&EPA
United States
onmental Prxrte
Agency
R E S E A R
V E L 0
Contaminated Sediment Research
Multi-Year Implementation Plan 2005
man 22'
1 MORf TH»N TWO MEALS PtKMONI' 0
NATIONAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS RESEAR
ORATORY
-------
-------
EPA/600/R-05/033
May 2005
Contaminated Sediment Research
Multi-Year Implementation Plan 2005
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
Notice
The United States Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and
Development produced this multi-year implementation plan. It has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Foreword
The National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL), as part of the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Research and Development (ORD), serves
as EPA's focal point for scientific research on the effects of contaminants and environmental
stressors for both human health and ecosystem integrity. NHEERL's research helps the Agency
identify and understand the processes that affect our health and environment, thereby aiding in
evaluation of the risks that pollution poses to humans and ecosystems. The research is intended
to address key Agency problems in a timely and responsive manner. In this context, NHEERL
develops research implementation plans to achieve the following objectives:
Optimizing responsiveness of research activities to Agency needs,
Sharpening the focus of research programs where needed,
« Providing a forum for engagement of scientific staff on issues and approaches,
Focusing on multi-year planning explicitly linked to Agency performance goals, and
Providing a mechanism for prioritizing research.
NHEERL's approach builds on the ORD planning process which identifies and prioritizes
research needs. ORD's research portfolio includes both core and problem-driven program areas.
Currently, ORD has problem-driven research programs for air, water, waste, and pesticides
and toxic substance, each of which addresses key problems faced by the respective regulatory
program.
This implementation plan identifies the scientific problems and research that will be conducted
by NHEERL concerning contaminated sediments, a key problem area for EPA's waste regulatory
program, specifically the Superfund office (Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation, or OSRTI). The goal of NHEERL's research in this area is to help ORD address one
of several long-term research goals in the waste program by improving the scientific foundation
for selecting options to remedy contaminated sediments.
This document was developed by representatives from NHEERL research divisions, with
significant engagement and peer review from OSRTI and other ORD laboratories and centers.
In addition, the document has been reviewed by scientists external to the Agency. This
implementation plan is intended to reflect research that will be conducted over the next several
years. As progress is made in achieving the goals outlined in this document, it will be updated to
address new and remaining challenges.
Lawrence W. Reiter, Ph.D.
Director National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory
in
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
NHEEML's
Barbara Bergen, Ph.D. ORD, NHEERL, AED
Robert Burgess, Ph.D. ORD, NHEERL, AED
Marilyn ten Brink, Ph.D. ORD, NHEERL, AED
Wayne Munns, Ph.D. ORD, NHEERL, AED
Robert Dyer, Ph.D. ORD, NHEERL, RPCS
Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D. ORD, NHEERL, ETD
Prasada Kodavanti, Ph.D. ORD, NHEERL, NTD
Dave Mount, Ph.D. ORD, NHEERL, MED
Lawrence Burkhard, Ph.D. ORD, NHEERL, MED
Philip Cook, Ph.D. ORD, NHEERL, MED
Dennis Timberlake, M.S. ORD, NBMRL, LRPCD
Dermont Bouchard, Ph.D. ORD, NERL
Keith Sappington, M.S. ORD, NCEA, Washington, DC
Steve Ells, M.S. OSWER, OSRTI
Peer Reviewers of NHEERL's Contaminated Sediment
Multi-Year
Todd S. Bridges, Ph.D.
US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Army Corps of Engineers-Waterways
Experiment Station (ACE-WES), EP-R, Vicksburg, MS 39180
Allison Hiltner, M.S.
US-EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101
Kevin Farley, Ph.D.
Manhattan College, Environmental Engineering Department, Manhattan College Parkway,
Riverdale, NY 10470
Ray Valente, M.S.
SeaRay Environmental, 902 Riverview Place, St. Marys, GA31558
IV
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
of Contents
Notice 11
Foreword iii
NHEERL's Contaminated Sediment Steering Committee iv
Peer Reviewers of NHEERL's Contaminated Sediment Multi-Year Implementation Plan iv
Executive Summary vi
Acronyms vii
Introduction 1
Purpose and Scope 1
Process for Developing this Implementation Plan 1
Coordination Across ORD 5
Research Questions for Projects I, II, III, and IV 7
Project I : Integrative Assessment of Benthic Effects from Remedial Activities
at Superfund Sites 8
Project II: Linking Residues to Effects in Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent
Wildlife 17
Project III: Linking Chemical Concentrations in Water and Sediment with
Residues in Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife 24
Project IV: Research to Evaluate the Release and Bioavailability of Contaminants
Associated with Resuspended Sediments and Post-Dredging
Residuals at Superfund Sites 40
Project Descriptions for Guidance Documents and for Research Dropped from Further
Consideration in the Planning Process
Project V: Preparation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmark
Documents for the Assessment of Contaminated Sediments
at Superfund Sites 53
Project VI: Preparation of Whole Sediment and Interstitial Water Freshwater
and Marine Toxicity Identification Evaluations (TIEs) Guidance
Document for Use at Superfund Sites 55
Project VII: Development of Appropriate Remedial Goals for
Non-Bioaccumulative Contaminants in Sediment 56
Program Summary and Management 60
Appendices
Appendix A: Superfund Program Research Priorities A-l
Appendix B: Expanded Descriptions of Ten Issues Resulting from
May 2003 AED Meeting B-l
Appendix C: Description of Science Tasks and Level of Effort for Eight
Research Issues C-l
Appendix D: Candidates for NHEERL Research in Contaminated Sediments D-l
Appendix E: Commitments and Endorsements E-l
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Executive
This document describes the implementation plan for contaminated sediments research within
the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL) for fiscal years
2004 - 2008. Contaminated sediments research in the Office of Research and Development
(ORD) of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is based on needs identified by EPA's
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI).
ORD has developed a multi-year research plan (MYP) to address OSRTFs needs for research.
One of the long-term goals of the Contaminated Sites MYP is focused on contaminated
sediments, and the NHEERL Implementation Plan provides the detailed approach that NHEERL
will take to address mission-related scientific uncertainties identified in the MYP. This plan
was developed in the context of the expected resource base for the program: an intramural
research effort with about 8 full-time research FTEs (full-time equivalents) and associated
research support resources. The Introduction provides a brief discussion of the process by which
NHEERL developed this plan.
The NHEERL contaminated sediments research program described in herein contains four
projects: (1) assessing impact of remedial activities on benthic communities (benthic recovery
project); (2) linking residues to effects in aquatic and aquatic-dependent wildlife (residues to
effects project); (3) linking chemical concentrations in water and sediment with residues in
aquatic and aquatic-dependent wildlife (water and sediment concentrations to residues project);
and (4) evaluating the impact of resuspension events on contaminant release and bioavailability
(resuspension project). This document describes each of these projects and includes a summary
of the issue, state of the science, and research needs for each project. It also describes the
projected activities, resource requirements, critical path, and key products.
To the extent feasible, projects in this implementation plan blend empirical and modeling
approaches to resolve the key issues. The project on benthic effects is designed to evaluate the
relative utility of two different approaches to assessing the recovery/reestablishment of benthic
communities after remediation. The project addressing residues-to-effects linkages is a short-
term effort to assemble and evaluate existing polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) residue-effects
data for aquatic species. The project addressing water-concentrations-to-residues linkages is
intended to produce a useful approach to extrapolating bioaccumulation data across ecosystems,
species, and time for selected bioaccumulative toxicants. The resuspension project focuses on
developing an empirical method and establishing linkages between empirical data and existing
fate and transport models in order to better predict risks resulting from dredging activities.
The projects were developed with recognition that a key measure of success is the effectiveness
with which critical information developed by NHEERL is transferred to the research client,
i.e., to OSRTI and Superfund regional scientists and remedial project managers. Consequently,
while the projects generally identify documents as the target products of the program, frequent
communication between NHEERL and OSRTI will ensure timely and optimal transfer of new
information.
VI
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Acronyms
ACE Army Corps of Engineers
AED Atlantic Ecology Division
AhR aryl hydrocarbon receptor
APG annual performance goal
AVS acid volatile sulfide
BAF bioaccumulation factor
BHQ benthic habitat quality
B-IBI benthic index of biotic integrity
BSAF biota-sediment accumulation factor
CDA Coeur d' Alene River
CFR Clark Fork River
DAMOS Disposal Area Monitoring System
DEA dermal exposure assessment
DMU dredge management unit
DNAPL dense, non-aqueous phase liquid
DO dissolved oxygen
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERAF Environmental Risk Assessment Forum
ERDC Engineer Research and Development Center
ERED Environmental Residue-Effects Database
ESB equilibrium partitioning sediment benchmark
EcoSSL ecological-soil screening level
ETD Experimental Toxicology Division
FS feasibility study
FTE full-time equivalent
HELP Hydrogeologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance
HSRC Hazardous Substances Research Center
LOAEL lowest-observed adverse effect level
LRPCD Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division
LTG long-term goal
LUST CA Leaking Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action
MED Mid-Continent Ecology Division
MNA monitored natural attenuation
MNR monitored natural recovery
MYIP multi-year implementation plan
MYP multi-year plan
NBH New Bedford Harbor
NCEA National Center for Environmental Assessment
NERL National Exposure Research Laboratory
NHEERL National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
NOAEL no-observed adverse effect level
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Contaminated Sediment Research
VI1
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
NTD Neurotoxicology Division
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSI organism-sediment index
OSP Office of Science Policy
OSRTI Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PBT persistent bioaccumulative toxicant
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PE polyethylene
PES particle entrainment simulator
PRB permeable reactive barrier
RAGS risk assessment guidance for Superfund
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCT research coordination team
RI Remedial Investigation
RPCS research planning and coordination staff
RPD redox potential discontinuity
SF Superfund
SPME solid-phase microextraction
SPI sediment profile image
SPMD semipermeable membrane device
SQG sediment quality guideline
tbd to be determined
TEF toxicity equivalence factor
TEQ toxicity equivalents
TIE toxicity identification evaluation
TRV toxicity reference value
USGS United States Geological Survey
WES Waterways Experiment Station
WOE weight of evidence
Contaminated Sediment Research
Vlll
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
OMB Contaminated Sediments
Long-Term Goal
By 2010, improve the range and scientific
foundation for contaminated sediment
remedy selection options by improving
risk characterization, site characterization
and increasing understanding of different
remedial options, in order to optimize the
protectiveness to the environment and
human health and the cost-effectiveness of
remedial decisions.
Introduction
Purpose and Scope
This document, the NHEERL Implementation Plan for Contaminated Sediments Research,
describes the research that the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
(NHEERL) intends to perform in support of the Office of Research and Development's
(ORD's) multi-year research plan (MYP)
for contaminated sites research. ORD
uses multi-year planning to chart the
direction of ORD's research programs
in selected topic areas for time periods
extending up to ten years. Within EPA's
Goal 3, Preserve and Restore the Land,
two ORD multi-year plans (MYPs) have
been developed: Contaminated Sites and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). The Contaminated Sites MYP
describes ORD's research supporting three
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) trust fund programs
for which research is authorized: Superfund
(SF), Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Corrective Action (LUST CA), and the
Oil Spills Program. The ORD Contaminated Sites MYP has four long-term goal (LTG) areas:
Contaminated Sediments, Ground Water, Soil/Land, and Multimedia.
To guide the implementation of strategic directions identified in the ORD MYPs, NHEERL
develops multi-year implementation plans (MYTPs) for its major research programs. These plans
are intended to ensure that NHEERL research addresses the key mission-related scientific issues
that are raised in ORD MYPs in a way that maximizes benefit to the programmatic client, fully
utilizes NHEERL capability, and integrates effectively with related ORD research programs.
The scope of the NHEERL Contaminated Sites research program is limited to the Contaminated
Sediments LTG in the ORD Contaminated Sites MYP. Consequently, this MYIP describes the
NHEERL research program to support ORD's Contaminated Sediments LTG. The full text of
the ORD Contaminated Sediments LTG is provided in the text box.
The annual performance goals (APGs) and associated annual performance measures (APMs) for
this MYIP are those listed under the Contaminated Sediments LTG. This MYIP will provide the
background and project descriptions for NHEERL's research program to achieve these APMs and
APGs.
Process for Developing this Implementation Plan
Prior to FY2001, NHEERL did not have a contaminated sediment research program supporting
Superfund. In FY2000, a small number of ORD FTEs (7.8) were reassigned to establish a
NHEERL research program on contaminated sediments to support Superfund.
Contaminated Sediment Research
1
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
In the spring of 2003, an NHEERL contaminated sediment steering committee was created with
the purpose of developing a focused NHEERL contaminated sediments research program, i.e.,
a program that was optimized in terms of responsiveness to client needs for ecological effects
research related to contaminated sediments Superfund sites. The Steering Committee aims are as
follows.
1. Establish a framework for NHEERL's Superfund contaminated sediments research
program that sets a context and goals for the research consistent with (a) the Contaminated
Sediments LTG 1 in the ORD Contaminated Sites MYP; (b) the ORD contaminated
sediments focus groups (an across ORD sediment planning group organized by EPA's
Office of Science Policy (OSP)); (c) the level of NHEERL effort available; and (d) the
Laboratory's capabilities.
2. Identify critical paths necessary to achieve the goals set in the framework.
3. Articulate an MYIP that follows the critical paths to achieve the goals.
4. Monitor and review program accomplishments for purposes of communicating progress
and revising plans when necessary.
5. Stimulate synergy between investigators and between divisions where appropriate.
6. Engage clients and collaborators to ensure responsiveness and linkages.
7. Suggest appropriate revisions to the ORD Contaminated Sites MYP when appropriate.
In May 2003, NHEERL's Steering Committee met at NHEERL's Atlantic Ecology Division
(AED) in Narragansett, Rhode Island, with Mike Cook, director of the Superfund program
(Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI)); Steve Ells, the OSRTI
sediment team leader; and Leah Evison, the OSRTI member of the Waste RCT in order to
start the development of NHEERL's Contaminated Sediment MYIP. At this meeting, a list of
Superfund research priorities for ORD in seven research categories (ground water, sediment, soil/
waste, multimedia and analytical, human health, and ecological research needs) was presented;
and discussion of the research needs for the sediment category was initiated. The categorization
of sediment research needs contained twenty-eight issues (Figure 1) grouped into three areas: (1)
site characterization issues, (2) ecological and human health risk issues, and (3) development and
evaluation of remedies. A complete listing of the entire Superfund program research priorities is
provided in Appendix A.
The discussions at the May 2003 meeting of the NHEERL Steering Committee resulted in a
narrowing of the 28 sediment issues to 10 issues (Figure 1). Although no formal criteria were
developed by the Steering Committee for eliminating a research issue, the decisions were
based on the appropriateness of the research issue to the mission and capabilities of NHEERL.
NHEERL's research mission is centered on the effects of environmental pollutants and other
anthropogenic stressors upon human and ecosystem health. Thus, research issues external to
NHEERL's mission such as fate and transport of chemical contaminants, sediment stability and
erosion, design and engineering of remediation options, ground water-sediment interactions,
and analytical methods were eliminated. For research issues within NHEERL's mission, the
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
narrowing process considered whether the issue required new research or could be answered
with available data. The narrowing process eliminated several research issues because they
could be answered with available data, and tentative plans were made for the development
of fact sheets for Superfund on these issues. For each of the remaining ten NHEERL-related
contaminated sediment issues, expanded descriptions were developed (Appendix B). These
descriptions were then reviewed by the steering committee members with particular attention to
the accuracy in reflecting the OSRTI need, relation to NHEERL mission, clarity of the text, and
division management support for these topics as focal points for the next 5-6 years of research.
In addition, the committee considered whether additional issues should be added.
Subsequently, in evaluating the expanded descriptions, the Steering Committee removed two of
the ten remaining issues as possible focus areas (those related to dredging residuals and cleanup
levels) because the issues were outside of NHEERL's mission. For the remaining eight issues,
descriptions of the science tasks and the level of effort and/or time required to complete the
research effort were prepared (see Appendix C and Figure 1).
The task descriptions of the science proposed for NFffiERL research were then evaluated by the
Steering Committee (Figure 1). Three issues were identified as highest priority from among
the eight candidates for NHEERL research, while two issues were identified as high priority
candidates (Appendix D).
The highest priority NHEERL research candidate issues were
Residue-effect relationships: linking chemical residues in aquatic biota to levels of
ecological risk to aquatic and aquatic-dependent wildlife;
Non-Bioaccumulatives: development of appropriate remedial goals for non-
bioaccumulative chemicals; and
Resuspension: assessing the toxic and bioaccumulative effects of contaminated sediment
resuspension.
The high priority NHEERL research candidate issues were
Predicting rates of recovery following remedial action: short-term impacts and
« Monitoring methods and protocols.
The lower priority NHEERL research issues were
Predicting rates of recovery following remedial actions: long-term impacts;
« Developing sediment contaminant screening levels;
Delineation of appropriate uses of total PCBs, and Aroclor-based and congener-specific
PCB concentrations as the basis for assessing and managing risks from PCBs; and
Establishing guidance on sampling biota and surface sediments at Superfund sites.
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Figure 1: NHEERL Contaminated Sediments Program
Steering Committee Prioritization Process
28 Superfund
Contaminated
Sediment Issues
Filtered to 10
issues
Filtered to 8
Prioritized to 4
issues
Final review
process
Research?
Mission?
Expertise?/
Expanded descriptions prepared,
discussed, prioritized
Science tasks and level of effort
descriptions prepared
May-03
May-03
Aug-03
Research?
Mission?
Expertise?
I A
Internal review
Revisions
External review/
Revisions
Science tasks and level of effort
descriptions evaluated
Defined 4 projects, Identified
key science questions,
research / products
proposed
Sept- &
Oct-03
Nov-03
May-July-04
Aug-Nov-04
Dec-04
Implementation Plan
Note that in the deliberation of the Steering Committee, the research on the issue of predicting
rates of recovery was sub-divided into two sub-issues: short-term impacts and long-term
impacts.
In November 2003, the Steering Committee had detailed discussions (meeting in Duluth,
Minnesota) on the highest priority research candidate issues and on the high priority issue of
predicting rates of recovery following remedial action: short-term impacts. At the meeting,
a previously assigned lead person presented (1) a summary of the issue; (2) a proposed list of
research targets (products if we successfully accomplished our goals); (3) a list of precursors to
achievement of the target; (4) a gap analysis for the issue based upon the state of the science;
and (5) a statement of research question(s) addressing the issue along with milestones and steps.
The Steering Committee discussed each item, building towards a consensus on the approach (or
approaches) required to meet the research needs of the proposed issues/projects successfully.
These discussions also covered the products and their timing for each issue.
Based upon the results from this meeting, project descriptions were prepared for the four highest
priority sediment research issues (Figure 1) (also see "Research Project Descriptions" section).
These projects are the following:
I. Integrative assessment of benthic effects from remedial activities at Superfund sites;
II. Linking residues to effects in aquatic and aquatic-dependent wildlife;
III. Linking chemical concentrations in water and sediment with residues in aquatic and
aquatic-dependent wildlife; and
IV. Research to evaluate the release and bioavailability of contaminants associated with
resuspended sediments and post-dredging residuals at Superfund sites.
Contaminated Sediment Research
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
For each research issue, the project description summarizes the issue, the state of the science,
and the research needs. In addition, a list of the research targets and a description of the actual
research steps and tasks required to complete the research are included. The project description
also includes a section on technology transfer that describes how the products and research will
be provided to OSRTI and identifies the resources (FTE and project-specific extramural dollar
needs) required to accomplish the research. The resource summary is used to both ensure that
the Steering Committee does not design a program requiring more resources than are available
and to identify explicitly what can be done with additional resources. Finally, the project
descriptions are completed with a critical path diagram, a product timeline, and references.
After the individual project descriptions in this document, a Program Summary and Management
section is provided. This section summarizes the research program outputs and discusses how
the research program will be managed within NFiEERL.
In addition to the research projects, this MYIP includes two additional projects (Projects V and
VI) describing the preparation of technical documents. Project V describes the preparation
of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmark (ESB) documents for several sediment
contaminants including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) mixtures, metal mixtures, and
pesticides. Project VI discusses the preparation of a sediment Toxicity Identification Evaluation
(TIE) document for use in freshwater and saltwater systems. Neither project involves active
research, but each seeks to provide guidance on determining the contaminants causing adverse
ecological effects at contaminated sediment Superfund sites.
The MYIP was reviewed internally and subsequently reviewed externally (Figure 1). The
internal review included sign-off by the Steering Committee and by AED, MED (Mid-Continent
Ecology Division of NHEERL), and OSRTI division directors (Appendix E) on the proposed
research. Additionally, AED and MED management agreed to provide the resources for the
defined efforts. External review of the MYIP was performed by four reviewers: one EPA
Regional Superfund site manager and three scientists external to the Agency. Their comments
were addressed by the Steering Committee and project leads such that modifications to the MYIP
were made where appropriate. A "Response to Comments" document is available upon request
to NHEERL.
Coordination across ORD
This MYIP provides a description of NHEERL's research program in support of ORD's
Contaminated Sites MYP under EPA's Goal 3, Preserve and Restore the Land. The
Contaminated Sites MYP for ORD is produced by the Waste Research Coordination Team (RCT)
which consists of staff from ORD, OSWER, and EPA's Regions. The Contaminated Sites MYP
identifies the vision and strategic directions for ORD research and lays out how the research
programs of NHEERL, National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL), National Center for
Environmental Assessment (NCEA), and National Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL) coordinate to accomplish the overall research goals in support OSWER.
The Office of Science Policy (OSP) coordinates, communicates, and tracks research by ORD that
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
supports the program offices. For the Contaminated Sediments research area, OSP established
eight (now reduced to five) Focus Groups for specific sediment issue areas; the Focus Groups
are composed of OSP, ORD, and Superfund staff. These Focus Groups provide coordination
and communication among ORD's laboratories. Additionally, the waste RCT allocates targeted
funding (above base/infrastructure) via the Focus Groups for research on specific issues that are
key to having ORD fulfill the vision and strategic directions identified in ORD's Contaminated
Sites MYP.
The Superfund Program developed a list of research issues and needs (see Appendix A) that
includes a series of non-sediment related research areas. These non-sediment research needs
have been considered, evaluated, and addressed in the other three LTGs in ORD's Contaminated
Sites MYP, i.e., Ground Water, Soil/Land, and Multimedia. For non-MTEERL aspects of the
research needs for contaminated sediments, the NHEERL Contaminated Sediment Steering
Committee includes representatives from ORD's other two laboratories (NERL and FERMRL)
and NCEA. The research missions of these organizations cover non-NHEERL aspects of the
research needs for contaminated sediments.
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Project
Research Questions for Projects I, II, III, and TV
In the process of writing the research project descriptions, the description for the research
on residue-effect relationships was divided into two research project descriptions: Linking
Residues to Effects in Aquatic and Aquatic-dependent Wildlife (Project II) and Linking Chemical
Concentrations in Water and Sediment with Residues in Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife
(Project III). The table below summarizes the research questions for each of the projects;
detailed descriptions are provided on the following pages.
Research Questions
I. Evaluating benthic recovery monitoring methods
For assessing/predicting recovery of benthic communities at contaminated sediment sites:
Will sediment profile image (SPI) data be more cost-effective than benthic enumeration
techniques?
Will SPI data be as accurate as benthic enumeration techniques?
* Does understanding near-bottom dissolved oxygen conditions increase prediction
accuracy?
II. Predicting effects based on in vivo chemical residues
For estimating ecological risk at contaminated sediment sites:
Do major gaps exist in PCB residue-effect data for aquatic and aquatic dependent wildlife?
* Will risk estimates be altered significantly by the manner in which PCB is expressed
(e.g.total PCB, Aroclors, congeners, and dioxin-like congeners)?
III. Predicting residues based on chemical concentrations
For predicting bioaccumulation at contaminated sediment sites:
Can bioaccumulation data, i.e.,biota-sediment accumulation factors (BSAFs) and
bioaccumulation factors (BAFs), be extrapolated across ecosystems, species, and/or time
using a hybrid empirical modeling approach?
* Will the accuracies and uncertainties of the hybrid predictions be similar to those obtained
with dynamic time-variant bioaccumulation food web models?
