Northwest Regional
ediment Evaluation Framework
Interim Final
September 2006
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
Natural Resources
DEQ
'
BE Mซr V E K 1 D i
ECOLOGY
US Army Corps
of Engineersฎ
U.S. '-
FISH A WILDLIFE
SERVICE
-------
INTERIM FINAL
SEDIMENT EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
FOR THE
PACIFIC NORTHWEST
Prepared by
US Army Corps of Engineers - Seattle District, Portland District, Walla Walla
District, and Northwestern Division;
Environmental Protection Agency Region 10;
Washington Department of Ecology;
Washington Department of Natural Resources;
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality;
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality;
National Marine Fisheries Service; and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
September 2006
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. GOALS, DESCRIPTION, AND ORGANIZATION 1 -1
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.2 SCOPE, APPLICABILITY, AND LIMITATIONS 1-2
1.3 HOW TO USE THIS MANUAL 1-3
1.4 FRAMEWORK OBJECTIVES 1-5
1.5 EVALUATION PROCEDURES PHILOSOPHY 1-7
1.5.1 Characteristics of this SEF 1-7
1.5.2 The Need for Flexibility in Application of Evaluation Procedures 1 -8
1.6 STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 1 -9
1.6.1 RSET Structure and Process 1-10
1.6.2 RSET Subcommittees 1-12
1.6.3 SEF Continuous Improvement/Adaptive Management 1-13
1.6.4 Regulatory/Technical Sediment Interface 1-13
1.6.5 Region-Wide Interpretation of Test Results 1-14
1.6.6 Database Management 1-14
1.6.7 Dispute Resolution 1-14
1.6.8 Public Involvement/National Environmental Policy Act 1-15
2. SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS 2-1
2.1 OVERVIEW 2-1
2.2 FEDERAL REGULATIONS OVERVIEW 2-1
2.2.1 Dredged Material Management 2-1
2.2.2 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10/Clean Water Act Section 404 2-2
2.2.3 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 2-4
2.2.4 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 2-5
2.2.5 Endangered Species Act of 1973 2-5
2.2.6 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 2-6
2.2.7 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of
1996 2-6
2.2.8 National Environmental Policy Act 2-7
2.3 TRIBAL REGULATIONS 2-7
2.4 WASHINGTON STATE REGULATIONS 2-7
2.4.1 Section 401 Certification Program 2-7
2.4.2 Hydraulic Project Approval 2-8
2.4.2.1 Aquatic Lands Act 2-8
2.4.3 Model Toxics Control Act 2-8
2.4.3.1 Sediment Management Standards 2-9
2.4.3.2 Shoreline Management Act 2-9
2.5 OREGON STATE REGULATIONS 2-10
2.5.1 Coastal Program Approval 2-10
2.5.2 Section 401 Certification Program 2-10
2.5.3 Removal/Fill Permit 2-10
2.5.4 State Beaches 2-11
2.5.5 Solid and Hazardous Waste 2-11
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc JJJ INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
2.5.6 Cleanup Authority 2-11
2.6 IDAHO STATE REGULATIONS 2-11
2.6.1 Section 401 Certification Program 2-11
2.6.2 Other Idaho Authorities 2-13
3. REGULATORY PROCES S AND SEDIMENT EVALUATION 3 -1
3.1 INTRODUCTION 3-1
3.2 OVERVIEW 3-1
3.3 CONSISTENCY IN APPLICATION OF THIS SEF 3-2
3.4 REGULATORY PROCESS 3-2
3.5 RSET PROCESS 3-4
3.6 CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS 3-6
3.7 VERIFICATION OF MULTI-YEAR MAINTENANCE DREDGING
PERMITS 3-7
3.8 PROCESS FOR CORPS CIVIL WORKS DREDGING 3-7
3.9 CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT EVALUATION 3-8
4. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION 4-1
4.2 CONSIDER PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 4-4
4.2.1 Conceptual Site Model 4-4
4.2.2 Developing Assessment Questions 4-6
4.2.3 Dredging Projects 4-6
4.2.4 Contaminated Sediment Projects 4-9
4.3 LEVELS AND MULTIPLE LINES OF EVIDENCE 4-9
4.4 LEVEL 1 4-15
4.4.1 Initial Assessment 4-15
4.4.2 Primary Assessment 4-17
4.4.3 Use of Guidelines 4-18
4.5 LEVEL 2DREDGING ASSESSMENT 4-19
4.5.1 Physical and Chemical Testing 4-20
4.5.2 Biological and Bioaccumulation Testing 4-20
4.5.3 Special Evaluations 4-20
4.6 LEVEL 2CONTAMINATED SITE ASSESSMENT 4-21
4.6.1 Sediment/Site Assessment 4-21
4.6.2 Evaluation and Selection of Management Alternatives 4-22
5. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN 5-1
5.1 OVERVIEW 5-1
5.2 INFORMATION REQUIRED IN A SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
PLAN (BASED ON REGULATORY PROGRAM) 5-2
5.3 PROCESS OF RANKING A SITE (DREDGING) 5-4
5.3.1 Initial Management Area Rankings 5-4
5.3.2 Project Specific Evaluations 5-5
5.4 DETERMINATION OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
REQUIREMENTS 5-6
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc jy INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
5.5 DETERMINATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL VOLUMES 5-8
5.6 PREPARATION AND SUBMITTAL OF A DRAFT SAMPLING AND
ANALYSIS PLAN 5-9
5.7 FREQUENCY OF DREDGING GUIDELINE 5-10
5.8 RECENCY OF DATA GUIDELINE 5-10
5.9 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS FOR SPECIAL
CASES 5-11
5.9.1 Establishment of Exclusionary Status 5-11
5.9.2 Confirmation of Project Ranking 5-12
5.9.3 Exceptions for Small Projects 5-12
5.9.4 New Surface Material Exposed by Dredging 5-13
6. SAMPLING PROTOCOLS 6-1
6.1 OVERVIEW 6-1
6.2 SAMPLING APPROACH 6-1
6.3 POSITIONING METHODS 6-3
6.4 SAMPLING METHODS 6-4
6.4.1 Core Sampling 6-4
6.4.2 Grab Sampling 6-5
6.5 SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING PROCEDURES 6-6
6.5.1 Decontamination Procedures 6-6
6.5.2 Sample Collection 6-6
6.5.3 Volatiles and Sulfides Subsampling 6-7
6.5.4 Field Measurements and Observations 6-7
6.5.5 Compositing and Subsampling 6-8
6.5.6 Sample Storage, Sample Transport, and Holding Times 6-9
6.5.7 Chain-of-Custody Procedures 6-10
6.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS 6-10
6.6.1 Trip Blanks 6-10
6.6.2 Equipment Rinsate Blank Samples 6-10
6.6.3 Field or Decontamination Water Blanks 6-11
6.6.4 Duplicate (Blind) Field Samples 6-11
6.7 ARCHIVING ADDITIONAL SEDIMENT 6-11
6.8 DATA SUBMITTAL 6-12
7. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL TESTING 7-1
7.1 OVERVIEW 7-1
7.2 GENERAL TESTING PROTOCOLS 7-4
7.3 CONVENTIONAL TESTING PROTOCOLS 7-7
7.4 GRAIN SIZE/ORGANIC CARBON SCREENING 7-8
7.5 CHEMICAL TESTING PROTOCOLS AND GUIDELINES 7-9
7.5.1 Standard List of Chemicals of Concern. 7-9
7.5.2 Chemicals of Special Occurrence 7-10
7.5.3 Evaluation and Nomination of Emerging Chemicals 7-11
7.6 TISSUE TESTING 7-12
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc y INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
7.7 DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING 7-13
7.7.1 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 7-13
7.7.2 Analytical Sensitivity 7-13
7.7.3 Reporting of Estimated Concentrations below the SQL 7-14
7.7.4 Chemical Summations 7-15
7.8 BENTHIC INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES 7-16
7.8.1 Data Sources 7-17
7.8.2 Freshwater vs. Marine Screening Levels 7-18
7.8.3 Dry Weight vs. Carbon-Normalized Values 7-18
7.8.4 Dredging Projects 7-19
7.8.5 Contaminated Sediment Projects 7-20
8. BIOLOGICAL (TOXICITY) TESTING 8-1
8.1 OVERVIEW 8-1
8.2 SEDIMENT SOLID PHASE BIOLOGICAL TESTS 8-2
8.2.1 Marine Bioassays 8-2
8.2.2 Freshwater Bioassays 8-3
8.2.3 Bioassay Testing Performance Standards 8-4
8.2.4 Bioassay Interpretive Criteria 8-8
8.3 REFERENCE SEDIMENT COLLECTION SITES 8-12
9. BIO ACCUMULATION EVALUATION 9-1
9.1 OVERVIEW 9-1
9.2 BIOACCUMULATIVE CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN 9-3
9.3 REASON TO BELIEVE 9-4
9.4 LABORATORY BIO ACCUMULATION TESTING 9-8
9.5 IN SITU BIO ACCUMULATION TESTING 9-9
9.5.1 Marine/Estuarine In Situ Tests 9-9
9.5.2 Freshwater In Situ Tests 9-10
9.6 COLLECTION OF FIELD ORGANISMS 9-10
9.7 INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES FOR BIO ACCUMULATION DATA 9-10
9.7.1 Bioaccumulation Triggers for Tissues 9-11
9.7.2 Bioaccumulation Triggers for Sediments 9-12
9.7.3 Collection of Missing Data 9-14
9.8 DERIVATION OF BIOACCUMULATION TRIGGERS 9-14
9.8.1 Tissue Bioaccumulation Triggers for Aquatic Life 9-15
9.8.1.1 Protocols for the Development of Tissue Bioaccumulation
Triggers 9-16
9.8.1.2 Species Sensitivity Distribution Approach 9-17
9.8.1.3 Bioaccumulation Modeling Approach 9-18
9.8.1.4 Molar Residues Associated with Known Modes of Toxic
Action 9-19
9.8.1.5 Chemicals for Which Tissue Residue Values Cannot Be
Derived 9-20
9.8.1.6 Sensitivity of Endangered Species to Chemicals 9-21
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc yl INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
9.8.2 Tissue Bioaccumulation Triggers for Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife 9-22
9.8.2.1 Defining Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife Receptors 9-22
9.8.2.2 Development of Tissue Bioaccumulation Triggers 9-24
9.8.2.3 Establishing Prey Tissue Bioaccumulation Triggers Using
Dietary Toxicity Reference Value Studies 9-24
9.8.2.4 Establishing Prey Tissue Bioaccumulation Triggers Using
Egg-Based Toxicity Reference Value Studies 9-26
9.8.3 Tissue Bioaccumulation Triggers for Human Health 9-27
9.8.3.1 Selection of a Target Risk and Hazard Index. 9-28
9.8.3.2 Selection of Receptor Population and Endpoint 9-29
9.8.3.3 Exposure Assumptions 9-29
9.8.3.4 Bioaccumulation Triggers for Compounds with Common
Toxic Mechanisms 9-30
9.9 SEDIMENT BIOACCUMULATION TRIGGERS 9-33
10. DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 10-1
10.1 INTRODUCTION 10-1
10.2 DISPOSAL OPTIONS 10-2
10.3 EVALUATION OF DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR UNCONTAMINATED
SEDIMENTS 10-2
10.4 EVALUATION OF DISPOSAL OPTIONS - CONTAMINATED
SEDIMENTS 10-3
10.5 CONFINED IN-WATER DISPOSAL (CAPPING) 10-5
10.5.1 Capping Benefits 10-5
10.5.2 Thin Cap 10-5
10.5.3 Thick Cap 10-6
10.6 CONFINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL 10-6
10.7 NEARSHORE CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY 10-7
10.8 UPLAND DISPOSAL 10-7
10.8.1 Solid Waste Landfills 10-8
10.8.2 Upland Confined Disposal Facilities 10-8
10.9 OTHER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 10-8
11. SPECIAL EVALUATIONS 11-1
11.1 OVERVIEW 11-1
11.2 STEADY-STATE BIOACCUMULATION TEST 11-2
11.2.1 Time-Sequenced Laboratory Testing 11-2
11.2.2 Field Assessment of Steady-State Bioaccumulation 11-3
11.3 HUMAN HEALTH/ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 11-3
11.3.1 Oregon State Risk Assessment Guidance 11-4
11.3.2 Washington State Risk Assessment Guidance 11-4
11.3.3 Idaho State Risk Assessment Guidance 11-4
11.3.4 Additional Existing Risk Assessment Guidance 11-5
11.4 ELUTRIATE TESTING 11-6
11.4.1 Mixing Zones 11-7
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc yU INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
11.4.2 Receiving Water Impacts 11-7
11.4.3 Elutriate Bioassay Tests 11-8
11.4.4 Contingency Water Quality Controls 11-8
11.5 EVALUATION OF DREDGING RESIDUALS 11-9
11.5.1 Predicting Dredging Residuals 11-10
11.5.2 Post-Dredge Confirmation Sampling and Response Actions 11-11
12. DATA SUBMITTALS 12-1
12.1 OVERVIEW 12-1
12.2 SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION REPORT 12-2
12.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE DAT A REPORT 12-2
12.4 INFORMATION ABOUT EIM 12-3
12.5 FIELD DATA COLLECTION QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY
CONTROL 12-3
12.6 QA1 DATA REPORT CHECKLIST 12-4
12.7 QA2 DATA REPORT CHECKLIST 12-5
12.8 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL FOR BIOLOGICAL
DATA 12-6
13. BENEFICIAL USES FOR SEDIMENT 13-1
13.1 BACKGROUND AND DEFINITION OF "BENEFICIAL USE" 13-1
14. REFERENCES 14-1
APPENDIX A BIO ACCUMULATIVE CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
APPENDIX B SAMPLE HANDLING PROCEDURES
APPENDIX C RSET IS SUE PAPERS
1 - Establishment and Use of Detection and Reporting Limits
2 - Development of Sediment Quality Guidelines for Petroleum Hydrocarbons
3 - Chemical Summation Techniques
4 - Evaluation of Modern Pesticides in Sediments
5 - TEF Methods for Wildlife
6 - PCB Analysis
8 - PCB Analytical Methods
9 - SQG Cost Effectiveness/Reliability
10 - Develop Regional Data Compilation/Database Structure
11 - Evaluate Ecology's Guideline Development/Reliability
16 - Framework for Assessing Bioaccumulation under RSET
17 - Tissue Bioaccumulation Triggers and Proposed Methods of Protection of
Fish/ESA Species
18 - Development of Tissue Trigger Levels for Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc yill INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
19 - Testing Protocols Available For Laboratory Based Freshwater Bioaccumulation
Testing Under RSET
20 - Testing Protocols for In situ Freshwater Bioaccumulation Testing
21 - Framework for Deriving Tissue Concentrations to be Protective of People
Consuming Fish and Shellfish
25 - Integrating Range of Disposal Options into SEF
26 - Grain Size, Analysis, and Exclusion Criteria
27 - Disposal Site Issues
28 - Programmatic Consultation on SEF
29 - Frequency of Dredging Guideline
30 - Effect Level Question
31 - New Surface Material Exposed by Dredging
32 - Minor Text Changes and Clarifications
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc jx INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Local Corps District Sediment Management Groups 1-11
Figure 1-2. Structure of the Regional Dredging Team 1-12
Figure 2-1. Geographic Jurisdictions of MPRSA and CWA 2-2
Figure 2-2. The Relationship between the ODEQ' s Dredge-related Solid Waste
Permits and the Permits of Other State and Federal Programs 2-12
Figure 3-1. Example of New Dredging Project 3-3
Figure 3-2. Sediment Evaluation Process 3-5
Figure 4-1. Dredging Generic Conceptual Site Model 4-2
Figure 4-2. Site Investigation Generic Conceptual Site Model 4-3
Figure 4-3. Generalized Sediment Evaluation Framework to Make Management
Decisions 4-5
Figure 4-4. General Dredging Flow Chart 4-7
Figure 4-5. Generic Contaminated Site Assessment 4-11
Figure 4-6. Detail of Level 1 Tasks 4-14
Figure 9-1. Bioaccumulation Evaluation Framework 9-6
Figure 10-1. Upland, Nearshore, and Island CDFs 10-7
Figure 12-1. Project Life Cycle Components 12-3
Figure 12-2. QA1 Data Checklist for Locations, Physical, and Conventional
Analyses 12-4
Figure 12-3. QA1 Data Checklist for Chemicals of Concern 12-4
Figure 12-4. QA2 Data Checklist for Locations, Physical, and Conventional
Analyses 12-5
Figure 12-5. QA2 Data Checklist for Chemicals of Concern 12-6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 5-1. Management Area Ranking Definitions 5-5
Table 5-2. Dredged Material Management Units 5-7
Table 5-3. "No Test" Volumes for Small Projects 5-12
Table 6-1. Sample Storage Criteria 6-2
Table 7-1. Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern 7-2
Table 7-2. Recommended Analytical Methods and Quantitation Limits for
Sediment 7-5
Table 7-3. Recommended Analytical Methods and Quantitation Limits for
Tissue 7-7
Table 8-1. Summary of Marine and Freshwater Bioassay Test Performance
Standards 8-7
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Table 8-2. Summary of Freshwater and Marine Bioassay Test Interpretive
Criteria 8-11
Table 9-1. Common Aquatic-dependent Wildlife Receptors in Freshwater and
Marine Systems 9-23
Table 9-2. WHO 1997 TEFs for dioxins and furans 9-32
Table 9-3. WHO 1997 TEFs for PCBs 9-32
Table 9-4. EPA RPFs for cPAH 9-33
Table 10-1. DMMP: Puget Sound Disposal Site Characteristics 10-4
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc xl INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
ASTM
AWQC
BAF
BCF
BCoC
BSAF
BT
ฐC
CBR
CDFB
CFR
CoC
Corps
cPAH
CS
CSF
CSL
CSM
CWA
cy
CZMA
DGPS
DMEF
DMMP
DMMU
DPS
DQO
DSL
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
micrograms per kilogram
micrograms per liter
American Society for Testing and Materials
ambient water quality criteria
bioaccumulation attenuation factor
bioconcentration factor
bioaccumulative chemicals of concern
biota-sediment accumulations factors
bioaccumulation trigger
degree Celsius
critical body residues
chlorinated dioxins/furans and polychlorinated biphenyl
Code of Federal Regulations
chemicals of concern
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
contaminated sediment
carcinogenic slope factor
Cleanup Screening Level
conceptual site model
Clean Water Act
cubic yard
Coastal Zone Management Act
Differential Global Positioning System
Dredged Material Evaluation Framework
Dredged Material Management Plan
dredged material management unit
distinct population segment
data quality objective
Department of State Lands
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
Xll
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
ECOTOX Ecotoxicology Database
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERED Environmental Residue Effects Database
ESA Endangered Species Act
FMP fishery management plan
GIS geographic information system
GPS Global Positioning System
IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
kg kilogram
LOAEL low-observed-adverse effect level
LOER lowest observed effect residue
LUED lowest unquantified effect dose
mg milligram
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
ML maximum level
mL milliliter
MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act
MPRSA Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act
MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
NAD North American Datum
NCEA National Center for Environmental Assessment
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAEL no-observed-adverse effect level
NSM new surface material
ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
OMC Operational Management Committee
ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratories
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
Xlll
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
ROC receptor of concern
PPRTV Provisional Peer Review Toxicity Values for Superfund
PSDDA Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis
PSEP Puget Sound Estuary Program
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RCW Revised Code of Washington
RDT Regional Dredging Team
RfD reference dose
RSET Regional Sediment Evaluation Team
SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan
SEF Sediment Evaluation Framework
SEPA State Environmental Policy Act
SET AC Society of Environmental Toxicity and Chemistry
SL screening level
SMARM Sediment Management Annual Review Meeting
SMS Sediment Management Standard
SQG Sediment Quality Guidelines
SQS Sediment Quality Standard
SSD species sensitive distribution
TEF toxic equivalency factor
TEQ toxic equivalent
TRA tissue residue approach
TRV toxicity reference values
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
XIV
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Sediment Evaluation Framework Preamble
What does this SEF do?
