceeds bioaccumulation in organisms exposed to reference
sediment in Tier III testing, concern over potential adverse impacts
increases in direct relation to the following:


        The number of species in which bioaccumulation from the dredged
        material is statistically greater than bioaccumulation from the
        reference material.

        The number of contaminants for which bioaccumulation from the
        dredged material is statistically greater than bioaccumulation from
        the reference material.

        The magnitude by which bioaccumulation from the dredged material
        exceeds bioaccumulation from the reference material.

-------
                                                               Draft  Revised
                                             Dredged Material  Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                   Page  6-7
        The toxicological importance of the contaminants with
        bioaccumulation from the dredged material statistically exceeding
        their bioaccumulation from the reference material.

        The phylogenetic diversity of the species in which bioaccumulation
        from the dredged material statistically exceeds bioaccumulation
        from the reference material.

        The propensity for the contaminants with statistically significant
        bioaccumulation to biomagnify within aquatic food webs (Biddinger
        and Gloss, 1984; Kay, 1984) .

        The magnitude of toxicity, and number and phylogenetic diversity of
        species exhibiting greater mortality in the dredged material than
        in the reference material.

        The magnitude by which contaminants with bioaccumulation from the
        dredged material exceeding their bioaccumulation from the reference
        material also exceed the concentrations found in comparable species
        living in the vicinity of the proposed disposal site.


     These and perhaps other factors are complexly interrelated;  i.e.,  the

acceptable level of each factor depends on its interaction with all the

other factors.  These factors have to be considered in developing case-

specific criteria (if needed)  for dredged material assessed for

bioaccumulation in the final step of Tier III.  After considering these

factors, one of the following decisions is reached:


        The dredged material complies with the bioaccumulation aspects of
        the benthic criteria of Section 227.13(c)(3)  (Appendix A).  If so,
        no further information is necessary to determine compliance with
        bioaccumulation regulations, but toxicity and water column effects
        also have to be considered to determine compliance with Section
        227.13(c).

        The information is insufficient to determine compliance with the
        bioaccumulation aspects of the benthic criteria of Section
        227.13(c)(3)  (Appendix A), and  further evaluation of steady state
        bioaccumulation Tier IV is necessary to show compliance.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 6-8
                              6.4  REFERENCES
Biddinger,  G.R. and Gloss,  S.P.  1984.   The importance of trophic
     transfer in the bioaccumulation of chemical  contaminants  in
     aquatic ecosystems.  Residues Reviews.  Vol.  91:104-130

Kay, S.H. 1984.  Potential  for biomagnification of contaminants
     within marine and freshwater food webs, Technical  Report  D-84-7,
     U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,  MS.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 7-1
                          7.0  TIER IV EVALUATION

     Where a decision regarding toxicity or bioaccumulation has not been
reached at earlier (i.e., lower numbered) tiers or where circumstances
warrant,  Tier IV evaluations (Figure 3.1) are used to determine compliance
with Section 227.13(c) (see Appendix A).  Tier IV tests consist of
bioassays and bioaccumulation tests to determine the long-term effects of
exposure to dredged material.  Tier IV tests may be conducted for water
column evaluations (Figure 3.2) or benthic evaluations (Figure 3.3).  In
both cases, Tier IV tests should be carefully selected to address the
specific issues relevant to the case in question.  Whatever the Tier IV
test, the case-specific evaluative criteria for these tests have to be
determined beforehand, and agreed upon by EPA and CE, and have to be
adequate to determine compliance with the requirements of Section
227.13(c).

                               7.1  BIOASSAYS

      Tier IV bioassays (Figure 3.2)  should measure sensitive indicators of
long-term effects of clear ecological importance, such as survival,
reproduction, and perhaps time to onset of reproduction.  Tier IV bioassays
might be of longer duration than Tier III tests and might simulate the
exposure conditions expected at the disposal site.   Tier IV bioassays of
deposited dredged material should maximize exposure to sediment-associated
contaminants by focusing on sediment-ingesting organisms.
     Because of the limited availability of appropriate and widely accepted
procedures for Tier IV bioassays,  these tests should be carefully selected
to address specific needs of each individual dredging operation.  Tier IV
tests should be designed to provide more detailed information about the
effects of exposure to the dredged material than Tier III testing.  Tier IV
might be appropriate when there is sufficient evidence to require testing
for carcinogens, mutagens, or teratogens under Section 227.13(c) of the
regulations.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 7-2
     Tier IV allows generation of appropriate information about the
proposed disposal operation and there is no option for generation of
additional information.  As discussed previously,  even with the development
of appropriate and acceptable new test procedures, including those for
chronic exposures, it is anticipated that the case-by-case design and
implementation of tests will continue to be a necessary component of Tier
IV evaluations.
     Case-specific evaluative criteria have to be  developed for
interpreting the results of Tier IV bioassays.  These criteria have to be
adequate to determine compliance with the requirements of Section 227.13(c)
of the regulations.

                       7.2  BIOACCUMULATION BY BENTHOS

     When a decision cannot be reached on the basis of the 10 or 28 day
bioavailability data, it is appropriate to determine steady state
bioaccumulation of the contaminants of concern in  Tier IV (Figure 3.3).
Tissue samples used for this evaluation may be collected in the field
(Section 11.3.2) or generated by laboratory exposure of test organisms to
the dredged material  (Section 11.3.1).  As with the Tier III evaluation of
bioavailability from the 10 or 28 day tests,  the first step in the
evaluation of steady state bioaccumulation is the  comparison of steady
state concentrations of contaminants of concern to FDA Action Limits for
Poisonous or Deleterious Substances in Fish and Shellfish for Human
Consumption.  Following this comparison, one of the following conclusions
is reached:
         The  steady  state bioaccumulation of contaminants of concern
         statistically  exceeds FDA action limits.  Therefore, the dredged
         material  does  not comply with the bioaccumulation aspects of the
         benthic criteria in  Section 227.13(c)(3)  (Appendix A).  The
         decision  of whether  such material might be allowable for ocean
         disposal  under the MPRSA and the applicable regulations, and the
         procedural  steps to  be  followed in making this determination, are
         issues which are beyond the scope of this manual.
         The  steady  state bioaccumulation of contaminants of concern does
         not  statistically exceed FDA action limits.  The information is
         therefore not  sufficient to determine whether the dredged material
         complies  with  the bioaccumulation aspects of the benthic criteria
         in Section  227.13(c)(3)  (Appendix A).  In this case, further

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 7-3
        evaluation is necessary before a decision about acceptability can
        be made.
     Steady state tissue concentrations of contaminants of concern  that  do
not statistically exceed FDA action limits are next compared to steady

state concentrations of these contaminants determined in organisms  exposed

to reference sediment.  Based on this comparison,  one of the following
conclusions is reached:


        Steady state  concentrations in organisms exposed to dredged
        material are  determined not to statistically exceed those of
        organisms exposed to reference sediment, and therefore the dredged
        material complies with the bioaccumulation aspects of the benthic
        criteria in Section 227.13(c)(3)  (Appendix A).  No further
        information is  necessary to determine compliance with the
        bioaccumulation regulations; however, benthic toxicity effects also
        have to be considered to determine compliance with Section
        227.13(c).  Potential water column effects also have to be
        considered.

        Steady state  concentrations in organisms exposed to dredged
        material statistically exceed those of organisms exposed to
        reference sediment.  In this case, the information is insufficient
        to determine  compliance with the benthic criteria in Section
        227.13(c)(3)  (Appendix A) and further evaluation of steady state
        bioaccumulation in Tier IV is necessary to determine acceptability.

     Steady state contaminant concentrations in tissue  samples  that exceed

those of organisms exposed to reference sediment are compared to

contaminant concentrations in field-collected benthic organisms (Figure

3.3) as described in Section 11.3.2.4.  Field-collected organisms are those

collected in the vicinity of the proposed disposal site and provide an

indication of steady state body burden of the contaminants of concern

around the site.   One of the following conclusions is reached:


        The steady state bioaccumulation of contaminants of concern does
        not statistically exceed the concentration of these contaminants in
        field collected organisms and therefore the dredged material
        complies with the bioaccumulation aspects of the benthic criteria
        in Section 227.13(c) (3) (Appendix A).  If so, no further
        information is  necessary to determine compliance with the
        bioaccumulation regulations, but benthic toxicity effects must also
        be considered to determine compliance with Section 227.13(c).
        Potential with  column impacts also have to be considered.

        The steady state bioaccumulation of contaminants
        statistically exceeds that of field organisms.  In this

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 7-4
        case, it is desirable that the District Engineer and
        Regional Administrator develop and agree upon case-specific
        evaluative criteria, based on technical evaluations made
        with local input, that emphasize the various factors deemed
        appropriate in each area for determining compliance with
        the benthic criteria in Section 227.13(c)(3) (Appendix A).


In evaluating bioaccumulation potential to determine compliance with

Section 227.13(c)  where the steady state bioaccumulation of contaminants of

concern exceeds that of field organisms,  concern over potential adverse

impacts increases in direct relation to the following:


        The number of species in which bioaccumulation from the dredged
        material is statistically greater than bioaccumulation from the
        reference material.

        The number of contaminants for which bioaccumulation from the
        dredged material is statistically greater than bioaccumulation from
        the reference material.

        The magnitude by which bioaccumulation from the dredged material
        exceeds bioaccumulation from the reference material.

        The toxicological importance of the contaminants with
        bioaccumulation from the dredged material statistically exceeding
        their bioaccumulation from the reference material.

        The phylogenetic diversity of the species in which bioaccumulation
        from the dredged material statistically exceeds bioaccumulation
        from the reference material.

        The propensity for the contaminants with statistically significant
        bioaccumulation to biomagnify within aquatic food webs (Biddinger
        and Gloss, 1984; Kay, 1984) .

        The magnitude of toxicity, and number and phylogenetic diversity of
        species exhibiting greater mortality in the dredged material than
        in the reference material.

        The magnitude by which contaminants with bioaccumulation from the
        dredged material exceeding their bioaccumulation from the reference
        material also exceed the concentrations found in comparable species
        living in the vicinity of the proposed disposal site.


     These and perhaps other factors are complexly  interrelated;  i.e.,  the
acceptable level of each factor depends on its interaction with all the

other factors.   These factors have to be considered in  developing case-
specific criteria (if needed)  for dredged material  assessed for

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 7-5
bioaccumulation in the final step of Tier IV.  After considering these

factors, one of the following decisions is reached:


         The  dredged material  complies  with the bioaccumulation  aspects of
         the  benthic criteria  of Section 227.13(c)(3)  (Appendix  A).   If so,
         no  further information is necessary  to determine  compliance  with
         bioaccumulation  regulations, but toxicity and water column effects
         also have to  be  considered to  determine  compliance  with Section
         227.13(c).

         The  dredged material  does not  comply with the bioaccumulation
         aspects of the benthic criteria of Section 227.13(c)(3)  (Appendix
         A) .   The decision of  whether such material might  be allowable for
         ocean disposal under  the MPRSA and the applicable regulations, and
         the  procedural steps  to be followed  in making this  determination,
         are  issues which are  beyond the scope of the  manual.


                               7.3  REFERENCES

Biddinger, G.R.  and Gloss,  S.P.  1984.   The importance  of  trophic
     transfer  in  the bioaccumulation of chemical contaminants in
     aquatic ecosystems.  Residues  Reviews.   Vol.  91:104-130.