IV. Evaluating off-site impacts from dredging
For resuspension of sediments during dredging at contaminated sediment sites:
Do existing fate and transport models accurately predict dissolved concentrations?
* Will dissolved contaminants be released and transported?
Will bioavailability of contaminants be increased temporarily?
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Project I: of
Activities at
Summary of Issue
At contaminated sediment sites, the Superfund program must decide whether to leave the site
alone or select a remedial option. These decisions are based in part on the relative risks to the
environment and health posed by each alternative. Whatever decision is made at a site, the
Superfund program must have an understanding of the potential risks to the ecosystem posed by
the remedial action itself. Consequently, Superfund needs cost-effective, rapid methods to assess
benthic effects before and after remedial actions (both spatially and temporally) and means to
separate the effects of chemical contamination from other stressors on the benthic community.
The objectives of the research are to (1) evaluate the sediment profile image (SPI) camera as
a rapid and cost-effective tool to assess the short-term effects on and recovery of the benthic
community after dredging at a Superfund site; (2) to evaluate and compare SPI data for benthic
communities with more traditional grab/sieve metrics (e.g., benthic species enumeration); and
(3) to investigate interactions between sediment contaminants and near-bottom dissolved oxygen
concentrations and their relative influence on benthic community recovery.
Summary of the State of the Science
Two methods have been commonly used to assess the status of the benthic community,
each with it's own advantages and disadvantages. The most traditional method, benthic
organism enumeration, involves sediment collection and sieving after which the collected
benthic organisms are identified and counted. This information has been used in many ways,
including producing indices such as the benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) developed
for Chesapeake Bay (Weisberg et al. 1997). While sieving and counting benthic animals
yields significant detailed information on species richness and biomass, it requires sediment
collection and handling, is labor intensive, and is comparatively expensive and slow. Several
of these characteristics present special problems at Superfund sites (e.g., extensive handling of
contaminated sediment, cost).
Another method involves remote sensing of the benthos using SPI cameras (Rhoads and Cande
1971). This approach has also led to the calculation of several indices based on information
taken from sediment profile images, such as benthic habitat quality (BHQ) (Nilsson and
Rosenberg 1997) and the Organism-Sediment Index (OSI) (Rhoads and Germane 1982; 1986).
Sediment profile imagery provides a rapid spatial assessment of the benthic community in situ
and is relatively inexpensive after initial instrument acquisition costs. While these attributes
can be very beneficial at Superfund sites, the camera images do not provide quantitative,
comprehensive species counts.
The bulk of the existing studies utilizing SPI methods focus on benthic community recovery
("recolonization") following disposal of uncontaminated, fine-grained dredged material in
estuarine or marine environments. Such disposal is quite comparable, in terms of benthic
disturbance, to remedial actions such as dredging or capping: both essentially involve replacing
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
an existing benthic substrate and associated biota with a new substrate that is initially devoid
of organisms but that can become colonized over time. Therefore, literature is available that
describes benthic successional patterns and responses following physical sea floor disturbance
(see review by Hall 1994); and a significant number of studies specifically examined
recolonization following dredging or dredged material disposal (see reviews by Newell et al.
1998; Bolam and Rees 2003).
Most past studies have utilized the traditional grab/sieving approach to evaluate benthic impacts
and recovery following disposal or capping; but there are also some that have utilized SPI, either
alone or in combination with grab/sieving (e.g., Valente et al. 2000; Valente and Fredette 2002).
Most notably, the Corps of Engineers Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS) has utilized
SPI extensively for over 25 years as a cost-effective alternative to grab sampling in monitoring
benthic impacts and recovery at dredged material disposal sites throughout New England (see
Fredette and French 2004 and references therein). That being said, comparatively few studies
have attempted to make a direct, explicit comparison between grab/sieving and SPI results
obtained simultaneously to calibrate and validate the correlation, and even fewer have been
conducted at Superfund sites (Fredette et al. 2002).
Diaz et al. (2002) compared the two methods directly in Chesapeake Bay and demonstrated that
there were significant differences between them when classifying a particular station as having
"stressed" or "good" habitat quality. The B-IBI, calculated with species enumeration data, was
community-structure orientated with an emphasis on species identity and richness. The BHQ,
calculated from image analysis of SPI data, was process oriented; the images recorded the end
products of biological and physical processes that impact and structure the benthos (e.g., the
presence of tubes, redox depth). Despite a large body of knowledge about both methods, there
is still considerable debate over which metrics/indices to calculate from the data and how to
best utilize both methods (e.g., alone or in combination) and their metrics. In addition, there
are questions about the standardization and quality assurance of SPI images and their most
appropriate use at Superfund sites.
Research Needs
Superfund needs rapid and cost effective tools that provide data appropriate for identifying
and evaluating benthic quality. The question is whether the SPI approach provides enough
information to adequately assess remedial effects and effectiveness as compared to the traditional
enumeration procedures. We also recognize that both methods may be needed in combination
(e.g., SPI for spatial coverage and sieving/counting for ground-truthing). Therefore, a study to
directly compare the two methods at a Superfund sediment site would be useful.
Benthic community metrics, including but not limited to indices such as IB I and BHQ, will be
comparatively evaluated to determine not necessarily which method is "best" (i.e., in a perfect
world of unlimited resources and personnel, benthic enumeration is most comprehensive),
but whether the SPI approach provides enough information to fill Superfund's requirement to
document remedial effects and recovery at sediment sites given the realities of limited budgets
and the need for timely decisions, etc.
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
In addition to evaluating the utility of the SPI camera, the proposed study will also address the
question of what each benthic community indicator is reflecting or measuring. One advantage of
any integrative indicator, such as benthic community, is that it incorporates the effects of multiple
environmental conditions. In most aquatic systems, including those contaminated enough to be
classified as Superfund sites, there is rarely only one stressor (e.g., contaminants) that affects
the benthic condition. Contaminant stress to the benthos can be confounded by other processes,
both anthropogenic (e.g., low dissolved oxygen from eutrophication) and natural (e.g., salinity
gradients in estuaries, deposit!onal/erosional processes in rivers). In the context of a regulatory
program such as Superfund, it is especially important to understand exactly what an indicator is
reflecting so that scientific and management assessments of remedial effects can be accurate and
expectations about remedial recovery can be realistic. A drawback to both benthic assessment
methods described above is the lack of a direct link between what they measure and the ability to
partition observed effects among multiple stressors. Research is needed to elucidate these links
and potentially confounding effects.
Proposed Research Targets
The specific objective of this research is to compare and evaluate the traditional grab/sieving
method and the SPI camera method of benthic community assessment at a Superfund site. The
research program will use traditional and innovative tools to understand the relationship between
these metrics and sediment variables present at the site, both anthropogenic (i.e., PCBs, low
dissolved oxygen) and natural (i.e., grain size, salinity, organic carbon). In addition, this research
will evaluate the SPI camera as a rapid and cost-effective tool to assess the short-term effects on
and the recovery of the benthic community after dredging. This effort will contribute towards
our long-term goal to develop a predictive capability so that the timeframe to benthic recovery
after dredging can be more accurately estimated.
Research Steps/Approaches
This research program will have three related tasks.
Task 1
SPI sampling will be conducted concurrently with benthic sampling that is already planned as
part of the long-term monitoring program (Nelson et al. 1996) at the New Bedford Harbor (NBH)
Superfund site. The purpose of the program is to document physical, chemical, and biological
changes before, during, and after remediation. The study area encompasses large gradients of
water depth, sediment type, and contamination level. One aspect of this monitoring program
involves collecting sediment at 72 stations located throughout the upper, lower, and outer harbor
areas (Figure 2). Three sediment collections have occurred to date: a baseline in 1993, after
the Hot Spot remediation in 1995, and prior to planned remediation in 1999. These sediment
samples were analyzed for 18 PCB congeners, 8 metals, sediment toxicity, organic carbon, acid
volatile sulfide (AVS), grain size, and benthic species enumeration. Because the upper harbor
remediation was delayed from 1999 to 2004, another round of sampling was conducted in Fall
2004.
Although SPI has been in continuous routine use as a benthic sampling technique for almost 25
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
years, one of the impediments to its more widespread acceptance has been skepticism on the part
of many benthic ecologists who conduct studies that use the traditional grab/sieving approach. A
SPI survey at each of these 72 stations will allow a direct comparison between SPI metrics and
a suite of individual analyses that characterize benthic condition, including benthic enumeration
data, sediment toxicity, and chemical and physical parameters. Traditional information from
SPI images (depth of apparent redox potential discontinuity [RPD] layer, presence/absence of
burrows) will be assessed as well as metrics such as color change. In addition, live video of the
sediment surface during SPI sampling will be examined to augment SPI analyses. This data set
should provide a sound basis for testing and validating the applicability of SPI to Superfund's
need to assess the long-term recovery of a site over a large spatial area.
Due to fiscal constraints, the upper harbor dredging has been segmented into a number of dredge
management units (DMUs). The first DMU is scheduled for dredging in Fall 2004. The long-
term monitoring sediment sampling and initial SPI survey should be conducted prior to the start
of dredging. The value of this research lies in the side-by-side comparison of the SPI and benthic
enumeration for evaluating benthic impacts. It is our intention to repeatedly sample these sites to
assess both temporal and spatial variability within a station.
Task 2
A second task will focus on determining how useful SPI technology is for examining the short-
term effects of dredging on the benthos, as well as how fast the area is recolonized. The first
DMU is scheduled to be dredged in Fall 2004. The EPA investigation on biological aspects
will be complemented by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) extensive investigation in this
DMU which will examine the physical and chemical aspects of the dredging (e.g., efficiency of
the dredge, recontamination of the dredged area). Using the SPI camera, we will document the
benthic recovery by collecting a specified number of SPI images in the DMU (in coordination
with ACE's physical and chemical sampling) immediately before and after dredging. Because
the dredging should end sometime in December and the upper harbor freezes over occasionally,
it is difficult to specify the sampling frequency at this time. We propose to sample every two
weeks initially as the literature indicates that estuarine recolonization should be rapid; however,
sampling intervals may be modified depending on the results, degree of icing, and weather.
The spatial design of the SPI sampling will also attempt to evaluate whether there are "edge
effects" (i.e., benthic recovery beginning first at the dredge area boundaries). We will conduct
a parallel assessment in an adjacent un-dredged DMU to quantify any redeposition of sediment
from the dredging operation and to compare the benthic community in the remediated and
unremediated areas. Because of the projected lengthy time to completely remediate the site, we
are cooperating with Region 1 in designing the sampling plan to also evaluate the deposition
of residual contamination from dredging outside the dredge area. We will be sharing pre- and
post-dredge chemistry data to correlate (if possible) with SPI images. This task should confirm
hypotheses about recolonization rates, specifically at contaminated sediment sites.
Task 3
The final task is designed to investigate the effects of various stressors, primarily dissolved
oxygen (DO), on the SPI metrics. Initially, three stations will be selected in New Bedford
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Harbor for monthly monitoring beginning in early Spring 2005 and continuing until ice over.
Monitoring will consist of a deployed hydrolab that records continuous water column salinity,
temperature, and DO, as well as discrete benthic data collections using SPI camera images, video
images, some benthic enumeration data, and sediment analysis for natural and anthropogenic
chemicals and physical characteristics (e.g., excess molybdenum (Mo), grain size, organic
carbon, toxic and crustal metals, PCBs, PAHs). Excess Mo accumulation in surface sediments
will be investigated as a tool for determining the duration of any low DO events. Data on low
DO extent and potential toxicant concentrations will be used to evaluate whether contaminant
stress is the dominant cause of benthic community impairment in NBH. If a benthic community
is primarily stressed by low DO, benthic recovery will differ in response to reducing contaminant
concentrations from that in an area with adequate DO.
Experiments will be conducted in AED's DO system to further elucidate the relationship between
the duration of low DO conditions and the formation of excess Mo under controlled conditions.
In addition, we plan to calibrate the apparent RPD (using color change) measured by the SPI
camera to actual RPD (using Eh). These laboratory measurements will be compared to similar
field data that will be collected in cores at the three NBH monitoring stations. Task 3 (and
associated products) will be refined based on examination of the first year's data collection.
Resources
It should be noted that the successful completion of
Tasks 1 and 2 will be dependent upon the New Bedford
Harbor long-term monitoring sampling and first
DMU dredging occurring as currently scheduled. It is
expected that future work will involve evaluating the
applicability of methods developed in this research to
additional Superfund sites to ascertain how consistently
SPI metrics can be used to describe benthic condition.
If the results are widely applicable, it would be
advantageous to attempt to develop the ability to predict benthic recovery at dredging sites.
NHEERL Category D Needs
In addition to the personnel costs, benefits, supplies, equipment, etc., that are specifically
associated by ORD with
FTE and considered
intramural resources,
NHEERL uses ORD
planning resources to pay
laboratory indirect costs
(called "ABC costs")
and project-specific costs
(called "Category D
costs"). Listed above are
the kinds of Category D needs associated with this project. Annual budget planning documents
determine the dollar amounts needed.
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Division
AED
AED
AED
AED
AED
FTEs
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Division
AED
AED
AED
AED
AED
Analytical
Chemistry
yes
yes
yes
tbda
CIS
yes
yes
tbd
Statistics
yes
yes
yes
tbd
Field
Support
yes
yes
yes
tbd
Image
Analysis
yes
yes
tbd
"tbd = to be determined
Contaminated Sediment Research
12
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Critical Paths
Task #1: Application of SPI to assess
benthic community at Superfume! sites
Collect SPI, sieve, and chemical/physical
data at a Superflind sediment site
I Compare/contrast/analyze SPI and
] traditional sieving methods, spatially
I and temporally
Peer-reviewed paper on direct
comparison of SPi/sieving methods
at a sediment Superfund site
Task #2: Application of SPI to assess the short-term
effects of dredging on the benthic community
Collect SPI and chemical/physical data
before/after dredging
Determine how accurately SPI metrics
Reflect effects and document recover)' by
comparing dredged and not dredged data
Peer-reviewed paper on use of
SPI to document benthic community
Effects and recovery from remedial dredging
Recommendation (fact sheet) for OSRTI
on SPI data use in Superfund sediment
nionitoring programs
Task #3: Methods to apportion benthic effects among multiple stressors
Collect continuous DO, Mo,
and SPI field data, both
spati ally /temporal ly
Conduct controlled lab
Experiments with known
1 )O and measured excess Mo
Comparison of controlled lab
And field data for DO, Mo, SPI
Peer-reviewed paper on niethods to
assess the magnitude and duration
of low DO stress to benthos
Use data from Task#l and #2, with DO method
to apportion relative effect on benthos of multiple
stressors including salinity, grainsize, organic carbon
T
Identify next research steps
Contaminated Sediment Research
13
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Products
By 2008, provide assessment of the applicability of sediment profile
imagery for monitoring effects of and recovery from dredging at a
Superfund sediment site.*
Report to OSRTI on the direct comparison of SPI/
sieving methods at a sediment Superfund site
Peer-reviewed paper on direct comparison of SPI/
sieving methods at a sediment Superfund site
Recommendation (fact sheet) for OSRTI on SPI data
use in Superfund sediment monitoring programs
Report to OSRTI on the relationship between SPI and
other environmental variables, particularly dissolved
oxygen
Peer-reviewed paper on the relationship between
SPI and other environmental variables, particularly
dissolved oxygen
Peer-reviewed paper on use of SPI to document
benthic community effects and recover}' from remedial
dredging
FY08
FY06*
FY07*
FY06*
FY06
FY07
FY08*
NHEERL
NHEERL-AED
Barbara Bergen
NHEERL-AED
Barbara Bergen
NHEERL-AED
Skip Nelson
NHEERL-AED
Warren Boothman
Laura Coiro
NHEERL-AED
Warren Boothman
Laura Coiro
NHEERL-AED
Barbara Bergen
* Due dates dependent on NBH dredging occurring as currently scheduled
References
Bolam, S.G. and H.L. Rees. 2003. Minimizing impacts of maintenance dredge material disposal
in the coastal environment: a habitat approach. Environ Manage 32(2):171-188.
Diaz, R.J., G.R. Cutter Jr., and D.M. Dauer. 2002. A comparison of two methods for estimating
the status of benthic habitat quality in the Virginia Chesapeake Bay. J ExpMar BiolEcol
285/286:371-381.
Fredette, T.J. and G.T. French. 2004. Understanding the physical and environmental
consequences of dredged material disposal: history in New England and current
perspectives. Mar Poll Bull 49:93-102.
Fredette et al. 2002. Field Pilot Study of In Situ Capping of Palos Verdes Shelf Contaminated
Sediments. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center
(ERDC), Technical Report TR-02-5.
Grizzle, R.E. and C.A. Penniman. 1991. Effects of organic enrichment on estuarine
macrofaunal benthos: a comparison of sediment profile imaging and traditional methods.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 74:249-262.
Hall, SJ. 1994. Physical disturbance and marine benthic communities: life in unconsolidated
sediments. Oceanogr Mar BiolAnn Rev 32:179-239.
Newell, R.C., L.J. Seiderer, and D.R. Hitchcock. 1998. The impact of dredging works in coastal
waters: a review of the sensitivity to disturbance and subsequent recovery of biological
resources on the sea bed. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev 36:127-178.
Nelson, W.G., BJ. Bergen, SJ. Benyi, G. Morrison, R.A. Voyer, CJ. Strobel, S. Rego,
G. Thursby, and C.E. Pesch. 1996. New Bedford Harbor Long-Term Monitoring and
Assessment Report: Baseline Sampling. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Contaminated Sediment Research
14
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division,
Narragansett, RI. EPA/600/R-96/097.
Nilsson, H.C. and R. Rosenberg. 1997. Benthic habitat quality assessment of an oxygen
stressed fjord by surface and sediment profile images. J Mar Sys 11:249-264.
Rhoads, D.C. and S. Cande. 1971. Sediment profile camera for in situ study of organism-
sediment relations. Limnol Oceanogr 16:110-114.
Rhoads, D.C. and J.D. Germano. 1982. Characterization of organism-sediment relations
using sediment profile imaging: an efficient method of remote ecological monitoring of the
seafloor (REMOTS system). Marine Ecology Progress Series 8:115-128.
Rhoads, D.C. and Germano, J.D. 1986. Interpreting long-term changes in benthic community
structure: a new protocol. Hydrobiologia 142:291-30$.
Valente, R.M. and T. Fredette. 2002. Benthic recolonization of a capped dredged material
mound at an open water disposal site in Long Island Sound. Proceedings of Dredging 2002:
Third Specialty Conference on Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal, May 5-8, Orlando,
Florida. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
Valente, R.M., S.M. McChesney, and G. Hodgson. 2000. Benthic recolonization following
cessation of dredged material disposal in Mirs Bay, Hong Kong. J Mar Env Eng 5:257-288.
Weisberg, S.B., J.A. Ranasinghe, D.M. Dauer, L.C. Schaffner, R.J. Diaz, and J.B. Frithsen.
1997. An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries
20:149-158.
15
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Upper Harbor
Lower Harbor
(a)
Coggeshall St.
Bridge
Hurricane Barrier
UPPER HARBOR (b)
Hot Spot
CDF
Coggeshall St
Bridge
LOWER HARBOR (c)
.Coggeshall St.
f,^^^
Rt. 1-195
Bridge"
Rt. 6
Bridge 12
Popes
Island
Hurricane
Barrier
OUTER HARBOR (d)
Hurricane
Barrier
0 1500 3000
Figure 2
Contaminated Sediment Research
16
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Project II: to In
Aquatic Wildlife
Summary of Issue
At contaminated sediment sites, the Superfund program must decide whether to leave the site
alone (i.e., allow for natural recovery to occur), cap it, or dredge it. These decisions are based in
part upon the relative risks to the environment and human health posed by each option. These
risks, in turn, depend upon a variety of factors, including the toxicity of the chemicals of concern
and the concentration of toxic chemicals likely to be found in the tissues of aquatic wildlife and
aquatic-dependent wildlife. Based on an understanding of these factors, the Superfund program
needs to develop critical residue values in target species for the chemicals of concern with the
presumption that when the critical value or lower is achieved in the target species, the risks posed
by contaminant releases from the site are acceptable. This project is focused on the first of these
two factors.
For purposes of predicting toxicity for persistent bioaccumulative toxicants (PBTs)1, chemical
doses are best expressed in terms of chemical residues in tissues because chemical residues in
tissues integrate doses received from all environmental exposure pathways (e.g., food, water,
sediment) (McCarty and Mackay 1993). To provide well-informed projections of risk, the
Superfund program must be able to assess the effects of chemical residues in the wildlife of
interest based upon an understanding of the dose-response relationship for the chemical and
organism. For aquatic and aquatic-dependent wildlife, species' sensitivities vary for a given
chemical; in general, the dose-response relationships have similar shapes for organisms of the
same family. To make remediation decisions, the Superfund program needs to be able to assess
the survival, growth, and reproduction toxicity effects of chemical residues in aquatic and
aquatic-dependent wildlife.
When Superfund assesses the relative risk of remediation options (i.e., to leave a site alone,
cap it, or dredge it), inaccuracies in the assessment of the effects for chemical residues in
organisms (and thus, populations and communities) will directly influence the decisions made
concerning the remedial options. If the assessment of effects is based on inaccurate dose-
response predictions, Superfund might select options which require too much or too little
remediation as compared to the option which would have been chosen if the actual risks posed
to the environment and human health were more accurately understood. Because remediation
of contaminated sediments is often very expensive, Superfund wants and needs the assessment
of effects on human health and on aquatic wildlife and aquatic-dependent wildlife to be highly
accurate and precise so that contaminated sites can be remediated most cost effectively.
Superfund contaminated sediment sites are often physically and chemically complex ecosystems
characterized by a variety of species, sediment types, and contaminants. In the face of this
complexity, Superfund strives to be consistent in the manner in which it assesses risk and
1 The term "Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxicants (PBTs) " is used in a generic sense in the text,
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
evaluates risk management options. Such consistency can most readily be achieved when
the determining variables and parameters are understood. From the perspective of providing
consistency, the most problematic chemicals at Superfund contaminated sediments sites are PBTs
because of their prevalence, toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulative behavior. An additional
challenge exists when the individuals responsible for making difficult decisions at Superfund
sites do not have the opportunity to develop a detailed understanding of all the factors involved.
When this is the case, the factors that affect the residue-effect assessment must be clearly and
understandably delineated to on-site decision makers.
Summary of the State of the Science
Historically, aquatic toxicology has focused on understanding the relationship between water-
based exposures and effects expressed using acute and chronic toxicity endpoints (e.g., for
acute toxicity, see MED's fathead minnow database (ECOTOX 2003)). For most PBTs, there
has been a historical under appreciation of the importance of dietary and maternal transfer (i.e.,
transfer of contaminants from the adult female to its eggs) exposure routes when performing
laboratory tests. These additional exposure routes make it difficult to produce exposures (and
resulting effects) which are truly representative of conditions occurring in the environment in the
laboratory using water-only based exposures. Thus, measurements of acute and chronic toxicity
for PBTs that are based on water-only exposures have provided less than satisfactory results
because the chemical dose, when expressed as the concentration of chemical in water, does not
represent the actual dose for the organism. In the last decade, our understanding of appropriate
dose measures and effects endpoints for PBTs has increased greatly; and it is now recognized
that for PBTs, the chemical residue in the organism (or one of its tissues) is the best measure of
dose for predicting chronic toxicity (generally, reproductive endpoints) (McCarty and Mackay
1993).
We know how to develop the linkage between the concentration of chemicals in the organism
(or one of its tissues) and the biological effects caused by the chemical residue when proper
data exist for single chemicals and for mixtures of chemicals with common modes of action.
The best examples of this linkage for PBTs are the chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, chlorinated
dibenzofurans, and planar PCBs (which all have the same mode of action). Toxicity equivalence
factors (TEFs) have been developed for these chemicals and applied for fish, wildlife, and
humans (Van den Berg et al. 1998). To properly develop these linkages, toxicity data with
species specificity, end-point specificity, and dose-exposure consistency are required; and all
three of these requirements must be consistent with the mode of action. Unfortunately, these
requirements are fairly challenging to fulfill.