This Sediment Evaluation Framework (SEF) provides a framework for the assessment and
characterization of freshwater and marine sediments in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington
(defined as Pacific Northwest). This SEF compiles information from many documents in
active use in the Pacific Northwest and updates specific portions of previous regional
manuals. It is consistent with federal and state regulations and, in most cases, the
techniques described here should be useful as part of the "toolbox" of methods available for
sediment and dredged material characterizations. It is intended only as guidance, and best
professional judgment should be practiced in determining appropriate uses of this SEF.
Nothing in this SEF alters or limits agency responsibilities, or imposes mandatory
requirements beyond existing statute or regulation.
This SEF is relevant to maintenance dredging and contaminated sediment (CS) cleanup-
related activities. It presents an evaluation framework for sampling, sediment testing, and
test interpretation. For dredging projects, it provides the basis for evaluating the suitability
for unconfined open water or other disposal options. For sediment cleanup projects, it
supports the evaluation of the potential risk of in-place sediments and tools to evaluate the
sediments based on potential cleanup options.
Why is this SEF being prepared?
The appropriate assessment of sediments and dredged material is a critical component to all
dredging or sediment assessment/disposal management activities regardless of whether the
project is for maintenance of a navigation channel in Idaho or remediation of a CS site in
Oregon. Therefore, it is the Regional Sediment Evaluation Team's (RSET's) intention to
consolidate and revise the existing Dredged Material Evaluation Framework (DMEF) (now
called the SEF for the Pacific Northwest). This SEF is a technically valuable resource for
use throughout the Pacific Northwest for characterization of both freshwater and marine
sediments. It also provides useful guidelines for a variety of regulatory and remediation
programs that address sediment characterization and disposal issues. RSET is an
interagency team, co-chaired by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 and
the Northwestern Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It consists of federal and
state agencies with regulatory responsibilities for managing sediments. RSET is also
assisted by technical consultants.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc P-\ INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
To determine the need for this SEF, RSET conducted a 3-day technical scoping workshop
September 11 through 13, 2002, which included RSET members and other interested parties
from federal and state agencies and regional Port authorities. The purpose of the workshop
was to develop the scope for preparing an overall plan and process for updating the existing
Columbia River DMEF. The workshop was also used to gauge the level of agency support
for revising the existing DMEF and expanding it to include evaluation of sediments
throughout the entire Pacific Northwest under a variety of regulatory programs. A
consensus reached at this workshop determined that the new SEF must consider both CS
evaluation projects as well as dredged material characterization issues.
Since the 2002 meeting, technical experts, regulators, and policy makers from the federal
and state resource agencies as well as the private sector have worked to develop this SEF.
RSET Subcommittees
Much of RSET work is performed by subcommittees. They prepare recommendations in
the form of issue papers (requesting policy guidance or other information). Issue papers are
presented in Appendix C. Issue papers provide the record of RSET's deliberations. Once
an issue paper is prepared by a subcommittee, it is forwarded to the policy subcommittee.
The policy subcommittee's role at this point is to ensure the recommendations and
supporting information are clear and necessary coordination has occurred with other
subcommittees. The issue paper is then forwarded to the entire RSET for review. Changes
to this SEF require concurrence of the full RSET. If agreement cannot be reached, the issue
will be elevated.
The current subcommittees include the following:
Policy,
Sediment Quality Guidelines,
Chemical Analyte,
Biological Testing, and
Bioaccumulation.
The RSET Policy Subcommittee may form other subcommittees as needed.
What agencies were involved with the development of this SEF?
A variety of representatives had major roles in preparing this SEF, including many federal
and state agencies, Port authorities, and private firms. This group frequently met to
coordinate the subcommittee activities and draft this SEF. Participation by affected users
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc P-2. INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
was sought via participation in technical subcommittees, attendance at RSET meetings,
conference calls, and review of this SEF by representatives of the ports, maritime industries,
tribes, and other interested parties. These representatives include the following:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Seattle District, Portland District, Walla Walla
District, and Northwestern Division;
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10;
Washington State Department of Ecology;
Washington State Department of Natural Resources;
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality;
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality;
National Marine Fisheries Service;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Port of Portland, Port of Vancouver USA, and Oregon International Port of Coos
Bay; and
Private firms, including Tetra Tech EC, Inc., Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Anchor
Environmental, Avocet Consulting, Applied Biomonitoring, Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratories, Columbia Analytical Services, Exponent, Hart Crowser,
MEC Analytical Services, Northwestern Aquatic Sciences, URS, and Windward.
Who should use this SEF?
This SEF is designed to help anyone who wants to develop a better understanding of
methodologies for assessing and characterizing sediments. RSET is writing this SEF to
assist regulators, permittees, stakeholders, trustees, and the public.
How will this SEF help me?
As a regulator, this SEF provides consistent guidance for addressing sediment and dredged
material characterization. While it is understood there may be a need to deviate from SEF
procedures because of regulatory requirements for specific programs, this SEF provides a
comprehensive "toolbox" of assessment techniques and methodologies that have been
reviewed and approved by regional experts in this field. It is recognized that individual
regulatory programs (e.g., Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act [CERCLA]) may have specific additional requirements other than those
specified in this SEF. Therefore, if there is a chance the project could fall into another
regulatory program, early coordination with RSET may be beneficial.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc P_3 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
If seeking a dredging permit or managing a cleanup site, this SEF provides sampling,
testing, and analysis strategies that can reduce uncertainties about the actions a regulator
may require. Reducing uncertainties can help with project scheduling, financial planning,
and project management decisions.
As a member of the public, this SEF can help determine what information regulators
generally require in sediment management decisions. Finally, with the context set by this
SEF and the openness and transparency of the continuous improvement process, the public
will have enhanced access to regulatory decision-making regarding sediments.
How does this SEF become "Final"?
RSET expects this SEF to always be a living document with a process available to update
and incorporate advances in scientific, engineering, and regulatory fields. Public comments
were accepted when the draft SEF was made public in the summer of 2005. Comments
were reviewed by representatives from each of the participating agencies, and changes were
made as appropriate. It is expected the technical subcommittees who developed individual
chapters in this SEF will continue to address the technical issues as they arise. Major
revisions will be presented annually by RSET to agency staff and the interested public for
review and comment. Any necessary revisions will be posted on the Corps' web site
(http://www.usace.army.mil) and provided as supplements to this SEF.
What is the difference between this SEF and currently available dredging guidance
documents?
While this SEF is considered a living document with a process available to update and
incorporate advances in scientific, engineering, and regulatory fields, several of the
following significant changes and additions are included:
A consistent approach for characterizing in-place sediments as well as proposed
dredged material,
Draft freshwater sediment screening levels,
Updated information on the chemical analyte lists that will need to be evaluated in
different parts of the Pacific Northwest,
Updated information on the appropriate analysis of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) in sediment and tissue,
A framework for addressing bioaccumulation, including a process for deriving
scientifically defensible bioaccumulation triggers for tissues and sediments,
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc P_4 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
A two-tier (or level) process, as opposed to the historical four-tier assessment
process, consistent with emerging National Guidance (described in Chapter 4), and
Additional editorial changes and clarifications.
How is this SEF organized?
The authors of this SEF organized it to address the overall appropriate implementation
strategy for the assessment and characterization of in-place sediments and proposed dredged
material. The initial chapters present the goals and structure of this SEF. Additional
chapters place this SEF within the context of federal and state sediment management
regulations, and discuss regulatory processes where this SEF can be applied. Subsequent
chapters and appendices present the specific chemical and biological tests that are
recommended with interpretation criteria as well as information on the database that has
been developed to manage accumulated data.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc P-5 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
1. GOALS, DESCRIPTION, AND ORGANIZATION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Sediment Evaluation Framework (SEF) manual provides a regional framework for the
assessment, characterization, and management of sediments in the Pacific Northwest. The
appropriate assessment of sediments is a critical component of all sediment management
activities regardless of whether the project is for dredging of a navigation channel in Idaho
or remediation of a contaminated sediment (CS) site in Oregon. Therefore, it is intended
that this SEF, which consolidates the existing regional sediment testing guidance manuals,
be technically applicable throughout the Pacific Northwest for both freshwater and marine
sediment assessment. This SEF also includes a discussion of management alternatives, such
as in-water and upland disposal options.
The goal of this manual is to provide the technical and regulatory bases for publicly
acceptable guidelines governing environmentally safe assessment and characterization of
sediments, thereby improving consistency and predictability in dredged material/sediment
management. The establishment of these evaluation procedures is necessary to ensure
continued operation and maintenance of navigation facilities in the region, minimize delays
in scheduled maintenance dredging, reduce uncertainties in regulatory activities, and
evaluate the need for cleanup activities. These SEF guidelines ensure consistency in
evaluation among the various programs that regulate sediment.
This document addresses the development of a comprehensive evaluation framework
governing sediment sampling, testing, and test interpretation for determining the potential
risk of in-place sediments, as well as evaluating the suitability of alternative management
options. This SEF ensures adequate regulatory controls and public accountability for the
characterization and management of sediments.
The authors of this SEF attempted to identify the most reliable, recognized, and cost-
effective sampling and analysis procedures for appropriately characterizing sediments that
are also protective of the ecosystem. The authors then incorporated these procedures into
this document for application to the Pacific Northwest. Chemical and biological tests and
interpretation guidelines were evaluated for the purposes of this guidance document.
Application of these tests and guidelines should provide suitable information to determine
management (disposal) options, such as no action, in-place capping, and open water,
confined aquatic, nearshore, or upland disposal. Some tests may also be useful in
evaluating the chemical/biological effects of dredging activities.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc \-\ INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
This SEF distills the accumulated knowledge and experience with sediments and dredged
material management in the Pacific Northwest over the last 30 years. It describes stepwise
procedures for sediment assessment and is intended for use by the regulatory and regulated
community. Documents containing justification for the guidelines and procedures in this
SEF are contained in Chapter 2, Sediment Management Regulations, and Chapter 14,
References. Full consideration was made of all pertinent state and federal laws, regulations,
and guidance, including other regional sediment management programs, and this SEF is
generally consistent with the guidelines of the national-level sediment assessment manuals.