Kay, S.H. 1984.   Potential  for biomagnification  of contaminants
     within  marine  and freshwater  food webs,  Technical Report D-84-7,
     U.S. Army Engineer  Waterways Experiment  Station, Vicksburg, MS.

-------
                                Draft Revised
              Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                January, 1990
                                     Page 8-0
   PART  III
DATA GENERATION

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 8-1
                 8.0 COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF SAMPLES

     If it is determined that physical, chemical and biological testing is
necessary (certain dredging operations may require no sampling),  samples of
dredged material, reference sediment, control sediment, organisms, and
water will need to be collected.  These are used for chemical analysis,
bioassays, and bioaccumulation tests.  This chapter provides guidance for
the development of a sampling plan that will lead to the collection,
preservation,  and storage of representative sediment,  water, and organism
tissue samples so that the physical and chemical characteristics and
potential toxicity and bioaccumulation of dredged material can be
accurately assessed.
     Sampling is the foundation upon which all testing rests.  Therefore,
regional plans have to be carefully developed on a case-by-case basis.   So
many case-specific factors influence sampling needs that detailed guidance
of national scope is impractical.   This manual provides general guidance on
items of major importance to consider in designing a sampling plan.   The
guidance focuses on two aspects of sampling design.  One is directed toward
project managers and administrative personnel that decide what tests are to
be run and where and how samples are to be collected,  handled, and tested.
The second aspect, discussed later in this chapter, concerns the technical
details of sample collection and preservation.

                     8.1 BACKGROUND FOR A SAMPLING PLAN

     A well-designed sampling plan is essential for evaluating the
potential impact of dredged material discharge upon the marine environment.
The sampling plan has to be tailored to meet clearly defined objectives for
individual dredging operations before any sampling is initiated.   In
designing a generalized sampling program,  factors such as the availability
and content of historical data, the degree of sediment heterogeneity,  the
number and geographical distribution of sample collection sites,  the
procedures for collection, preservation, storage,  and tracking of samples,
and the necessity for adequate quality assurance and quality control have
to be carefully considered.  The magnitude of the dredging operation and
its time and budgetary constraints should also be considered.
     An acceptable  sampling plan should be in place before  sampling begins
so that the amount of material to be collected can be determined.  An

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 8-2
adequate amount of material should be collected to conduct all evaluations
at all tiers.  This strategy should eliminate the need to remobilize field
equipment and support crews if anomalous results or inadequate data are
obtained for any analysis.  In cases where there is valid reason to believe
the dredged material might be tested extensively, it might be desirable in
the long run to be liberal in the amount of samples taken, but this
decision has to be made on a case-by-case basis.
      The importance of sampling is underscored by the fact that any
evaluation is only as complete and reliable as the sampling (and sample
handling and storage)  upon which it is based.  Thus, inadequacies or biases
in sampling will manifest themselves by limiting the accuracy and/or the
appropriateness of the study results.
      The objective is to  obtain samples to characterize the dredging and
disposal area.  Sample size should be small enough to be conveniently
handled and transported and yet sufficient to meet the requirements for all
planned analyses.  The quality of the information obtained through the
testing process is impacted by the following three factors:

         Collecting representative  samples
         Using appropriate sampling techniques
         Protecting or preserving the samples until  they are tested.

      Ideally,  the  importance of each of the  three factors will be fully
understood and appropriately implemented for each study.   In practice,
however, this is not always the case.  There may be occasions when study
needs, time, or other resource constraints will limit the amount of
information that should or can be gathered.  When this occurs, each of
these factors have to be carefully considered in light of specific study
purposes when designing a sampling plan.
      An  important  component of any  field sampling program is a preproject
meeting with all concerned personnel.  Attendance may include management,
field personnel, laboratory personnel, data management/analysis personnel,
and representatives of the regulators and the dredging proponent.   The
purposes of the meeting include (1) defining the objectives of the sampling
program and  (2) ensuring communication between participating groups.
      Samples  are collected and tested or analyzed to gain information.  To
be most useful, the information generated through a sampling program has to
be directed at a specific need.  The purposes of defining the objectives of

-------
                                                              Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material  Testing Manual
                                                              January,  1990
                                                                   Page  8-3
a sampling program should be to clarify the information needed and to match
these needs with the specific tests that supply the required information.
     The stated objectives of a testing program should be more specific
than "an environmental evaluation of a proposed dredged material disposal
operation."  Although an environmental assessment may be the overall
objective, the objectives of the testing program should be stated as
specific tasks such as the following:

         Compare one or  more  sites  in the  dredging  area with the  reference
         area.
         Determine  the bioavailability of  contaminants in  the  dredged
         material.
         Determine  the kind and/or  distribution of  chemical contaminants in
         the sediments of a dredging area.
         Determine  potential  sediment toxicity.
         Determine  bioaccumulation  potential.

The more explicitly the goals of a testing program can be stated, the
easier it will be to design an appropriate sampling plan.   When the
sampling plan is completed all sampling procedures should be clearly
defined, sample volumes should be clearly established,  all logistical
concerns should be  fully addressed, and target analytes should be
identified to class of compound in order to select appropriate methods of
preservation.

                      8.2 COMPONENTS  OF A  SAMPLING  PLAN

     A  sampling plan  that  meets the  stated objectives has to  cover  certain
issues.  The following steps are a guideline to ensure that all essential
information is provided:

         Review the engineering specifications  for  the dredging,  including
         the dimensions  of the  dredging area, the dredging depth(s),  and the
         volume of  sediment for disposal.
         Evaluate the  prior history and the existing database  for the area.
         Identify relevant data and the need  for additional  data.   Identify
         areas  of potential environmental  concern within the confines of the
         dredging operation.
         If appropriate,  subdivide  the dredging area into  project segments
         on the basis  of an assessment of  level of  environmental concern
         within the dredging  area.   This may  be an  iterative process that

-------
                                                               Draft  Revised
                                            Dredged Material  Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                   Page 8-4
        starts before sampling using existing information, and is  refined
        after sampling based on new data.
        Determine the number of samples to be collected and select sampling
        locations.  Choose methods and equipment for positioning vessels at
        established stations.
        Determine what sampling methods will be used.
        Define procedures for sample handling, preservation, and storage.
        Identify potential logistical problems and define safety
        precautions.
        Prepare a quality assurance/quality control plan.

     The sections that follow discuss each of these steps, providing
general guidance for their conduct.   Supplemental guidance on basic
sampling considerations  generally  applicable  to dredged material  is
discussed from a quality assurance perspective in EPA (1987).

                  8.2.1 Review of Dredging Specifications

     A review of the engineering specifications  for the dredging operation
provides a general overview to serve  as  a basis for designing a sampling
plan.  Information on the volume of material  to be  dredged and method of
dredging is important to determine the number of samples  required.
Knowledge of the thickness and physical  characteristics of the material to
be dredged will help determine the kind  of sampling equipment required.
The boundaries of the dredging area have to be known to ensure that the
number and location of samples are appropriate.

                           8.2.2 Historical Data

     In developing a sampling plan,  it is important to review all relevant
information about the dredging site.   Use of  existing information to
determine project segments and station locations within the dredging  area
can produce significant  cost savings.  Review of historical data  is the
first step in determining whether  sediment might be contaminated.   If the
review identifies possible point  sources of contamination, skewing the
sampling effort toward these areas may be justified for thorough
characterization of the  potentially contaminated areas.  On the other hand,
increasing the proportion of samples  in  contaminated areas relative to
other areas may lead to  the conclusion that the  "average" contamination is

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 8-5
higher than it really is.  To reduce problems in areas of unequally

distributed contamination, the total sampling effort should be increased.

The information gathered for the Tier I evaluation discussed in Section 4.1

should be reviewed for assistance in designing the sampling plan.  A review
of historical information should include the following:



         Geotechnical.  qeochemical,  and hvdrodvnamic  data;   The  grain size,
         specific density,  water content,  and identification of  sediment
         horizons are helpful in making operational decisions.   Areas of
         high tidal currents and high wave energy tend to have larger grain
         sized sediments than quieter areas.   Contaminants  have  a greater
         affinity for clay and silt  than for sand.  The horizontal and
         vertical particle size distribution should be examined  from
         existing data.

         Quality and age of existing data:   The value of the existing data
         should be critically examined.   Existing high-quality data might
         lower costs by reducing the number of analytes measured or tests
         required for the proposed dredging operation.  Even data that  do
         not meet all current quality assurance standards can sometimes
         provide useful general information about the operation.   For
         example, there may have been significant improvements in sampling
         and analytical methods since the original study, or the original
         chain-of-custody or documentation procedures may have been
         inadequate.  Information from such studies might be helpful in
         identifying areas of contamination,  but not  in accurately assessing
         the degree of contamination.

         Spill data:  Evidence of a contaminant spill within or  near the
         area of the dredging may be an important consideration  in
         identifying areas for sampling.

         Dredging history:  Knowledge of prior dredging may dramatically
         affect sampling plans.  If the area is frequently  dredged (every 1-
         2 years) or if the sediments are subject to  frequent mixing by wave
         action or ship traffic, the sediments are likely to be  relatively
         homogenous.  Assuming there are no major contaminant inputs,  the
         sampling effort may be minimal.  However, if information regarding
         possible contamination exists,  a more extensive sampling effort  may
         be indicated.  New excavations of material unaffected by anthropo-
         genic inputs may require less intensive sampling for contaminants
         than maintenance dredging.


                     8.2.3 Subdivision of Dredging Area


      Sediment characteristics are likely to vary substantially  within  the

 limits of  the  area to be  dredged as a  result  of  geographical and hydrologi-

 cal  features  in  the  area.  Areas  of low hydraulic  energy will be character-

 ized by  fine  sediments  that  have  a  greater tendency  to accumulate

 contaminants  than coarser  grained sediments.   Sediments  in heavily urban-

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material  Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 8-6
ized or industrialized areas are more likely to accumulate contaminants
than sediments farther removed from direct contaminant inputs.
     Many dredging operations can be subdivided into project  segments  for
sampling.  A project segment is an area expected to have relatively
consistent characteristics that differ substantially from the characteris-
tics of adjacent segments.  Project segments may be sampled with different
intensities, and if warranted by objectives of the study and test results,
dredged material from various segments could be managed differently during
dredging and disposal.  When the sampling plan is developed,  project
segments can be designated based on historical data,  sediment characteris-
tics, geographical configuration, depth of cut, sampling or dredging
equipment limitations, results of pilot studies,  known or suspected contam-
inant concentrations, etc.  Surface sediments might be considered as a
separate project segment from subsurface sediments at the same location if
vertical stratification of contamination is expected.  Large dredging
operations located within industrialized areas might require subdivision
into several project segments horizontally and one or more segments verti-
cally.  A dredging operation characterized by relatively uniform distribu-
tion of sediment type in a nonindustrialized location,  might be considered
as a single project segment.  Areas of rapid shoaling or high sediment
mixing by ship scour or other means are likely to be relatively homogenous
vertically, and vertical subdivisions are usually not appropriate.   Verti-
cal subdivisions smaller than about 2-3 ft are impractical because  a dredge
operator cannot reliably make a cut that size.  If analytical data  or test
results for two or more project segments turn out to be similar,  these
segments should be treated as one large segment when considering disposal
options.  If the analytical and test results demonstrate important  differ-
ences between project segments,  an alternative disposal option may  be
necessary for a portion of the total sediment volume.
     Any established  sampling program should be sufficiently  flexible to
allow changes based on field observations.  Certain characteristics of the
sediments,  such as color or texture, can provide the field crew chief with
an indication of patchiness.  The greater the patchiness, the larger the
number of samples that will be required to define the area.  The project
manager can refine a sampling program based on historical data and/or a
preliminary sampling survey of the dredging area.