The scientific literature for toxicological data is composed of studies with an assortment of
species, endpoints, and dosing regimes for individual chemicals. The variability and gaps in the
available data result in large uncertainties in our understanding of residue-effects relationships
and in the subsequent predictions made with them. An additional difficulty, beyond the issues
associated with extrapolation and the filling of data gaps, is the lack of having data from
the literature assembled and available so that one can develop and evaluate residue-effects
relationships. Databases are being developed, e.g., the effect-residue database of Jarvinen and
Ankley (1999) and the Environmental Residue-Effects Database (ERED) of US-Army Corps of
10
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Engineers (accessible at www.wes.army.mil/el/dots); but additional data still need to be evaluated
and incorporated into databases to facilitate the development and evaluation of residue-effects
relationships.
Key gaps in our understanding of the linkage between the chemical residues in tissues (or
organisms) and their resulting biological effects include the following:
1. Critical toxicity endpoints for single chemicals and mixtures of chemicals;
2. High quality residue-effects data for most PBTs;
3. For complex mixtures with numerous chemicals (e.g., toxaphene), how to quantify the
residue in a toxicologically meaningful way across laboratory tests and ecosystems;
4. Techniques for extrapolating laboratory test data from one toxicological endpoint to
another (e.g., from a growth endpoint to a fecundity endpoint);
5. Techniques for extrapolating endpoints for test species to Superfund receptor species; and
6. Translating biological effects on individuals to those manifested in populations.
Research Needs
The steering committee identified the following key scientific challenges upon reviewing the
issue summary, state of the science, and gap analysis:
1. Consolidate existing toxicological knowledge and clarify data gaps;
2. Develop methods to establish biological effects with varying amounts and types of
laboratory-derived toxicological data;
3. Extrapolate toxicological endpoints for laboratory test species to Superfund receptor
species; and
4. Extrapolate from effects on individuals to effects on populations.
Proposed Research Targets
After assessing the research needs relative to the level of effort required to achieve them and
the expertise and resources available, the steering committee concluded that the research needs
required more resources than are available. Additionally, the steering committee concluded
that research needs were sufficiently general in nature that ongoing research elsewhere may
provide significant insights for specific chemicals and issues. Given this assessment, the steering
committee identified the following research target for this project:
Consolidate existing knowledge and clarify data gaps by assembling and evaluating a
database of up-to-date PCB residue-effects data for aquatic and aquatic-dependent species.
The rationale for selecting this target included the following considerations:
1. PCBs are chemicals of high concern and interest for Superfund;
2. There is much discussion and controversy existing about how to evaluate or express PCB
mixtures, e.g., total PCB, total Aroclors, homologs, and sum of the dioxin-like PCBs
(toxicity equivalents, or TEQs);
19
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
3. Given the limited resources for NHEERL's Goal 3 effort, this target would not require
laboratory toxicity testing and analytical chemistry support which, if done, would require
more resources than available;
4. This effort would build upon the existing residue-effects database of Jarvinen and Ankley
(1999), a database assembled at MED, and US-Army Corps of Engineers' ERED database;
5. MED has expertise in similar data compilation and evaluation efforts, e.g., the
development of EcoSSL (ecological soil screening levels) for Superfund; and
6. Supplemental resources via ORD's Contaminated Sediment Focus Group 1: Fate and
Transport Modeling and Bioaccumulation are potentially available; and MED via its
AQUIRE and ECOTOX database efforts has the ability to contract out the assembling of
the PCB database with these funds.
Research Steps/Approaches
To achieve the above target, two steps must be taken: (1) assemble a database of PCB residue-
effects data for aquatic and aquatic-dependent species and (2) evaluate assembled data on PCB
residue-effects for aquatic and aquatic-dependent species.
Step 1: Assemble/consolidate a database of PCB residue-effects data for aquatic and aquatic-
dependent species
The following tasks are needed in order to assemble a PCB residue-effects database for aquatic
and aquatic-dependent species. First, a literature search strategy must be developed. The
search strategy will be built from existing literature search strategies used for the Eco-SSLs
effort performed at MED. Second, the actual search needs to be conducted and the citations
downloaded. Third, the citations/abstracts from searches need to be skimmed through so they
can be ranked according to their potential usefulness based upon a checklist for minimum data
needs. Fourth, selected data must be abstracted and entered into the database. This process
will build upon the existing residue-effects database of Jarvinen and Ankley (1999) and ERED.
Thus, in the third task, the checklist process would determine if a citation is already included
in one of these databases. In assembling and consolidating the database, multiple measures of
PCBs will be included; e.g., total PCB, total Aroclors, sum of the dioxin-like PCBs (TEQs), etc.,
In addition, the type of analytical method used for PCB quantification will be recorded. The
database effort will be focused on freshwater and marine species which respond to dioxin-like
toxicity, i.e., aryl-hydrocarbon-receptor-(AhR-)mediated toxicity, because PCB toxicity occurs
via this receptor. Invertebrate species, in general, do not appear to have this receptor (Hahn
et al. 1994) and are considered to be much less susceptible to AhR-mediated toxicity. Thus,
invertebrate species will not be considered in the current data compilation effort.
To stimulate this effort, we obtained FY04 funds via ORD's Focus Group 1. These funds were
placed onto a MED contract which supports the database efforts for AQUIRE and ECOTOX
databases. Because this effort is similar to those being performed by the contract for AQUIRE
and ECOTOX, this effort should move forward quite quickly.
20
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Step 2: Evaluate assembled PCB residue-effects data for aquatic and aquatic dependent species
To evaluate the PCB residue-effects data, a number of approaches will be taken. First, we will
determine the overall consistency within and among species for the data. We propose assembling
no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) and lowest observed adverse effect levels
(LOAELs) for biochemical, behavior, physiology, pathology, reproduction, growth, and mortality
endpoints. These values will be compared for individual species where adequate data exist
and across species to assist in evaluating data quality and variability. We also plan to examine
the dose-response curves by comparing the shape, steepness, etc., of the curves. The prior
comparisons are similar to those used by Superfund in developing EcoSSLs (see http://www.
epa.gov/ ecotox/ecossl/SOPs.htm). Second, we will perform PCB ecological risk predictions
using congener-specific, dioxin-like PCBs (TEQ), total PCB, homolog, and Aroclor exposure/
dose measurements or predictions to determine comparability of the eco-risk predictions. These
comparisons will help us evaluate how divergent estimates of risks are for different expressions
of PCBs. It is anticipated that these assessments would be performed for Superfund sites where
the appropriate data are available, and expressions of risk would be evaluated on a variety of
endpoints such as critical residues in fishes and other organisms or sediment clean-up levels.
Further definition of the assessment, comparison tools, and techniques will occur as the data are
assembled and consolidated because these tools and techniques will be somewhat dependent
upon the actual data available. Third, we will clearly define data gaps and deficiencies for PCBs
so that future research activities can be optimally focused.
Among the outcomes from the evaluation effort on the PCB residue-effect data are the methods,
tools, and techniques developed for screening and evaluating the toxicity data as well as for
deriving residue-effect relationships with varying amounts and types of laboratory-derived
toxicological data. These techniques and tools will provide a starting point from which to move
beyond the PCBs to other PBTs and derivation of their residue-effects relationships for aquatic
and aquatic-dependent species.
Technology Transfer
Transfer of research results from this effort will occur through a variety of mechanisms. First,
peer reviewed report(s) on the evaluations of the PCB residue-effects data will be written and
published. These reports will cover the (1) overall consistency within and among species for
the PCB data, (2) data gaps and deficiencies for the PCBs, (3) comparisons of residue-effects
relationships based on different measures of PCB, (4) comparability of eco-risk predictions
using different expressions for PCBs, and (5) possibly, methods and techniques for screening
and evaluating toxicity data for residue-effect relationships. Second, the PCB residue-effects
database will be made available to Superfund. Additionally, after consultation with Superfund,
processed outputs or tables of data from the database will be developed for use by Superfund.
Third, educational seminars will be provided in consultation with Superfund about their format
and content. The content of the seminars will cover the overall consistency of the PCB residue-
effects data, data gaps and deficiencies, and comparability of eco-risk predictions. These
seminars could be held within the ORD-OSRTI seminar series, Superfund's Environmental Risk
Assessment Forum (ERAF) semi-annual meetings, or through some other to-be-determined
forum. Fourth, in cooperation with Superfund, appropriate fact sheets will be written.
21
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Resources
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Division
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
FTEs
0.25
0.25
0.25
0
0
NHEERL Category D Needs
In addition to the personnel costs, benefits, supplies, equipment, etc., that are specifically
associated by ORD with FTE and considered intramural resources, NHEERL uses ORD planning
resources to pay laboratory indirect costs (called "ABC costs") and project-specific costs (called
"Category D costs"). Listed below are the kinds of Category D needs associated with this
project. Annual budget planning documents determine the dollar amounts needed.
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Division
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
Supplemental
Funding
yes
ECOTOX
yes
yes
yes
Contaminated Sediment Research
22
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Critical Path
Development of Effects Data
Development of residue-effects
database for PCBs
Develop literature search strategy
Perform literature search
Develop checklist and skim
through citations/abstracts
Abstract and enter data into
residue-effects database
Data from existing residue-effects
databases
Focus Group Supplemental
Funding for development of
PCB residue-effects data base
Evaluation of toxicity residue
database for PCBs
Evaluate PCB residue-effects data
for overall consistency among
species and endpoints
Perform comparisons ecological
risk predictions using
exposure/dose expressions for
total PCB, dioxin-like PCBs
(TEQ), and total Aroclors.
Define data gaps and deficiencies
for PCBs
Report on evaluation of PCB
residue-effects database
Report on methods and
techniques for screening and
evaluating toxicity data for
residue-effects relationships
Comparison of eco-risk
predictions using different
expressions for PCB toxicity
Products
By 2008, provide hybrid modeling approaches using empirical field
data and bioaccumulation models to extrapolate BAFs and BSAFs
for PBTs across ecosystems, species, and time.
Provide report on the evaluation of the PCB residue-
effects database
FY08
FY06
NHEERL
NHEERL
Lawrence Burkhard
References
ECOTOX Database. 2003. Versions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory, Mid-Continent Ecology Division, MN [www.epa.gov/ecoxtox].
Hahn, M.E., A. Poland, E. Glover, and JJ. Stegeman. 1994. Photoaffinity labeling of the Ah
receptor: phylogenetic survey of diverse vertebrates and invertebrate species. Arch Biochem
Biophys. 310:218-228.
Jarvinen, AJ. and G.T. Ankley. 1999. Linkage of Effects to Tissue Residues: Development
of a Comprehensive Database for Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Inorganic and Organic
Chemicals. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL. 358 p.
McCarty, L.S. and D. Mackay. 1993. Enhancing ecotoxicological modeling and assessment:
body residues and modes of toxic action. Environ Sci Technol 27:1719-1728.
Van den Berg, M., et al., 1998. Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for
humans and wildlife. Environmental Health Perspectives 106:775-792.
Contaminated Sediment Research
23
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Project III: In Water
In Aquatic
Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife
Summary of Issue
At contaminated sediment sites, the Superfund program must decide whether to leave the site
alone (i.e., allow for natural recovery to occur), cap it, or dredge it. These decisions are based in
part upon the relative risks to the environment and human health posed by each option. These
risks, in turn, depend upon a variety of factors, including the toxicity of the chemicals of concern
and the concentration of toxic chemicals likely to be found in the tissues of aquatic wildlife and
aquatic-dependent wildlife. Based on an understanding of these factors, the Superfund program
needs to develop critical residue values in target species for the chemicals of concern with the
presumption that when the critical value or lower is achieved in the target species, the risks posed
by contaminant releases from the site are acceptable. This project is focused on the second of
these two factors.
The relationships between exposure, accumulated chemical dose, and toxic effect or response
must be linked in order to predict toxicity. Chemical doses are best expressed in terms of
chemical residues in organisms (or one of its tissues) because these values integrate doses
received from all environmental exposure pathways (e.g., food, water, sediment) (McCarty and
Mackay 1993). Depending upon the effect and species, chemical residues might be expressed
using different bases, e.g., residues in eggs or in liver, for different chemicals. To provide well-
informed projections of risk, the Superfund program needs to accurately predict the residues of
chemicals in the wildlife of interest, and these predictions must be based upon an understanding
of the relationship between chemical properties and concentrations in water, sediment, and biota.
For aquatic and aquatic-dependent wildlife, chemical residues in organisms vary as a function of
numerous factors. These factors include the nature of the chemical, the chemical concentrations
in sediment and water, the exposure duration, and the nature of the organism of interest and its
food web. Consequently, to make remedial decisions, the Superfund program needs methods to
predict the chemical residues in tissue that would result from different chemical concentrations in
sediment and water.
When Superfund assesses the relative risk of remediation options (i.e., to leave a site alone,
cap it, or dredge it), inaccuracies in the assessment of the effects for chemical residues in
organisms (and thus, populations and communities) will directly influence the decisions made
concerning the remedial options. If the assessment of effects is based on inaccurate dose-
response predictions, Superfund might select options which require too much or too little
remediation as compared to the option which would have been chosen if the actual risks posed
to the environment and human health were more accurately understood. Because remediation
of contaminated sediments is often very expensive, Superfund wants and needs the assessment
of effects on human health and on aquatic wildlife and aquatic-dependent wildlife to be highly
accurate and precise so that contaminated sites can be remediated most cost effectively.
24
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Superfund contaminated sediment sites are often physically and chemically complex ecosystems
characterized by a variety of species, sediment types, and contaminants. In the face of this
complexity, Superfund strives to be consistent in the manner in which it assesses risk and
evaluates risk management options. Such consistency can most readily be achieved when
the determining variables and parameters are understood. From the perspective of providing
consistency, the most problematic chemicals at Superfund contaminated sediments sites are PBTs
because of their prevalence, toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulative behavior. An additional
challenge exists when the individuals responsible for making difficult decisions at Superfund
sites do not have the opportunity to develop a detailed understanding of all the factors involved.
In this case, bioaccumulation of PBTs in the aquatic food chain and the factors which affect it
must be clearly and understandably delineated to on-site decision makers.
Summary of the State of the Science
The link between chemical concentrations in water and sediment with residues in aquatic
and aquatic-dependent wildlife has been an area of active research for the past 2 decades;
consequently, much is known about this area. The relationship between chemical concentrations
in water and those in biota are defined as bioaccumulation factors (BAFs); the relationship
between chemical concentrations in sediment and those in biota are defined as biota-sediment
accumulation factors (BSAFs). Bioaccumulation of PBTs in aquatic food webs (and hence BAFs
and BSAFs) is primarily a function of three ecosystem properties and two chemical properties.
Major determinants of bioaccumulation for PBTs in aquatic food webs:
Ecosystem Properties:
1. Sediment-water column chemical disequilibrium (FI IK ) where
1 v socw ow-7
n = sediment-water column chemical concentration quotient;
socw s
2. Benthic-pelagic composition of the food web; and
3. Length of the food web (trophic level).
Chemical Properties:
I. Hydrophobicity (Kow) and
2. Rate of metabolism of the chemical in the organism and in its food web
(Burkhard et al. 2003a).
Food web models that consider these processes are available for predicting chemical residues
(Gobas 1993, Thomann et al. 1992). For steady-state solutions, the model predictions are
generally within a factor of 2-3 of mean measured values. Additionally, these models can be
solved for dynamic conditions (i.e., varying concentrations of chemicals in water and sediment
change over time) and can include multiple trophic levels and a variety of benthic and pelagic
organisms. Nevertheless, food web models have limitations which include the following:
1. poor accuracy for highly hydrophobic chemicals, Kov_ > 107;
2. require detailed calibration in order to have predictive power;
25
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
3. detailed (often unavailable) food web structure and composition; and
4. are not appropriate for polar organic chemicals.
Metabolism of chemicals can be described mathematically within food web models as an
additional loss process (km), but applications of existing food web models to metabolizable
chemicals has been extremely rare. In nearly all applications of food web models, km is set
equal to zero (Burkhard 1998); and, when metabolism is significant, the zero assumption
underestimates the degradation/loss rate of the chemical in the organism and/or its food web.
Accumulation of nonionic organic chemicals in fish and other aquatic organisms is controlled
by the lipid content of the organism (Mackay 1982). Thus, lipid normalization of chemical
residues reduces the variance of concentrations of chemicals among individuals. The variance of
concentrations of chemicals in sediment and the water column can be minimized by correcting
for bioavailability (normalizing for organic carbon in the sediment and expressing chemical
concentrations on the basis of their concentration in the freely dissolved form; DiToro et al.
1991, Burkhard et al. 2003b). These reductions in variances translate directly into reductions in
variances of BAFs and BSAFs (Burkhard et al. 2003b) that are used to predict chemical residues
in fish and other aquatic organisms.
Key gaps in our understanding of the linkage between the chemical concentrations in the tissue
(or organism) and those in the environment include the following:
1. While approaches to field measurement of BSAFs and BAFs are available (Burkhard
2003c), techniques generally are not available for predicting how field-measured
BAFs and BSAFs (measured under one set of ecological conditions, i.e., chemical
disequilibrium, and food web composition and organism trophic level) change when a
different set of ecological conditions develop in the ecosystem;
2. Field-measured BSAFs and BAFs are limited; these limitations include number of
chemicals, aquatic organisms, ecosystem types, and ecosystem conditions even though a
database is available (ERDC, see http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/);
3. Techniques for extrapolating BSAF data across ecosystem and species are not available;
4. Rates of metabolism to use in food web models are, for all practical purposes, nonexistent;
and
5. Prediction for very complex chemical mixtures where not all individual components can
be quantified (e.g., toxaphene) is very difficult.
Research Needs
Based upon the issue summary, state of the science, and the gap analysis, the following key
scientific challenges have been identified.
1. Develop an approach to describe bioaccumulation of PBTs in aquatic food webs that
enables non-bioaccumulation experts to easily understand the processes and conditions
that control bioaccumulation;
?y r
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
2. Extend this approach to address the issues and uncertainties encountered when
extrapolating bioaccumulation data across ecosystems, species, and time;
3. Broaden the range of chemical and ecosystem properties that can be addressed, i.e., the
chemical's rate of metabolism and hydrophobicity (Kov), ecosystem conditions of food
web structure, organism trophic level, and sediment-water column concentration quotient
(H )); and
v socw-7-7'
4. Validate approaches for conditions that are relevant to Superfund sites.
Proposed Research Targets
The steering committee identified the following research targets for this project after assessing
research needs, the level of effort required to achieve them, and the expertise and resources
available:
1. A methodology to extrapolate bioaccumulation data (BAFs/BSAFs) across ecosystems,
species, and time for PBTs;
2. Demonstrations of applicability of BAFs/BSAFs for predicting ecological risks.
Research Steps/Approaches
To achieve these targets, three major steps must be taken:
1. Generation/assembly of high quality data sets,
2. Development of extrapolation techniques, and
3. Validation.
Overview of Research Steps 1. 2. and 3
The first two research steps are linked. The first step will assemble high quality
bioaccumulation data sets from Lake Michigan and existing Superfund sites. The second step
will use this data in developing the hybrid BSAF/BAF extrapolation approach and is composed
of seven tasks:
Task 1: Develop theoretical/conceptual framework for performing the hybrid extrapolations.
Task 2: Determine the level of complexity required with the food web models for predicting
the relative differences in bioaccumulation.
Task 3: Determine the minimum data quality requirements for the extrapolation process.
Task 4: Determine how to account for metabolism processes and their effects in the
hybridBSAF/BAF extrapolation approach.
Task 5: Develop whole organism rates of chemical metabolism using field data; these results
will feed back into Task 4.
Task 6: Evaluate the hybrid approach in field situations for prediction deficiencies and biases.
Task 7: Develop a software package (Visual Basic, Excel in-add or something else) which
will perform the hybrid calculations.
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
The third step, Validation, will use data from a variety of Superfund sites to define the accuracy
and precision as well as the usefulness of the approach developed in the second step.
Step 1: Generation/assembly of high quality data sets
In order to develop techniques to extrapolate bioaccumulation data across ecosystem, species,
and/or time, data sets for individual compounds (and not mixtures) such as the individual
PCB congeners, p,p' -DDT, or p,p' -DDE are required for a variety of different ecosystems,
e.g., streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, marshes, tidal estuaries, freshwater and
marine harbors, and large coastal ecosystems. Based upon MED's experiences in generating
chemical residue data for the Lake Michigan ecosystem (Burkhard et al. 2004), neither MED,
nor NHEERL as a whole, has enough resources (within this area) to generate data needed for
a database because this effort would require analyzing hundreds offish, sediment, and water
samples from a large variety of ecosystems. However, Superfund, as part of the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for each site, has been and will be performing such
analyses. A detailed consideration of data requirements expected for Superfund sites resulted in
the above table where importance of the data need was identified and ranked.
The ranking process considered the state of knowledge, general data availability for Superfund
sites, and the ability to increase the scientific understanding of bioaccumulation processes with
the collected information. The highest ranked parameters in the table are those required for
calculating BSAFs because the ability to calculate BSAFs for a Superfund site would be the
Parameter
Congener-Specific PCB or DDT data: fish
sediment
water
Sediment TOC
Structure/Composition of food web
Lipid content offish
Knowledge of the spatial and temporal associations
among fish, sediment, and water samples
Loading history of the chemical
Rank
1°
1°
minimum requirement for inclusion of the data into the database. Other parameters (i.e., the
importance of having concentrations of chemicals in water, the composition/structure of the food
web, and loading history for the chemicals of interest) were ranked lower because they are not
required for calculating BSAFs.
Site measurements for the lower ranked parameters would be very useful for interpreting the
finer differences among BSAFs. Although concentrations of chemical in water are ranked
lower, concentrations of chemicals in water are critical for making bioaccumulation predictions
when predictions are made from chemical concentrations in sediment and water (Burkhard et al.
2003a). There is too much uncertainty in the predicted residues if predictions are made using
only either the chemical concentration in the sediment or the chemical concentration in the water.
In this effort, we will have, at a minimum, the concentrations of chemicals in the sediment and
Contaminated Sediment Research
28
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
fish. With this data alone, a set of high quality BSAFs across a wide variety of Superfund sites
can be assembled. Additionally, BSAFs are not very sensitive to changes in the sediment-water
column chemical disequilibrium; thus, small differences in the sediment-water column chemical
disequilibrium among Superfund sites would not cause large errors when evaluating across
ecosystem extrapolation techniques when only BSAFs are available.
The composition and structure of the food web information is also ranked as a lower priority. In
most ecosystems and for most common species, reasonable estimates can be made or obtained
from local fisheries experts if this information is not available for a Superfund site of interest.
The third parameter given a lower ranking is the chemical's loading history to the ecosystem.
For most Superfund sites with contaminated sediments, inputs of the chemicals of concern to the
ecosystem have been stopped for some time. These sites can be considered to be in a "pseudo-
steady-state" condition in which the chemical disequilibrium is declining slowly over time. This
condition is a reasonable assumption for most Superfund sites and provides useful measured
BSAFs. Although having loading information would be helpful in evaluating the measured
BSAFs, given the above considerations, it was felt that this information was not essential for the
assembling a useful BSAF database to cover a wide variety of Superfund sites.
The first research effort for accomplishing this target (Step 1: Generation/assembly of high
quality data sets) is an in-house effort to develop a high quality data set from the Lake Michigan
ecosystem. This effort builds upon the EPA's Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study [http://www.
epa.gov/glnpo/lmmb/project.html] in which considerable resources were expended to obtain
much of the required ancillary data, e.g., diets of individual fish species, sedimentation rates,
and spatial and temporal variabilities in chemical concentrations. This in-house effort will
result in a very high quality data set of concentrations of chemicals in all the components of
the food web, in the sediment, and in the water column with all of the required ancillary data,
e.g., lipid contents of the biota, organic carbon contents of the sediments, diets of the forage and
piscivorous fishes, and sedimentation rates. Development of the data set will be accomplished
using sediment, water, and biota samples from the Lake Michigan ecosystem by analyzing for
PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs, and PAHs using stable isotopes and mass spectrometry. Biota samples
will span the entire food web and will include forage fishes (i.e., rainbow smelt, alewife [two size
classes], bloater chubs [two size classes], deepwater sculpin, and slimy sculpin), piscivorous fish
(lake trout), benthic invertebrates (diporeia), and plankton. One of the most significant analytical
challenges for this effort is to measure the concentrations of PCDDs and PCDFs in water column
samples where concentrations for these chemicals are estimated to be in the range of 0.1 to 5
fg/L in the dissolved phase, i.e., water after filtration using a 0.7 jim glass fiber filter. In order to
obtain adequate chemical for mass spectrometry detection, 1,000 L water samples were collected
and extracted using a continuous flow liquid-liquid extractor (Goulden extractor).