1.2 SCOPE, APPLICABILITY, AND LIMITATIONS
This SEF for the Pacific Northwest is the result of a cooperative interagency/
intergovernmental program established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps); U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS); National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology); Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR); Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ); and Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality (IDEQ). These agencies have regulatory and proprietary responsibilities for
sediment evaluation and management in the region, and constitute the standing members of
the Regional Sediment Evaluation Team (RSET). This SEF represents an expansion toward
a broader sediment management program throughout the entire Pacific Northwest. The
procedures used in development of this manual were derived from, and inspired by, similar
regional programs, including the successful Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis
(PSDDA) program for the Puget Sound region of the state of Washington, Grays
Harbor/Willapa Bay Dredged Material Evaluation Procedures Manual, Portland District
Corps Dredged Material Tiered Testing Procedures, and Regional 1998 Dredged Material
Evaluation Framework (DMEF).
Dredging is necessary to maintain waterways and harbors used for waterborne commerce
and water-related industry shipping, new port and marina construction, and environmental
restoration projects. It is also necessary to ensure appropriate remedial actions are taken at
CS sites. In addition to federal navigation project-related dredging (which is performed by
the Corps), a number of ports, maritime industries, and private interests perform dredging
and dredged material disposal. Commercial navigation and recreational boating are
important factors to the economic well-being of the Pacific Northwest. From a CS
management perspective, dredging is one possible remedy for dealing with contaminated in
situ sediments. Dredging and disposal may also be a component of habitat restoration
activities that can occur as governmental- or nongovernment-sponsored projects. The
Pacific Northwest, for the purposes of this SEF, is defined as the states of Washington,
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc \ _2 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Oregon, and Idaho. Dredging in the region has been a commonplace activity historically
and will be an ongoing necessity for the foreseeable future under a variety of regulatory,
environmental restoration, and cleanup programs.
Cost-effective sediment management is essential to the environment and economy of the
region. Periodic dredging, including new work and maintenance dredging, is necessary to
maintain the navigability of our waterways. For relatively clean dredged material, without
significant levels of chemicals of concern (CoCs), disposal atunconfmed aquatic sites is
often the least costly and most environmentally acceptable alternative. Beneficial uses of
sediment, including erosion control and use as fill material, are an attractive option for
placement. For cleanup assessment, this manual provides the tools for assessing the need
for various management actions, which may include no action, natural recovery, capping in
place, or removal by dredging.
1.3 HOW TO USE THIS MANUAL
This manual is consistent with federal and state regulations and, in most cases, the
techniques described herein should be useful as part of the "toolbox" of methods available
for CS and dredged material characterizations. Chapters are written to enable the reader to
obtain information from one technical aspect, if desired, without necessarily reading this
entire manual. Many sections are cross-referenced so that the reader is alerted to relevant
issues that might be covered elsewhere in this manual. This is particularly important for
certain chemical or toxicological applications in which appropriate sample processing or
laboratory procedures are associated with specific field sampling procedures.
The initial chapters present the goals and structure of this SEF. This chapter gives an
overview of agency laws, regulations, and authorities as they relate to the assessment and
characterization of CS and the dredging and disposal of sediments. Chapter 2 specifically
discusses sediment management regulations for both federal and state entities.
Chapter 3 summarizes the federal and state regulatory processes necessary to receive
approval (e.g., obtaining a permit) of dredging or sediment evaluation projects undertaken
in the Pacific Northwest using this SEF manual. Not all process steps are described in
detail, and additional information from the regulating agency may be necessary to complete
all process steps.
The risk-based framework is discussed in Chapter 4. A generalized SEF to make
management decisions is presented in Figure 4-3. This risk-based framework makes use of
multiple lines of evidence to enable regulators and project proponents to reach management
decisions. Specifically, Chapter 4 describes the process to develop a conceptual site model
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc J_3 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
(CSM) to ensure that evaluations are complete in consideration and analysis of present and
future exposures, effects, and potential for human and ecological risks at the site of concern
for CS projects or during the dredging and disposal process.
The methods used in sample collection, transport, handling, storage, and manipulation of
sediments can influence the physicochemical properties and the results of chemical,
toxicity, and bioaccumulation analyses. Addressing these variables in an appropriate and
systematic manner will help ensure more accurate sediment quality data and facilitate
comparisons among sediment studies. Chapters 5 through 7 provide technical approaches
to perform sediment characterization studies. For example, the development of the
Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) is one of the most critical steps in dredging or site
characterization/remediation activities. Chapter 5 describes in detail the necessary
information required in a SAP. Chapter 6 discusses the recommended procedures for
sample acquisition and handling, and Chapter 7 lists the types of sediment testing protocols
required and provides the interpretive guidelines for evaluating chemical analytical results.
Biological testing of sediment may be required when chemical testing results exceed
appropriate guideline values and interpretative criteria. Chapters 8 and 9 present organized
discussions on recommended biological and bioaccumulation tests and species, the quality
control requirements for each test, and the interpretive criteria used for decision-making.
Chapter 10 provides an overview of the factors to be considered when selecting sediment
disposal options.
Chapter 11 describes the process to follow in those rare cases when standard sediment
assessment techniques are insufficient to reach a management decision.
Chapter 12 lists the necessary documentation required to be submitted to RSET upon
completion of a sediment study. In addition to reporting the raw data from a given sediment
characterization study or analysis, the data report should include additional quality
assurance information to assure the data user that sample handling and analyses are in
accordance with the SAP. The use of consistent sediment collection, handling, and storage
methods will help provide high quality samples with which accurate data can be obtained.
Chapter 13 is an introduction to the beneficial use and its importance to the overall sediment
management in the Pacific Northwest.
References are provided in Chapter 14.
The appendices provide additional technical support to the chapters. The technical issue
papers, contributed by the subcommittees, are provided in Appendix C to allow the reader
to better understand how RSET developed this SEF manual.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc \ _4 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
The information presented in this manual should not be viewed as the final statement on all
the recommended procedures. Some of the areas covered in this document (e.g., sediment
holding times, freshwater sediment screening levels, deriving target tissue levels) are
actively researched and debated. As data from sediment monitoring and research becomes
available in the future, this manual may be updated, as necessary.
1.4 FRAMEWORK OBJECTIVES
This SEF was prepared to satisfy the following five objectives:
(1) It establishes an appropriate marine and freshwater sediment characterization
framework agreeable to the public, stakeholders, and regulatory resource agencies.
This regional SEF manual establishes a sediment sampling, testing, and interpretation
framework acceptable to stakeholders, such as ports and private industries that maintain
navigation access in the study area, and resource agencies having an interest in, concern for,
or some form of permit authority relative to sediment management. Such a framework
provides clarity, maximizes consistency, and allows informed discussions to take place on
the need for and extent of sediment characterization for dredging and sediment management
projects.
(2) It establishes a uniform framework under which the Corps will carry out federal
requirements in conducting the dredging and disposal program.
The laws and regulations under which the Corps operates require the Corps, to the
maximum extent practicable, to predict dredged material types, contaminant levels, and
biological effects, both in water and sediments, before dredging and disposal actions can be
considered environmentally acceptable. This document provides the regulatory framework
that will facilitate a consistent application of regional criteria and guidelines.
(3) It establishes a uniform framework for evaluating the effects of sediment management
activities on water quality.
The Pacific Northwest includes the water bodies in the states of Washington, Oregon, and
Idaho. Projects actions in one state may affect another state. Because sediment
management impacts affect all states, regulation of these activities should be consistent
between Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.
States have statutory control over water quality impacts resulting from a neighboring state.
Section 401 (a)(2) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that a neighboring state be
notified of actions that may affect its water quality. In order to work efficiently under this
regulation, water quality requirements in a bi-state waterway must be uniform. Without
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc J_5 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
uniform requirements, the implementation of water quality programs in shared water bodies
may not be consistent or predictable. Section 103 of the CWA encourages states to develop
uniform laws for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution, and negotiate and
enter into agreements or compacts not contrary to any laws or treaties of the United States.
Although the laws discussed in this SEF may well be applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) as defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) for a particular CERCLA site, this SEF is not
itself an ARAR. It does not apply to any CERCLA cleanups, except to the extent
determined that it is to be considered in the CERCLA site decision document.
Notwithstanding any other statements in this document, this SEF does not govern CERCLA
response actions. However, the "tools" described in this SEF may be useful to the
CERCLA program.
(4) It establishes appropriate databases to track the long-term trends in sediment quality of
specific dredging projects/locations and the river in general.
Sediment management programs require the collection and maintenance of data about
projects and their characteristics. This objective includes the establishment of appropriate
databases that will track sediment quality trends over time at specific locations and for the
region in general. Systematic database development will provide useful input into larger
planning efforts. Implementation of this framework will generate regular reporting on
sediment quality and thus raise the information level available for making decisions on
sediment management.
(5) It establishes procedures or references other regional/national guidance to assist in the
identification and evaluation of alternative sediment management options.
This manual addresses the five basic dredged material disposal options: unconfined
aquatic, unconfined upland, confined aquatic, confined nearshore, and confined upland. It
is acknowledged that different sampling and testing requirements may be required for
evaluating alternative management options. In all disposal options, beneficial re-use (such
as wetland creation and beach nourishment) of dredged material is encouraged.
1.5 EVALUATION PROCEDURES PHILOSOPHY
Evaluation procedures consist of the sampling requirements, tests, and guidelines for test
interpretation that are to be used in assessing the quality of sediment, including dredged
material, and its management options. Evaluation procedures identify whether
unacceptable adverse effects on biological resources or human health might result from in-
place sediments or dredged material management. A regulatory decision on acceptability of
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc J-g INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
material for remediation or disposal is determined from the test results. This manual
defines the general requirements for evaluation of CSs and dredged material for regulatory
decision-making under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered
Species Act (ESA), CWA, Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), and
various state cleanup regulations.
One of the underlying principles in the preparation of this SEF is the use of a risk-based
sediment assessment framework to guide assessments and management decisions by various
regulatory authorities. The results of the 2002 Society of Environmental Toxicity and
Chemistry (SETAC) Pellston Workshop on the "Use of Sediment Quality Guidelines and
Related Tools for the Assessment of Contaminated Sediments" (SETAC 2002) were relied
upon to generate the philosophical and technical underpinnings of the assessment
framework that is presented in this manual. The Pellston Workshop was sponsored by
SETAC and held August 17 through 22, 2002, in Fairmont, Montana. This workshop
brought together 55 experts in the field of sediment assessment and management from
Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United
States for 6 days of discussion on the use of Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs) and other
sediment assessment tools.