-------
                                                               Draft  Revised
                                             Dredged Material  Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                   Page 8-7
          8.2.4 Selection of Sampling Sites and Number of Samples

     The method of dredging, volume of sediment to be removed, and its
horizontal and vertical heterogeneity are key to determining station
locations and the number of samples to be collected for the total dredging
operation and for each project segment.   Samples may be composited prior to
analysis, bearing in mind the discussion later in this section,  when
appropriate for testing objectives.  The appropriate number of samples and
proper use of compositing has to be determined for each operation on a
case-by-case basis.
     The  following seven factors should be considered in sampling site
selection:

         Objectives of the testing  program
         Accessibility
         Flows
         Mixing
         Source locations
         Available personnel and facilities
         Other  physical characteristics.

     The  actual sampling pattern to be used is by necessity dependent on
the site, because major point sources, land use activities, hydrologic
conditions, and sample variability fluctuate from area to area.
     The  pattern  should consider contaminant sources in each project
segment and currents that could be critical to the pattern of sediment
distribution.  Station locations within the dredging area should include
areas downstream from major point sources and in quiescent areas, such as
turning basins, side channels, and inside channel bends, where fine-grained
sediments are most likely to settle.  Project segments selected on the
basis of suspected high contamination cannot be considered representative
of the contaminant distribution in the entire dredging area.  Therefore,
project segments representing the proportion of the overall dredging area
expected to be less contaminated have to also be sampled representatively.
     Several characteristics have been established to help define the
representative-ness of a sample:

         The  project  segment being  sampled is  clearly defined.

-------
                                                               Draft  Revised
                                            Dredged Material  Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                   Page 8-8
        The sampling  locations are randomly distributed within each project
        segment.
        More than one sample should be collected from each sampling loca-
        tion if sample variability is suspected.
        If sediment variability is unknown, it may be necessary to conduct
        a preliminary survey of the dredging area to better define the
        final  sampling program.

     Sediment  composition can vary in the vertical dimension as well as in
the horizontal dimension.   Thus,  samples  should be  collected over the
entire depth to be excavated unless the sediments  are  known to be
vertically homogeneous or there is adequate data demonstrating that
contamination does not extend throughout  the depth  to  be  excavated.   The
easiest task in establishing a sampling program is  to  locate  the  areas of
maximum concentrations that generally  are found near major sources and/or
areas of quiescent settling.  However,  results  from these  sampling
locations may not represent the range  of  concentrations in the total
dredging area.   Therefore,  additional  sampling  has  to  be  conducted in  any
areas for which inadquate data are available.
     In relation to sample  representativeness,  it  is possible to define two
populations:    (1)  the actual composition  of the area and  (2)  the
composition of the samples obtained from  the area.   Ideally,  these
populations would be the same but, in  practice,  differences often exist
because of bias in the sampling program.   Many  factors contribute to bias,
including disproportionate intensity of sampling in different  parts of the
dredging area and equipment limitations  (i.e.,  extrapolating surface  grab
sample results to subsurface sediments).
     It may be useful to develop  a sampling grid for each project segment.
The horizontal dimensions of each project segment  are  subdivided into  grid
cells of equal size, which are numbered sequentially within each project
segment.  Cells are then randomly selected for  sampling.   It  may be
important to collect more than the minimum number  of samples required,
especially in areas suspected of having high or highly variable
contamination.   Extra samples may be collected  and archived in case
reexamination of a particular project  segment(s) is warranted.
     In some cases  it may be advisable to consider varying the level of
sampling effort between project segments.  Project  segments suspected of
containing environmentally important contaminants  should  be targeted for an
increased level of effort so that the  boundaries and characteristics  of the
contamination can be identified.   A weighting approach can be applied

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 8-9
whereby project segments are ranked in increasing order of concern.  The
weights can be used as factors when determining the number of samples
within each project segment relative to other project segments.  A project
segment of low environmental concern will require fewer samples per unit
volume of sediment than will similar sized project segments of higher
concern.
     One of the more  important tasks is determining the number of  samples
that should be collected within each project segment.  In general,  the
number of samples required is inversely proportional to the amount of known
information and proportional to the level of confidence that is desired in
the results and the suspected level of contamination.  No specific guidance
can be provided, but  several general concepts are presented:   (1) the
greater the number of samples collected, the better the area will be
defined; (2) the means of several measurements at each station within a
project segment generally are less variable than individual measurements at
each station would be;  (3) statistics require replication because single
measurements are inadequate to describe variability; and  (4) the necessary
number of samples is proportional to the heterogeneity of the sediment and
the statistical power desired in the tests based on the sampling.
      The above factors  suggest that  replicate  samples  should be  collected
at each location.  However, they do not help determine the total number of
samples needed because the number depends on site-specific heterogeneity
and the desired level of definition.  Thus, other factors will have to
determine the  number  of samples collected.
      One factor that  can be used  to  estimate the  number of  samples needed
is the level of statistical reliability or confidence that is desired in
the results.   When a  random sample is to be taken, sample size can be
calculated as  follows for any parameter of interest:

                       tV
where
         n0  =  number of samples required given the following three values:
         t2  =  student's t distribution value.  This value depends on the
               confidence desired in the estimate of the population mean,
               e.g., 95 percent.
         s2  =  population variance.  This value is often obtained from
               historical data or a preliminary survey.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                   Page 8-10
         d2  =   statement of margin of error.   This is the acceptable margin
               around the estimate of the mean,  e.g., mean ± x percent of
               the mean.

     This method will most likely lead to different  numbers of samples
being required for each parameter, and tradeoffs have to be made in
selecting the final number of samples to collect.  Because of the inherent
heterogeneity of sediments, one should be prepared to accept large values
for n0  and/or  d when using this approach.   In  other words,  for small values
of d, the margin of error, the investigator can expect a large number of
samples to be required.  If fewer samples have to be  taken, the
investigator can expect a broader confidence  interval around the results.
     This approach  requires a knowledge of historical data and/or an
examination of the dredging area.  It can be  used to  estimate the total
number of samples (n0)  needed for a  dredging operation after  stating the
confidence desired in the final data (to determine t), knowing the expected
variability (s2)  in  the parameter values  and deciding on  an acceptable
margin of error (d).  This approach is also frequently used after
completion of a sampling program, when n0 and  s2 are  known, to calculate  the
level of confidence  (the power) that can be placed in the final statistical
analysis.
     In  all cases the  goal is to obtain sufficient information to evaluate
the environmental impacts of a dredging operation within the constraints of
the operation.  Although such constraints do  not justify inadequate
environmental evaluation, the reality of time and funding constraints have
to be recognized.  Possible responses to such constraints have been
discussed by Higgins (1988).  If the original sampling design does not seem
to fit time or funding constraints,  several options are available:

         Reduce the  number of  replicates  at each station.   This provides  a
         more  synoptic  survey  of distribution  patterns in the  project
         segment,  but makes statistical comparisons of individual  stations
         less  powerful.   This  may be the  easiest approach,  but is  not
         necessarily the most  desirable.
         Maintain  replicates but reduce the number  of sampling stations.
         This  results in less  detailed definition of  the  project  segment,
         but maintains  the power of  station-to-station comparisons.
         Reduce the  number of  project segments into which the  project  is
         divided,  but maintain the same total  number  of samples.   This also
         results in  less detailed definition of  each  project  segment,  but
         maintains the  power of station-to-station  comparisons.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                   Page  8-11
        Maintain  (or even  increase)  the  number  of  stations  sampled,  and
        composite multiple samples  from  within  a project  segment  so  that  a
        lower number of  analyses  are performed  per project  segment.

     Regardless of the number of  sampling stations  finally  selected,
consideration should be given to collecting samples in excess of the
minimum number needed for analysis.   The extra samples do not have to be
scheduled for analysis and may even be discarded later without analysis.
However, sediments can be highly heterogeneous as discussed earlier and,
should sample analysis indicate anomalous results,  it is easier to analyze
additional samples on hand than to remobilize a field crew.   Should
additional analysis be necessary,  this approach avoids the variable of
different sampling times, but adds the variable of potential change due to
storage.
     Regardless of the final decision on project segments and the number of
sample stations and replicates per project segment, stations within each
segment should be randomly distributed.  Expected degree of contamination
will be the dominant factor in initially describing the proposed project
segments.  If there are likely to be important variables in potential
dredged material impact within a project segment, it may be advisable to
use a stratified random sampling approach or to redefine project segment
boundaries.  Once the data from the  sampling are available,  it may be
advisable to redefine the boundaries of the project segments to be used in
the actual dredging to maximize the homogeneity within segments.
     In decisions regarding compositing  of samples, the objective of
obtaining an accurate representation and definition of the dredging area
has to be satisfied.  Compositing provides a way to analyze sediments from
more stations at the same cost, or the same number of stations at lower
cost.  However, compositing results  in a less detailed description of the
area sampled than would individual analysis of each station.  If, for
example, 5 analyses can be performed to characterize a project segment,
increased coverage afforded by collecting 15 individual samples and
compositing sets of three into 5 composite samples for analysis may  justify
the increased time and cost of collecting the extra 10 samples.
Compositing can provide the large sample volumes required for some
biological tests.  Composite samples represent the "average" of the
characteristics of the individual samples making up the composite, and can
closely represent the overall characteristics of the entire volume of
material to be dredged.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                   Page 8-12
     When a sediment collection device is brought on board, a decision has
to be made as to whether the entire sediment volume is to be considered the
sample, or the sediment volume represents separate samples (i.e.,  based on
observed stratification,  the top 2-3 ft of a core might be considered a
separate sample from the remainder of the core).   After the sediment to be
considered a sample is identified,  it has to be  thoroughly homogenized.   If
the sediment is to be part of a composite,  it is split after it is
homogenized.  Half the original sediment is stored as representative of the
individual station in case later analysis of the individual sample is
required, and the other half is combined with parts of other samples.
These are thoroughly homogenized,  producing the  composite sample.

                      8.2.5  Sample Collection Methods

     Sample collection requires an experienced crew, an adequate vessel
equipped with precise navigational equipment and winches,  and non-
contaminating sampling apparatus capable of obtaining relatively
undisturbed and representative samples.  The major sampling effort for a
proposed dredging operation is oriented toward the collection of sediment
samples for physical and chemical characterization or for biological tests.
Collection of water samples might also be required to evaluate potential
water column impacts.  Collection of organisms near the disposal site might
be necessary if there is a need to characterize  indigenous populations at
these locations or to assess concentrations of contaminants in tissues.
Organisms for use in biological effects and bioaccumulation tests  may also
be field collected.
     Guidance is provided  in this section regarding the selection and use
of some equipment associated with sediment,  water,  or organism samples.   In
general, a hierarchy for sample collection should be established to prevent
contamination from the previous sample, especially when using the  same
sampling apparatus.  At a station where water and sediments are to be
collected, water samples should be collected prior to sediment samples.
The vessel should be positioned downwind or downcurrent of the sampling
device.  When lowering sampling devices,  care should be taken to avoid
visible surface slicks.  The deck and sample handling area should be kept
clean to help reduce the possibility of contamination.
     EPA  (1987) contains useful sampling guidance from a quality assurance
viewpoint, and may be followed on all points not in conflict with the

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                   Page  8-13
guidance in this manual.  Higgins and Lee  (1987) provide perspective on
sediment collection and analysis as commonly practiced in CE Districts.