For this high quality data generation effort using the samples from the Lake Michigan ecosystem,
many of the chemical analyses have been completed. On-going work includes the measurement
of PCDDs and PCDFs in forage fish and PAHs in both forage and piscivorous fishes. Chemical
analyses for the PCBs, PCDDs, and PCDFs will be completed in FY05; and with this data, a data
set of BAFs and BSAFs will be determined for the fish species. This data set will have lower
uncertainties than other data sets because all data will be measured on the same fish samples for
29
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
the PCBs, PCDDs, and PCDFs with high resolution mass spectrometry. The co-measurement
of all analytes eliminates the biases from measurements performed on different fish samples
(i.e., one set of samples used for the PCBs and another for the PCDDs and PCDFs); and high
resolution mass spectrometry increases the specificity of the chemical analyses. The commonly
used analysis technique of gas chromatography with electron capture detection detects all
chemicals containing electronegative elements (e.g., halogens, oxygen, sulfur, and nitrogen);
whereas high resolution analysis can detect specific ions with mass differences of 0.032 amu
at a mass of 320.000 amu (M/AM= 10,000). We estimate that the overall uncertainties in the
Lake Michigan data set will be smaller, at a minimum, by approximately a factor 2'/2 over
those observed by Oliver and Niimi (1988) based upon the tetra-, penta- and hexa-PCBs for the
sediments. This difference does not include the temporal disconnects in the Oliver and Niimi
(1988) data set among the collection dates for the forage fish, piscivorous fish, plankton, water
and sediment samples. Sampling dates span the timeframe of 1981 through 1986. Therefore,
differences in uncertainties are probably much larger than the 21A fold factor; factors may rise to
a 10-fold difference.
The second research effort for accomplishing this target (Step 1: Generation/assembly of high
quality data sets) will consist of the building of data sets of BSAFs and BAFs from Superfund
sites. This effort will involve culling through numerous Superfund RI/FS reports to find data
of adequate quality and certainty to build the database. In general, RI/FS reports are large
(multiple large 3-ring folders with hundreds of data tables); and the task of culling through the
reports will take some time. For more recent RI/FS reports, site reports are available on CD-R.
However, for most of the sites, the data are available only in paper copy; and inputting (scanning
when possible or hand entry) and checking data will require some effort. The limitations of
Superfund's RI/FS reports are anticipated to fall in the following areas: (1) an insufficiency
of ancillary data (such as lipid contents of fishes and other aquatic organisms, organic carbon
contents of the sediments, and dissolved and particulate organic carbon in the water column);
(2) uncertainty in determining the overlap of the fish home range and the locations of sediment
and water column samples for the site; and (3) the lack of measurements for chemicals with
low concentrations in water column. Water column measurements are often not performed at
Superfund sites having contaminated sediments because only sediment and fish data are needed
to calculate the BSAFs that are used for predicting residues in the fish. Emphasis will be placed
on assembling data sets which span the ranges of conditions and chemical classes that occur at
Superfund sites rather than on simply assembling all available data.
Assembling BSAF and BAF data is not a small task. To help in this process, MED will work
in coordination with the Superfund program office. Where possible with on going RI/FSs,
MED will work with Superfund to have appropriate measurements performed so that these
data sets can be included into the BSAF/BAF database as well. Additionally, MED will/has
requested funds via ORD's Contaminated Sediment Focus Group 1 for the data assemblage and
compilation effort (see "Resources").
In this effort, we would like to obtain a minimum number of BSAF/BAF data sets (e.g., 5 to
6) that span a variety of different ecosystems conditions and chemical parameters for adequate
statistical comparisons in the subsequent analyses and calculations (see table below). This
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
table is based upon the major determinants of bioaccumulation of PBTs in aquatic food webs
(Burkhard et al. 2003a) and reflects conditions and properties which would strongly influence the
bioaccumulation of PBTs in different ecosystems. Although we target obtaining data sets with
the above ecosystem conditions and chemical parameters, we will obtain as many data sets
as possible given the availability of appropriate data. With these data sets, we will assess
extrapolation errors and uncertainties using the developed theoretical framework. Further,
we will determine the sources of the extrapolation errors and uncertainties (see Step 2). With
this information, we address the question of whether the extrapolation errors and uncertainties
are good enough, e.g., whether the extrapolation errors are within a factor of 2; and we will
identify additional data sets that may be required for further refinement. Demonstrations of
the usefulness and applicability of the extrapolation technique to a large number Superfund
sites would lend tremendous support to the validity of the "hybrid modeling" approach for
extrapolating BSAF and BAF data (see Step 2). Therefore, acquisition of additional BSAF/
Range of Ecosystems Conditions Chemical Parameters
Ecosystem Conditions
1. Simple and complex food web structures
2. Cold and warm water conditions
3. Species with highly benthic and highly pelagic dietary preferences
4. Fresh and salt water
5. Variety of sediment-water column disequilibriums (IIsocw / Kow)
Chemical Properties
6. Variety of chemical classes including metabolizable chemicals
7. Variety of chemical hydrophobicities (Kow)
BAFs data sets would greatly benefit this research effort.
Step 2: Development of extrapolation techniques
Development of techniques for extrapolating BSAF/BAF data between times, sites, ecosystem
conditions, species, and combinations thereof requires an understanding of the fundamental
processes controlling the extent of bioaccumulation at individual sites. Past research has
demonstrated that corrections for lipid content of the organisms and chemical bioavailability
(i.e., freely dissolved concentrations of the chemical in the water column and concentrations
in sediments normalized to organic carbon) can greatly reduce variances of concentrations of
chemicals in fish and sediments and in the variances of BAFs across ecosystems (Figure 3)
(Burkhard et al. 2003b). Further, data from MED's research on Lake Michigan (Figure 4) and
from preliminary comparisons (not shown here) of BSAFs suggest that BSAFs are consistent
with each other within and across ecosystems. The within-ecosystem consistency is illustrated
using BSAF data for lake trout from southern Lake Michigan (Figure 4).
The demonstrated consistency of BSAFs (as well as BAFs), as illustrated in Figure 4, is
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
generally unappreciated by the general scientific community and needs to be communicated to
the users of bioaccumulation data. Preliminary comparisons of BSAFs across ecosystems (data
not shown) based upon data from the literature suggests that between-ecosystem relationships for
BSAFs can be established. These comparisons are difficult because the data used for deriving
the BSAFs are not always collected for the purposes of determining BSAFs. The number and
types of ecosystems for which BSAFs are available in the scientific literature are limited. The
lack of high quality BSAFs for a variety of well characterized ecosystems is precisely the need
addressed bv Step 1 of this nroiect
<8
03
10
9 -
8 -
7 -
6 -
5 -
4 -
2,3,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
(PCB22) log Kow = 5.58
2,2',5,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
(PCB52) log Kow = 5.84
2,2',3,4,4'-pentachlorobiphenyl
(PCB85) log Kow = 6.30
TL 3 L TL 3 T TL 4 L TL 4 T
TL 3 L TL 3 T TL 4 L TL 4 T
TL 3 L TL 3 T TL 4 L TL 4 T
9 -
7 -
O
CD
2,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl -
(PCB 118) log Kow = 6.74
2,2',3,4',5',6-hexachlorobiphenyl-
(PCB149) log Kow = 6.67
2,2',3,4',5,51-hexachlorobiphenyh
(PCB 146) log Kow = 6.89
TL 3 L TL 3 T TL 4 L TL 4 T
TL 3 L TL 3 T TL 4 L TL 4 T
TL 3 L TL 3 T TL 4 L TL 4 T
Figure 3. Comparison of log BAFs based upon concentrations of chemical in tissue (wet weight basis) and water
(total chemical in bulk water) to log BAFs based upon concentrations of chemical in tissue (lipid basis) and water
(freely dissolved basis) for fishes from trophic levels 3 and 4 from Green Bay, Hudson River, and Lake Ontario
ecosystems for six PCB congeners. The median (line), 25th and 75th percentiles (end of rectangles), 10th and
90th percentiles (whiskers), and 5th and 95th percentiles (dots) are shown in the box plots.
The MED visualization approach for depicting and interpreting bioaccumulation relationships
and data is a way to portray the extrapolation process to non-bioaccumulation experts. This
approach is also good for designing, conducting, and interpreting bioaccumulation model-
based sensitivity analyses in order to conceptualize, plan, and conduct research to develop
extrapolation methods. We have characterized the use of complementary and iterative
combinations of mechanistic bioaccumulation model predictions with consistent field data
interpretations as a "hybrid modeling." The visualization approach has become a primary tool
for interpreting and communicating hybrid modeling results. Using the visualization approach,
locations of measured BSAFs in water-sediment (X-Y) chemical concentration space can be
defined with respect to the positions of BSAFs extrapolated from the measured BSAFs. Because
Contaminated Sediment Research
32
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
chemical properties are fixed and lipid/organic carbon variations accounted for, the extrapolation
methodology will focus on changes in disequilibrium factors (especially sediment to water);
trophic level of the species of concern; relative benthic versus pelagic food chain; and if
necessary, differences in metabolism rates associated with differences in species in food chains
1e+2
-------
Across Species Extrapolation of BSAFs from the Hybrid Modeling Approach using Lake Ontario data of Oliver
and Niimi (1988) Between Forage Fish (Alewife) and Salmonids in the Lake Ontario Ecosystem.
Hybrid Modeling Approach*
PCB
47+48
49
52
101
105
110
118
149
180
.0SK,,
5.82
5.85
5.84
6.38
6.65
6.48
6.74
6.67
7.36
Field measured
alewife BSAFs
0.579
0.491
0.417
1.571
1.041
0.813
1.491
1.331
1.424
Predicted
relative
difference
1.996
2.040
2.026
2.591
2.699
2.644
2.711
2.703
2.468
Predicted
trophic level
four BSAFs
(salmonids)
1.155
1.001
0.844
4.071
2.811
2.150
4.043
3.596
3.515
Measured
salmonid
BSAFs
1.227
0.692
0.609
2.455
2.700
1.526
4.091
2.332
3.776
Difference
between measured
and predicted
BSAFs for
salmonids
0.072
-0.310
-0.235
-1.616
-0.111
-0.624
0.048
-1.264
0.261
^Relative differences were predicted using 5% lipid contents in
piscivorous fishes (respectively), no metabolism., 50:50 pelagic:
eating only forage fish, and a disequilibrium of 25.
all species, weights of 10 g and 1 kg in forage and
benthic diet for the forage fish, piscivorous fish
The actual process of taking BSAFs derived from high quality field measurements in one
ecosystem and applying them to another ecosystem (with different conditions and food web
structure and composition) would be accomplished using simple food web models. The simple
food web models would be used to forecast relative differences in bioaccumulation using the
conditions and parameters of the two ecosystems, and these forecasted relative differences would
then be used to the adjust the BSAFs measured in one ecosystem to another ecosystem. To
illustrate the hybrid modeling approach, BSAFs were predicted for trophic level four salmonids
using the BSAFs measured for alewife in the Lake Ontario ecosystem and forecasted relative
differences between fish of trophic levels three and four (see table).
Although relative differences in bioaccumulation potential between chemicals should be
amenable to extrapolation as illustrated above, calibration through acquisition of a minimum
data set for the ecosystem being evaluated may be required to achieve the desired accuracy
for individual BSAFs and BAFs in the new ecosystem. The intent of this research effort is to
organize and validate this hybrid BAF/BSAF extrapolation methodology and thereby define
its potential for applications to site assessments at different levels of specificity and cost. The
advantages of the hybrid BAF/BSAF approach would be great if successfully validated. The
methodology would enable Superfund to make highly accurate predictions of bioaccumulation
for different Superfund sites with minimal data collection efforts. Additionally, uncertainties in
the BSAFs could be even further reduced by the collection of appropriate data and incorporation
of that information into the extrapolations.
The hybrid BAF/BSAF approach is on a continuum between the use of purely empirical
Contaminated Sediment Research
34
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
BSAF/BAF measurements (in both ecosystems) and complete mechanistic food web modeling
for both ecosystems (in an ecosystem where the BSAF was measured and in an ecosystem
where the extrapolated BSAF is desired). Depending upon the effort undertaken in developing
extrapolation ratios (i.e., predicted relative differences in bioaccumulation) from the mechanistic
food web models, the approach allows predictions anywhere on the continuum. In application,
we expect the hybrid approach to be used in an iterative process, incorporating additional data
for the site of interest as it becomes available. The hybrid approach is entirely complimentary
with the mechanistic modeling approaches. In an iterative application, the hybrid model would
provide the data needed for the detailed mechanistic models when higher levels of accuracy
might be required in the risk assessments.
The following research tasks will be performed to determine the validity of the hybrid BAF/
BSAF approach for different extrapolation scenarios and degrees of specificity. In Task 1,
the theoretical and conceptual framework for performing the extrapolations will need to be
developed further to determine how one would optimally make a prediction. We believe that the
hydrophobicity and tendency for metabolism of the particular chemical will strongly influence
the extent of bioaccumulation for the chemical at the two sites or at a given site at different times.
Having the framework will allow Task 2 to be initiated. In Task 2, we will need to determine
the level of simplicity in the food web model that is required to forecast the relative differences
in BAFs/BSAFs. To accomplish this task, forecasts for a number of different ecosystems that
have differing complexity will be made and evaluated for predictive error and uncertainty. The
forecasts would initially be performed using very generic conditions and parameters for the
two respective ecosystems. Subsequently, forecasts would be made using more site-specific
food web models, e.g., using actual lipid contents and weights for the fishes, site-specific
diet information, sediment-water column chemical concentration quotients, etc., All of these
forecasts would be evaluated for their predictive error and uncertainty. Concurrently with Task
2, Task 3 will develop criteria for the data quality and requirements needed for the extrapolation
process. Issues include establishing minimum data requirements and criteria to evaluate the
appropriateness of the data from specific ecosystems for use in extrapolation elsewhere.
In Task 4 of Step 2, we will determine how to account for metabolism processes and their
effects in the forecasts of relative differences with the food web model. The requirements for
simple food web models to account for the differences in metabolic rates is unknown when large
differences in metabolic abilities exist between species (e.g., eels might not be able to metabolize
the 2,3,7,8-TCDD to the extent observed in teleost fish such as carp). Additionally, although
food web models can account for metabolism processes in their predictions, the general lack of
measured rates of metabolism for aquatic species limits our ability to account for the differences
in rates of metabolism even if we wished to do so. Here, we will make forecasts for chemicals
with highly differing metabolism rates (ideally including reference chemicals resistant to
metabolism) and compare these forecasts to field data. Like Task 3, predictions would be made
in a graded level of complexity, starting with forecasts of relative differences that assume no
metabolism and moving to forecasts having more realistic metabolism rates. These predictions
will allow the assessment of the importance of metabolism information into the forecasts of
relative differences in the BAFs or BSAFs.
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Task 5 of Step 2 will aid in resolving the question addressed in Task 4. In Task 5, rates of
metabolism for individual chemicals will be determined from the field data sets developed in
Task 1. This effort will involve the solving of the food web model for the km parameter by
inputting all other required parameters for the model. In essence, the approach accounts for
the residual (difference between measured and predicted residues in a fish species) with the km
term. Clearly, these calculations require very high quality data for all input parameters, e.g.,
chemical concentrations in sediment and water, diet, weights, lipid contents, trophic level, food
web structure, etc., It is hoped that enough data sets which include common chemicals and
species (e.g., 2,3,7,8-TCDD in carp) across different ecosystems can be assembled. If possible,
a consensus rate of metabolism could be derived for individuals from the various ecosystems.
With these values, relative differences forecast by the simple food web models with the
adjustment for differing metabolism rates could be performed in Task 4.
Task 6 of Step 2 will examine the theoretical framework and forecasting errors to determine
whether the theoretical framework is adequate for performing the predictions. This evaluation
would look for obvious and/or consistent biases in the predictions for specific chemical types
or classes. If deemed necessary, Tasks 1 through 4 will be repeated until the strengths and
limitations of the hybrid BAF/BSAF approach are defined sufficiently to allow methods
development for Superfund applications. Task 7 of Step 2 will develop software that provides
a user-friendly interface for the hybrid BAF/BSAF approach to predict relative differences and
perform the extrapolations. We anticipate that the software will be written in Visual Basic and
run on a PC with a Windows operating system.
An additional consideration throughout Tasks 2 through 7 is the transferability of the hybrid
modeling approach to marine ecosystems which differ from freshwater systems in many
ways including the widely differing set of potential species. We believe that bioaccumulation
submodels for these specific species (e.g., blue crabs, lobster, scallops, and shrimp) will be
required for making adequate predictions of the relative differences in bioaccumulation.
Bioaccumulation models already exist for some but not all of these species. As we work through
Tasks 2 through 7, this research effort will build the tools required to apply the hybrid modeling
approach to marine ecosystems. Most importantly, Task 7, software for predicting the relative
differences in bioaccumulation, will have to include bioaccumulation submodels for non-fish
marine species.
Step 3: Validation
Assuming useful BAF/BSAF extrapolation methods emerge from development of the hybrid
modeling approach, validation is required for successful completion of the research effort. This
effort will make predictions of BSAFs that are based on extrapolation between ecosystems and
(if possible) within ecosystems for pre- and post-sediment remedial action conditions. These
predictions will then be compared to measured BSAFs for both relative (between chemicals) and
absolute accuracies. In the critical path flowchart (see "Products" below), the validation effort
is highlighted in blue and consists of a triangular flow of efforts among Prediction, Application,
and Validation components. The validation effort is envisioned as a interactive exchange among
these three components and would be performed for a variety of ecosystem types (e.g., rivers,
lakes, estuaries, and harbors); ecosystem conditions and parameters (warm vs. cold water,
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
freshwater vs. saltwater, sediment-water column concentration relationships, food web structure
and composition, and species differences); and classes of chemicals (e.g., PCBs, PAHs, PCDD/
Fs, and DDTs).
Technology Transfer
Transfer of the research results and efforts will occur through variety of mechanisms:
1. A series of fact sheets describing research to date, progress, and the state of the science
for specific issues will be prepared in consultation with OSRTI. Fact sheets will be also
written for OSRTI to provide guidance and applications examples for using the hybrid
modeling approach. These fact sheets will be written throughout the research effort. Final
summaries of the overall projects will be written at the end of the project in FY08.
2. Educational seminars will be given using a variety of mechanisms, including the ORD-
OSRTI seminar series, OSRTI's ERAF semi-annual meetings, and at workshops on
contaminated sediments organized by OSRTI.
3. Peer reviewed journal reports will be written and published. These reports will also be
provided to OSRTI.
4. Presentations will be given at regional/national/international scientific workshops and
meetings.
Resources
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Division
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
FTEs
3.75
3.75
3.75
4
4
NHEERL Category D Needs
In addition to the personnel costs, benefits, supplies, equipment, etc., that are specifically
associated by ORD with FTE and
considered intramural resources,
NHEERL uses ORD planning
resources to pay laboratory indirect
costs (called "ABC costs") and
project-specific costs (called
"Category D costs"). Listed below
are the kinds of Category D needs
associated with this project. Annual
budget planning documents determine the dollar amounts needed.
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Division
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
Supplemental
Funding
yes
ECOTOX
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Contaminated Sediment Research
37
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Critical Path
Hybrid Model Development
Determine Model
Complexity
Application of
Hybrid BAF/BSAF
Approach to
Superfund sites
NHEERL Measurement of High Quality BSAFs
high quality data
Prediction of
BSAFs using
hybrid approach
Development of high quality BSAF data from ex
Gathering and evaluation
BSAF comparisons
across ecosystems,
species, & time
Focus Group
Supplemental Funding
Non-Superfund data
Products
By 2008 provide hybrid modeling approaches using empirical field data and
bioaccumulation models to extrapolate BAFs and BSAFs for PBTs across
ecosystems, species, and time.
Provide a hybrid modeling/empirical approach for predicting BAFs, BSAFs,
and resulting risks from metabolized chemicals such as dioxins and PAHs
(revised wording for APM 04-6)
Provide the methods and data necessary to parameterize and apply the
hybrid modeling/empirical approach to support ecological risk assessment
of bioaccumulative sediment contaminants
Provide a fully field validated hybrid modeling/empirical approach for
extrapolating BAFs, BSAFs, and predicting the ecological effects of
mixtures of PBTs with differing rates of metabolism on a site-specific basis
FY08
FY04
FY06
FY08
NHEERL
NHEERL
Lawrence
Burkhard
NHEERL
Lawrence
Burkhard
NHEERL
Lawrence
Burkhard
Contaminated Sediment Research
38
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
References
Burkhard, L.P. 1998. Comparison of two models for predicting bioaccumulation of hydrophobic
organic chemicals in aquatic food webs. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:383-393.
Burkhard, L.P., P.M. Cook, and M.T. Lukasewycz. 2004. Biota-sediment accumulation factors
for polychlorinated biphenyls, dibenzo-p-dioxins, and dibenzofurans in southern Lake
Michigan lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush). Environ Sci Technol 38:5297-5305.
Burkhard, L.P., P.M. Cook, and D.R. Mount. 2003a. The relationship of bioaccumulative
chemicals in water and sediment to residues in fish: a visualization approach. Environ
Toxicol Chem 22:2822-2830.
Burkhard, L.P, D.D. Endicott, P.M. Cook, K.G. Sappington, and E.L. Winchester. 2003b.
Evaluation of two methods for prediction of bioaccumulation factors. Environ Sci Technol
37:4626-4634.
Burkhard, L.P. 2003c. Factors influencing the design of BAF and BSAF field studies. Environ
Sci Technol 22:351-360.
DiToro, D.M., et al. 1991. Technical basis for establishing sediment quality criteria for nonionic
organic chemicals using equilibrium partitioning. Environ Sci Technol 10:1541-1583.
Gobas, F.A.P.C. 1993. A model for predicting the bioaccumulation of hydrophobic organic
chemicals in aquatic food-webs: application to Lake Ontario. EcolModel 69:1-17.
Mackay, D. 1982. Correlation of bioconcentration factors. Environ Sci Technol 16:274-278.
McCarty, L.S. and D. Mackay. 1993. Enhancing ecotoxicological modeling and assessment:
body residues and modes of toxic action. Environ Sci Technol 27:1719-1728.
Oliver, E.G. and AJ. Niimi. 1988. Trophodynamic analysis of polychlorinated biphenyl
congeners and other chlorinated hydrocarbons in the Lake Ontario ecosystem. Environ Sci
Technol 22:388-397.
Thomann, R.V., J.P. Connolly, and T.F. Parkerton. 1992. An equilibrium model of organic
chemical accumulation in aquatic food webs with sediment interaction. Environ Sci Technol
11:615-629.
39
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Project IV: to the
of Contaminants Associated with
Post-Dredging at Superfued Sites
Summary of Issue
At contaminated sediment sites, the Superfund program usually must decide whether to leave
the site alone, cap it, or dredge it. This decision is based in part upon the relative risks to the
environment and human health posed by each option. If the risks associated with the site are
determined to be sufficiently great, dredging will frequently be used to remove the contaminated
sediments and reduce the risks. In practice, dredging is the most common remedy for sites
containing contaminated sediments. There are several advantages to the use of dredging,
principally the removal of most of the material causing the identified risk. Simultaneously,
dredging is the most expensive remedy with the greatest potential to impart short-term adverse
impacts on the site and on surrounding uncontaminated areas. These potential impacts
are believed to be derived primarily from the effects of the resuspension of contaminated
sediments during dredging. Based on the available information (e.g., Anchor Environmental
2003, Palermo and Averett 2003, Eggleton and Thomas 2004), resuspension can result in the
transport of contaminated particles from the site as well as the flux of dissolved and bioavailable
contaminants into the water column. These fluxes may result in the contamination of previously
clean areas.