One significant change from earlier guidance is the reduction in the number of testing tiers
recommended in the guidance document. Previously, dredged material evaluations were
conducted based on a four-tier testing framework as presented in historical Pacific
Northwest regional manuals. The two-tier testing framework, as presented in the Pellston
Workshop Summary, has been adopted for use with this SEF (SETAC 2002). While the
same amount of data will be collected under the new SEF as the historical Pacific
Northwest regional manuals, the two-tier system will be more consistent with national
guidance.
1.5.1 Characteristics of this SEF
Evaluation procedures comprise the complete process of sediment assessment and
incorporate a range of scientific and administrative factors. Beyond the decision to base
sediment and dredged material evaluations on avoiding unacceptable adverse biological
effects, effective evaluation procedures should also have certain characteristics. The
following nine characteristics are inherent in the evaluation process:
Consistent - Evaluation procedures must be applicable on a uniform basis as much
as possible regardless of project or site variability.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc \-'] INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Flexible - Evaluation procedures must be flexible enough to allow for exceptions
due to project and site-specific concerns, and adaptable to projects of any size.
Accountable - The need for, and cost implications of, evaluation procedures must
be justifiable to the individual stakeholder/permittee and to the public.
Cost Effective - Evaluation procedures must be timely and cost-effective.
Objective - Evaluation procedures must be clearly stated and logical, and applicable
in an objective manner.
Revisable - Evaluation procedures must be based upon best available technical and
policy information, and the overall approach will be revised periodically to
incorporate new information and management decisions.
Understandable - Evaluation procedures must be clear and concise.
Technically Sound - Evaluation procedures must be reproducible, have adequate
quality assurance and quality control guidelines, and generally have standardized
protocols.
Verifiable - The implementation of the evaluation procedures must be verifiable.
One means of judging effectiveness is monitoring at a disposal site.
1.5.2 The Need for Flexibility in Application of Evaluation Procedures
Although consistency is an important objective, it is recognized that flexibility must be
maintained in the way the evaluation procedures and disposal guidelines are applied. When
project-specific technical indications warrant, suitability evaluations or determinations that
deviate from those indicated by the guidelines presented in this manual may be made.
Consequently, best professional judgment is essential in reaching project-specific decisions.
The evaluation procedures (including the disposal guidelines) require full consideration of
all pertinent project factors. Flexibility will be provided by "exception." The guidelines are
expected to apply in the majority of cases. Rather than integrating flexibility into the
guideline statements (by showing ranges of values or by using terms such as "may do"),
exceptions to the guidelines are allowed with appropriate technical rationale and
documentation, when such rationale warrants a different conclusion. A consensus between
the federal agencies and the affected state(s) will be required for use of this management by
exception approach. Further, this exception approach will only be used where applicable
federal and/or state law does not otherwise preclude its application.
A good example of how flexibility enters into the decision-making process using evaluation
procedures is the use of statistics and professional judgment in data interpretation. Statistics
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc J-g INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
are primarily applied in the initial data analysis stage of the disposal guidelines. Statistical
significance is used to determine if observed differences are "potentially real" when natural
variability of the parameters being measured is considered. Ultimate data interpretation
requires judgment on the part of a professional who is intimately familiar with the testing
procedures, project specifics, and initial data analysis conclusions.
Analysis of data consists of a comparison to guideline values that are developed using
statistical significance as a clear indicator of toxicity. However, ecological significance
cannot be determined by this process. Determination of ecological significance requires
both an understanding of the data and evaluation procedures, and evaluation of those test
results based on best professional judgment.
1.6 STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A variety of representatives had major roles in preparing this SEF manual, including many
federal and state agencies, Port authorities, and private firms. This group met frequently to
coordinate the subcommittee activities and draft this SEF. Participation by affected users
was sought via participation in technical subcommittees, attendance at RSET meetings,
conference calls, and review of this framework by representatives of the ports, maritime
industries, tribes, and other interested parties. These representatives include the following:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Seattle District, Portland District, Walla Walla
District, and Northwestern Division;
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10;
Washington State Department of Ecology;
Washington Department of Natural Resources;
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality;
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality;
National Marine Fisheries Service;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Port of Portland, Port of Vancouver USA, and Oregon International Port of Coos
Bay; and
Private consulting firms, including Tetra Tech EC, Inc., Kennedy/Jenks Consultants,
Anchor Environmental, Avocet Consulting, Applied Biomonitoring, Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratories, Columbia Analytical Services, Exponent, Hart Crowser,
MEC Analytical Services, Northwestern Aquatic Sciences, URS, and Windward.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc \-f) INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
1.6.1 RSET Structure and Process
RSET's focus requires a high level of sophistication in laws and regulations that govern
sediments and water quality, sediment chemistry, toxicology, engineering, and other related
fields. At the same time, the science must inform a regulatory program involving numerous
agencies and statutory frameworks. Therefore, RSET is designed to provide the highest
caliber scientific advice combined with practicable knowledge about the administrative use
of that information to ensure science-based regulation. The structure and processes outlined
below support RSET's functions: continuous improvement of methods for sediment
sampling, testing, and analysis to support regulatory management decisions at a region wide
level, and maintenance of the sediment quality database. It is expected that RSET will
provide a cooperative, interagency center of expertise on sediment assessment and
management that can be accessed by different agencies and programs as the need arises.
Roles, Relationships, and Representation
The relationship among different sediment-related groups is shown in Figure 1-1. The
Regional Dredging Team (RDT) structure is shown in Figure 1-2. The Executive Steering
Committee is composed of upper-level management at EPA Region 10, Corps Northwest
Division, NMFS, USFWS, and Maritime Administration (DOT). The Operational
Management Committee (OMC) has representatives from the same agencies, as well as the
states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. In each Corps district, there is a local dredging
team that conducts day-to-day business, develops Dredged Material Management Plans
(DMMPs), and elevates issues, as appropriate. The representation on the local dredging
team includes tribal, federal, and state agencies, invited experts, Port representatives, and
non-government organizations.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 1-10 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
Regional Relationships
Regional
Sediment
Evaluation
Team
NW
Regional
Sediment
Evaluation
Framework
(NWRSEF)
Federal/Staff
Environment;
Compliance
Beneficial
Uses Of Dredged
Material
Regional
Dredging
Team
RDT
ii
RSM Demo
Projects
Riparian
Ha&itsi
Dewtopmenl
Regional
Sediment
Management
Local (Corps
District} Sediment
Management Groups
(LSMGs)
Dredged (Material
Management Plans
DMMPs
Figure 1-1. Local Corps District Sediment Management Groups
RSET reports to the Navigation Steering Committee (NSC) and OMC. The NSC provides
both technical and policy guidance and feedback to RSET. Issues that cannot be resolved
by RSET membership will be taken to the NSC. The OMC has primary responsibility for
the support and development of the database. As issues are elevated from local dredging
teams to the NSC and OMC, it will often be appropriate for RSET to advise these groups.
RSET also provides region-wide analysis of sampling results to make regulatory
management decisions regarding sediment characterization. To meet these responsibilities,
RSET is composed of regional sediment experts and agency representatives familiar with
the regulatory/sediment analysis interface. Experts may be invited in as necessary,
especially as members of ad hoc technical subcommittees, which are described below.
The Executive Steering Committee, NSC, OMC, RSET, and local dredging teams are each
co-chaired by the Corps and EPA.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
1-11
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
Executive Steering
Committee
NMFS (RAJ I USFWS >W DOT
iHAP-AC,
COENWDMSION(DE),'EPA
REGION 10 (RA1
I
Regional Operational
Management Committee
Senior Manages of
Same Agencies as Tier 4
Regulatory Steering
Committee
Navigation Steering
Committee
JZ
)l Sediment
tion Team
10 CQE NMfS
SFWS
rVM.OR.ID
MII Agencies Hoove.
(EซeplDOT)&
States f Tribes
1
Portland District CE
Local' Management
Group
Al Interested Agencies, Tribes
and smwdrtdWB
Al Agencies Above &
States and Tribes
I
Seattle District CE
Local Management
Group
Al Interested Agencies. Tribes
andSlakehokfers
Walla Walla District CE
Local Management
Group
AH Interested Agencies, Tribes
and Stakeholders
OR. Interagency Regulatory
State Working Crojp
NMFS, CarfS. USFW5. EPA
WA Irileragency Regulator)1
State Working Group
NMFS, CWp4. USFW5, EPA
ID. Interagency Regulatwy
State Working Grcop
NMFS. Corps. U5FWS, EPA
Figure 1-2. Structure of the Regional Dredging Team
Decision-making
With the exception of possible amendments to Chapter 3, which are the responsibility of the
RDT, RSET operates by consensus to amend this SEF, provides guidance about the
implementation of this SEF (both the technical aspects and the interface with regulatory),
and supports and maintains the database.
1.6.2 RSET Subcommittees
Much of RSET work is performed by subcommittees. Subcommittees have conducted
research and prepared technical and policy recommendations in the form of issue papers.
Issues papers that have been developed to date are presented in Appendix C. The issue
papers provide the record of RSET's deliberations. Once an issue paper is prepared by a
technical subcommittee, it is forwarded to the policy subcommittee for review and comment
to ensure the recommendations and supporting information are clear and necessary
coordination has occurred with other subcommittees. Each issue paper is then forwarded to
the entire RSET for review. Future changes to this SEF will require concurrence of the
RDT with comment and recommendations from RSET.
The current subcommittees include the following:
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
1-12
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Policy,
SQG,
Chemical Analyte,
Biological Testing, and
Bioaccumulation.
RSET Policy Subcommittee may form other subcommittees as needed to critically evaluate
emerging issues.
1.6.3 SEF Continuous Improvement/Adaptive Management
A very important aspect of this SEF is its ability to continuously evolve. As new
information becomes available, the RSET agencies will need to revise and refine all aspects
of the program, and this must take place in a publicly accessible forum. The first
mechanism for ensuring this is regular meetings similar to or concurrent with Sediment
Management Annual Review Meetings (SMARMs). RSET shall meet at least yearly. If
these meetings fail to occur, any RSET member may request, in writing, that such a meeting
be held. If a meeting is not held within 3 months, the issue will be elevated to the RDT.