                     8.2.5.1   Sediment  Sample Collection

     Sediment  samples  should be  collected to the planned depth of
excavation, unless the sediments are known to be vertically homogenous or
the deepest sediments to be  excavated are known to be uncontaminated.  Care
should be taken to avoid contamination of sediment samples during
collection and handling.  Samples designated for trace metal analyses
should not come into contact  with metal surfaces, and samples designated
for organic analyses should  not come into contact with plastic surfaces.
Samples for biological tests  may be stored in clean polypropylene
containers.  Subsamples for  particular groups of analytes may be removed
from areas of the sample not  in physical contact with the collecting
instrument.
     A  coring  device is recommended whenever sampling to depth is  required.
The choice of corer design depends upon the objectives of the sampling
program,, the sediment type,  water depth, sediment depth, and currents.  A
gravity corer may be limited to cores of 1-2 m  in depth depending upon
sediment grain size, degree  of sediment compactness, and velocity of the
drop.  For penetration greater than 2 m, a vibratory corer or a piston
corer may be preferable.  The length of core that can be collected
generally is limited to 10 core diameters  in sand substrate and 20 core
diameters in clay substrate.  Longer cores can  be obtained but substantial
sample disturbance results from internal friction between the sample and
the core liner.
     Freefall  cores  can cause compaction  of the vertical structure of
sediment samples.  Therefore, if the vertical stratification in a  core
sample is of interest, a piston corer should be used.  These devices
utilize both gravity and hydrostatic pressure.  As the cutting edge
penetrates the sediments, an internal piston remains at the level  of the
sediment-water interface, preventing sediment compression and overcoming
internal friction.  If samples will not be sectioned prior to analysis,
compaction is an academic problem, and freefall corers are a suitable
alternative.
     Corers are  the  samplers of  preference in most  cases because  of the
variation in contamination with depth that can  occur in sediment deposits.
Substantial variation with depth is unlikely in areas that have frequent

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material  Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                   Page 8-14
ship traffic and from which sediments are dredged at short intervals.  In
these situations,  accumulating sediments are resuspended and mixed semi-
continuously by ship scour and turbulence,  effectively preventing
stratification.  In such cases grab samples can be representative of the
mixed sediment column, and corers should be necessary only if excavation of
infrequently disturbed sediments below the mixed layer is planned.
     Grab samplers are acceptable for collecting samples of reference or
control sediments.  A grab can be Teflon-coated to prevent potential
contamination of trace metal samples.  The sampling device should be rinsed
with clean water between samples.

                      8.2.5.2  Water Sample Collection

     If water  samples are necessary, they should be collected with a
noncontaminating pump or, if only a small volume of water is required,  with
a discrete collection bottle.  When sampling with a pump,  the potential for
contamination can be minimized by using a peristaltic or a magnetically
coupled impeller design pump.  The system should be flushed with the
equivalent of 10 times the volume of the collection tubing.  Also, any
components within 5 m of the sample intake should be noncontaminating
(i.e.,  sheathed in polypropylene or epoxy-coated) .
     A discrete water sampler should be of the close/open/close type so
that only the target water sample comes into contact with internal sampler
surfaces.  Seals should be Teflon-coated whenever possible.  Water sampling
devices should be acid-rinsed prior to use for collection of trace metal
samples and rinsed with hexane (or other appropriate solvent)  prior to
collection of samples for organic analyses.

                        8.2.5.3  Organism Collection

     If collection of epibenthic macrofauna is necessary, they may be
collected with a trawl,   infaunal organisms may be collected with a benthic
grab or a box corer.  If organisms are to be maintained alive,  they should
be transferred immediately to containers with clean, well-oxygenated
flowing seawater.   Care should be taken to prevent organisms from coming
into contact with potentially contaminated areas or fuels, oils,  brass,
copper,  lead, galvanized metal,  cast iron,  or natural rubber.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                   Page  8-15
             8.2.6  Sample Handling, Preservation, and Storage

     Detailed procedures  for the handling, preservation, and storage of
samples should be addressed in standard operating procedures or protocols
developed for each dredging operation.  Precautions should be taken to
avoid contaminating or diluting the sample in any way.  The elapsed time
between sample collection and analysis should be kept to a minimum;
recommended storage duration times are given in Table 8.1,  as well as
references which should be consulted for more detailed information.  A
sample is subject to chemical, biological, and physical changes as soon as
it is collected; therefore, handling, preservation, and storage techniques
have to be designed to minimize alteration of the representativeness of the
sample by retarding chemical and/or biological activity.  Because the first
few hours are the most critical to changes in the sample, preservation
steps should be taken immediately upon sediment collection.  There is no
universal preservation or storage technique.  A technique for one group of
analyses may interfere with other analyses.  This problem can be overcome
by collecting sufficient  sample volume to utilize specific preservation or
storage techniques for specific analytes or tests.  Proper labeling and
sample-tracking procedures are of utmost importance.  Labels have to
withstand soaking, drying, and freezing without becoming detached or
illegible.  The labeling  system should be tested prior to use in the field.
      Generally,  samples  to be  analyzed  for trace metals  should  not  come
into contact with metals, and samples to be analyzed  for organic compounds
should not come into contact with plastics.  Sediment samples should
completely fill the storage container, leaving no air space.  If the sample
is to be frozen, just enough space for expansion should be allowed.
Containers for samples should be appropriately cleaned  (acid-rinsed for
analysis of metals; solvent-rinsed for analysis of organic compounds).
Preservation, whether by  refrigeration, freezing, or  addition of chemicals,
should be accomplished onboard whenever possible.  If preservation is
delayed until after delivery to the laboratory, the sample should be
temporarily stored to preserve the integrity of the sample.  Onboard
refrigeration is easily accomplished with coolers and ice; however, samples
should be segregated from melting ice or cooling water.  Samples that are
to be frozen on-board may simply be placed in a cooler with dry ice.
Additional information regarding collection, volume requirements, container
specifications, preservation techniques, and storage  conditions for

-------
TABLE 8.1.  SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED
Analysis or Test
SEDIMENT
Chemical /Physical
Bulk metals


Bulk organics
(PCBs, pesti-
cides, BMW
hydrocarbons)
Particle size

TOC


Sediment from
which elutriate
is prepared
Biological Tests
Dredged material

Reference
sediment

Control
sediment

Collection Method

Analysis
Grab/corer


Grab/corer



Grab/corer

Grab/corer


Grab/corer



Grab/corer

Grab/corer


Grab/corer


Amount Required


200 mL


475 mL



75 mL

3 L


Depends on tests
being performed


12-15 L per
sample
45-50 L per
test

21-25 L per
test

Container


Precleaned pre-
weighed poly-
styrene jar'0'
Sol vent -rinsed
glass Teflon
jar Undetermined

Ł-20°C|c) Undetermined


4°C/dark/airtight Undetermined



4°C/dark airtight 2 wk|hl
D
4°C/dark airtight 2 wk|h> §.
ID
a
4°C/dark airtight 2 wk°" ^
0)
rt
(D
h
p.
4°C Undetermined Ł1
p-3
c, (D D
4°C +2"CW Hg - 2 wk 3 rt 2
Others - 6 mo'*' q; H- HV
h0 p) 3 rt
4°C") 24 hr<" d> " S 0)
OO I-1 3 H-
1 «5 C CO
H> U> 0) 0>

-------
TABLE 8 . 1 1 Cent . 1 <*>
Analysis or Test
COD

TOC

TIC

Phenolics

Soluble reactive
Phosphates
Organics

Volatile
Organics

Total phosphorus

Total solids

Volatile solids


Sulfides


TISSUE
Trace metals



PCBs and chlori-
nated pesticides






Collection Method
Discrete sampler
or pump
Discrete sampler
or pump
Discrete sampler
or pump
Discrete sampler
or pump
Discrete sampler
or pump
Discrete sampler
or pump
Discrete sampler
or pump

Discrete sampler
or pump
Discrete sampler
o r pump
Discrete sampler
or pump

Discrete sampler
or pump


Trawl/Teflon-
coated grab


Trawl/Teflon-
coated grab






Amount Required Container Preservation Technique
200 L Plastic or
glass"'
100 mL Plastic or
glass"1
100 mL Plastic or
glass"1
1 L Glass"1

Plastic or
glass"1
4 L Amber glass
bottle""
80 mL Glass vial"11


Plastic or
glass"1
200 mL Plastic or
glass"1
200 mL Plastic or
glass"1

Plastic or
glass"1


30 g Double
Ziploc'01


100 g Hexane-rlnsed
double aluminum
foil and double
Ziploc'0'




H2SO, to pH <2;
refrigerate"1
H2S04 to pH <2;
refrigerate"1
Airtight seal;
refrigerate"'
0.1-l.Og CuS04; H3P04
to pH <4; refrigerate"'
Filter, refrigerate"'

Airtight seal;
refrigerate
HCL preservation in
airtight completely
filled container""
Refrigerate

Refrigerate

Refrigerate


2 mL ZnOAc"'



Handle w/nonmetallic
forceps; plastic
gloves; Dry ice'0'

Handle w/hexane rinsed
stainless steel forceps;
Dry ice""





Storage Conditions Storage Duration""
4°c"> 7 days "'

4"C"' <48 hr"'

4°C"' 6 mo"1

4°C"> 24 hr"1

4°C"' 24 hr"1

4°C +2°C|ll) 5 days1*1

4°C +2°C(a) 5 days""


4°C"' 7 days"'

4CC"' 7 days"'

4°C"' 7 days"'


Ambient"1 24 hr"1



<-20°C|cl Hg-28 days
~ Others-6 mo'*'


Ł-20°C'c> 10 days'"
HJ
0>
CD

00
1
-J



















O
a
(D
a
s.
0)
rt
CD
H
H-
0)

Q (D O
p) 01 It
3 rt p>
d H- HI
pj 3 rt
h) IQ
- S (D
p) ^
M 3 H-
(Ł> C W
ID P> (D
O (— Q.

-------
Analysis or Test Collection Method Amount Required Container Preservation Technique Storage Conditions Storage Duration*1
Volatile Organics Trawl/Teflon- 50 g
coated grab


PAHs Trawl/Teflon- 50 g
coated grab


Lipids Trawl/Teflon- 50 g
coated grab

(a) This table contains only a summary of collection
be consulted for a more detailed description of
(b) These are holding times for sediment, water and
desired.
(c) NOAA (1989)
(d) EPA (1988)
(e) Plumb (1981)
(f) Tetra Tech (1986a)
(g) Tetra Tech (1986b)
(h) EPA/CE (1977)
Heat cleaned Covered ice chest1" -20°C(" 10 days'"
aluminum foil
and watertight
plastic bag1"
Hexane-rinsed Handle w/hexane rinsed i<-20°c"!l 10 days'"
double aluminum stainless steel forceps;
foil and double Dry ice(c)
Ziploc101
Hexane-rinsed Handle w/hexane rinsed -20°C Undetermined
aluminum foil stainless steel forceps;
quick freeze
, preservation and storage procedures for samples . The cited references should
these procedures.
tissue. References should be consulted if holding times for sample extracts are




























(i) Polypropylene should be used if phalate bioaccumulation is of concern.












































O
CD
D.
CD
fr>
CD
H
Lj,
f*,
(M
\--
1-3
Q  h >Q
iQ ^ /0
(D - 3 (D
JU ^
00 H1 3 H-
1 «> C. 0)
i— » ^p p)' Q
00 O M P.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                   Page  8-19
sediment,  water,  and tissue samples is provided in Table 8.1.  EPA (1987)
provides useful guidance on QA/QC.
     Sediment for bioassays should be  stored  at 4°C, never frozen or dried.
Living organisms should be removed from the sediment before it is used in
toxicity tests.  This can be accomplished by sieving the sediments through
a 1.0 mm mesh screen using the smallest amount of seawater possible.   Allow
the rinse-water to settle for 6 hr, then siphon off the water and combine
the settled material with the sediment sample.  Avoid using large volumes
of water if at all possible; this may dilute or reduce the concentration of
some sediment associated contaminants.  Prior to use in bioassays, all
sediments should be thoroughly homogenized.