It is worth noting that resuspension also occurs at Superfund sites under circumstances other than
dredging. Natural phenomena including tidal action, currents, storm events, and bioturbation
result in the resuspension of contaminated sediments (Davis 1993, Thibodeaux and Bierman
2003). Additionally, anthropogenic activities other than dredging including ship traffic result
in resuspension. Consequently, beyond the risk associated with dredging, resuspension of
contaminated sediments at Superfund sites is likely to occur because of these other activities. At
this time, it is unknown how the magnitude and duration of dredging related resuspension risk
compares to the risk associated with natural and other anthropogenic phenomena. Of course,
understanding this would contribute to a better assessment of risk at Superfund sites.
Specifically for dredging and generally for other causes, the effects of resuspension occur across
different temporal and spatial scales that can be placed into many categories. For example, in
use at Superfund sites are the terms "near field" and "far field" effects. However, these terms
can be relative and site-specific and cannot be defined as absolutes. For the research described
here, the effects of interest on the basis of temporal and spatial scales are (1) transportation of
dissolved and bioavailable contaminants from the immediate dredging area to areas of lesser
contamination over a duration of days and (2) alteration of the bioavailability of contaminants
associated with resuspended and resettled sediment (e.g., post-dredging residuals) within the
dredging zone over months. In the context of this research, bioavailability is defined as the
presence of the chemical form(s) of a contaminant, organic or inorganic, which readily interacts
with an organism's tissues resulting in adverse effects (toxicity) or uptake (bioaccumulation).
Any geochemical, physical, or biological event associated with resuspension altering the amount
of bioavailable contaminant is of concern.
40
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
This research will address the risk associated with the resuspension of contaminated sediments
resulting primarily from dredging. Specifically, this research will evaluate modeling and
empirical approaches for predicting and measuring the risk of increased bioavailability and
bioaccumulation of organic and inorganic contaminants caused by dredging events at Superfund
sites. This research will include evaluating the bioavailability of resettled contaminated
sediments which constitute one form of post-dredging residuals.
Summary of the State of the Science
Methods and models are available for estimating the partitioning, bioavailability, and effects
of contaminants in sediments under equilibrium or undisturbed conditions. For example,
equilibrium-based models allow for accurate predictions of toxicity and bioaccumulation.
However, when sediments are resuspended or enter a state of disequilibrium, studies have
demonstrated that associated contaminants, including organic and inorganic pollutants, are
released or remobilized into the water column and potentially made bioavailable (Valsaraj et al.
1997, Latimer et al. 1999, Pedersen et al. 1999, Bonnet et al. 2000, Cantwell et al. 2002, Nayar
et al. 2003, Eggleton and Thomas 2004). In one study, the magnitude of disequilibria resulted
in suspended solids concentrations of approximately 20,000 mg/L as compared to essentially
no suspended solids under equilibrium conditions (Cantwell et al. 2002). Furthermore, in the
recent review of the Hudson River resuspension standard (Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2004),
the peer-reviewers expressed concern about the release of dissolved-phase PCBs resulting from
resuspension. Despite the evidence of release of contaminants from resuspended sediments, the
bioavailability and effects of these contaminants in terms of toxicity to or bioaccumulation by
aquatic life have not been studied extensively and are not very well understood.
A few models and methods exist for estimating the extent to which contaminant remobilization
is likely to occur from resuspension of contaminated sediments. For example, fate and transport
models like the Army Corps of Engineers Waterway Experiment Station's (ACE-WES)
ICM/TOXI, RECOVERY, and STFATE (U.S. ACE 2003). There are also some advanced,
mathematically intensive fate and transport models like EFDC and ECOMSED (Imhoff et al.
2003). Empirical methods include simple (Simpson et al. 1998, 2000) and complex (Gerringa
1991, Chen et al. 2000, Gao et al. 2003) laboratory procedures while other approaches focus
primarily on field studies (Calvo et al. 1991, van den Berg et al. 2001). Further, recent
geochemical studies have investigated desorption mechanisms for organic contaminants under
resuspension conditions (Shor et al. 2003). However, there are limitations that diminish the
predictive ability and overall effectiveness of each of these methods. Models' predictive
accuracy is generally unknown because most often models' results are not validated. A thorough
evaluation of all such models should be performed. Methods often evaluate sediments under
very specific conditions that do not reflect or approximate field conditions. Field studies do
provide accurate and detailed data, but this information is site-specific and is expensive to
generate. Finally, the linkage between the predicted release of contaminants and of contaminants
bioavailability is weak.
Starting in FY2004, we initiated an effort to evaluate the existing fate and transport models
with regard to use with sediment resuspension. Thus far, the Army Corps of Engineers fate and
41
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
transport models and some advanced, mathematically intensive models have been investigated.
The ACE models focus on predicting the transport of contaminants on sediment particles and do
not consider the release of dissolved and bioavailable contaminants during resuspension (U.S.
ACE 2003, T. Bridges, personal communication). The advanced, mathematically intensive
models like EFDC are reputed to predict the release of dissolved and bioavailable contaminants
during resuspension but have not undergone any rigorous verification under laboratory or field
conditions (Imhoff et al. 2003, E. Hayter, personal communication). During the evaluation
of these models, both ACE-WES and NERL (i.e., T. Bridges and E. Hayter, respectively)
expressed interest in collaborating with NHEERL to better characterize the risk resulting from
resuspension.
A shared goal for researchers from NHEERL, NERL, and ACE-WES is to improve our
understanding of the risks associated with the release of contaminants during resuspension
events. A result of this shared goal is the potential to generate multiple data sets of laboratory
and field data to calibrate and validate model predictions of the dredging-related release of
organic and inorganic contaminants. To this end, efforts are underway to identify mechanisms
for enhancing collaborations between NHEERL, NERL, and ACE-WES.
The following figure illustrates a conceptual model of the relationship between method
development, field measurements, and model predictions. In each box, the objective is to
perform measurements or predictions of the concentrations of dissolved organic and inorganic
contaminants.
Field
Measurements
Dissolved Contaminant
Compare/Validate
Results
Model
Predictions
Dissolved Contaminant
Method Development
Dissolved Phase Analysis
Instrumentation Evaluation
Sampling Design
Method development generates the tools for making the measurements and provides input for the
sampling design of the field component. The field measurements are performed while dredging
is occurring and are specifically designed to determine the magnitude of the released dissolved
contaminants. Finally, results of the field measurements are compared to the concentrations
Contaminated Sediment Research
42
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
of dissolved contaminants predicted by the model. Below is a cartoon of a possible sampling
design for a Superfund site undergoing dredging:
Dredging Zone
Dissolved Phase
Sampling Site
Another aspect of resuspension at Superfund sites is the resettlement of suspended sediments
within the vicinity of the dredging operation (i.e., a form of residual). There is some evidence
that when sediments are suspended, the bioavailability of associated organic and inorganic
contaminants is altered as compared to that of the original sediment (e.g., Pedersen et al. 1999,
Lin et al. 2003). Following resettlement, it is suspected that contaminants are more bioavailable
(i.e., sequestering phase has been changed) or that the amount of bioavailable contaminant is
greater than originally observed. One explanation for such effects are alterations of the organic
carbon structure resulting from oxidation and other changes the sediment experiences when
moving from reduced (sedimentary) to oxidized (water column) conditions. This issue has
received very little scientific attention; research is required to determine the magnitude of any
alteration in contaminant effects. Recently, NRMRL proposed to refocus part of their Superfund
research effort on post-dredging residual-related research. Research in the project discussed here
will seek to collaborate with the NRMRL effort wherever possible.
Based on the above discussion, the following are key gaps in our understanding of the
environmental risks associated with resuspension of contaminated sediments at Superfund sites:
1. How effectively the current models of contaminant fate and transport predict the release of
dissolved and bioavailable contaminants during resuspension;
2. The magnitude of release of dissolved and bioavailable contaminants during dredging from
the dredging zone into the lesser contaminated areas; and
3. The effects of resuspension and resettlement on the bioavailability of sediment contaminants.
Contaminated Sediment Research
43
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Research Needs
Based upon the issue summary, state of the science, and the gap analysis, the following key
scientific challenges have been identified.
I. Link model development and field measurements to validate fate and transport models for
predicting the release of dissolved and bioavailable contaminants from sediments during
resuspension events;
2. Under field conditions, determine the potential for the release of dissolved and bioavailable
contaminants from sediments during resuspension events; and
3. Conduct an assessment of the changes in the bioavailability of organic and inorganic
contaminants occurring in contaminated sediments following resuspension and
resettlement.
Proposed Research Targets
The steering committee identified the following research targets for this project after assessing
research needs, the level of effort required to achieve them, and the expertise and resources
available.
The objective of the resuspension research is to improve our understanding of the magnitude of
risk associated with contaminated sediments resuspension. In particular, this work focuses on
determining the risk associated with dredging sediments at Superfund sites contaminated with
PCBs and other organic and inorganic toxic chemicals. The fundamental question involves
the effects of dredging on the bioavailability of contaminants associated with sediments.
Specifically, we wish to understand whether dredging causes a significant change in contaminant
bioavailability via the release and transport of dissolved (and bioavailable) contaminants outside
of the immediate dredging zone and/or via the alteration of the sediment phases controlling the
partitioning and bioavailability of contaminants in resettled sediments.
Specific products/information resulting from this research will include the following:
1. Report evaluating fate and transport models for predicting dissolved concentrations of
organic and inorganic contaminants in Superfund site sediments following resuspension
events;
2. Evaluate concordance between field measurements and fate and transport model
predictions of dissolved concentrations of organic and inorganic contaminants in
Superfund site sediments following resuspension events (in collaboration with NERL and
ACE-WES);
3. Report summarizing evaluation of approach for measuring the transport of dissolved
contaminants beyond the dredging zone at selected Superfund sites; and
4. Report assessing significance of changes in bioavailability of organic and inorganic
contaminants in Superfund site sediments following resuspension into the water column
and resettlement to sediment bed (including residuals).
44
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Research Activities/Approaches
To achieve these targets, three major activities must be taken.
1. Collaboration between NHEERL, NERL, and ACE-WES researchers to review
and evaluate the effectiveness of existing resuspension models and compare field
measurements (see below) with model predictions;
2. Research to develop a method for measuring dissolved organic and inorganic contaminants
under field conditions; and
3. Research to assess changes in bioavailability of contaminated sediments resulting from
resuspension and resettlement (including collaborations with NRMRL post-dredging
residuals research effort).
1. Review and evaluate resuspension models
This activity has two components. In the first, available resuspension models will be reviewed
for their ability to predict dissolved and bioavailable concentrations of organic and inorganic
contaminants. The emphasis will be on assessing what the models under consideration do well
and what they do poorly. Further, the review will inquire whether the models have undergone
field verification.
For the second component, results of field measurements of dissolved organic and inorganic
contaminants, discussed in detail below, will be compared to resuspension model predictions. A
site visit to ACE-WES in September 2004, initiated collaboration between NHEERL and ACE-
WES scientists on this activity. Discussions from this visit indicated output from the ACE's
ICM/TOXI model are the data to compare with field measurements. As noted above, the data
to be compared will include concentrations of dissolved organic and inorganic contaminants, as
well as suspended solids and concentrations of particulate inorganic and organic contaminants.
Additionally, discussions with NERL have started. Preliminary plans call for comparing
the results of advanced, mathematically intensive model analyses (e.g., EFDC, ECOMSED)
with results from field measurements. Based on these comparisons, model predictions and
field measurements will be reviewed to ultimately calibrate and improve the operation of the
model(s).
This activity will also include evaluating other relevant models by local, national, and
international organizations including the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (e.g., http://
woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/sediment-transport) to determine whether these models may
address Superfund needs.
2. Develop approaches/methods for measuring dissolved organic and inorganic contaminants
under field conditions
In this activity, the objective is to develop an approach for measuring dissolved concentrations
of organic and inorganic contaminants in the water column during dredging events under field
conditions. The research will have two primary components. In the first, laboratory research
will be performed to develop and evaluate the approach; in the second, the developed approach
will be taken into the field and used to measure water column concentrations of dissolved organic
and inorganic contaminants in the waters outside of the dredging zone.
45
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
In the laboratory component, the challenge will be to develop tools for measuring dissolved
contaminant concentrations. A few promising technologies are available including
semipermeable membrane devices (SPMDs) which serve as surrogate organisms (Huckins et al.
1993, Hofelt and Shea 1997, Axelman et al. 1999), polyethylene (PE) samplers which use a thin
synthetic film as an absorbing phase to collect dissolved contaminants (Vinturella et al. 2004,
Lohmann et al. 2005), and solid-phase microextraction (SPME) in which polymer-coated fibers
adsorb analytes from the dissolved phase (Arthur and Pawliszyn 1990, Mayer et al. 2000, Zeng
et al. 2004). Dissolved inorganic contaminants will be investigated using iminodiacetate group-
based samplers ("gellyfish") (Senn et al. 2004). To evaluate these tools, laboratory studies will
be conducted using simulated resuspension events generated in exposure chambers. For these
evaluations, the particle entrainment simulator (PES) (Tsai and Lick 1986) will be used. Since
its development, the PES has also been used to evaluate the behavior of organic and inorganic
contaminants in resuspended sediments (Lavelle and Davis 1987, Bedford 1994, Latimer et
al., 1999, Cantwell et al. 2002, Cantwell and Burgess 2004). The PES is a fairly simple device
consisting of a cylindrical chamber in which a sediment core from a site of interest is placed and
overlying water is then added. Under "no energy" conditions, the system in the PES emulates
a passive sediment-water interface. However, a perforated grid in the PES can be activated to
impart known levels of energy to the sediment-water interface, causing sediment resuspension.
While the simulated resuspension is occurring, the overlying water will be monitored for
numerous water column parameters including pH, dissolved oxygen, and oxidation-reduction
potential. Further, samples of the overlying water will be collected for measurement of the
mass of suspended sediment and concentrations of contaminants in the particulate and dissolved
phases including toxic metals (cadmium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc) and organic pollutants
(e.g., PCBs, PAHs). It is during these simulations that the SPMD and SPME approaches will be
evaluated.
The laboratory component of the research will also serve to identify physical and chemical
terms in the sediment and water column that have potential to serve as key predictors of
resuspension and release of dissolved organic and inorganic contaminants. Likely key predictors
include levels of AVS, organic carbon, grain size distribution, and extent of contamination.
Resuspension variables (e.g., energy, duration) will also be considered.
For the field component of this activity, following the laboratory component and development of
sound approaches/tools, at least three sites undergoing dredging will be studied. Field sites for
consideration include New Bedford Harbor, MA; the Hudson River, NY; and one additional site
not yet identified. These studies will serve to test the utility of tools developed in the laboratory
and directly address the scientific needs of OSRTI. A significant part of this field work will be
the development of a statistical sampling design which considers spatial and temporal variables.
Consultation with AED's statistician in the development of this design will complement this
work. As discussed above, results of the field studies will be compared with model estimates of
resuspension and dissolved organic and inorganic contaminants.
Another direction for this research to explore is the use of sophisticated chemical probes. Such
probes would incorporate technology to allow in situ and rapid measurement of several classes
of contaminants as they enter the water column during resuspension. Incorporation of these
approaches to the design discussed here will depend on the results of the initial investigations.
46
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
3. Assess changes in bioavailability of contaminated sediments resulting from resuspension and
resettlement
Sediments from Superfund sites around the country (see sites sited above) will be used to assess
whether or not the bioavailability of contaminants associated with resuspended sediments
changes following settling (i.e., residuals). In these studies, sediment cores will be collected
and sectioned into two identical portions. Using bioaccumulation by infaunal bivalves and/or
polychaetes as the measure of bioavailability, one half of the sediments will be evaluated without
any manipulation. The second half of the sediment sample will be vigorously mixed to mimic
a dredging event and then allowed to settled. Because of the amounts of sediment needed for
this study, the simulated dredging event will involve large-scale mechanical mixing. Following
this mock dredging event, these sediments will be evaluated for bioavailability. The null
hypothesis being tested is that the dredging event has no effect on contaminant bioavailability.
A predominant alternative hypothesis is that dredging results in changes in bioavailability. If
a change in bioavailability is observed soon after the resettlement, a second exposure maybe
performed several months after the initial resuspension to evaluate the duration of the change.
An extension of this study is an investigation of the effects of resuspension and resettlement
on the texture of the sediments. While the focus above is on the change of contaminant
availability, resuspension will also alter the sediment grain size distribution. This change may
result in organisms selecting more contaminated fine grained sediments particles to feed upon.
Such alterations may have food web consequences not immediately obvious based on using
bioaccumulation of contaminants by benthic fauna as the effects endpoint.
Technology Transfer
Technology transfer of the results of this research will have two principle forms: client-oriented
and scientific community-oriented. First, for the client-oriented form, guidance will be provided
in the form of participation in site visits, travel to Headquarters to discuss findings, development
of facts sheets, and presentation of seminars. The objective of this form of technology transfer
will be to provide OSRTI Headquarters and Regional personnel with information to assist them
in applying the findings of the research and informing them about how the new information and
tools can be used to advance decision making at Superfund sites.
The second form of technology transfer will be to the scientific community. This will take
the conventional forms of peer-reviewed scientific papers and presentations at national and
international scientific meetings. The purpose of this technology transfer will be to demonstrate
to the scientific community and OSRTI personnel that the work performed by NHEERL is
scientifically sound and accepted. In turn, this step in the technology transfer process lends
confidence to OSRTI's use of NHEERL data in decision making at Superfund sites.
47
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Resources
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Division
AED
AED
AED
AED
AED
AED
FTEs
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
NHEERL Category D Needs
In addition to the personnel costs, benefits, supplies, equipment, etc., that are specifically
associated by ORD with FTE and considered intramural resources, NHEERL uses ORD planning
resources to pay laboratory indirect costs (called "ABC costs") and project-specific costs (called
"Category D costs"). Listed below are the kinds of Category D needs associated with this
project. Annual budget planning documents determine the dollar amounts needed.
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Division
AED
AED
AED
AED
AED
AED
Analytical
Chemistry
yes
yes
yes
tbda
tbd
CIS
yes
yes
tbd
tbd
Statistics
yes
yes
yes
tbd
tbd
Field Support
yes
yes
yes
tbd
tbd
Modeling
yes
yes
tbd
tbd
"tbd to be determined
Contaminated Sediment Research
48
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Critical Path
(1) Evaluate Concordance Between Field Measurements and
Eva
Resus
(3)R
ofCc
Resu
FY04
. _ . .. Evaluate Concordance Betwe
uate Exis ing __ and Resu ion M
pension Models . .. , . ... . .
(collaborate with AC
\ ..- -.
X/ FY06 \
'.Report/
_
(2) Research to Assess Risk Associated with
Transport of Dissolved Contaminants beyond
the Dredging Zone
Develop Approach for
Measuring Transport of r Eva
Dissolved Contaminants Selec
at Superfund Sites
esearch to Assess Changes in Bioavailability
ntaminated Sediments Resulting from
s pension and Resettlement
Develop Experimental
including Bioavailability Superfur
FY05 FY06
Resuspension Model Predictions
..
:en Field Measurements :'FY08a';
odel Predictions ''"-.Report./
:E and NERL) '* *'
. FY08b '
*
luate Approach at /'..Report/
ted Superfund Sites
.* pY07 **
e with Selected \ Reportt:
d Site Sediments '...*'
FY07 FY08
Contaminated Sediment Research
49
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Products
By 2008, provide monitoring, measurement, and benthic screening methods
and tools to characterize, assess, and communicate current conditions and
the long-term performance of remedial options associated with cleanup of
contaminated sediments.
Report evaluating fate and transport models for predicting
dissolved concentrations of organic and inorganic contaminants in
Superfund site sediments following resuspension events
Evaluate concordance between field measurements and fate
and transport model predictions of dissolved concentrations of
organic and inorganic contaminants in Superfund site sediments
following resuspension events (in collaboration with NERL and
ACE)
Report summarizing evaluation of approaches for measuring the
transport of dissolved contaminants beyond the dredging zone at
selected Superfund sites
Report assessing significance of changes in bioavailability of
organic and inorganic contaminants in Superfund site sediments
following resuspension into the water column and resettlement to
sediment bed
FY06
FYOSa
FY08b
FY07
NHEERL
NHEERL
Rob Burgess and
Mark Cantwell
NHEERL
Rob Burgess and
Mark Cantwell
NHEERL
Rob Burgess and
Mark Cantwell
NHEERL
Rob Burgess and
Mark Cantwell
References
Anchor Environmental C.A.L.P. 2003. Literature review of effects of resuspended sediments
due to dredging operations. Prepared for Los Angeles Contaminated Sediments Task Force.
Irvine, CA.
Arthur, C.L. and J. Pawliszyn. 1990. Solid phase microextraction with thermal desoprtion using
fused silica optical fibers. Anal Chem 62:2145-2148.
Axelman, J. K. Naes, C. Nat, and D. Broman. 1999. Accumulation of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in semipermeable membrane devices and caged mussels (Mytilus edulis L.) in
relation to water column phase distribution. Environ Sci Technol 18:2454-2461.
Bedford, K.W. 1994. In situ measurement of entrainment, resuspension, and related processes
at the sediment-water interface. In Transport and Transformation of Contaminants Near the
Sediment Water Interface. J.V. DePinto, W. Lick, and J..F. Paul (eds.). Boca Raton, Lewis
Publishers p.59-93.
Bonnet, C., M. Babut,J.-F. Ferard, L. Mattel, and J. Garric. 2000. Assessing the potential
toxicity of resuspended sediment. Environ Sci Technol 19:1290-1296.
Calvo, C., R. Donazzolo, F. Guidi, and A. A. Orio. 1991. Heavy metal pollution studies by
resuspension experiments in Venice Lagoon. Wat Res 25:1295-1.302.
Cantwell, M.G. and R.M. Burgess. 2004. Variability of parameters measured during the
resuspension of sediments with a particle entrainment simulator. Chemosphere 56:51-58.
Cantwell, M.G., R.M. Burgess, and D.R. Kester. 2002. Release and phase partitioning of metals
from anoxic estuarine sediments during periods of simulated resuspension. Environ Sci
Technol 36:5328-5334.
Chen, W., A.T. Kan, G. Fu, M.B. Tomson. 2000. Factors affecting the release of hydrophobic
organic contaminants from natural sediments. Environ Sci Technol 19:2401-2408.
Contaminated Sediment Research
50
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Davis, W.R. 1993. The role of bioturbation in sediment resuspension and its interaction with
physical shearing. JExp Mar BiolEcol 171:187-200.
Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2004. Report on the Peer Review of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's "Draft Engineering Performance Standards - Peer Review Copy "for
the Hudson River PCBs Super fund Site. Prepared for U.S. EPA Region 2, New York, NY
10007-1866.
Eggleton, J. and K.V. Thomas. 2004. A review of factors affecting the release and
bioavailability of contaminants during sediment disturbances events. Environ Internat 30:
973-980.
Goa, Y, A.T. Kan, and T.B. Tomson. 2003. Critical evaluation of desorption phenomena of
heavy metals from natural sediments. Environ Sci Technol 37:5566-5573.
Gerringa, L.J.A. 1991. Mobility of Cu, Cd, Ni, Pb, Zn, Fe, and Mn in marine sediments slurries
under anaerobic conditions and at 20 % air saturation. Netherlands J Sea Res 27:145-156.
Hofelt, C.S. and D. Shea. 1997. Accumulation of organochlorine pesticides and PCBs by
semipermeable membrane devices andMytilus edulis in New Bedford Harbor. Environ Sci
Technol 31:154-159.
Huckins, J.N., O.K. Manuweera, J.D. Petty, D. Mackay, and J.A. Lebo. 1993. Lipid-containing
semipermeable membrane devices for monitoring organic contaminants in water. Environ
Sci Technol 27:2489-2496.
Imhoff, J.C., A. Stoddard, E.M. Buchak, E. Hayter. 2003. Evaluation of Contaminated Sediment
Fate and Transport Models: Final Report. Technical Report. U.S. EPA, Office of Research
and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Athens, GA 30605.
Latimer, J., W. Davis, and D.J. Keith. 1999. Mobilization of PAHs and PCBs from in-place
contaminated marine sediments during simulated resuspension events. Estuar Coast Shelf
Sci 49:577-595.
Lavelle, J.W. and W.R. Davis. 1987. Measurement of Bent hie Sediment Erodibility in Pttget
Sound, WA. ERL PMEL-72. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Lin C.-EL, J.A. Pedersen, and I.H. Suffet. 2003. Influence of aeration on hydrophobic organic
contaminant distribution and diffusive flux in estuarine sediments. Environ Sci Technol
37:3547-3554.