In January of each year, the RSET policy committee will meet and compile issues of
concern and proposed changes to the program. The team will develop issue papers on those
program aspects that appear in need of revision. Any RSET member or subcommittee may
use the issue paper as a means of requesting a meeting. For instance, if there is a need to
address a new chemical testing procedure, the Chemical Analyte Subcommittee would
forward an issue paper with recommendations to the chairs of RSET's policy subcommittee.
If the subcommittee has requested a full RSET meeting to address this issue, the policy
subcommittee shall convene a full RSET meeting within 3 months. If they fail to do so, the
subcommittee chair may elevate the issue.
Fundamentally, RSET members share a strong commitment to making this SEF a "living
document."
1.6.4 Regulatory/Technical Sediment Interface
The interface between regulatory agencies and technical sediment issues is described in
Chapter 3. RSET has a responsibility to monitor the effectiveness of this interface and to
make recommendations.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 1-13 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
1.6.5 Region-Wide Interpretation of Test Results
The Pacific Northwest as defined in this manual roughly follows the boundaries of the
regional federal agencies signatory to this manual. The intention is that all federal and state
agencies utilize the same evaluation process when assessing sediments for their various
regulatory responsibilities in the Pacific Northwest. The one exception to this is EPA
Region 10's responsibility for Alaska. EPA has suggested that this SEF be considered at a
future date for use in Alaska, but it will require a similar review process to this manual to
determine its suitability for the region.
It is recognized that systemic region-wide interpretation of test results will be an evolving
process. Differences in test interpretation are necessary for freshwater versus marine
waters, as well as due to differing pathways of concern, species of concern, and differences
in state and federal agencies policies and regulations. RSET will work together assessing
and interpreting sediment-related projects. For the near term, there will be case-by-case
interpretations necessary until this SEF is fully developed. RSET will continually update
and refine the interpretation of test results with the eventual goal of region-wide
interpretation. This will require the review and approval of the NSC and, for more
controversial issues, the Executive Steering Committee.
1.6.6 Database Management
RSET management and the decision-making process regarding the database are discussed in
Chapter 12.
1.6.7 Dispute Resolution
Once an issue paper is sent to the Policy Subcommittee, the expectation is that the paper
will be presented at the next RSET plenary meeting for discussion and resolution. The
paper may be elevated to the OMC for the following reasons:
The RSET Policy Subcommittee chooses to elevate it immediately, rather than
presenting it to the full RSET for a decision;
The Policy Subcommittee and the subcommittee presenting the paper are unable to
reach resolution about the contents of the paper;
The full RSET is unable to come to consensus and feels that (a) further deliberation
or (b) referring the question back to the subcommittee is not likely to be productive;
Once an issue paper has been presented to the Policy Subcommittee, RSET has a
maximum of 18 months to resolve the issue before it is automatically elevated to
NSC.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 1-14 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Once elevation is triggered, the Policy Subcommittee will work with the subcommittee
chair to prepare a staff paper equally representing all aspects of the issue for review by
NSC.
1.6.8 Public Involvement/National Environmental Policy Act
This SEF is a continuation of a sediment evaluation process started in the Pacific Northwest
more than 20 years ago with the advent of PSDDA. All updates and improvements over the
years to this process have had full public involvement and appropriate state and federal
environmental compliance, either in the form of a 103 MPRSA or 401/404 CWA public
notices and/or NEPA documentation. This SEF public involvement process will continue to
fully include all affected public. This process will be finalized in a Regional 401/404/103
assessment and public notice with references to past environmental documentation. All
comments received prior to or during the public notice process will be fully considered in
the final version of this manual. The process will culminate with the signing of this SEF by
all state and federal agencies concurring in its use as the assessment process for the Pacific
Northwest.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 1-15 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
2. SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
2.1 OVERVIEW
Several state and federal entities have regulatory or proprietary authority governing the
management of contaminated sediment (CS) and dredged material. For the assessment and
management of CS, federal agencies that have regulatory authority over site investigations
and cleanups are EPA, USFWS, and NMFS. States exercise their regulatory authority via
their cleanup statutes.
At the federal level, the Corps and EPA share the responsibility for regulating the discharge
of dredged material. In the state of Washington, regulation is shared by Ecology, WDNR,
and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). In Oregon, this regulation is
carried out by ODEQ, Division of State Lands, and Department of Land Conservation and
Development. In Idaho, regulation is carried out by IDEQ.
This chapter gives a brief overview of agency laws, regulations, and authorities as they
relate to the assessment and characterization of CS and dredging and disposal of sediments.
2.2 FEDERAL REGULATIONS OVERVIEW
The following sections summarize federal regulations that apply to sediments.
2.2.1 Dredged Material Management
The Clean Water Act (CWA) governs discharges of dredged material into "waters of the
United States," defined as all waters landward of the baseline of the territorial sea. The
Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) governs the transportation of
dredged material seaward of the baseline (in ocean waters) for the purpose of disposal.
The geographical jurisdictions of MPRSA and CWA are indicated in Figure 2-1. As shown
in Figure 2-1, an overlap of jurisdiction exists within the territorial sea. The precedence of
MPRSA or CWA in the area of the territorial sea is defined in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 230.2 (b) and 33 CFR 336.0 (b). Material dredged from waters of the
United States and disposed in the territorial sea is evaluated under MPRSA. In general,
dredged material discharged as fill (e.g., beach nourishment, island creation, or underwater
berms) and placed within the territorial sea is evaluated under the CWA. In addition, all
activities regulated by these
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 2-1 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
Figure 2-1. Geographic Jurisdictions of MPRSA and CWA
statutes must comply with the applicable requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), as well as other federal laws, regulations, and Executive Orders that
apply to activities involving the discharge of dredged material. NEPA usually acts as an
umbrella authority to ensure all applicable environmental requirements are complied with
for federal dredging projects. Below is an overview of MPRSA, CWA, and other federal
laws applicable to the regulation of dredged materials.
2.2.2 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10/Clean Water Act Section 404
The Corps administers a regulatory program under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899, which requires a permit from the Secretary of the Army for work and
construction of structures in navigable waters, and Section 404 of CWA for discharge of
dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States. When a project requires a
permit under both Section 10 and Section 404, one application is processed concurrently as
a single Section 10/404 permit, such as when both dredging and disposal/filling are
necessary, as is often the case with in-water or nearshore disposal.
The CWA applies to "waters of the United States." The Corps' administrative definition of
"waters of the United States" extends to all waters, including lakes, streams, mudflats,
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
2-2
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
wetlands, and sloughs, and "the use, degradation, or destruction of which" could affect
interstate or foreign commerce. This definition includes wetlands adjacent to these waters.
Section 404, therefore, covers more than Section 10 (CWA Section 502(7) and Section
230.3 of the Guidelines).
All parties, including federal agencies, are subject to regulation under Section 10 and
Section 404. Though the Corps does not issue itself a permit, these same regulations govern
the Corps' own dredging and disposal activities.
Section 10. A Section 10 permit is required for any dredging activity in navigable waters,
regardless of the location of the disposal site. For purposes of Section 10, navigable waters
generally are those United States waters below the mean high water mark and those used or
usable for interstate or foreign commerce. A dredging project with no return flow to the
waters of the United States would require only a Section 10 permit.
Section 404. A Section 404 permit is required only for discharges of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States. A Section 404 permit is required when dredged
material is disposed in either an aquatic or nearshore environment. It is also required when
dredged material will be hydraulically placed in an upland environment and effluent from
the disposal will be returned to waters of the United States. This can occur where dredged
material that is not dewatered is placed in nearshore or upland disposal sites.
Under Section 404(b)(l) of CWA, the Administrator of EPA has developed, in conjunction
with the Secretary of the Army, Guidelines for evaluating specific proposed aquatic or
nearshore disposal sites.
The Guidelines evaluate potential disposal sites based on potential impacts on the physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics of the aquatic environment. The Guidelines specify
the following four conditions for the selection of any aquatic site for the disposal of dredged
or fill material (Section 404 (b)(l) Final Rule 40 CFR 230):
1. There must be no other practicable alternatives available that would have less
adverse impacts on the aquatic environment.
2. The disposal must not result in violations of applicable state water quality standards,
toxic effluent standards, marine sanctuary requirements, or requirements of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA).
3. The disposal must not cause or contribute to significant degradation of the waters of
the United States.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 2-3 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
4. The permit applicant must show that all appropriate and practicable steps have been
taken to minimize potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic
environment.
While considering the Guidelines, the Corps conducts a public interest review and considers
comments from agencies and the public. The final permit decision is based on whether the
activity is in compliance with the Guidelines (including sediment quality) and a
determination that the proposed activity is not contrary to the public interest. The public
interest review includes a broad range of factors, from environmental concerns to public
health issues to property ownership as well as compliance with other federal laws. The
Corps has substantial authority to require mitigation to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or
compensate for resource losses. In cases where no aquatic site is proposed for disposal, the
Corps' decision to issue a permit is based solely on the public interest review and not the
Guidelines.
EPA retains oversight authority regarding the Corps' decision to issue a permit and may
veto permit approval if it concludes that the discharge of dredged or fill materials would
have an "unacceptable adverse effect" on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and
fisheries, wildlife, or recreational areas.
2.2.3 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
MPRSA of 1972, as amended (Public Law 92-532), specifies that all proposed operations
involving the transportation and dumping of dredged material into the ocean have to be
evaluated to determine the potential environmental impact of such activities. Section 103 of
MPRSA appoints the Corps as the permitting agency, subject to EPA review. Regulations
are at 40 CFR 220-228. An Ocean Testing Manual has been jointly issued by EPA and the
Corps (EPA/Corps 1991) in which a "tiered" testing approach is employed. Section 102 of
MPRSA requires EPA, in consultation with the Corps, to develop environmental criteria
that must be complied with before any proposed ocean-disposal activity is allowed to
proceed. The criteria call for no unacceptable adverse effects. Section 103 of MPRSA
assigns the Corps the specific responsibility for authorizing the transport of dredged
material for ocean disposal at designated sites.