           8.2.7  Logistical Considerations and Safety Precautions

     A  number of frustrations in  sample collection  and handling can be
minimized by carefully thinking through the process and requirements before
going to the field.  Only well trained and experienced crews should be
used.  Backup equipment and sampling gear and appropriate repair parts are
advisable.  A surplus of sampling containers and field data sheets should
be available.  Sufficient ice and ice chest capacity should be provided,
and the necessity of replenishing ice before reaching the laboratory should
be considered.  A vessel with adequate deck space is safer and allows more
efficient work than an overcrowded vessel.  Unforeseeable circumstances are
to be expected in field sampling, and time to adequately deal with the
unforeseen has to be included in sampling schedules.  Appropriate safety
precautions have to be observed during field sampling activities.  Field
crews should be well trained and experienced.
     Samples have to be properly  disposed  when no longer needed.  Ordinary
sample disposal methods are usually acceptable, and special precautions are
seldom appropriate.  According to the Characterization and Assessment
Division of the U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
under 40 CFR 261.4(d)(1) even the most contaminated samples, if collected
for the sole purpose of testing, are not subject to requirements of the
Federal hazardous waste management regulations.  In addition, under 40 CFR
261.5(a), if the waste generated is less than 100 kg per month, the
generator is conditionally exempt as a small quantity generator and may
accumulate up to 1000 kg of waste on the property without being subject to
the requirements of Federal hazardous waste regulations.  When samples have

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                   Page 8-20
to be shipped, 49 CFR 100-177 should be consulted for current Department of
Transportation regulations on packing and shipping.

                           8.2.8  Quality Control

     Although Chapter 13 is devoted to quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) practices, it is appropriate to discuss QA/QC issues specific to
the collection and preservation of samples at this point.  An effective
quality control program has to be an integral part of a dredging evaluation
from initiation of field collections.   Potential for sample deterioration
and/or contamination occurs during sample collection, handling,
preservation, and storage.  Approved protocols and standard operating
procedures should be followed, and experienced personnel should be
responsible for maintaining the integrity and identity of samples from
collection through laboratory analysis.  EPA (1987) should be consulted for
additional guidance generally appropriate to dredged material.
     The  following areas should receive special attention relative to
quality control.

                           8.2.8.1  Documentation

     A complete  record of all field procedures should be maintained
including station locations, sampling methods,  sample handling,
preservation, and storage procedures.   Dates and times of collection,
preservation, and storage should be recorded.  A sample inventory log and
sample tracking log should be maintained.  Any circumstances potentially
affecting sampling procedures should be documented.

                   8.2.8.2  Standard Operating Procedures

     Written  standard operating procedures should be available for routine
procedures performed during field collections.   Personnel should be
thoroughly familiar with these procedures before sampling is initiated.

                           8.2.8.3  Sample Labels

     At a minimum, the following  information should be included on a sample
label:

-------
                                                              Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                              January, 1990
                                                                  Page 8-21
        Unique identifying code

        Location  (station number)  and depth

        Analysis  or test to be performed

        Preservation and/or storage method

        Date/time of collection

        Special remarks if appropriate

        Initials  of person collecting the sample.



                          8.2.8.4  Sample  Tracking


     A procedure  for tracking samples from collection through completion of
analysis and sample disposal has to be in  place.  This procedure  should

incorporate a system for monitoring the condition of the sample during
transport  and storage.   Appropriate personnel should be assigned
responsibility for sample tracking and sample custody.


                         8.2.8.5   Archived Samples


     A sample storage bank containing replicates or subsamples of analyzed
samples or extra unanalyzed samples may be beneficial, especially if
anomalous  results are found from analyzed samples or if additional
information or analyses are needed to better define sediment

characteristics.   Archived samples should be properly stored and

inventoried.


                              8.3  REFERENCES


Environmental Protection Agency/Corps of Engineers Technical Committee
     on Criteria  for Dredged and Fill Material, "Ecological Evaluation of
     Proposed Discharge of Dredged Material  into Ocean Waters;
     Implementation Manual for Section 103 of Public  Law 92-532  (Marine
     Protection,  Research, and Sanctuaries Act  of 1971)," July 1977  (Second
     Printing April 1978), Environmental Effects Laboratory, U.S. Army
     Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,  Vicksburg, Miss.

EPA (U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency).   1987.  Quality Assurance/
     Quality Control (QA/QC) for 301(h) Monitoring Programs:  Guidance
     on Field and Laboratory Methods.  EPA 430/9-86-004.  Prepared by
     Tetra Tech,  Inc.,  Bellvue, WA, for the  Office of Marine and
     Estuarine Protection.  NTIS Number PB87-221164.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                   Page 8-22
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1988.  Users Guide to the
     Contract Laboratory Program.  Office  of Emergency and Remedial
     Response.   9240.0-1.  December, 1988.  Washington, D.C.

Higgins, T.R.  1988.  Techniques for Reducing the Costs of Sediment
     Evaluation.  Technical Note EEDP-06-2.  U.S. Army Engineer
     Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Higgins, T.R. and C.R. Lee.   1987.  Sediment Collection and Analysis
     Methods.  Technical Note EEDP-06-1.   U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
     Experiment  Station, Vicksburg, MS.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).  1989.   Standard
     Analytical  Procedure 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 Lake  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.

Tetra Tech, Inc.   1986a.   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.

Tetra Tech, Inc.   1986b.   Analytical Methods for U.S.  EPA Priority
     Pollutants  and 301(h) Pesticides in Estuarine and Marine Sediments.
     Final Report.  EPA Contract No. 68-01-6938.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 9-1
                     9.0  PHYSICAL ANALYSES OF SEDIMENT
       AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF SEDIMENT. WATER AND TISSUE SAMPLES
     This chapter provides guidance on the selection of chemical and
physical parameters to aid in evaluating the acceptability of dredged
material for proposed ocean disposal, and the methods used to analyze these
parameters.
     Methods cited in this chapter may be used to develop the chemical
information required.  However, other methods may provide similar results,
and the final choice of analytical procedures depends upon the needs of
each evaluation.  In all cases, state-of-the-art methods should be used.
     Any dredged material from estuarine or marine areas contain salt.   The
salt can interfere with the results obtained from some analytical methods.
Any methods proposed for the determination of parameters in sediment and
water from estuarine or marine environments have to explicitly address
steps taken to control salt interferences.

                     9.1  PHYSICAL ANALYSES OF SEDIMENT

     Ocean dumping evaluations require that the physical characteristics of
the dredged material be determined and used to help assess the impacts of
dumping on the benthic environment and the water column.  The physical
analysis of sediment samples is the first step in the overall process of
sediment characterization.  The physical analyses provide general
information on the physical characteristics of the dredged material and can
be used to assess the behavior of these sediments after disposal.  These
data are also valuable in helping to identify appropriate control and
reference sediments for biological tests.  In addition, the physical
parameters can be helpful in evaluating the chemical measurements that are
made as a later step in the characterization process.
     The general analyses that are recommended are (1) grain size,  (2)
total organic carbon (TOO, and  (3) total solids/specific gravity.
     Grain size analysis is a measure of the frequency distribution of the
size ranges of the particles that make up the sediment  (Plumb,  1981; Folk,
1980).  The general size classes of gravel, sand, silt, and clay are the

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 9-2
most useful in describing the size distribution of particles in dredged
material samples.
     The total organic carbon content of sediment is a measure of the total
amount of oxidizable organic material in a sample.  The TOC method should
be based on high temperature combustion, rather than chemical oxidation.
Some classes of organic compounds are not fully degraded by chemical/UV
techniques.  The volatile and nonvolatile organic components make up the
total organic carbon of a sample.  Because inorganic carbon (e.g.,
carbonates and bicarbonates) can be a significant proportion of the total
carbon in some sediment, the sample has to be treated with acid to remove
the inorganic carbon prior to TOC analysis.  The method of Plumb  (1981)
recommends HC1 as the acid.  An alternative choice might be sulfuric acid
since it is nonvolatile, is used as the preservative, and does not add to
the chloride burden of the sample.  Whatever acid is used, it has to be
demonstrated on sodium chloride blanks, that there is no interference
generated from the combined action of acid and salt in the sample.  The EPA
Region II Laboratory at Edison, New Jersey, has also developed an
acceptable method for TOC analysis available from U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region II, Surveillance and Monitoring Branch,
Woodbridge Avenue, Edison, NJ 08837.
     Total solids is a gravimetric determination of the organic and
inorganic material remaining in a sample after it has been dried at a
specific temperature.  The total solids values are generally used to
convert concentrations of the chemical parameters from a wet-weight to a
dry-weight basis.  The specific gravity of a sample is the ratio of the
mass of a given volume of material to an equal volume of distilled water at
the same temperature  (Plumb, 1981).  Because the specific gravity analysis
requires a dry sample, it is usually performed in conjunction with the
total solids determination.  The specific gravity of a dredged material
sample can be used to help predict the dispersal and settling
characteristics of dredged material upon ocean disposal.
     Quality control (QC)  procedures for the general characterization of
sediments are necessary to ensure that the data meet acceptable criteria
for precision and accuracy.  At a minimum, one triplicate analysis should
be performed for every 20 samples analyzed except for TOC where all samples
should be run in triplicate.  In addition, one procedural blank per 20

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                    Page 9-3
samples should be run and the results reported for TOC analysis.  Standards
used for TOC determinations have to be verified using independent check
standards to verify the accuracy of the results.  Quality control limits
have to be agreed upon for each analytical procedure, and have to be
consistent with the overall quality control plan.  Standard reference
materials are not available for the determination of the physical
parameters in sediments; however, where possible, laboratory standards
should be analyzed with the same frequency as the triplicate analyses.
Quality assurance (QA) is discussed in Chapter 13.

                            9.2   DETECTION LIMITS

     The selection of appropriate method detection limits (MDLs) is
important.  MDLs should be lower than the appropriate values to which the
data are to be compared for interpretation.  The detection limits for an
analyte should be no greater than one-third  (one-half log unit) of the
appropriate value for the analyte and matrix of concern.  An MDL of one-
fifth to one-tenth the appropriate value  is desirable and sufficient in
most cases.  This is necessary to evaluate whether the concentration of the
analyte is approaching the value critical to the decision-making process.
     Further, the MDL has to be sufficiently below the appropriate value so
that there is a diminished variability in numerical values in the vicinity
of the appropriate value.  Since no conclusion can be more certain than the
least certain measurement, excessively low MDLs will not contribute to
conclusions if sampling error is the dominant variable factor.  For some
contaminants such as dioxin, every effort has to be made to achieve
consistent quantitation at the lowest possible level.  The detection limits
have to be documented and reported for all analyses.