Lohmann, R., J.K. MacFarlane, and P.M. Gschwend. 2005. Importance of black carbon to
sorption of native PAHs, PCBs, and PCDDs in Boston and New York Harbor sediments.
Environ Sci Technol 39:141-148.
Mayer, P., W.H.J. Vaes, F. Wijnker, K.C.H.M. Legierse, R.H. Kraaij, J. Tolls, and J.L.M.
Hermens. 2000. Sensing dissolved sediment porewater concentrations of persistent and
bioaccumulative pollutants using disposable solid-phase microextraction fibers. Environ Sci
Technol 34:5177-51.83.
Nayar, S., B.P.L. Goh, L.M. Chou, and S. Reddy. 2003. In situ microcosms to study the impact
of heavy metals resuspended by dredging on periphyton in a tropical estuary. Aquatic Toxicol
64:293-306.
Palermo, M.R. and D.E. Averett. 2003. Environmental Dredging-A State of the Art Review. In
2nd International Symposium on Contaminated Sediments: Characterization, Evaluation,
Mitigation/Restoration, Monitoring, and Performance. Quebec, Canada.
Pedersen, J.A., C.J. Gabelich, C.-H. Lin, and I.H. Suffet. 1999. Aeration effects on the
partitioning of a PCB to anoxic estuarine sediment pore water dissolved organic matter.
Environ Sci Technol 33:1388-1397.
Contaminated Sediment Research ~ Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Senn, D.B., S.B. Griscom, C.G. Lewis, J.P. Galvin, M.W. Chang, and J.P. Shine. 2004.
Equilibrium-based sampler for determining Cu+2 concentrations in aquatic ecosystems.
Environ Sci Techno! 38:3381-3386.
Shor, L.M., K.J. Rockne, G.L. Taghon, L.Y. Young, and D.S. Kosson. 2003. Desorption kinetics
for field-aged polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from sediments. Environ Sci Technol
37:1535-1544.
Simpson, S.L., S.C. Apte, and G.C. Batley. 1998. Effect of short-term resuspension events on
trace metal speciation in polluted anoxic sediments. Environ Sci Technol 32:620-625.
Simpson, S.L., S.C. Apte, and G.C. Batley. 2000. Effect of short-term resuspension events
on the oxidation of cadmium, lead, and zinc sulfide phases in anoxic estuarine sediments.
Environ Sci Technol 34:4533-4537.
Thibodeaux, L.J., and VJ. Bierman. 2003. The bioturbation-driven chemical release process.
Environ Sci Technol 37:252A-258A.
Tsai, C.-H. and W. Lick . 1986. A portable device for measuring sediment resuspension. ,/
Great Lakes Res 12:314-321.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Dredging Operations Technical Support Program
Models, http://www.wes.army.mil/el/dots/models.html.
Valsaraj, K.T., R. Ravikrishna, JJ. Orlins, J.S. Smith, J.S. Gulliver, D.D. Reible, andL.J.
Thibodeaux. 1997. Sediment-to-air mass transfer of semi-volatile contaminants due to
sediment resuspension in water. Adv Environ Res 1:145-156.
Van den Berg, G.A., G.A. Gorgias, G.A. Meijers, L.M. Van der Heijdt, and J.J.G. Zwolsman.
2001. Dredging-related mobilization of trace metals: a case study in The Netherlands.
Water Res 35:1979-19X6.
Vinturella, A.E., R.M. Burgess, B.A. Coull, K.M. Thompson, and J.P. Shine. 2004. Use
of passive samplers to mimic uptake of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by benthic
polychaetes. Environ Sci Technol 38:1154-1160.
Zeng, E.Y., D. Tsukada, D.W. Diehl. 2004. Development of a solid-phase microextraction-
based method for sampling of persistent chlorinated hydrocarbons in an urbanized coastal
environment. Environ Sci Technol 38:5737-5743.
52
Contaminated Sediment Research ~ Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Project V: of Equilibrium
for the Assessment of Contaminated
at Superfued Sites
Summary of Issue
This activity will publish a series of benchmark documents to assist OSRTI, the Regions, states,
other federal agencies, and other entities in the assessment of contaminated sediments.
Resources
Year
2004
2005
2006
Division
AED
AED
AED
FTEs
0.10
0.10
0.10
NHEERL Category D Needs
In addition to the personnel costs, benefits, supplies, equipment, etc., that are specifically
associated by ORD with FTE and considered intramural resources, NHEERL uses ORD planning
resources to pay laboratory indirect costs (called "ABC costs") and project-specific costs (called
"Category D costs"). Listed below are the kinds of Category D needs associated with this
project. Annual budget planning documents determine the dollar amounts needed.
Year
2004
2005
2006
Division
AED
AED
AED
No Category D needs
No Category D needs
No Category D needs
Contaminated Sediment Research
53
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Products
By 2008, provide monitoring, measurement, and benthic screening methods
and tools to characterize, assess, and communicate current conditions and
the long-term performance of remedial options associated with cleanup of
contaminated sediments.
U.S. EPA. 2003. Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium
Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of
Benthic Organisms: Endrin. EPA-600-R-02-009. Office of Research
and Development. Washington, DC 20460.
U.S. EPA. 2003. Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium
Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of
Benthic Organisms: Dieldrin. EPA-600-R-02-010. Office of
Research and Development. Washington, DC 20460.
U.S. EPA. 2003. Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium
Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of
Benthic Organisms: PAH Mixtures. EPA-600-R-02-013. Office of
Research and Development. Washington, DC 20460.
U.S. EPA. 2005. Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium
Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for (lie Protection of
Benthic Organisms: Nonionics Compendium. EPA-600-R-02-016.
Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC 20460.
U.S. EPA. 2006. Procedures for the Derivation of Site-Specific
Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the
Protection of Benthic Organisms: Nonionic Organics. EPA-600-
R-02-012. Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC
20460.
FY04
FY05
FY06
NHEEML
NHEERL
Rob Burgess
NHEERL
Rob Burgess
NHEERL
Rob Burgess
Contaminated Sediment Research
54
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Project VI: of Whole
Water Freshwater Marine Toxiclty Identification
Evaluations (TIEs) Guidance Document for Use at
Summary of Issue
This activity will publish a guidance document to assist OSRTI, the Regions, states, other federal
agencies, and other entities in the assessment of contaminated sediments.
Resources
Year
2004
2005
Division
AED
AED
FTEs
0.20
0.20
NHEERL Category D Needs
In addition to the personnel costs, benefits, supplies, equipment, etc., that are specifically
associated by ORD with FTE and considered intramural resources, NHEERL uses ORD planning
resources to pay laboratory indirect costs (called "ABC costs") and project-specific costs (called
"Category D costs"). Listed below are the kinds of Category D needs associated with this
project. Annual budget planning documents determine the dollar amounts needed.
Year
2004
2005
Division
AED
AED
No Category D needs
Technical Editing
Products
By 2008, provide monitoring, measurement, and benthic screening methods
and tools to characterize, assess, and communicate current conditions and
the long-term performance of remedial options associated with cleanup of
contaminated sediments.
Ho et al. 2005. Whole Sediment and Interstitial Water Toxicity
Identification Evaluation Guidance Document for Freshwater
and Marine Applications. Office of Research and Development.
Washington, DC 20460.
FY05
NHEERL
NHEERL
Kay Ho
Contaminated Sediment Research
55
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Project VII: of Appropriate for
Non-Bioaccumulative Contaminants In
Summary of Issue
This issue is not a single issue, but an aggregation of a diverse group of issues. The common
thread for these issues is that they involve difficulties in assessing/predicting the toxic effects of
sediment contaminants that are "non-bioaccumulative." In this context, "non-bioaccumulative"
does not mean strictly that the chemicals do not bioaccumulate to any degree, but rather that
the assessment of these chemicals (or exposure pathways) is not pursued using the same tools
commonly applied to classic bioaccumulative chemicals such as PCBs. In general, this would
mean chemicals whose primary toxic effects are expressed directly in organisms living in or
on sediments (as opposed to organisms exposed to sediment-associated chemicals via the food
chain). However, even this definition is not without exception.
For chemicals causing direct effects on benthic organisms, there are three primary classes of
tools used to assess the likely effects of chemicals in sediments: (1) sediment quality guidelines
(SQGs), (2) sediment toxicity tests, and (3) benthic community surveys. As described below,
each of these have particular strengths, weaknesses, and uncertainties in their application. The
uncertainties associated with these tools spawn corresponding uncertainties and controversy in
ecological risk assessments conducted within the Superfund program and elsewhere.
Beyond issues surrounding these three sediment assessment tools, there are some additional
noteworthy issues that have arisen in Superfund ecological risk assessments but that are not
addressed explicitly elsewhere and are therefore included here. These issues include heightened
toxicity of poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the presence of UV light, often called
"photo-activated toxicity." Another of these is the potential for adverse effects from dietary
exposure offish to metals (e.g., Cd, Cu, Zn) accumulated by their prey.
Summary of the State of the Science
1. Sediment Quality Guidelines
Sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) are chemical concentrations in sediment that are expected to
cause some specified degree or probability of adverse effect in organisms exposed to the sediment.
SQGs have been developed using a number of different approaches (see Batley et al. 2004), and
each has its own set of strengths and weaknesses. They can be loosely grouped into two subsets,
so-called "empirical" guidelines and "mechanistic" guidelines. Empirical guidelines are derived
from large data sets of paired chemical concentration and sediment toxicity (effect) data, usually
from field-collected sediments. Data are arrayed according to increasing degree of contamination,
and specific benchmarks are chosen along this concentration gradient to delineate concentrations
that are associated with varying levels or probabilities of adverse effects. As they are based
on correlation, they reflect empirical association but not necessarily causation. Mechanistic
guidelines are based on models of chemical/toxicological behavior of chemicals in sediment.
Current mechanistic guidelines all have their roots in "Equilibrium Partitioning Theory" (Di Toro
et al. 1991) which uses chemical partitioning models as the basis for predicting the toxicological
potency of sediment-associated chemicals.
Contaminated Sediment Research ~ Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
While there is a considerable body of work supporting the development of these guidelines, their
application in sediment assessment/management frameworks remains a topic of considerable
controversy. Reasons for this controversy are varied but range from misuse of the guidelines
(i.e., application of the guidelines in ways inconsistent with their derivation or narrative intent) to
actual scientific uncertainties in their interpretation. Details of these issues are discussed under
Research Needs below. In addition, development of SQG has been focused on some of the more
commonly studied sediment contaminants, such as DDT, PAHs, and common cationic metals.
There are many chemicals for which SQG have not been developed.
2. Sediment Toxicity Tests
Sediment toxicity tests are the primary means of assessing the direct toxicological effects of
field-collected sediments or of sediments spiked with known chemicals. Initial development
of sediment toxicity tests focused on comparatively short-term (e.g., 10-day) exposures and on
lethality as the primary endpoint. Protocols for these short-term methods are relatively well
developed for several marine and freshwater test organisms. Fewer protocols for measuring
longer-term and/or sublethal effects have been developed, but some are available for a subset
of benthic test organisms. While the methods for these tests are fairly well standardized, their
application in sediment assessment is still affected by lingering uncertainties related to their
appropriate application and interpretation.
3. Benthic Community Surveys
Field surveys of benthic community composition have been conducted for decades and pre-date
development of either SQGs or sediment toxicity tests. Perhaps because benthic community
surveys have been conducted for a great variety of reasons beyond assessment of contaminated
sediments (e.g., natural history evaluation, habitat assessment) and because the appropriateness
of different techniques varies among physical habitats (e.g., stream, river, lake, estuary), there
is a wide range of techniques available and relatively little overall standardization (that is not to
say there are not standardized methods, but that no single method is recognized as intrinsically
superior to others). Data from benthic community surveys are highly valued in ecological risk
assessment because they reflect exposure of the organisms of interest to the contamination
of interest. That said, these data are sometimes difficult to interpret because of intrinsic
uncertainties and complexities, such as the effects of habitat (e.g., substrate type) and sampling
bias, as well as uncertainties regarding what constitutes an meaningful adverse effect.
4. Photo-activated Toxicity of PAHs
Because PAHs are common sediment contaminants at Superfund sites, it is important that we
have sufficient understanding of their ecological effects to assess risks appropriately. Photo-
activated toxicity of PAHs results from an interaction of UV light, such as that in sunlight, with
certain PAHs that have accumulated in the tissues of aquatic organisms. This interaction can lead
to toxicity 2 or even 3 orders of magnitude more severe than that occurring in the absence of UV
light. Because most toxicity data for PAHs are generated under laboratory lighting containing
very little UV, there is clear potential for ecological risk from PAHs under field conditions to be
underestimated. While there have been a number of studies published which demonstrate hazard
from this mechanism, there is not currently an accepted approach for predicting risk from photo-
activated toxicity. This shortcoming is clearly visible through controversies associated with
Contaminated Sediment Research ~ Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
several Superfund sites where ecological risk assessors have attempted to include photo-activated
toxicity in site risk assessments.
5. Dietary Exposure to Metals
Conventional wisdom has been that common metals such as copper, cadmium, and zinc express
their effects primarily through waterborne exposure. This was not to say that dietary exposure
did not exist, but that waterborne metal was the primary determinant of toxic effects. Studies by
Woodward et al. (1994, 1995) and Farag et al. (1999) conducted at the Clark Fork River (CFR)
and Coeur d'Alene River (CDA) Superfund sites introduced considerable controversy about this
assumption by demonstrating reduced growth of trout fed diets prepared from field-collected
invertebrates from these systems. Because these are metal-contaminated systems, the clear
suggestion was that the elevated metals concentrations in the invertebrates were the cause of the
reduced growth. While this appears to be a logical conclusion, there are many other published
studies which indicate little effect from dietary exposure to some of the same metals elevated in
the CFR and CDA. Other studies published by Hook and Fisher (2000) and Hornberger et al.
(2000) have suggested effects from dietary exposure in invertebrates. Resolution of these issues
is very important to Superfund risk assessments for metal contaminated sediments.
Research Needs
Each of the areas identified above involves a number of sub-issues for which research is needed
to improve the ability of the Superfund program to assess and manage ecological risks.
1. Sediment Quality Guidelines
a. Refine bioavailability models
b. Address unusual/non-traditional partitioning phases (e.g., soot)
c. Develop partitioning models for additional chemical classes (e.g., metal oxy-anions, polar
organic chemicals)
d. Evaluate assumptions regarding route of exposure (ingestion vs. interstitial water)
2. Sediment Toxicity Test
a. Establish and verify appropriate sediment collection, handling, and equilibration
techniques
b. Evaluate means to insure exposure conditions are relevant to the field
c. Establish test methods for poorly represented taxa
d. Have greater assessment of sublethal endpoints
3. Benthlc Community Surveys
a. Establish appropriate metrics for assessing adverse effects
b. Determine the magnitude of effects to be considered adverse
c. Account for habitat influences on survey data
d. Establish appropriate sampling methods
Contaminated Sediment Research ~ Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
4. Photo-activated Toxicity of PAHs
a. Establish appropriate framework for assessing risk
b. Better understand UV exposure for free-living organisms
c. Determine degree of UV exposure received by benthic organisms
d. Develop means to accurately predict body residues
5. Dietary Exposure to Metals
a. Understand metal speciation in the context of metal uptake and toxicity
b. Assess relative contributions of waterbome and dietary pathways to toxicity under field
exposure conditions
c. Establish a framework for integrating dietary exposure into overall risk estimate
Proposed Research Targets
While all of the above issues have scientific merit and involve research questions relevant to
NHEERL's mission, it was decided that none clearly possessed greater urgency than do others
described in this document. For the immediate future, no active research will be taken under this
implementation plan within the realm of assessing non-bioaccumulative contaminants.
References
Batley, G.E., R.G. Stahl Jr., M.P. Babut, T.L, Bott, J.R. Clark, L.J. Field, K.T. Ho, D.R. Mount,
R.C. Swartz, and A. Tessier. 2004. The scientific underpinnings of sediment quality
guidelines, Chapter 2. In: R.J. Wenning and C.G. Ingersoll (eds.), Sediment Quality
Guidelines: State of the Science. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL (in press).
Di Toro, D.M., C.S. Zarba, D.J. Hansen, W.J. Berry, R.C. Swartz, C.E. Cowan, S.P. Pavlou,
A.E. Allen, N.A. Thomas, and P.R. Paquin. 1991. Technical basis for establishing sediment
quality criteria for nonionic organic chemicals using equilibrium partitioning. Environ
Taxicol Chem 10:1541-1583.
Farag, A.M., D.F. Woodward, W. Brumbaugh, IN. Goldstein, E. MacConnell, C. Hogstrand, and
F.T. Barrows. 1999. Dietary effects of metals-contaminated invertebrates from the Coeur
d'Alene River, Idaho, on cutthroat trout. Trans Am. Fish Soc 128:578-592.
Hook, S.E. and N.S. Fisher. 2001a. Sublethal effects of silver in zooplankton: Importance of
exposure pathways and implications for toxicity testing. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:568-574.
Hook, S.E. and N.S. Fisher. 2001b. Reproductive toxicity of metals in calanoid copepods. Mar
Biol 138:1131-1140.
Hornberger, M.I., S.N. Luoma, D.J. Cain, F. Parchaso, C.L. Brown, R.M. Bouse, C. Wellise,
and J.K. Thompson. 2000. Linkage of bioaccumulation and biological effects to changes in
pollutant loads in South San Francisco Bay. Environ Sci Technol 34:2401-2409.
Woodward, D.F., W.G. Brumbaugh, A.J. DeLonay, E.E. Little, and C.E. Smith. 1994. Effects on
rainbow trout fry of a metals-contaminated diet of benthic invertebrates from the Clark Fork
River, Montana. Trans Am Fish Soc 123:51 -62.
Woodward, D.F., A.M. Farag, H.L. Bergman, A.J. DeLonay, E.E. Little, C.E. Smith, and F.T.
Barrows. 1995. Metals-contaminated benthic invertebrates in the Clark Fork River, Montana:
Effects on age-0 brown trout and rainbow trout. Can JFishAquat Sci 52:1994-2004.
59
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Program Summary and .Management
This Research Implementation Plan document describes NHEERL's contaminated sediment
research program for the fiscal years 2004-2008. To the extent feasible, projects in the Plan
are a blend of empirical and modeling approaches designed to solve key scientific problems
associated with contaminated sediments. This plan is the result of a through planning process
that considered a large number of scientific uncertainties raised by Superfund and distilled the
research needs into four research projects. These projects were developed with recognition
that success depends upon NHEERL's research products being adopted and used by OSRTI
at Superfund sites. A breakdown of the FTEs assigned to each project and the total FTEs for
contaminated sediments research across NHEERL is provided below. Although the number of
FTEs available for this effort is small, these projects have the potential to significantly improve
the risk assessments performed and decisions that are made at contaminated sediment Superfund
sites.
Distribution of Effort by Project, Year, and Division
Project
ID
Project
Name
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
I
Benthic
Recover}'
II
Residues
to Effects
III
Water and
Sediment
Concentration
to Residues
IV
Resuspension
V
ESB guidance
documents
VI
TIE guidance
document
Division FTEs
AED
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
MED
0.25
0.25
0.25
0
0
MED
3.75
3.75
3.75
4
4
AED
I
I
1
I
1
AED
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0
AED
0.20
0.20
0
0
0
Ail
Projects
7.8
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.5
By 2008, the research program expects to provide the following:
- Assessment of the applicability of sediment profile imagery (SPI) as a quick and accurate
tool for monitoring effects of and recovery from dredging at a Superfund sediment site
(Project I);
- Assessment of PCB residue-effects relationships and data gaps for fish, birds, and
mammals for Superfund applications (Project II);
- A fully field-validated hybrid modeling/empirical approach for extrapolating B AFs,
BSAFs, and predicting the ecological effects of mixtures of PBTs with differing rates of
metabolism on a site-specific basis (Project III);
- Assessment of the concordance between field measurements and fate and transport
model predictions of dissolved concentrations of organic and inorganic contaminants in
Superfund sites following resuspension events (Project IV); and
Contaminated Sediment Research
60
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
- Assessment of the changes in bioavailability of organic and inorganic contaminants in
Superfund site sediments following resuspension into the water column and resettlement to
the sediment bed (Project IV).
The research program will be managed at the Division/Branch level. The investigators
and steering committee will convene annually to review progress and to reassess projected
commitments. In the event that resource changes or research findings indicate changes in
emphasis are necessary, adjustments will be made to this plan. Because this research is based
upon strategic research directions provided at the ORD level, findings from this program will
be communicated not only to the client directly, but also through the ORD research planning
process. Similarly, changes in strategic direction provided by ORD may impact this program.
61
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
£.0
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
A: Priorities
This list of Super/mid Program Research priorities was created by the Superfund program office
(currently, OSRTI) and is a description of research priorities for ORD from Superfund. This list
was used as a. star ting point for discussions by the NHEERL Contaminated Sediments Steering
Committee.
Superfund Program Research Priorities for ORD - December 12, 2002, Working Draft
(See separate list for Oil Program Research Priorities)
The program's highest priority for ORD support continues to be site-specific technical support
(provided both by through the Technical Support Centers and through other mechanisms) and
technical support to OSRTI staff on guidance development.
The Superfund research needs are organized into the following catagories:
I. Ground Water Research Needs
II. Sediment Research Needs
III. Soil/Waste Research Needs
IV. Multi-Media and Analytical Research Needs
V. Human Health Research Needs
VI. Ecological Research Needs
I. GROUND WATER NEEDS
OSRTI Contact: Ken Lovelace
Although they are generally listed in order of priority, all of the items within this category are of
high priority.
GW-1. Technical Support
la. Providing technical assistance to EPA regional staff for site specific issues related to
characterization, evaluation (e.g., modeling), and remediation of contaminated ground
water.
Ib. Providing technical assistance to EPAHQ staff for guidance development (e.g., serving
on workgroups and/or technical reviews of draft documents).
GW-2. Natural Attenuation/Bioremediation Processes
2a. Research of attenuation (physical, chemical, biologic) processes affecting inorganic
(metals and metalloids) and radiologic contaminants in ground water. This includes
basic research on relevant processes and potential methods for enhancing natural
processes. [Includes Projects HI, H4, and H9 on previous list]
2b. Research of attenuation (physical, chemical, biologic) processes affecting recalcitrant
A-1
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
organic contaminants (e.g., sem.ivola.lile compounds, pesticides) in ground water. This
includes basic research on relevant processes and potential methods for enhancing natural
processes. [Includes Projects HI, H4, and H9 on previous list]
2c. Research of methods to enhance bioremediation of contaminants in ground water.
[Project H7 on previous list]
2d. Research and development of improved methods for evaluating long-term performance
of monitored natural attenuation (MNA) remedies, including plume stability, changes
in hydraulic conditions, changes in biogeochemical environment, discharges to surface
water (see "Emerging Issues" below), and impacts on indoor air (see "Emerging Issues"
below). [Not on previous list]
2e. Development and application of natural attenuation research. This includes site
characterization methods, field demonstration projects, workshops, workshop reports, and
training courses. [Includes Projects HI and M28 on previous list]
GW-3. Dense. Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid Characterization and Remediation
3 a. Research on improved methods for locating and characterizing dense, non-aqueous phase
liquids (DNAPLs) in the subsurface. This includes geophysical methods and techniques
for measuring mass flux from DNAPL source areas. [Projects H5 and NH2 on previous
list]
3b. Research on improved methods for remediating DNAPLs in the subsurface. This
includes all possible methods forin-situ treatment of DNAPLs (e.g., thermal, chemical
oxidation, surfactant flushing, reactive barriers, enhanced bioremediation, and other
methods). [Project H3 on previous list]
3c. Development and application of DNAPL-related research. This includes field
demonstration projects, workshops, workshop reports, and training courses. [Includes
Project NH2 (mass flux) on previous list]
GW-4. Emerging Issues
4a. Research on improved methods for assessing migration of contaminants from ground
water to indoor air. This includes improved site characterization techniques, model
verification studies, and improved guidelines for use of models. [Note: an indoor air
research topic should also be included under the risk issue] [Not on previous list]
4b. Research on improved methods for assessing migration of contaminants from ground
water to surface water as needed to provide input for evaluation of environmental
impacts/risks (see "Risk Issue"). This includes improved site characterization techniques.