In evaluating proposed ocean disposal activities, the Corps is required to apply criteria
developed by EPA relating to the effects of the proposed disposal activity. In addition, in
reviewing permit applications, the Corps is also required to consider navigation, economic,
and industrial development, and foreign and domestic commerce, as well as the availability
of alternatives to ocean disposal. EPA has the primary environmental oversight role in
reviewing the Corps' determination of compliance with the ocean-disposal criteria relating to
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 2-4 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
the effects of the proposed disposal. If EPA determines the criteria are not met, disposal may
not occur without a waiver of the criteria by EPA (40 CFR 225.2 (e)). In addition, EPA has
authority under Section 102 to designate ocean-disposal sites. The Corps is required to use
such sites for ocean disposal to the extent feasible. Section 103 authorizes the Corps, where
use of an EPA-designated site is not feasible or a site has not been designated, to select ocean
disposal sites. In exercising this authority, the Corps utilizes the EPA site-selection criteria
(40 CFR 228), and the site selection is subject to EPA concurrence.
2.2.4 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended (Public Law 92-583),
declared a national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and
development of the coastal zone. The law grants to state and local governments the primary
responsibility for planning and regulation of land and water uses in the coastal zone. The
Coastal Programs Division within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management is responsible for advancing national
coastal management objectives and maintaining and strengthening state and territorial
coastal management capabilities. It supports states through financial assistance, mediation,
technical services, and information, and participation in priority state, regional, and local
forums. States are charged with developing and administering land and water use
management programs for the coastal zone. Federal projects within the coastal zone,
including dredging and disposal projects, must be consistent, to the maximum extent
practicable, with the approved state programs. For nonfederal projects, a required Corps
permit cannot be issued until Ecology and/or Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development has concurred that the project is in compliance with the approved coastal zone
management plan. Concurrence with CZMA is assumed after a 6-month period has elapsed
since the Corps' public notice.
2.2.5 Endangered Species Act of 1973
The purpose of the ESA is to conserve the Nation's natural heritage for the enjoyment and
benefit of current and future generations. The ESA was passed in 1973, replacing the
Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969. Since that time, it has been amended
several times. The ESA provides for the conservation of species that are endangered or
threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range, and the
conservation of the ecosystems on which they depend. "Species" is defined in the ESA as
including a species, a subspecies or, for vertebrates only, a distinct population segment
(DPS). Pacific salmon are listed as evolutionarily significant units, which are considered
equivalent to a DPS. A species is considered endangered if it is in danger of extinction
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 2-5 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A species is considered threatened if it
is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future. After a species is
listed, a recovery plan is prepared that identifies conservation measures to help the species
recover.
NMFS and USFWS share responsibility for implementing the ESA. Generally, USFWS
manages land and freshwater species, while NMFS manages marine species, including
anadromous salmon (ocean species that return to rivers to spawn). Section 7 of the ESA
requires federal agencies to ensure their actions do not jeopardize endangered or threatened
species or their critical habitats. If a project could affect a threatened or endangered
species, consultation with USFWS and/or NMFS is required.
2.2.6 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 prohibits, with certain exceptions,
the take of marine mammals in United States waters and by United States citizens on the
high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the
United States. The passage of the MMPA gave the U.S. Department of Commerce, through
NMFS, the responsibility for implementing the MMPA for all species of whales, dolphins,
porpoises, seals, and sea lions. In addition, NMFS administers the provisions under the
ESA for ESA-listed marine mammal species. Under these acts, NMFS works to conserve,
protect, and recover marine mammal species in United States waters and on the high seas by
developing national policy, implementing recovery planning, and conducting scientific
research. Federal agencies are requires to consult with NMFS on actions that may affect
marine mammals.
2.2.7 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996
The Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) revised the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act to become the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSA). The creation of the MSA marked a significant change in NMFS' legislative
mandate to manage living marine resources. In particular, the SFA brought substantial
changes in the requirements to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished fisheries. Each
fishery management plan (FMP) is required to specify objective and measurable criteria for
determining when a stock is overfished or when overfishing is occurring, and to establish
measures for rebuilding the stock. The national standards outlined in the MSA, which
represent the overall principles by which fishery management programs are developed and
judged, were revised by the SFA. The MSA, as amended, contains 10 national standards
for fishery conservation and management with which all FMPs must comply.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 2-6 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
The Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) provisions of the SFA require councils to describe and
identify EFH for all fisheries, and to minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects
of fishing on EFH. EFH is defined as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for
spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." In addition, the SFA requires that
other federal agencies consult with NMFS on actions that may adversely affect EFH.
NMFS is required to recommend measures that can be taken by the consulting federal
agency to conserve EFH.
2.2.8 National Environmental Policy Act
NEPA of 1969 was one of the first laws ever written that established the broad national
framework for protecting our environment. NEPA's basic policy is to ensure that all
branches of government give proper consideration to the environment prior to undertaking
any major federal action that significantly affects the environment. To meet this
requirement, federal agencies are required to prepare environmental assessments and/or
environmental impact statements, which analyze the likelihood of impacts from alternative
courses of action to meet the purpose and need of the proposed action. Dredging and
disposal actions proposed by the Corps, other federal agencies, states, and the public must
comply with NEPA, either through the direct preparation of a NEPA document, or through
NEPA compliance associated with the granting of a CWA Section 404 permit.
2.3 TRIBAL REGULATIONS
Tribal regulations are being evaluated and addressed by the RSET agencies. It is RSET's
intention to have this completed in the final SEF.
2.4 WASHINGTON STATE REGULATIONS
2.4.1 Section 401 Certification Program
Section 401 of the CWA requires state certification that any federally permitted project
discharging into United States waters will not violate state water quality standards that are
based on federal water quality criteria. For nonfederal dredging, Section 401 certification is
a precondition to compliance with Section 404 guidelines and is required before receiving a
Section 404 permit for disposal of dredged or fill material. The Section 401 certification is
required when dredged material is to be placed in an aquatic or nearshore environment, or
when dredged material is hydraulically placed in an upland environment where return flows
may affect waters of the United States.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 2-7 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Ecology is the agency for certifying under Section 401 that a proposed discharge will
comply with state water quality standards. As a condition of certification, Ecology may
apply any requirement or policy of state law that protects aquatic habitat. In situations
where the state has no jurisdiction (e.g., tribal lands and military installations), EPA
provides Section 401 certification. EPA may also comment on compliance with state and
federal water quality under Section 401. These conditions may be accepted by the Corps
and used as conditions in the Section 404 permit.
2.4.2 Hydraulic Project Approval
A State Hydraulic Project Approval permit is required for actions affecting the natural flow
of waters. This generally means any action in saltwater or a stream below the ordinary high
water mark. The permit application must be acted upon by the WDFW within 30 days after
receipt of the full permit application, including determination of compliance under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
2.4.2.1 Aquatic Lands Act
The Aquatic Lands Act, Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Chapter 79.90, gives WDNR
proprietary authority to manage state-owned aquatic lands in trust for the public. In
accordance with the Aquatic Lands Act, and implementing regulations cited as Chapter
332-30 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), WDNR has the power to lease
state-owned aquatic lands for development and charge a fee for the discharge or use of
dredged material. Aquatic or nearshore disposal sites can be subject to WDNR's
management. However, WDNR does not directly control upland disposal of dredged
material, except on WDNR-managed lands.
2.4.3 Model Toxics Control Act
The Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) is the Washington State regulation governing all
remedial actions. MTCA was enacted in 1988 by an initiative of the people. The law has
three purposes: 1) clean up contaminated sites, 2) improve management of hazardous
waste, and 3) improve the environment through pollution prevention. MTCA is the
"parent" state regulation that refers to the Sediment Management Standards (SMSs) for
details on sediment cleanup and source control.
2.4.3.1 Sediment Management Standards
The state of Washington has adopted SMSs as Chapter 173-204 WAC. SMSs were
promulgated for the purpose of reducing and ultimately eliminating adverse effects on
biological resources and significant health threats to humans from surface sediment
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 2-8 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
contamination. They apply to marine, low salinity, and freshwater surface sediments within
the state of Washington.
SMSs provide two levels of effects specific to the contamination of marine sediments: a
"No Adverse Effects" criteria (defined as the Sediment Quality Standard [SQS]) and a
"Minor Adverse Effects" criteria (defined as the Cleanup Screening Level [CSL]). These
criteria guide decisions pertaining to sediment cleanup and source control actions.
The SQS represents the goal to be attained for all sediments. However, it is recognized that
this goal (No Adverse Effects) may be impractical in some cases. The CSL represents an
acceptable upper limit (Minor Adverse Effects level) of chemical contamination.
2.4.3.2 Shoreline Management Act
The Washington Shoreline Management Act of 1971, RCW Chapter 90.58, requires a
permit for any "substantial development" within the shorelines of the state. The Shoreline
Management Act defines "shorelines of the state" to include designated water bodies and
their submerged beds within the state's territorial limits and all land areas 200 feet landward
of ordinary high water and adjacent wetlands. Local jurisdictions have the responsibility of
overseeing compliance with the Shoreline Management Act. Ecology's Shorelands
Program oversees and reviews municipalities' plans and decisions as well as provides an
avenue for appeals.
Local Shoreline Master Programs have been adopted as state regulations under the
Administrative Procedures Act. These state regulations, as well as others affecting the
quality of the shoreline environment, were approved by the Secretary of Commerce as the
state's Coastal Zone Management Program. Thus, in Washington, a local Shoreline Permit,
which has been issued and survived appeals, is the mechanism for determining compliance
with federal CZMA.
Preferential uses for shorelines include the following (in their order of preference):
1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest,
2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline,
3. Result in long-term over short-term benefit,
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline,
5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines,
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline, and
7. Provide for any other element as defined in (the Shoreline Management Act)
deemed appropriate or necessary.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 2-9 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
The affected local jurisdiction may issue a shoreline substantial development permit if the
proposed use is consistent with both the local Shoreline Master Program and the policies of
the Shoreline Management Act. Local zoning and land use requirements are integrated with
the Shoreline Master Program process.