                     9.3  CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF SEDIMENT

              9.3.1   Selection of Analytical  Targets  (Sediment)

     Chemical analysis provides information about the chemicals present in
the dredged material that, if biologically available, could cause toxicity
and/or be bioaccumulated.  This information is valuable for exposure

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 9-4
assessment and for deciding which of the contaminants present in the
dredged material to measure in tissue samples.
     If the historical review conducted in Tier I (Section 4.1)  fails to
produce sufficient information to develop a suitable list of potential
contaminants, a list of target chemicals has to be compiled.
     There are many chemicals that could be included as target analytes.
Target analytes should be selected from the priority pollutant list (Table
9.1) and the information obtained from the historical review.  In the
context of the regulations, analysis of PAH in dredged material should
focus on those PAH compounds on the priority pollutant list  (Clarke and
Gibson, 1987).  In addition, the target list should be expanded to include
other contaminants that historical information or commercial and/or
agricultural applications suggest could be present at a specific dredging
site; for example, dioxins where industrial fires have occurred, and
tributyltin near ships on which these compounds have been used.

       9.3.2  Selection of Chemical Analytical Techniques (Sediments)

     Once the list of target analytes for sediments has been established,
the analytical methods for the analytes have to be determined.  The methods
will, to some degree, dictate the amount of sediment sample required for
each analysis.  However, guidelines for the amount of sample to be
collected are presented in Table 9.2.  These general sample sizes take into
consideration that more than one analysis may be required for each group of
analytes.  The amount of sample used in an analysis affects the detection
limits attainable using a particular method.
     For priority pollutants in sediments,  the method detection limits
(MDL) provided by EPA (1986a) may be used as general guidelines.  These
detection limits are analytical goals rather than requirements.   Site- or
operation-specific objectives may make lower or higher detection limits
appropriate.  If lower MDLs are required, the analysis may require more
sensitive instrumentation, larger sample sizes or additional
cleanup/concentration steps.  For most coastal sediments, suitable
analytical methodology will control interferences such that  required
detection limits will be reached.  A discussion of sediment MDL values is

-------
                                                                                               Draft  Revised
                                                                     Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                                                               January,  1990
                                                                                                      Page  9-5



TABLE  9.1.   PRIORITY POLLUTANTS  AND  301 (h)  PESTICIDES LISTED ACCORDING TO  STRUCTURAL
                COMPOUND CLASS
Structural Compound
    Class
Phenols


Substituted Phenols
Organonitrogen
Compounds
Low Molecular Weight
Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAH)
High Molecular Weight
PAH
Chlorinated Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Chlorinated Aliphatic
Hydrocarbons
Halogenated Ethers
PP(a)    Pollutant
65  phenol
34  2,4-dimethylphenol

21  2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22  para-chloro-meta-cresol
24  2-chlorophenol
31  2,4-dichlorophenol
57  2-nitrophenol
58  4-nitrophenol
59  2,4-dinitrophenol
60  4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
64  pentachlorophenol

 5  benzidine
28  3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
35  2,4-dinitrotoluene
36  2,6-dinitrotoluene
37  1,2-diphenylhydrazine
56  nitrobenzene
61  N-nitrosodimethylamine
62  N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63  N-nitrosodipropylamine
 1   acenaphthene
55   naphthalene
77   acenaphthylene
78   anthracene
81   phenanthrene
80   fluorene
39   fluoranthene
72   benzo(a)anthracene
73   benzo(a)pyrene
74   benzo(b)fluoranthene
75   benzo(k)fluoranthene
76   chrysene
79   benzo(ghi)perylene
82   dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83   ideno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene
84   pyrene
 8   1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
 9   hexachlorobenzene
20   2-chloronaphthalene
25   1,2-dichlorobenzene
26   1,3-dichlorobenzene
27   1,4-dichlorobenzene
52   hexachlorobutadiene
12   hexachloroethane
53   hexachlorocyclopentadiene

18   bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
40   4-chlorophenyl ether
41   4-bromophenyl ether
42   bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43   bis(2-chlorethoxy)methane
Structural Compound
  Class
                                                                                      ppw
                                                                       Pollutant
Phthalates





Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCB)
as arochlors




Miscellaneous
Oxygenated
Compounds
Pesticides



















66
67
68
69
70
71
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
129
54

89
90
91
92
95
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
113
—
—
_
_
_
-
bis(2-ethylhexy)phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
PCB-1242
PCB- 1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
TCDD (dioxin)
isophorone

aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane
DDT"
endosulfan (c|
endrin
endrin aldehyde
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane
beta-hexachlorocydohexane
delta-hexachlorocyclohexane
gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane
toxaphene
mirex w
methoxychlor (t>
parathion (*'
malathion (
-------
                                                                                                Draft  Revised
                                                                     Dredged Material  Testing Manual
                                                                                                January,   1990
                                                                                                       Page  9-6
                                             TABLE  9.1.    (Continued)
Structural Compound
     Class
   PP<«     Pollutant
Volatile Halogenated
Alkenes
Volatile Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Volatile Chlorinated
Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Volatile Unsaturated
Carbonyl Compounds
Volatile Ethers
 Metals
Miscellaneous
 29    1,1-dichlorethylene
 30    1,2-trans-dichlorethylene
 33    trans-1,3-dichloropropene
 33    cis-1,3-dichloropropene
 85    tetrachlorethene
 87    trichlorethene
 88    vinyl chloride
  4    benzene
 38    ethylbenzene
 86    toluene
       chlorobenzene
  2    acrolein
  3    acrylonitrile

 19    2-chlor.ethylvinylether
       bis(chloromethyl)ether (Removed)

114    antimony
115    arsenic
117    beryllium
118    cadmium
119    chromium
120    copper
122    lead
123    mercury
124    nickel
125    selenium
126    silver
127    thallium
128    zinc

121    cyanide
116    asbestos
(a) PP = Priority Pollutant
(b) Includes DDT,  ODD, and DDE
(c) Includes alpha-endosulfan, beta-endosulfan, and endosulfan sulfate.
(d) Chlorinated 301 (h) pesticides that are not on the priority pollutant list.
(e) Organophosphorus 301(h) pesticides that are not on the priority pollutant list.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 9-7
                    TABLE 9.2.  SEDIMENT SAMPLE SIZE REQUIREMENTS
                               FOR CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL ANALYSES
Analytical                                       Sediment
Parameter                                   Sample Size  (g, wet wt.)
                                            Delivered to Laboratory
Organics                                         250

Metals                                           100

Miscellaneous                                     50
-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 9-8
presented in Tetra Tech  (1986a) and EPA (1986a).  In any event, quality
control data should corroborate the detection limits reached, and any
discrepancies has to be  justified by the data.
     The recommended method for the analysis of semivolatile and volatile
priority pollutants in sediment is available from Tetra Tech  (1986a).
Analyses for organics should always use capillary column gas chromatography
 (GC) or gas chromatography/mass spectrometry  (GC/MS) techniques.  These
methods provide analytically sound techniques that yield accurate data on
the concentrations of chemicals in the sediment matrix.  The analytical
techniques for semivolatile organic compounds generally involve the solvent
extraction of the organic constituents from the sediment matrix and
subsequent analysis, after clean-up, using gas chromatography (GC) or gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry  (GC/MS).   The extensive clean-up is
necessitated by the likelihood of  (1) biological macromolecules,  (2) sulfur
from sediments with low  or no oxygen, and (3) oil and/or grease in the
sediment.  The analysis  of volatile organic compounds incorporates purge
and trap techniques with analysis by either GC or GC/MS.  If dioxin
analysis is being performed, the methods of Kuehl et al. (1987)  or Smith et
al.  (1984) should be consulted.
     For many metals analyses, the concentration of salt may be much
greater than the analyte of interest, and cause unacceptable interferences
in certain analytical techniques.  In such cases, the freshwater approach
of acid digestion followed by inductively coupled plasma or graphite
furnace atomic absorption spectroscopy needs to be coupled with appropriate
techniques for controlling this interference.  Further, it has to be
remembered that Cr, Se,  Sn, Sb, and As generally occur as anions with
several possible oxidation states, while the elements Fe, Zn, Pb, Ni, Cd,
and Cu occur as hydrated cations  (also with different oxidation states
possible).  The Hg method in EPA  (1986a) may be used for sediment analysis.
For quantitation at lower levels, the gold amalgamation methods may be
necessary.  Tributyltin  is analyzed by the method of Rice et al.  (1987),
and selenium and arsenic by the method of EPRI (1986) .
     The techniques for  the analysis of chemical constituents have some
inherent limitations for sediment samples.  Interferences encountered as
part of the sediment matrix, particularly in samples from heavily polluted
areas, may limit the ability of a method to detect or quantify some

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                    Page 9-9
analytes.  Consequently, the most selective methods using GC/MS techniques
are recommended for all nonchlorinated organic compounds, because GC/MS
analysis can often avoid problems due to matrix interferences.  Gas
chromatography/electron capture detector  (GC/ECD) methods are recommended
as the primary analytical tool for all polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and
pesticide analyses because GC/ECD analysis will result in lower detection
limits.  Two-column GC/ECD confirmation of all analytes is recommended.
Alternatively, GC/MS using selected ion monitoring  (SIM) can be used for
PCB and pesticide analysis.  A total extraction of metal ions is not
necessary.  The standard aqua regia extraction yields consistent and
reproducible results.  A total extraction of the metals can only be
achieved by acid fluoride, or flux fusion methods.
     The traditional methods for the analysis of PCB quantify PCB as
aroclor mixtures, which can result in errors in determining concentrations
 (Brown et al., 1984).  The mixture of PCB congeners making up the aroclors
changes due to physical, chemical and/or biological processes altering the
distribution of individual congeners in the environment after release.
Techniques that rely on quantification of PCB by aroclor assume that the
distributions of PCB congeners found in environmental samples are identical
to industrial formulations.  This is not the case.  In addition, aroclor
determinations do not yield information on the potential biological
significance of the PCBs  (McFarland and Clarke, 1989).  The most toxic PCB
congeners fall mainly within the tetra-, penta-, and hexa-chlorobiphenyl
isomer groups (McFarland et al., 1986).  More meaningful biological and
i
toxicological information about PCB concentrations and more accurate
analytical chemistry data can be obtained by analyzing and quantifying PCBs
as individual congeners or isomer classes  (Cli-Cl^)) .  Total PCBs can be
determined by the sum of the individual congeners.  This summation more
accurately represents the PCB concentration in samples as shown in the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Mussel Watch Program
 (NOAA, 1989).  PCB congener analytical methods are  recommended for all
analyses of PCB in sediments.  Table 9.3 lists the congeners  recommended
for analysis based on environmental abundance, persistence, and biological
importance  (McFarland and Clarke, 1989).  The preparation for analysis
should follow the techniques described in Tetra Tech  (1986a)  or EPA
(1986a), but the instrumental analysis and quantification of  the PCBs