[Not on previous list]
A-2
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
GW-5. Field Characterization-Sampling and Monitoring Methods
5a. Research and development of improved methods for detection and measurement of
contaminants in ground water. This includes basic research as well as development and
field testing of methods to be used in initial site characterization as well as in long-term
site monitoring. [Includes Project NH1 on previous list]
GW-6. Long-Term Remedy Performance
6a. Research and development of improved methods for evaluating long-term performance
of pump and treat systems, including capture zone analysis, evaluation of monitoring
effectiveness, optimization methods, etc., This could include improved methods for
collection, tabulation, plotting, and statistical evaluation of large data sets. [Projects H10,
H8 and Ml on previous list]
6b. Research and development of improved methods for evaluating long-term performance
of permeable reactive barriers (PRBs). This could include research and development
of methods for enhancing performance of PRBs, evaluation of treatment effectiveness,
monitoring effectiveness, and optimization methods, etc., [Project H6 on previous list]
6c. Research and development of improved methods for evaluating long-term performance of
vertical containment barriers. This could include research and development of methods
for verifying barrier continuity, wall embedment, and leak detection. [Project H2 on
previous list]
II. SEDIMENT RESEARCH
OSRU Contact: Sieve Ells
[Some additions still to be incorporated from focus group write-ups, plus current prioritization is
still underway.]
Site Characterization Issues
SED-1. Development of Sediment Contaminant Screening Levels
SED-1. Fate and Transport Model Recommendations
What models should be recommended for various common types of sediment sites?
SED-2. Measuring Effects of Large Events on Sediment Transport
It is difficult to monitor during some large hydrologic events, especially those which involve
ice scour, both because they are not easy to predict and because of physical dangers. Lacking
that, are there practices we can recommend for after-the-fact measuring the effects of these
events on sediment movement? [This may be a literature survey question.]
SED-3. Tools for Locating Debris
What are the best tools for locating and identifying debris (buried and surficial) in sediment
(e.g., during evaluation of dredging alternatives)?
A-3
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
SED-4. Determination of Background Levels in Biota and Sediment
SED-5. Sampling Surface Sediments
e.g., How to sample surface fluff layer?
SED-6. Ground Water/Sediment Interactions
When should you evaluate GW-Sediment interactions?
SED-7. Evaluating Past Erosion and Deposition
What suite of empirical methods can we recommend for assessing the extent to which
deposits of contaminated sediment are the result of deposition only versus the result of
alternating erosion and deposition? Do we recommend a different suite of methods for
different types of water bodies? Where deposits are the result of alternating erosion and
deposition, are there empirical methods available to evaluate the horizontal and vertical
scale of that movement, or can this only be estimated through modeling? What are common
rates of erosion and deposition in various environments which are typical of Superfund
contaminated sediment sites?
SED-8. Biota and Sediment Sampling Procedures
What are our research needs in this area?
SED-9. Fish Ingestion Rates
What are best practices for selecting fish ingestion rates for risk assessment and selection of
cleanup levels?
SED-10. Chemical Fingerprinting to Tie Risk Drivers to Sources
For contaminants such as PCBs and others which undergo some degree of biodegradation in
sediment, is research needed to better tie drivers to sources or to risk?
SED-11. Rates of Contaminant Transport through Bioturbation
How important is bioturbation in contaminant transport in different habitats? What are ranges
of rates of contaminant transport for common Superfund contaminants in sediment (PCBs,
metals, PAHs) in Superfund contaminated sediment environments where bioturbation may be
a key transport element (e.g., estuaries, freshwater harbors, and lakes)? [Need to think more
about what the real question should be here. Are more biota at risk if contaminants are moved
closer to the surface, or is it a question of being more susceptible to transport by erosion?]
SED-12. Community Involvement at Large Sediment Sites
How best to collect/know community concerns at big sites?
Ecological and Human Health Risk Issues
SED-13. Prediction of Safe Biota Residue Levels and Population Recovery Times
How can we better predict time to safe contaminant residue levels in biota and biota
population recovery times? What are the most uncertain elements of the models we use
to make these predictions? What is driving that uncertainty? Some answers will vary by
A-4
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
cleanup method (e.g., dredging residuals, rates of natural sedimentation); others are expected
to be universal (e.g., recontamination from uncontrolled sources, large-ranging species). How
can we reduce that uncertainty in some of those areas? [This may need to be broken up into
several priorities.]
SED-14. Critical Residue Levels for Bioaccumulative Contaminants
What are the critical tissue residue levels for bioaccumulative contaminants?
SEP-15. Cleanup Levels for Eco-Risks
How best to determine acceptable cleanup levels for eco-risks?
SED-16. Dermal Exposure/Uptake from Sediment
SED-17. Fish Ingestion Rates
What are best methods for determining what fish ingestion rates to use for risk assessments
and determination of cleanup levels?
SED-18. Standardized Process to Characterize Human Health and Ecological Risks from
Ingestion of PCB-contaminated Fish on a Congener Basis
Development and Evaluation of Remedies
SED-19. Monitoring Methods and Protocols
What are the best remedial action and long-term monitoring methods for various sediment
remedies? Are new methods needed? Are protocols needed?
SED-20. Effectiveness of Containment During Dredging
How effective are silt curtains and screens? What are the best practices for monitoring and
increasing their effectiveness?
SED-21. Dredging Residual s
How can we better predict dredging residuals in different sediment habitats. What are
achievable cleanup levels?
SED-22. Dredging Resuspension
What are the impacts from resuspension caused by dredging? Does dredging result in
increased environmental risks to aquatic receptors?
SED-23. Beneficial Use of Dredged Material
How to identify beneficial uses for contaminated sediments at a site?
SED-24. Cost-Effective Treatment Technologies for Dredged Material
SED-25. Effectiveness ofln-Situ Remedies
How effective are existing monitored natural recovery (MNR) and capping remedies?
What are theoretical "break-through" times for typical caps and natural deposits overlying
contaminated sediment?
SED-26. In-Situ Reactive Caps and Enhanced Bioretnediation Technologies
A-5
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
SED-27. Designing In-Situ Caps to Accommodate Habitat Restoration/Recovery
SED-28. Enhanced Monitored Natural Recovery
Are there effective measures to enhance MNR? Does thin layer placement speed up natural
recovery? (a) Evaluate, to the extent possible, actual effectiveness of thin layer placement
as a method to speed up natural recovery at contaminated sediment sites in quiescent
environments, (b) Evaluate theoretical effectiveness of thin layer placement as a method to
speed up natural recovery in quiescent environments, including the following aspects: What
are some theoretical combinations of thickness of placed layer and contaminant movement
through bioturbation in underlying sediment that result in predicted outcomes?
III. SOIL/WASTE RESEARCH NEEDS
OSRTI Contact for Landfills/Containment: Ken Skahn
OSRTI Contact for Mining: Shahid Mahnnid
High Priority
SOIL/WASTE-1. Performance Monitoring for Landfill Caps
Determine appropriate methods and equipment to monitor the performance of landfill caps.
What monitoring methods are needed to detect barrier breaches? What modeling methods
should be used? How do contaminants affect the long-term integrity of barrier materials?
OSWER is revising the landfill capping guidance document issued in July 1989 and will add
requirements for monitoring the performance (prevention of infiltration) of installed landfill
caps. The information prepared under this project will be the background support needed to
support the new requirements. [Previously H39]
SOIL/WASTE-2. Long-Term Remedy Performance for Containment Systems
For example, persistence of contaminants and their effects if they have been stabilized or
solidified; design life of physical barriers, e.g., caps, slurry walls. [Previously H40]
SOIL/WASTE-3. Management of Landfill Gas
Determine appropriate methods to monitor and measure the gas escaping from landfill units.
Determine the point at which measurements would indicate it would be acceptable (based
on existing regulations) to vent landfill gas in lieu of collecting the gas for beneficial use or
treatment. Determine appropriate collection systems. Determine appropriate technologies for
treatment of the collected landfill gas. Determine the point at which collection is no longer
required and gas could be vented directly to the atmosphere. How to manage LF gas and
understand its movement in capped LFs and under clay vs. phyto caps. [Previously H41]
Medium Priority
SOIL/WASTE-4. Landfills
(1) Upgrade guidance [is this same guidance as #1 above?]; (2) Need data to show if
evapotranspiration and capillary barrier covers will work in arid conditions. Need criteria for
designing these types of covers. [Previously M20]
A-6
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
SOIL/WASTE-5. Seismic Considerations for Landfill Caps and Vertical Barriers
EPA has not addressed the need to consider the effect of seismic events in the design of
landfill caps and vertical containment barriers. This project would entail the search of
literature for relevant research papers, reports on actual impacts to caps, and data to support
recommendations on design guidelines for capping landfills in areas subject to seismic
events. This information will help to support guidelines developed for the capping guidance
document and determine whether subsequent guidelines are needed for vertical barriers.
[Previously M21]
SO1LWASTE-6. Evaluation of Alternative Designs and Materials for Caps and Barrier Walls
A newly developed landfill cap design has emerged which shows promise for use in arid
environments. The evapo-transpiration cap does not rely on traditional impermeable
barriers to prevent infiltration from passing through the cap, but instead relies on the
depth of materials in the cap and vegetation to release moisture back to the atmosphere
before the moisture can reach the bottom of the cap material. Other designs may also be
viable. Information on the performance, durability, and design parameters and minimum
standards for these new caps must be collected and analyzed. Performance data and design
criteria recommendations for revised capping guidance are needed. New materials for
landfill cap and barrier wall construction are emerging on a regular basis. Data is needed
on the acceptability of these materials with regard to meeting performance requirements,
durability, and relative cost. This project would require review of technical papers, data
from independent testing, and consultation with other federal agencies (i.e., Army Corps
of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamations, Department of Energy, etc.) to collect the needed
information. [Previously M22]
SOIL/WASTE-7. Verification of HELP Model
EPA has recommended use of the HELP (Hydrogeologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance)
Model in past guidance documents. The HELP Model is used widely for the design of
drainage features for landfill caps as well as predicting leachate generation for municipal
landfills. There is concern among designers as to the accuracy of the model. This would
entail making an assessment of the accuracy of the model in predicting infiltration rates and
recommendations as to the extent it should be used in the future. The effort should also
include an assessment of other available models. [This is an on-going research area that may
be complete by FY03? But FY02 note says "Per discussion with NRMRL, clarification is
that for the short-term (and about $25-50K) need to communicate to users exactly what the
model should and should not be used for. Longer-term and more expense would include
expansion/correction of model."] [Previously M24]
SOIL/WASTE-8. Mining Site Research [Previously M25]
OSRTI Contact Shahid Mahnnid
a. Analysis and Development of Mine Waste Technologies
Short term: analysis/inventory of existing technologies to address mine waste.
Long term: development of cost-effective technologies to address mine waste. Mine
A-7
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
waste includes all types including uranium. [Note: Mine Waste Technology Program
(Butte, MT?) is implementing this.]
b. Mapping System/Inventory of Mine-Affected Watersheds
Need for a mapping/database system containing contaminated watersheds resulting from
mining; continue using AVRIS to map mine sites.
c. Inventory of Naturally-Occurring High Arsenic
A paper study of where As is naturally occurring at high levels. Start with USGS
conference proceedings May 2002 in Denver? Potential contacts: NRMRL - Paul
Randall; NERL - Jane Denne
d. Develop Predictive Site Characterization Tools for Acid Mine Drainage.
[USGS may be doing this.]
SOIL/WASTE-9. Optimization of SVE
How best to sequence pumping; how to know when remedy is close to asymptotic levels.
[Previously M27] OSRTI contact - Mike Bellot(?) [Is this still needed after NRMRL
technical report FY01?]
SOIL/WASTE-10. Bioavailability of Metals and Organics from Soils (Human Health and
Ecological) [Not sure what category this belongs in.]
Contacts: OSRTI - Steve Ells, Janine Dinan; Regions 7 & 9
Determine bioavailability of contaminants through human ingestion to support both
risk assessment of contaminants in residential and industrial/commercial scenarios and
to determine cleanup goals for soil remediation technologies. In particular, assess the
bioavailability of lead, mercury, chromium, arsenic, and cadmium. Reference doses,
benchmark guidance and RfC values need development and communication. Children of
different ethnic backgrounds may have different exposures. Fish advisory values /effects
differ among federal agencies. The question, then, is "If a child or adult ingests soil, what
is the internal dose relative to the contaminant concentration in the soil?" A core part of this
research should be a strategy for relating in vitro studies to empirical animal studies to human
biomarker/epidemiological data. Develop and evaluate processes to reduce contaminant
bioavailability. [Previously H27]
A-8
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
IV. MULTI-MEDIA & ANALYTICAL
Analytical Research Needs - OSRTI Contact: Dana. Tulis
High Priority
MULTI-1. Statistical Expertise to Support Background Policy
OSRTI Contact - Jayne Michaud
Provide technical expertise for statistical problems related to Superfund site activities and
for implementing the new Superfund technical guidance for determining background.
[Previously H32]
MULTI-2. Support on-site Audits of Non-CLP Labs
[Not currently being done by ORD] [Previously H37]
MULTI-3. Peer Review of New Analytical Methodologies
On-going need, e.g., PCBs [Previously H38]
Medium Priority
MULTI-4. Phytoremediation
OSRTI Contacts: Scott Fredericks, Steve Ells, Robin Anderson
Develop improved methods of remediating soil and ground water using vegetation planted
and grown in the contaminated areas. Questions remain concerning what are the tolerant
plant species, mechanisms of contaminant breakdown, and the rates of cleanup for key
contaminants found at Superfund sites. [Previously M22]
MULTI-5. Analytical Detection Limits for Bioaccumulative Chemicals
OSRTI Contact - Steve Ells
The goal of this project is to develop lower analytical detection limits for chemical analyses
of known bioaccumulators in water, soil, sediment, and tissue samples. [Previously M13]
MULTI-6. Arsenic and Mercury
OSRTI contact - Robin Anderson
Short term - engineering bulletin. Long term - if there are technologies on the horizon,
it would be good to know more about them. [Note: Have fact sheets on Pb remediation
methods - what we have learned. Need to know for As and Hg what technologies will and
will not work. FY02 note: NRMRL suggests that OSRTI follows up with Paul Randall,
NRMRL. DOE has done a number of studies/demos on cleanup of Hg-contaminated soils.
There were discussions in Denver (week of May 7) about cleanup of Hg-contaminated soils.
Robert Puls in Ada is contact for As-contaminated ground water.] [Previously M26]
MULTI-7. May be a need for dioxin research
Depending on the results of the reassessment, e.g., current technologies may be unable to
reach new levels. [Previously LI]
MULTI-8. Support of sample preparation for high concentration analyses
OSRTI Contact - Dana Tulis
[Previously L6]
A-9
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
V. HUMAN HEALTH
OSRTI Contact: Jayne Michaud
High Priority
HH-1. Reduce Uncertainties Associated with Dermal Exposure Assessments - Water Exposure
OSRTI contact: Dave Crawford
For water exposures, is model in Part E over- or under-estimating actual absorption, or
are assumptions reasonably accurate? Additional research is necessary to determine the
absorption of lipophilic contaminants (e.g. PCBs, dioxins) through the skin barrier. (Part E, is
Part E of Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) and addresses dermal exposures.
This is Superfund's current draft guidance on dermal risk. It is considered an extension of the
ORD guidance on dermal exposure, known as "Dermal Exposure Assessment" or "DEA.")
[Short-term project] [Previously H20]
HH-2. Dermal Exposure Model
OSRTI contact: Dave Crawford
Refine (Part E) or develop model for estimating dermal absorption of contaminants from soil
using permeability coefficients. Consider issuing as an update of DEA or Part E and evaluate
efficacy of on-going methodolgy developed for reoccupancy of buildings in the vicinity of the
World Trade Center, [long-term project] [Previously H21]
HH-3. Determine Dermal Toxicity Effects and Develop Dermal Toxicity Values
OSRTI point of contact: Dave Crawford
For contaminants without dermal toxicity values in IRIS, expand the database of toxicity
values. For noncancer toxicity, expand the database of values (i.e., RfDs) for subchronic and
acute exposures, as well as chronic RfDs. Develop values for for "point-of-contact (on skin)
toxicity," including PAHs. Recommend that such values loaded into OSRTFs database of
NCEA peer reviewed toxicity values, [medium-term project] [Formerly H23, and before that,
partofH22,H24,andH25]
HH-4. Develop Methodology for Integrated Assessment for Residential Exposures
OSRTI point of contact: Jayne Michaud and Dave Crawford (dermal)
For various media, including vapor intrusion (indoor air), dermal exposure to building
surfaces (as well as soil and water), and soil ingestion. Consider an update to Part E for
dermal, use of the World Trade Center reoccupancy assessment and the recent Vapor Intrusion
Guidance for the Integrated Assessment, [short-, medium-, and long-term project] [Formerly
H24, and before that, part of H24]
HH-5. Improve Dose-Response Assessment
OSRTI point of contact: Jayne Michaud
Improve dose-response assessments for contaminants occurring frequently at Superfund sites
considering the use of additional pharmaco-kinetic physiological models. When scientifically
appropriate, develop special assessments applicable to children and women as sensitive
subpopulations. When appropriate, provide methodology for assessing more sensitive or
highly exposed subpopulations. Recommend that such values be considered for inclusion in
A-10
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
IRIS, or, alternately, the PRTV database. [Formerly H26] [Medium-term Project]
Medium Priority
HH-6. Reduce Uncertainties Associated with Dermal Exposure Assessments - Soil Exposure
OSRTI contact: Dave Crawford
Generate and intepret additional experimental data to assess reliability of Part E's estimation
of dermal exposures to soil. [Medium-term project] [Previously part of H20]
HH-7. Support for the Exposure Factors Handbook
OSRTI contact: Jayne Michaud, Steve Chang
Update and expand assumptions and supporting justification for human health exposure
assumptions, including soil ingestion. Questions: Will this provide sufficient information for
use in Probablistic Risk Assessments? [Medium-term project] [Previously H19]
VI. ECOLOGICAL
OSRTI Contact: David Charters
High Priority
ECO-1. Define Ecological Significance
Contacts: OSRTI - Steve Ells; ERASC; ORD - Focus Group 7 (has detailed plans for this
FY02-FY07)
Goal is to clearly define and describe ecological significance and to determine what levels
of population and community effects are generally acceptable; i.e., will a 20% reduction in
a specific endpoint still sustain a functioning, healthy ecosystem? How does EPA determine
that (1) the observed or predicted adverse effects on a structural or functional component
of the site's ecosystem is of sufficient type, magnitude, areal extent, and duration that
irreversible effects have occurred or are likely to occur and (2) these effects appear to exceed
the normal changes in the structural or functional components typical of similar unimpacted
ecosystems? [Previously H28]
ECO-2. Balancing the Benefits of Remedial Action versus Destruction of Valuable Habitats
The goal of this project would be to develop criteria and provide guidance on how to
determine when there is more benefit to the existing ecosystem from leaving soil or sediment
contamination in place and preserving the current habitat (although stressed) versus a
destructive remedy that removes the contamination and destroys the current habitat. How
do you value a habitat that is functioning, but at less-than-optimal levels versus the short- to
long-term impacts on destroying the same habitat and then trying to restore it? [Previously
H29]
ECO-3. Develop Predictive Models for Determining the Potential Population Level Effects
How much sediment toxicity is needed before anyone can predict that there will be significant
effects on the population of concern; e.g, how many bass or mink or kingfishers can be killed
A-ll
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
before the mortality levels is expected to impact the ability of the population of biota to
sustain itself at a healthy level in the area impacted by the site. [Previously H31]
ECO-4. Weight-of-Evidence Approach for Ecological Effects/Cleanup Levels
There are published papers on this process. Should Superfund adopt a similar process for
consistent use at our sites? [Previously H33]
ECO-5. Support Development of EcoSSLs for Mammals, Birds, Plants, and Soil Invertebrates
[Previously H34]
ECO-6. Continue to Support and Maintain the ECOTOX Database
[Previously H35]
ECO-7. Design Toxicity Testing Procedure to Develop Toxicity Reference Values for Non-Eco-
SL Contaminants
Utilize the criteria developed by the Ecological Soil Screening Level (Eco-SSL) workgroup to
design a toxicity testing procedure to meet these criteria in order to generate toxicity reference
values (TRVs) for additional contaminants not being addressed by the Eco-SSL workgroup or
for which TRVs are lacking. [Previously H36]
Medium Priority
ECO-8. Determine Bioavailablity of Chemicals for Different Media
The central question is how does one relate concentration of a contaminant in a medium (even
the medium for animal dose/response studies) to the delivered or internal dose. Answering
this question would reduce a major source of uncertainty in risk assessments. [Previously
M6]
ECO-9. Develop a Methodology to Evaluate the Inhalation Exposure Pathway for Mammals
[Previously Ml0]
ECO-10. Development of Recommended Performance Criteria to Measure the Success of
Wetlands Restoration/Creation
FY02 note: No expertise within ORD. What about Midwest Hazardous
Substances Research Center (HSRC)9 [Previously Mil]
ECO-11. Support Wildlife Research Strategy
[Previously Ml2]
ECO-12. Develop Terrestrial Risk Assessment Models for Various Habitats from Deciduous
Forests to Deserts
[Previously Ml4]
ECO-13. Develop Toxicity Testing Methodologies for Amphibians, Reptiles, and Microbial
Communities
[Previously Ml5]
ECO-14. Develop an Approach for Incorporating Dose Response Information into Ecological
A-12
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Risk Assessments that Go beyond the Hazard Quotient Approach
How can the likelihood of risk be quantified when the hazard quotient is greater than 1?
Develop an approach for conducting uncertainty assessment using site-specific case studies.
[Previously Ml6]
ECO-15. Develop Tools and Methods to Better Characterize the Ecological Exposure and
Effects of Multiple Chemicals, i.e.. Mixtures
[Previously Ml7]
ECO-16. Develop an Approach for Assessing the Exposure and Effects of Contaminants to
[Previously L no-number]
A-13
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
A-14
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
B: of Ten
TTw's //At of Sediment Research Issues resulted from the discussions of the twenty-eight sediment
research issues ofSuperfund (see Appendix A) by the Steering Committee in May 2003. These
discussions evaluated the appropriateness of the research issue to the mission and capabilities of
NHEERL. For each of the ten research issues, an expanded description is provided below.
Sediment Research Issues
The sediment research issue descriptions were developed from a list of priorities provided by
Superfund, see Superfund Program Research Priorities for ORD - December 12, 2002, Working
Draft, discussed at the May 1 kickoff meeting at AED in Narragansett, RI. The following
descriptions are based around the following schematic of the Superfund remediation process for
contaminated sediments:
Is there
unacceptable
risk?
What is clean?
Which technology
will deliver?
Dredging
Capping
Monitored
Natural Recovery
Was the
risk addressed?
What short-term risks
result from the remedy?
resuspension
habitat damage
Developing Sediment Contaminant Screening Levels (SED-1)
Screening levels are used in the Superfund program as an initial evaluation as to whether
individual contaminants should be included in more detailed risk assessments. They are
indicators of potential risk and are not designed to be used as remedial goals; their purpose
is simply to "screen in" chemicals for further evaluation. As such, their primary emphasis
is to avoid false negatives; however, to be efficient screening tools, they should not be so
conservative that they provide no discrimination. While screening values for direct toxic effects
Contaminated Sediment Research
B-1
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
of contaminated sediments have been developed using several methods (e.g., EqP, ERL/ERM,
TEL/PEL, AET, logistic regression), there are no widely accepted screening values for sediment-
associated chemicals that cause their effects on pelagic aquatic or terrestrial wildlife species
through bioaccumulation pathways.
Because they are to be used broadly, their derivation must account for a wide variety of exposure
scenarios and receptors. The key scientific challenges to developing screening values arise from
the differing amounts and types of available toxicological data available (differences in species,
endpoints, life stage, exposure, etc.,) and the necessity of defining the linkages between the
chemical concentrations in the sediment and the biota of interest. In describing these linkages,
one must account for the effects upon the bioaccumulation of the chemical attributable to
differences in chemical exposure arising from ecosystem conditions, food web structure, and
species composition.