-------
                                                                Draft Revised
                                              Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                                January, 1990
                                                                    Page 9-10
TABLE 9.3.  POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL  (PCB) CONGENERS RECOMMENDED FOR
            QUANTITATION AS POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF  CONCERN
PCB Congener
            (a)
              Congener Number0
                                      Summation
                                               (0)
            Highest
            Priority""
             Second
            Priority"1
2,4'   diCB
2,2',5  triCB
2,4,4'  triCB
3,4,4'  triCB
2,2',3,5' tetraCB
2,2',4,5' tetraCB
2,2',5,5' tetraCB
2,3',4,4' tetraCB
2,3',4',5 tetraCB
2, 4,4',5  tetraCB
3,3',4,4' tetraCB
3, 4,4',5  tetraCB
2,2',3,4,5' pentaCB
2,2',3,4',5 pentaCB
2,2',4,5,5' pentaCB
2, 3, 3',4,4' pentaCB
2, 3, 4, 4',5  pentaCB
2,3',4,4',5 pentaCB
2,3',4,4',6 pentaCB
2',3,4,4',5 pentaCB
3,3',4,4',5 pentaCB
2,2',3,3',4,4' hexaCB
2,2',3,4,4',5' hexaCB
2,2',3,5,5',6  hexaCB
2,2',4,4',5,5' hexaCB
2,3,3',4,4',5  hexaCB
2,3,3',4,4',5  hexaCB
2,3,3',4,4',6  hexaCB
  8
 18
 28

 44

 52
 66
 77
101
105

118


126
128
138

153
 77

 87
 49
101
105

118
126
128
138

153
156
 18

 37
 44
 99
 52

 70
 74

 81
114

119
123
151
                            157
                            158

-------
                                                                Draft  Revised
                                             Dredged Material  Testing Manual
                                                                January,  1990
                                                                    Page  9-11
                              Table 9.3 (Cont.)
PCB Congener*'
                                             Congener Number'1"
                                      Summation
                                               (e)
                                                   Highest
                                                   Priority""
                Second
              Priority'"
2,3',4,4',5,5'  hexaCB
2,3',4,4',5',6 hexaCB
3,3',4,4',5,5'  hexaCB
2,2',3,3',4,4',5 heptaCB
2,2',3,4,4',5,5' heptaCB
2,2',3,4,4',5',6 heptaCB
2,2',3,4,4',6,6' heptaCB
2,2',3,4',5,5',6 heptaCB
2,3,3',4,4',5,5' heptaCB
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6  octaCB
2,2',3,3',4,5,5',6' octaCB
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6 nonaCB
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6,6' decaCB
                                                                   167
                                                                   168
                                       169
                                       170
                                       180
                                       187

                                       195

                                       206
                                       209
169
170
180
183
184
                187
                189

                201
(a)PCB congeners recommended for quantitation,  from dichlorobiphenyl  (diCB)
   through decachlorobiphenyl  (decaCB).
(b)Congeners are identified by their  International  Union  of Pure  and
   Applied Chemistry  (IUPAC) number,  as  referenced  in Ballschmiter  and Zell
   (1980)  and Mullen et al.  (1984).
(c)These congeners are summed to determine  total  PCB concentration
   following the approach in NOAA  (1989).
(d)PCB congeners having highest priority for potential  environmental
   importance based on potential for  toxicity,  frequency  of occurrence in
   environmental samples, and relative abundance  in animal tissues
   (McFarland and Clarke, 1989).
(e)PCB congeners having second priority  for potential environmental
   importance based on potential for  toxicity,  frequency  of occurrence in
   environmental samples, and relative abundance  in animal tissues
   (McFarland and Clarke, 1989).

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                   Page 9-12
should be performed using standard capillary GC columns, on individual PCB
isomers according to the methods in NOAA (1989) (see also Stalling, 1987;
Dunn, 1984; Schwartz, 1984; Mullin, 1984).   Based on quantitation of the
congeners listed in Table 9.3, PCB concentrations should also be summed to
give total PCBs in the sample according to the NOAA (1989)  methods.
     As stated earlier,  the list of target  analytes should include
compounds that background and historical information suggest may be
present.  To further ensure that toxic compounds not included in the
priority pollutant list are not overlooked in the chemical characterization
of the dredged material, the analytical results should also be scrutinized
by trained personnel for additional analytes that are not on the target
list.  The presence of persistent major "unknown" analytes on gas
chromatograms  (GC) or reconstructed ion chromatograms (GC/MS)  should be
noted.  In such a case, methods involving GC/MS techniques for organic
compounds are recommended for the identification of unknown chemicals.

                           9.3.3  Quality Control

     Although Chapter 13 presents general quality control/quality assurance
considerations, the EPA methods for the analysis of priority pollutants
include detailed quality control procedures and requirements that are
appropriate for discussion here.  These guidelines should be followed
rigorously throughout the chemical analyses.  General quality control
procedures should include the analysis of a procedural blank and a matrix
spike along with every 10 - 20 samples processed.  To measure analytical
precision, one sample should be analyzed in triplicate for every 10 - 20
samples analyzed.  The standard deviation and coefficient of variation
should be reported.  In addition, recoveries of surrogate spikes should be
documented and all analytical instruments calibrated at least daily.  All
calibration data should be submitted for review.
     Standard reference materials (SRM)  should also be routinely analyzed,
if available, to determine analytical accuracy.  Standard reference
materials may be obtained from the organizations listed in Table 9-4.  One
SRM sample should be analyzed with every batch of 10 to 20 samples.  Some
samples of SRMs for organic analytes include National Research Council of

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                   Page  9-13
            TABLE 9.4.   MARINE REFERENCE MATERIALS AND STANDARDS
   Reference
Material Needed
      Inorganic
     Constituents
           Organic
        Const ituent s
Addresses
Marine Anaytical Chemistry
 Standards Program
National Research Council
 of Canada
Division of Chemistry
Montreal Road
Ottawa, Ontario,
 Canada K1AOR9
Telephone:  (613) 993-2359

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Institute for
 Standards and Technology
Office of Standard
 Reference Materials
Room B3111 Chemistry Bldg.
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
Marine Analytical Chemistry
 Standards Program
National Research Council
 of Canada
Atlantic Research Laboratory
1411 Oxford Street
Halifax, Nova Scotia,
 Canada B3H3Z1
Telephone: (902) 426-8280

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Institute for
 Standards and Technology
Office of Standard
 Reference Materials
Room B3111 Chemistry Bldg.
Gaithersburg, MD 20899

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                   Page 9-14
Canada (NRC)  marine sediment HS-1 and HS-2 for PCB; NRC marine sediment HS-
3, HS-4,  HS-5,  and HS-6 for PAH; and National Institute for Standards and
Technology (NIST)  SRM #1647 and SRM #1597 for PAH.  SRMs for metals
analyses include NBS estuarine sediment (SRM #1646); NRC marine sediments
MESS-1, BCSS-1, and PACS-1; and International Atomic Energy Agency  (IAEA)
marine sediment SD-N-1/2(TM).   Since new SRMs are appearing continuously,
current listings of appropriate agencies should be consulted frequently.
The QA program has to document the ability of the methods selected to cope
with the high salt content of sediments.

                       9.4   CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF WATER

                9.4.1  Recommended Analytical Targets (Water)

     Analysis of seawater to determine the potential release of dissolved
chemical constituents from the dredged material (standard elutriate) may be
necessary to determine compliance with the regulations.  Elutriate tests
(Section 10.1.2.1) involve mixing dredged material with seawater and
allowing the mixture to settle.  The portion of the dredged material that
is considered to have the potential to impact the water column is the
supernatant remaining after undisturbed settling.  Chemical analysis of the
elutriate allows a direct comparison of the data to applicable marine water
quality criteria.  Analysis of seawater samples from the disposal site may
be necessary to help interpret interaction between the  water and sediment
during disposal of the dredged material.  When collecting samples for
elutriate testing, consideration should be given to the large volumes of
water and sediment required to prepare triplicate samples for analysis.  In
some instances when poor settling occurs, the elutriate preparation has to
be performed successively several times to accumulate enough water for
testing.
     In selecting target analytes for water analyses, historical water
quality information from the dredging site should be evaluated along with
data obtained from the chemical analysis of sediment samples.  The data
from the chemical evaluation of the dredged material provide a known list
of constituents that might affect the water column.  All target analytes
identified in the sediment chemical analyses should be  initially considered

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                   Page 9-15
potential targets for water analysis.  Nonpriority-pollutant chemical
components that are found in measurable concentrations in the sediments
should be included as targets for the water analyses if review of the
literature indicates that these analytes have the potential to
bioaccumulate in animals  (i.e., have high Rows or BGFs) and are of
toxicological concern.

              9.4.2   Selection of Analytical Techniques  (Water)

     In contrast to freshwaters, there are generally not EPA approved
methods for analysis of saline waters.  Application of the freshwater
methods to seawater will  frequently result in much higher method detection
limits  (MDLs) than are common for freshwater unless care is taken to
control the effects of salt on the analytical signal.  It is therefore
extremely important to ascertain a laboratory's ability to execute methods
and attain acceptable MDLs in matrices containing up to three percent
sodium chloride.
     Once the list of target analytes for water is established,  the methods
for analysis  should be selected.  The water volume delivered to the
laboratory for specific analytical methods may vary.  A minimum of 1 L of
elutriate should be delivered to the laboratory for metals analysis  (as
little as 100 mL may be analyzed).  One liter of elutriate should be
analyzed for  organic compounds.  For water samples from the dredging or
disposal sites, 10 L water samples should be analyzed for organic analytes
and 1 L water samples should be delivered for metals analyses.  Additional
water samples might be required for any supplemental target compounds that
cannot be determined as part of the analyses for metal or organic priority
pollutants.   The size of  the sample is one of the limiting factors in
determining the detection limits for the water analyses.  In some cases,
the 10 L seawater volume  for organic analysis will provide MDLs below the
applicable marine water quality criteria.  This will allow a direct
comparison of the seawater field data to the water quality criteria.  MDLs
for these water analyses  should be established on the assumption that the
seawater MDLs should be lower than the water quality criteria
concentrations.  Laboratories participating in this program should
.routinely report MDLs achieved for a given analyte.

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                   Page 9-16
     Many of the methods cited below for priority pollutants correspond to
the methods established by EPA for fresh water analyses.  Modifications or
substitute methods (e.g., additional extract concentration steps, larger
sample sizes, or concentration of extracts to smaller volumes) might be
necessary to properly determine analyte concentration in seawater or to
meet the desired MDLs.
     Detailed methods for the analysis of organic and inorganic priority
pollutants in water are referenced in the Federal Register (1984, Vol. 49,
No. 209) and "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes" (EPA,
1982).  Additional approved methods can be found in "U.S. EPA Contract Lab
Program"  (EPA, 1986b), APHA "Standard Methods for the Analysis of Water and
Wastewater"  (1989), ASTM "Annual Book of Standards, Part 31,  Water" (1980),
and Tetra Tech  (1985).  Most of these methods will require modification to
achieve low MDLs in seawater.  Analysis of the semivolatile organic
priority pollutants involves a solvent extraction of water with an optional
sample cleanup procedure and analysis using GC or GC/MS Tetra Tech (1986).
The volatile priority pollutants are determined using purge and trap
techniques and analyzed by either GC or GC/MS.  If dioxin analysis is
necessary, methods of Mehrle et al. (1988) should be consulted.
     Other methods available for metals are:   cadmium,  copper, lead,  iron,
zinc, silver  (Danielson et al., 1978); arsenic (EPRI, 1986);  selenium and
antimony  (Sturgeon et al., 1985); very low levels of mercury  (Bloom et al.,
1983); tributyltin (Rice 1987).
     A primary requirement of the analysis of seawater for inorganic and
organic priority pollutants is obtaining detection limits that will result
in usable, quantitative data that can subsequently be compared to
applicable marine water quality criteria to determine compliance with the
LPC.  Many existing EPA methods for fresh water analysis need to be adapted
to achieve environmentally meaningful detection limits in seawater.
Particularly of concern are procedural blanks and matrix interferences
caused by the salt in seawater.  Some modifications to the analytical
methods for organic compounds might be required to sufficiently lower the
MDLs.  For example, it is recommended that sample extracts be concentrated
to the lowest possible volume prior to instrumental analysis, and that
instrumental injection volumes be increased in order to lower the limits of
detection for the analytical methods used.  All PCB and pesticide analytes

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January,  1990
                                                                   Page  9-17
should be analyzed by GC/ECD, since the GC/ECD methods are more sensitive
to these compounds and will lower the detection limits.  PCB should be
quantified as specific congeners  (Mullin et al., 1984; Stalling et al.,
1987)  and as total PCB based on the summation of particular congeners.
Methods for specific PCB congener analysis are available from NOAA (1989).
The congener method is accurate, provides lower detection limits,  and is
less subject to matrix interferences based on the selection of the
individual PCB congeners used to quantify PCB.
     The analysis of metals in seawater is subject to matrix interferences
from sea salts, particularly sodium and chloride ions, when the samples  are
concentrated prior to instrumental analysis.  The presence of salts in
seawater samples might require the use of alternate analytical approaches
to the EPA approved freshwater methods to achieve the desired MDLs.  The
gold amalgamation method with cold vapor Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotemetry  (AAS) analysis is recommended to eliminate seawater
matrix interferences for mercury analysis.  Methods using solvent
extraction and AAS analysis might be required to reduce seawater matrix
interferences for the analysis of other target metals.  Graphite furnace
AAS techniques after extraction are recommended for the analysis of metals
with the exception of mercury.  Appropriate techniques should be used on
the instruments to reduce salt interferences.

                           9.4.3  Quality Control

     Chapter 13 presents a general discussion of appropriate quality
assurance and control practices.  The methods recommended for the analysis
of priority pollutants in water include detailed quality control procedures
and requirements.  These guidelines should be followed closely throughout
the chemical analyses.  Minimum quality control procedures should include
the analysis of a procedural blank and a matrix spike along with every 10 -
20 samples processed.  Triplicate analysis of one sample and analysis of
appropriate standard reference materials should be conducted with the same
frequency as the blanks and matrix spikes.  Standard  reference materials
for organic priority pollutants are not currently available for seawater,
but reference materials for inorganics may be obtained from the
organizations listed in Table 9-4.  Seawater matrix spikes of target

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                   Page 9-18
analytes (e.g., seawater spiked with NIST SRM 1647 for PAH), should be used
to fulfill analytical accuracy requirements.  Some available standard
reference materials for priority pollutant metals in seawater are NRC
seawater CASS-1 and NRC seawater NASS-2.
     Since many MDL goals might be well below what current freshwater
methods are able to do, it is necessary that an appropriate part of the QA
program require laboratories to establish their own MDLs and provide data
to support their detection limits.  It is also incumbent on participating
laboratories to show that modifications of existing methods are adequately
precise, accurate, and free of salt interference from sea water.

                      9.5  CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF TISSUES

                9.5.1   Recommended Analytical Targets  (Biota)

     Bioaccumulation is evaluated by analyzing the tissue of the test
organisms for contaminants that are selected from the list of target
analytes as being of contaminants of concern for a specific dredged
material.  Sediment chemistry data and available information on the
bioaccumulation potential of those analytes has to be interpreted to
establish which compounds are contaminants of concern in the tissues of
biota.
     The n-octanol/water partition coefficient (Kow) has traditionally been
used to estimate the bioconcentration factors (BCFs)  of many chemicals,
including the priority pollutants, in organism/water systems (Chiou et al.,
1977; Kenaga and Goring, 1980; Veith et al., 1980; Mackay, 1982).
     When identifying organic contaminants of concern for bioaccumulation,
a useful rule of thumb is that the potential for bioaccumulation increases
as Kow  increases.   This general  relationship is often  true  for compounds
with log Kow  less  than approximately  6.  Above this value  there  is  less of a
tendency for bioaccumulation potential to increase with increasing Kow.
Consequently, the relative potential for bioaccumulation of organic
compounds can be estimated from the Kow of the compounds.   EPA  (1985)
recommends that compounds for which the log Kow is greater than  3.5 be
flagged for consideration for further evaluation of bioaccumulation
potential.  Based on the existing data, the organic compound classes of

-------
                                                               Draft Revised
                                             Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                               January, 1990
                                                                   Page 9-19
priority pollutants with the greatest potential to bioaccumulate are
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons  (PAH), PCBs, pesticides, and some
phthalate esters.  Generally, the volatile organic, phenol, and
organonitrogen priority pollutants are not readily bioaccumulated.  Some
exceptions might be the chlorinated benzenes and the chlorinated phenols.
Table 9.5 indicates the relative bioaccumulation potential of organic
priority pollutants based on Kow .  If PCBs or PAHs are identified for
analysis in tissues, the guidance on selection of specific analytical
target compounds in Sections 9.3.1 and 9.3.2 should be followed.
     The priority pollutant metals that might tend to bioaccumulate based
on available BCF data are mercury, copper, arsenic, cadmium, zinc, lead,
and chromium.  Table 9.6 ranks  the bioaccumulation potential of the
priority pollutant metals based on calculated BCFs.  Tables 9.5 and 9.6
have to be used with caution, because they are based on calculated
bioconcentration from water.  Sediment bioaccumulation tests, in contrast,
are concerned with accumulation from a complex medium via all possible
routes of uptake.  The appropriate use of the tables is to help in
selecting contaminants of concern  for bioaccumulation analyses by providing
a general indication of the relative potential for various chemicals to
accumulate in tissues.
     The strategy for selecting contaminants of concern for the chemical
analysis of tissue of organisms should include three criteria:  (I) the
target analyte is present at levels of potential concern  in the sediment  as
determined by sediment chemical analyses,  (2) the target  analyte has a high
potential to accumulate and persist in tissues, and  (3) the target analyte
is of toxicological concern.
     Analytes that might have a lower potential to bioaccumulate, but which
are present at very high concentrations in the sediments, should also be
included in the target list because the bioavailability of the  compound
might increase as organisms encounter high levels in sediments.   In
addition, compounds of a high accumulation potential and  of high
toxicological concern should be considered, even if present at  low
concentrations in the sediment.
     Nonpriority-pollutant chemical components that are found in measurable
concentrations in the sediments should be included as targets for the

-------
                                                           Draft Revised
                                         Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                           January, 1990
                                                               Page 9-20
  TABLE  9.5.  POTENTIAL FOR BIOACCUMULATION OF ORGANIC  PRIORITY
             POLLUTANTS AND 301(h) PESTICIDES BASED  ON
             OCTANOL/WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENTS  (K«J '*'
                                       Octanol/Water
Pollutant                      Partition Coefficients (log
Di-n-octyl phthalate                      9.2
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene                    7.7
Benzo(ghi)perylene                        7.0
PCB-1260                                  6.9
Mirex(b)                                   6.9
Benzo(k)fluoranthene                      6.8
Benzo(b)fluoranthene                      6. 6
PCB-1248                                  6.1
2,3,7,8-TCDD  (dioxin)                     6.1
Benzo(a)pyrene                            6.0
Chlordane                                 6.0
PCB-1242                                  6.0
4,4'-DDD                                  6.0
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene                    6.0
PCB-1016                                  5.9
4,4'-DDT                                  5.7
4, 4'-DDE                                  5.7
Benzo(a)anthracene                        5.6
Chrysene                                  5.6
Endrin aldehyde                           5. 6
Fluoranthene                              5.5
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene                 5.5
Dieldrin                                  5.5
Heptachlor                                5.4
Heptachlor epoxide                        5.4
Hexachlorobenzene                         5.2
Di-n-butyl phthalate                      5.1
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether                5.1
Pentachlorophenol                         5.0
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether               4.9
Pyrene                                    4.9
2-Chloronaphthalene                       4.7
Endrin                                    4.6
PCB-1232                                  4.5
Phenanthrene                              4.5
Fluorene                                  4.4
Anthracene                                4.3
Methoxychlor*1                            4.3
Hexachlorobutadiene                       4.3

-------
                                                           Draft Revised
                                         Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                           January,  1990
                                                               Page  9-21
                      TABLE  9.5.   (Continued)
                                    Oct anol/Water
Pollutant                         Partition Coefficients  (log K                   3.5
1,4-dichlorobenzene                        3.5
1,3-dichlorobenzene                        3.4
1,2-dichlorobenzene                        3.4
Toxaphene                                  3.3
Ethylbenzene                               3.1
N-nitrosodiphenylamine                     3.1
P-chloro-m  cresol                          3.1
2,4-dichlorophenol                         3.1
3,3'-diChlorobenzene                       3.0
Aldrin                                     3.0
1,2-diphenylhydrazine                      2.9
4-nitrophenol                              2.9
Malathion""                                2.9
Tetrachloroethene                          2.9
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol                       2.8
Tetrachloroethene                          2.6
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether               2.6
1,1,1-trichloroethane                      2.5
Trichloroethene                            2.4
2,4-dimethylphenol                         2-4
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane                 2.4
Bromoforra                                  2.3
1,2-dichloropropane                        2.3
Toluene                                    2.2

-------
                                                           Draft Revised
                                         Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                           January, 1990
                                                               Page 9-22
                      TABLE 9.5.   (Continued)
                                   Octanol/Water
Pollutant                         Partition Coefficients  (log K.J
1,1,2-trichloroethane                     2.2
Guthion'b)                                  2.2
Dichlorodiflouromethanetc)                 2.2
2-chlorophenol                            2.2
Benzene                                   2.1
Chlorodibromomethane                      2.1
2,4-dinitrotoluene                        2.1
2,6-dinitrotoluene                        2.0
Trans-1,2-dichloropropene                 2.0
Cis-1,3-dichloropropene                   2.0
Demeton""                                  1.9
Chloloform                                1.9
Dichlorobromomethane                      1.9
Nitrobenzene                              1.9
Benzidine                                 1.8
1,1-dichloroethane                        1.8
2-nitrophenol                             1.8
Isophorone                                1.7
Dimethyl phthalate                        1. 6
Chloroethane                              1.5
2,4-dinitrophenol                         1.5
1,1-dichloroethylene                      1.5
Phenol                                    1.5
1,2-dichloroethane                        1.4
Diethyl phthalate                         1.4
N-nitrosodipropylamine                    1.3
Dichloromethane                           1.3
2-chloroethylvinylether                   1.3
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane                1.3
Acrylonitrile                             1.2
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether                   1.1
Bromomethane                              1.0
Acrolein                                  0.9
Chloromethane                             0.9
Vinyl chloride                            0.6
N-nitrosodimethylamine                    0.6
 (a) Adapted from Tetra Tech (1985).
 (b) 301(h)  pesticides not on the priority pollutant list.
 (c) No longer on priority pollutant  or 301(h) list.

-------
                                                           Draft Revised
                                         Dredged Material Testing Manual
                                                           January,  1990
                                                               Page 9-23
  TABLE  9.6.   POTENTIAL FOR BIOACCUMULATION OF TRACE METAL PRIORITY
               POLLUTANTS BASED  ON EMPIRICAL MEAN BIOCONCENTRATION
               FACTORS  (BCF) 
-------
                                                               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.

-------