From a implementation perspective, screening values based upon a standardized and peer-
reviewed and accepted numeric derivation technique using robust data sets are most desirable.
These screening levels can be based upon a number of "indicator" species and toxicological
endpoints. Effort is required to derive a generalized conceptual model (exposures, receptors,
endpoints) and to develop sets of standardized procedures to be applied in deriving estimates of
bioaccumulation and in establishing effect concentrations in tissues of predator and/or prey.
Establishing Guidance on Sampling Biota and Surface Sediments at Superfund Sites
(SED-5, SED-8)
Several existing protocols provide guidance for sampling biota and sediments at contaminated
sites (e.g., U.S. EPA, Environment Canada). However, because of the remedial activities
occurring at Superfund sites, they often represent unique settings for collecting biota and
sediments. For example, values that can be standardized at regular field sites like depth of
sampling may not be readily determined at a Superfund site because of the presence of a cap or
effects of MNR. Further, how to sample a site for surface sediments or resident biota following
a dredging event may not be clear if sediments have been altered in consistency and mixed
vertically or biota are no longer present. Research is needed to determine the best practices
for sampling biota and surface sediments at Superfund sites, especially when measuring risk
reduction after remedy implementation. Also see "Assessing the Effects of Contaminated
Sediment Resuspension" discussed below.
Linking Chemical Residues in Aquatic Biota to Levels of Ecological Risk for Aquatic
and Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife (SED-13 [partial], 14)
Doses of bioaccumulative chemicals to fish and wildlife are best expressed on the basis of
tissue residues, in part because tissue residues integrate doses received from multiple exposure
pathways (e.g., food, water, sediment). However, to use tissue residue as the basis for predicting
risk, there must be an unambiguous means to link specific residue concentrations to the
biological effects they cause. Ideally, the conceptual basis for this would be robust enough to be
used for different chemicals and for different sites, thus providing consistency and transparency
to risk assessments throughout the Superfund program. Key challenges to establishing this
B-2
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
linkage arise from the differing amounts and types of toxicological data available; these include
differences in species, endpoints, life stage tested, exposure methods (e.g., food versus water),
exposure duration, and methods of quanitfying or expressing exposure.
Another need for a residue-based approach is a reliable means of relating concentrations in the
physical environment (water, sediment, food chain) to residues expected in consumer organisms
and/or prey for organisms of interest to the risk assessment. While direct measurements
may suffice for the initial risk assessment, comparing changes in risk from different remedial
alternatives will require a means to predict tissue residues resulting for altered concentrations in
sediment and water as a result of remedial actions.
From the broadest perspective, tools are needed to extrapolate toxicological data, particularly
among different receptor organisms. Aquatic or aquatic-dependent wildlife species of interest
at different sites will likely vary; and, in many cases, available toxicological data will be
available only for species other than the actual receptor species. This requires extrapolation of
toxicological data among species, which relies on an understanding of the toxic mechanisms for
the chemicals of concern, and extrapolation tools such as PB/TK models to predict effects in
untested species.
Predicting Rates of Recovery Following Remedial Actions (SED-13 [partial])
As part of selecting and implementing a remedial alternative, it is important to have sound
expectations of the rates at which reduction in risk can be expected, whether it be in the form
of reduced residues in prey organisms or recovery of affected organism populations and
communities. Additionally, it is important to have sound expectations of the rates at which the
ecosystem recovers from the short-term impacts of the remedial alternative (e.g., understanding
how fast an area recolonizes after dredging and/or deposition of capping materials and whether
different types of capping material influence biological recovery). For the reduction in risk,
an understanding of both the rate and magnitude of the change in exposure created by the
remedial alternative (from physical/chemical modeling), as well as an understanding of the
mechanisms governing the response of organisms to changes in exposure (from kinetically based
bioaccumulation modeling), is required. Predicting the recovery of impacted populations and
communities, as well as the recolonization of the remediated site, will require an understanding
of the ecology of those organisms and of the factors and environmental conditions governing
population growth and community structure.
Development of Appropriate Remedial Goals for Non-Bioacciiniillative Chemicals
(SED-15)
While the ecological risks from chemicals such as PCBs arise from bioaccumulation-enhanced
exposure of pelagic or non-aquatic organisms, risk from other sediment contaminants is created
by direct toxicity to organisms living in contact with contaminated sediments. These "non-
bioaccumulative" effects may be assessed through a variety of means, including comparison
of chemical concentrations in water and/or sediment to chemical specific benchmarks (e.g.,
sediment quality guidelines), sediment toxicity testing, toxicity identifications evaluations (TIE),
or benthic community assessments. Experience has shown that at some sites, evaluations of
B-3
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
potential risk via these different lines of evidence suggest different levels of risk or even appear
to conflict. Assessment approaches are needed through which to reconcile information from
these different lines of evidence and arrive at a consistent and transparent establishment of
remedial objectives that will adequately address ecological risks.
Delineation of Appropriate Uses of Total PCBs, Aroclor-Based, and Congener-Specific
PCB Concentrations as the Basis for Assessing and Managing Risks from PCBs
(SED-18)
PCBs occur in the environment as mixtures of up to 209 different congeners, each with unique
physical, chemical, and toxicological behaviors that influence risk. Early measurement and
assessment techniques were developed using expressions of "total PCBs" or of "Arochlor"
mixtures which are related to different formulations of PCB congeners released to the
environment. These aggregate expressions of PCB exposures can lead to inaccuracies in
assessing and predicting ecological risks because they fail to recognize differences in exposure
and risk that result from the different environmental fate and effects of the individual congeners
that comprise the environmental mixtures. Our advancing understanding of PCB risk assessment
has led to the development of risk assessment techniques based on the concentrations of
individual congeners and the way in which each contributes to cumulative risk. While the
scientific community is in broad agreement that congener-specific assessment provides the most
accurate estimates of ecological risk, implementation of this approach is impeded by concerns
over differences in required analytical procedures and by selection of methods for assigning and
aggregating potencies of individual congeners. Research is needed to quantify the degree to
which the accuracy of risk assessment is improved by congener-specific analysis and to articulate
a consistent and transparent approach for congener-specific estimation of risk into the context of
Superfund sites.
Assessing the Toxic and Bioaccumulative Effects of Contaminated Sediment
Resuspension (SED-22)
Dredging is the most common remedy for sites containing contaminated sediments. There
are several advantages to dredging, principally, the effective removal of material causing the
environmental risk. Simultaneously, dredging is the most expensive remedy with the most
potential to impart short-term adverse impacts on the site and, in particular, on surrounding
uncontaminated areas. These impacts derive primarily from the effects of resuspension of
contaminated sediments during dredging. Based on the available data, resuspension results
in the transport of contaminated sediments from the site as well as the flux of bioavailable
contaminants into the water column. The resuspension of sediments may also result in the
contamination of previously clean areas.
Methods are available for modeling the partitioning, bioavailability, and effects of contaminants
in sediments under "equilibrium" or undisturbed conditions. However, when sediments are
resuspended or enter "disequilibrium," several studies have demonstrated that associated
contaminants, including organic and metal pollutants, are remobilized. However, the
bioavailability and effects of these contaminants in terms of toxicity to or bioaccumulation by
aquatic life have not been extensively studied and are not very well understood. Similarly,
B-4
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
the development of predictive models of resuspended contaminant bioavailability and toxic or
bioaccumulative effects is in its infancy.
Research in this area is needed to determine the magnitude of risk associated with the
resuspension of contaminated sediments resulting from dredging and other energetic events
including tidal action, bioturbation, and ship traffic. This research should address the risk of
toxicity and increased bioaccumulation of organic and metal contaminants during resuspension
events at Superfund sites.
Monitoring Methods and Protocols (SED-19)
Superfund has an immediate need for better monitoring methods and protocols to document
remedial effects and the long-term effectiveness of remedial actions. While individual measures
exist (toxicity tests, bioaccumulation measurements, chemistry data, etc.), protocols to assemble
these disparate measures together in a consistent manner to make management decisions at
sediment sites are lacking. In addition, while it is known that the methods to monitor remedial
effects and the methods to monitor long-term effectiveness are different, the pros and cons of
each approach are not clearly articulated. Fact sheets are being planned which will discuss
individual monitoring methods in detail; however, the protocol for an all-inclusive weight-of-
evidence (WOE) approach to monitoring requires further research. The statistical sampling
approaches, inherent uncertainty, and combined assessment methods for chemical, biological,
and physical data need to be determined and tested at actual sites. The WOE approach also
needs to be placed in a tiered format so that it can applied at a variety of sediment sites,
regardless of size or funds available.
Dredging Residuals (SED-21a)
Dredging is the most commonly selected remedial option at sediment sites and the only one
that removes contamination from the aquatic environment. However, there is still a significant
amount of uncertainty about how effective dredging is and the amount of post-remedial
contamination left. Is this "dredging residual" the result of careless dredging and/or the use
of older equipment, or is it inevitable no matter which dredging equipment is selected? Is
the residual dangerous relative to the benefit of mass removal? Does the risk-benefit vary in
different water bodies (e.g., rivers vs. estuaries)? Quantifying and reducing this uncertainty is
vital and must be accomplished soon as several "megasite" cleanups (e.g. New Bedford Harbor,
Hudson River, Fox River) have selected dredging. These results could have a significant effect
on the future selection of the dredging remedy.
Cleanup Levels 21b)
The cleanup level at a sediment site determines the volume of sediment to be remediated. The
sediment volume is a driving factor of remedial costs. Disagreements over whether cleanup
levels are reached is one of the most significant arguments against active sediment remediation,
particularly the use of dredging. A recent review of 50 dredging projects worldwide found
extensive documentation of how cleanup levels were chosen (based on the human health and
ecological risk assessments), but there was very little documentation of how it was determined
that those results were or were not achieved. None of the projects had a statistically valid
B-5
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
approach to determine how cleanup levels would be evaluated (number of samples to be taken,
spatially averaged approach, etc.). It would be valuable to Superfund to promulgate guidance
on a consistent approach to verify post-remedial cleanup levels. Research in this area would
be integrated with studies of dredging residuals in that it is necessary to understand residual
amounts and risks in order to decide on the most effective, achievable, and environmentally
protective cleanup levels.
B-6
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
C: of Science Level of Effort
for Eight
The descriptions below were developed after critical discussion of the ten issues (see Appendix
B) by the Steering Committee via a series conference calls. Of the ten research issues identified
in Appendix B, two issues (SED-21a and SED-21b) were removed from further consideration
during these discussions because the primary research needed to address the research questions
were outside NHEERL 's mission. The descriptions below provide a listing of tasks and the
amount of effort for the eight remaining research issues.
A. Developing sediment contaminant screening levels (SED-1)
1. This is a paper exercise.
2. The science tasks are
a. Assembling a methodology for deriving;
b. Evaluating its usefulness (e.g., too many false positives or negatives); and
c. Refining methodology.
3. As we have learned in discussions with Superfund, development of an actual methodology
and values will require a stakeholder process in order to move forward politically.
B. Establishing guidance on sampling biota and surface sediments at Superfund sites
(SED-5,
1. This is a paper exercise.
2. The exercise will pull together existing sampling protocols and scientific expertise to
assemble useful guidance for Superfund sites.
C. Linking chemical residues in aquatic biota to levels of ecological risk to aquatic and
aquatic-dependent wildlife (SED-13 [partial], 14)
1. This effort will require new science research.
2. The science tasks are
a. Development of visualization approach,
b. Extension of visualization approach to include extrapolation,
c. Development of high quality field data sets to validate visualization approach for
extrapolation across species and ecosystems,
d. Development of high quality field data sets for metabolizable chemicals in aquatic
ecosystems,
e. Development of approaches for parameterizing bioaccumulation models for
metabolizable chemicals,
f. Evaluation of uncertainties in predicting chemical residues in aquatic organisms
using food web models with generic and site-specific parameters and conditions, and
g. Demonstrations and applications of the hybrid BAF/BSAF methods to Superfund
applications
C-l
Contaminated Sediment Research ' Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
D. Predicting rates of recovery following remedial actions (SED-13 [partial])
1. Paper research will be required to determine whether new research is needed.
2. The science tasks are:
a. Recovery from reduction in contamination with bioaccumulative chemicals
(i) Apply concepts from category C above to evaluate rates of residue reduction
following reduction in exposure [Note: need good information on reduction in
exposure; not an effects issue.]
(ii) Will probably need a demonstration for "validation" - may already be done
(New Bedford?).
b. Recovery from physical disturbance of removal and/or capping
(i) Determine depth of information already available from disturbance ecology
literature, and
(ii) If existing literature is insufficient, conduct new experiments to measure
recovery rates, either in experimental manipulations or by monitoring post-
remedy at specific sites.
E. Development of appropriate remedial goals for non-bioaccumulative chemicals
(SED-15)
1. This effort will require new research.
2. The science tasks include
a. Develop bioavailability-based approaches for predicting the toxicity of specific
chemicals (arsenic, chromium, others?) important to Superfund program, and
b. Develop a means to assess risk from dietary exposure to metals.
F. Delineation of appropriate uses of total PCBs, Arochlor-based, and congener-specific
PCB concentrations as the basis for assessing and managing risks from PCBs (SED-18)
1. This is a paper exercise.
2. The science tasks are
a. Assembling PCB data sets which have the complete congener-specific PCB analyses
(Method 1668A) for a number of Superfund sites, and
b. Performing risk calculations and comparing results.
G. Assessing the toxic and bioaccuniiilative effects of contaminated sediment resuspension
(SED-22)
1. This effort will require new science.
2. The science tasks are
a. Development of toxicity and bioaccumulation testing methodology where the
exposure water is created using particle entrainment simulator (PES) of Tsai and
Lick (1986). The PES devices simulates resuspension of sediments in the laboratory
using field collected sediment cores;
b. Performance of testing methodology on sediment cores from Superfund sites, i.e.,
Passaic River (NT), Elizabeth River (VA), New Bedford Harbor (MA), Hudson
C-2
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
River (NY), Anacostia River (Washington, DC), Trace Rios (AZ), Black Stone/
Woonasatocket (RI), and Taunton River (MA); and
c. Field validation of the PES-based toxicity and bioaccumulation testing methodology.
H. Monitoring methods and protocols (SED-19)
1. Initially, this is a paper exercise, and will result in a OSRTI "Weight of Evidence SMART
Sheet."
2. It is hoped that exact research questions will fall out of the paper exercise.
C-3
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
C-4
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
T3
»
OS
S
=
O
U
U
5=
OS
O!
-1
tf
LJJ.J
r"Tj
32
a
05
T3
S
C8
U
T3
S
>!
Hi
«
^3
<-> S Hi
S S
*
-s;
20
Hi
Hi
S
U
^
^
"§
Hi
s
I
s
<*>
Highest Priority
o
^
Hi
f$i
^
*!,
2
^
.fo
S
-CO
inNHEERL
~§:
5
R
«
H)
U
.Hi
P
"3
Hi
ll
SJ
"Q
R
S5
'**,
ss
1
Hi
-s
1
iS
S
a
2
Hi
Hi
This issue requires new
components of the issue
effect relationships.
^
~J
S
"1
j^
-5
S
S
1
.0
£2
s
s"
»*»,
U
<3>-
^
Residue
-i
"*
S ^L
II
"o ^
Gi '"***
^ *SS
a* ^
-2 ^
>*a >«_
S Q
II?
'-S K §
S^ Qj '^
Cs is* "***
NJ *"""<
*s ^ 3
2 ^ >*^
s
^
t§
-*
«*,
.0
^
.fo
S
-CO
inNHEERL
~S:
5
R
«
H)
U
.Hi
P
>^
^
^2
5S
^
Ss;
Hi
-s;
Hi
i^
1
a
n-bioaccum
2
Hi
"S
o
|
>«
This issue requires new
discussions are requiret
concern.
R
Hi
s
a.
Hi
1
&^
^i
pk
^2
^
a
|
O
S
1
^
\ ^-«^
&** ^f*)
~ "T
^ ^
^ Co
^ Xj^
"B
"-*, O
S '|
1 ^
& u
S.|
1 1
appropn
Kiccumu
v^ -^
o" ^
^
5
O
Hi
t^
^
*!,
.0
w^
.fo
S
-Co
inNHEERL
"S
5
R
«
Hi
U
.Hi
P
"3
S
b£ ^
S "^
*«, ^
*-ffi "~^.
«*, <^*
2 §
£o SJ
*^* S
11
^ ^
ctsfrom resi
ncreased en
G "~
f |
"S g
1 &
It
^1
TTws /55«e requires new
research questions are
dredging? " and "Does
aquatic organisms?"
^
R
^3
U
'«
O
Hi
i
%
^
.0
R
i
a
*
R
Hi
§
Hi
"ts
-S
R
S
"o1
U *N
Hi^ *~~]
1 i
5 S
S* tS»<
, r*. &$
II
\^ ^
'^ ^
High Priority
o
»s:
p
^3
Hi
Co
SJ
^
1
Hi
O
^
^o
o
Hi
*!,
§
f
"s
Si
2
^
****
^***
>.
si
^
'|g
) &s, ^^
«*, Itm,
Si ?J?
^o S
^ Ci
^A. "p^
I |
,| ^
S: V
SS; H)
* £
Hi ^S
-~ g|
2 »
Short-term impacts: Nl
"disturbance ecology"
this issue would warrat
5
^
Q
R2
coverv fo
%.
V,
o
CO
Hi
1
K
'^A
1
^
;^\
1 1
Ci .s;
^ S
'i 1
I'l
J O "-»<<
'Js r%
c^ ~H
nedial at
ib-issue
*«* y.^^
Hi ^J
^ V^
S-,
R
.O
^i
«
^ss
sn
^
>Bsi,
**^
1
ss
Hi
a
'^
P
S
1
s
i
4
S
^3
1
Hi
Further clarification ne
"new science. "
,
~5
o
nd Protot
\3
1
1
t<
S
j
^
3
^
^
3
.
Contaminated Sediment Research
D-l
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
S»s
er Priorit
%
c
|
S K
O bo
njO "**«* ^j
9^1
S w~tr
^> XT
*- o -5
O '^? -^
-S ^s ^
J^ ^ ^
p ^ S
K, to^, ^*
S? R. 1
'v 1 .1
|i 1
^3 5|
S ^> ^
1*2 ^
ftj ^"^ "fc
Li.1 ^ ^
3 ^ ^
fc^ S -S
*^^ 2!
i<5 O
s; O -~
2 ^ «
Ki ^ 8v
.0 ^ $
-S ^ ^
5" ^, ^
fe,5 §
55 ^ U
i | "B
^ 1 's
111
^
O
'i
°* S 52. S
K
ccj
Cx^
O
,.o
1
rr^
!H
^
O
^
&
.'**
n support
"*,
^
W
<]
1
bp
^
K
^ **^
1 &
""" t^
S ^
"S ^
^
.s; 6
"Q >3
^- S
> \J
S
II
^ Qj
^ 1
tj «
p*?" S^1
r4
\tarf- B_^
^ Qq K
^3 ^^
O ^ ^P
^ u >:
c^ & S '^~-
Delineation of appropriate uses <
ochlor-based, and, congener-spec
ncentrations as the basis for asse,
inaging risks from PCBs (SED-1 1
. . j< o s
f^ ^ u S;
jo
~
S
?s
Js^
o
s
O
ik.
^
^s
o
ry
"?
&
"t**t
n support
Nrt,
ftl
1
1
g .
^3 '-O
S Q
Q) [g^
^ ^O
^0
Hh, lJ..
Establishing guidance on sampli
rface sediments at Superfimd site:
7I)-8)
oc § £%
2
5>
^5
S
«J
\ti
^\
^^
^
"»g
S
f
1
S
-sS
55
s
'S
S5
*B
bj
*5
S
1
mSJ
S
S
%
JV
~5
R
2
1*4
J-**;
NHEERL
£
-s
?
i
Dredging Residuals (SED-21a)
cK
R
2
i*4
J-**;
NHEERL
£
-s
?
i
'. Cleanup Levels (SED 21b)
^
Contaminated Sediment Research
D-2
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
E:
Elizabeth Southerland, Director
OSWER, OSRTI, Assessment & Remediation Division
Jonathan Garber, Director
ORD, NHEERL, Atlantic Ecology Division
Janet Keough, Acting Director
ORD, NHEERL, Mid-Continent Ecology Division
E-l
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
Elizabeth To Steven Hedtke/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
Southetland/DC/USEPAAJS u « .rvrr,,,^,-,,.,,,^ ,
Robert Dyer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lawrence
06/16/2004 02:16 PM Burkhard/DUL/USEPA/US@EPA, Patricia
Erickson/CI/USEPA/US@EPA, Lorelei
cc Kowalski/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Leah
Evison/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve
EIIS/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
bcc
Subject NHEERL Contaminated Sediment Research
This is to acknowledge that Superfund staff have played an active role In developing the NHEERL
research implementation plan for contaminated sediment. We support the proposed research and believe
that the products will be useful to the Superfund program. We look forward to continue working with the
principal investigators and to help disseminate the results when available.
Contaminated Sediment Research
E-2
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
RESEARCH LABORATORY
ATLANTIC ECOLOGY DIVISION
27 TARZWELL DRIVE NARRAGANSETT, Rl 02882
OFFICE OF
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
July 19,2004
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: NHEERL Contaminated Sediments Research Implementation Plan
FROM: Jonathan Garber, Director
Atlantic Ecology Division
TO: Lawrence Burkhard, Lead
NHEERL Contaminated Sediments Steering Committee
This memorandum indicates the commitment of the Atlantic Ecology Division and its
Management Team to support the research by our staff and in our Division that is proposed in the
July, 2004 edition of the NHEERL Contaminated Sediments Research Implementation Plan. The
research that is described in the Plan is consistent with the mission of our Division and we fully
support both the individual Projects I (Integrative Assessment ofBenthic Effects from Remedial
Activities at Superfund Sites) and IV (Research to evaluate the release, bioavailability, and
adverse biological effects of contaminants associated with resuspended sediments at Superfund
sites) and the integrative and collaborative work that will accompany the broader scope of
research described in the NHEERL Multi-Year Implementation Plan. The documents to be
developed under Projects V and VI (Procedures and Guidance) are also recognized as important
components of AED's and ORD's transfer of technology to the Offices and Regions.
We believe the scope of work proposed in this MYP for AED can be accommodated within the
historical base of FTE and research support resources that our Division obtains from the ORD
Waste planning process, and note that these supplementary requirements are identified in the
Project descriptions. AED will provide the facilities and personnel on the time frame that is
needed to accomplish the work proposed in this MYP as long as the requisite resources continue
to be made available to our Division.
The Steering Committee has thoughtfully focused on the most pressing issues and needs of both
the science and the Agency, and I commend them on development of this cohesive research
program.
Please attach this letter of support to the necessary planning documents as our commitment to
this program.
Internet Address (URL) http://www.epa.gov
R«oycl«dfft«cyclabl». Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
E-
Contaminated Sediment Research Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
RESEARCH LABORATORY
MID-CONTINENT ECOLOGY DIVISION
6201 CONGDON BOULEVARD DULUTH, MINNESOTA 55804-2595
July 6,2004
aESEARCHANDDEVtlOPMEKI
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: NHEERL Contaminated Sediments Research Implementation Plan
FROM: Janet R. Keough
Acting Director
TO: Lawrence Burkhard, Lead
NHEERL Contaminated Sediments Steering Committee
This memorandum is intended to convey the commitment of the Mid-Continent
Ecology Division and its Management Team to support the research by our Division proposed
in the My, 2004 edition of the NHEERL Contaminated Sediments Research Implementation
Plan. The research that is described in the Plan is consistent with the mission of our Division,
and, it this time, we believe the scope can be accommodated within the historical base of FTE
and research support resources mat our Division obtains from the ORD Waste planning
process, and such supplementary requirements as are identified in the Plan. The necessary
personnel and facilities will be made available to accomplish the work within the time frames
specified if the requisite resources continue to be made available.
I congratulate the Steering Committee on production of a forward-looking and well-
organized multi-year plan and taken the needs of the Agency and translated them into a
coherent research program. Please attach this memo of support to the necessary planning
documents as our commitment to mis program.
Contaminated Sediment Research
E-4
Multi-Year Implementation Plan
-------
-------
------- |