2.5 OREGON STATE REGULATIONS
2.5.1 Coastal Program Approval
Federal projects and those projects receiving a federal permit are reviewed by the
Department of Land Conservation and Development for consistency with enforceable state
and local policies of the Oregon coastal management program. Projects complying with
this program are issued a coastal program approval.
2.5.2 Section 401 Certification Program
Section 401 of the federal CWA requires that applicants for federal permits or licenses
obtain a 401 water quality certification from the state the proposed project is located in, if
the proposed activity may result in a discharge to waters of the United States. Section 401
certifications condition proposed projects as appropriate to ensure the activity will not result
in a violation of state water quality standards. ODEQ is the state agency authorized to issue
401 certifications. In areas where the state does not have jurisdiction (i.e., tribal lands),
EPA provides the 401 certifications. For dredging projects, a Section 401 certification is
required before a Section 404 permit can be issued. Section 401 certifications for dredging
projects include conditions for dredging operations and disposal, if the material is proposed
to be placed in an aquatic or nearshore environment, or when dredged material is proposed
to be hydraulically placed in an upland environment where return flows may affect waters
of the United States.
2.5.3 Removal/Fill Permit
The Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) issues a permit for any activity that proposes
removal, fill, or alterations equal to or exceeding 50 cubic yards (cy) of material within the
beds or banks of the waters of the state of Oregon. In addition, any amount of removal,
filling, or alteration in state scenic waterways and areas designated essential salmonid
streams requires approval from the DSL. Examples of projects that require a DSL permit
include gravel mining, dredging, gold mining, placement of riprap, bulkheads, land
reclamation, channel alteration or relocation, and stream crossings.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 2-10 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
2.5.4 State Beaches
Oregon State Parks issues permits for any activity on state beaches, including placement of
dredged material.
2.5.5 Solid and Hazardous Waste
Dredged sediment may be subject to state solid waste or hazardous waste rules depending
on the level of contamination and how the material will be used or disposed. Figure 2-2
shows how Oregon's solid waste permitting process relates to other state or federal permits.
2.5.6 Cleanup Authority
ODEQ oversees cleanup of contaminated sites, including those involving sediments via a
process that parallels the EPA Superfund process. A remedial investigation, risk
assessment, and feasibility study are completed to provide the basis for selecting a remedy.
Oregon has specific rules defining acceptable risk, which can be found at OAR 340-122-
0115.
2.6 IDAHO STATE REGULATIONS
2.6.1 Section 401 Certification Program
Section 401 of the CWA requires state certification that any federally permitted project
discharging into United States waters will not violate state water quality standards that are
based on federal water quality criteria. For nonfederal dredging, Section 401 certification is
a precondition to compliance with Section 404 guidelines and is required before receiving a
Section 404 permit for disposal of dredged or fill material. The Section 401 certification is
required when dredged material is to be placed in an aquatic or nearshore environment, or
when dredged material is to be hydraulically placed in an upland environment where return
flows may affect waters of the United States.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 2-11 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
Dredging Need
Identified
Obtain permits
sampling
requirements for
relevant agencies
U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers
(Corps)
Department of
State Lands
(DSL)
DEQ Water Quality
and Solid Waste
Programs
Collect and analyze
sedimentsamples
btam Corps
& DSL permits &
Water Quality
Certification if
needed
Unconfined
open-water
disposal
Sediment
contaminated?
Upland
disposal?
Obtain
Solid Waste
Clean Fill
Exemption
Confined
aquatic disposal
Upland
disposal?
Obtain Solid
Waste Permit
or Letter
Authorization
Upland
Disposal
Figure 2-2. The Relationship between the ODEQ's Dredge-related Solid Waste Permits
and the Permits of Other State and Federal Programs
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
2-12
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
IDEQ is the agency designated in the state of Idaho to make 401 certification decisions.
Currently, the duties of this program are coordinated from the IDEQ state office and
administered from six regional offices. IDEQ's certification procedure is summarized in a
flowchart presented on the IDEQ web site at the following URL:
http://www.deq.state.id.us/water/surface_water/401%20Guidance.pdf
2.6.2 Other Idaho Authorities
The Idaho Department of Lands administers the Lake Encroachment permit program. The
Idaho Department of Water Resources administers the Stream Channel Protection Act.
Both agencies have authority over certain dredging activities.
Any land application of dredged sediments in Idaho is subject to IDEQ regulations on
fugitive dust emissions. Requirements are outlined in IDEQ's Ruler for the Control of Air
Pollution in Idaho (IDAPA 58.01.01.650-651).
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 2-13 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
3. REGULATORY PROCESS AND SEDIMENT EVALUATION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter focuses on the regulatory processes involved in sediment assessment and
project approval. Depending upon the nature and location of the project, other regulatory or
enforcement processes (state remediation, CERCLA) may also come into play.
This section discusses the regulatory processes that will be in place to manage the sediment
characterization practices in the Pacific Northwest. As discussed in Chapter 2, there are many
federal and state regulations that govern the management of both uncontaminated sediments
and contaminated sediments (CSs). This chapter applies to all Corps activities involving
sediment.
3.2 OVERVIEW
The appropriate assessment of sediments is a critical component to all dredging and site
investigation sediment-impacting activities (e.g., navigation- or remediation-related
dredging or disposal activities, habitat restoration efforts, etc.). As such, the formation of
RSET provides a multi-agency center of sediment expertise that may be accessed by the
members and agency programs for commenting and evaluating on sediment projects
throughout the Pacific Northwest. RSET will be responsible for review and comment on all
permitting actions under the Clean Water Act (CWA) 404/Marine Protection Research and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) and Corps Civil Works program.
This chapter summarizes the state and federal regulatory processes necessary to receive
approval of dredging or sediment evaluation projects undertaken in the Pacific Northwest
using this SEF manual. Distinctions are made among three processes, including:
1. The CWA/MPRSA permit process through the Corps' Regulatory Branch for
sediment-impacting projects (e.g., new or maintenance dredging, beneficial use);
2. The verification or renewal of approval for ongoing permitted or Civil Works
actions; and
3. The sediment evaluation process to evaluate the risk of in situ CSs and the ultimate
remedy techniques and option(s) selected.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 3-1 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
3.3 CONSISTENCY IN APPLICATION OF THIS SEF
One of the goals of this SEF is the consistent and predictable application of evaluation
procedures to sediment-related projects. This consistent application will allow for
predictability, better project planning, and the removal of delays caused by changes in
project scope due to sediment issues. In addition, the application of consistent guidelines
and processes will speed the regulatory review process and ultimately result in more timely
review of projects and permit applications. RSET will also have a role in ensuring that the
use of this SEF in the context of Section 404 of the CWA, Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act, and Section 103 of MPRSA will be consistent among the three districts. The
process to be used by the Corps' districts is described in Section 3.8.
3.4 REGULATORY PROCESS
Figure 3-1 illustrates the standard regulatory process for acquiring the major permits
required for a new proposal (the example presented is for a generic dredging project). This
process involves a second integrated process, which is the sediment material evaluation
process described below. The standard process consists of a series of progressive steps
applicable to most dredging projects, as summarized below:
A Section 10/404/103 permit application is submitted to the Regulatory Branch of
the Walla Walla, Portland, or Seattle District Corps, as appropriate. The permit
application is forwarded to the local RSET, which then initiates the
sediment/dredged material evaluation process. Note: Applicants are strongly
encouraged to begin this evaluation process prior to submitting a formal application.
The sediment evaluation process is carried out by the applicant with guidance from
RSET and the Regulatory Branch. The adequacy of the resulting information is
verified by RSET. If the information is determined to be adequate, the permit
application is considered complete from the perspective of the sediment evaluation
process. A memorandum documenting the process will be prepared, and the project
is then returned to the Regulatory Branch/Project Manager to begin or continue the
standard Public Notice process.
Prior to or concurrent with the Corps' permit process, dredging proponents will be
required to obtain permits/approvals from local jurisdictions and/or state agencies.
Likely permits/approvals required in the state of Washington include:
o Shoreline Permits,
o Hydraulic Project Approval Permit, and
o Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 3-2 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
Sediment
Evaluation
Process
(Figure 3-2)
Complete
Biological
Assessment
Figure 3-1. Example of New Dredging Project
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
3-3
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Likely permits/approvals required in the state of Oregon include:
o Removal/Fill Permit,
o Section 401 Water Quality Certification,
o Coastal Program Approval, and
o State Beaches.
Likely permit/approvals required in the state of Idaho include:
o Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and
o Stream Alteration Permit.
The permit approval process includes consultation between federal action agencies
(Corps or EPA) to ensure that actions do not pose jeopardy to Endangered Species
Act (ESA)-listed species or their critical habitat or essential fish habitat.
Information developed through RSET involvement contributes to these
consultations and decisions, but completion of the sediment assessment is not in
itself completion of the consultations/processes.
During the Public Notice process, the Regulatory Branch may receive comments
from the general public and state and federal agencies. Comments that bring up
potential issues of concern will be passed on to the proponent for response.
In Washington, the dredging proponent must get a disposal site use authorization
from WDNR if one of the approved open-water sites is involved.
The Regulatory Branch issues a Section 10/404/103 permit that incorporates the provisions
of state 401 certification and other appropriate conditions that result as a response to
comments, from consultation, or as revisions to the project.
3.5 RSET PROCESS
Each member agency of RSET is responsible for internal coordination, and for bringing
issues and concerns regarding sediment assessment to the RSET team. RSET is organized
into three state teams that correspond to the Corps' districts, with the Corps assuming
coordination activities as part of its regulatory and navigation responsibilities. In addition
to these state teams, a regional RSET will meet quarterly to aid in coordination of activities
and to identify those issues that are of regional importance. This regional coordination will
allow the agencies to leverage limited resources and ensure consistent application of this
SEP.
The sediment evaluation process is integrated into both the overall permit process and the
verification of existing permits (see Figure 3-2). Eventually, the RDT expects that other
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 3-4 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
appropriate state/
Is the project within/
near a cleanup site?
federal agencies
Suitable for
evaluation under
SEF
(Chapters 4 and 5)
Develop Sampling
and Analysis Plan
SAP Approved?
Suitability Review
and Concurrence/
Nonconcurrence
Figure 3-2. Sediment Evaluation Process
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
3-5
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
agency programs will work with RSET on specific projects. At this time, use of RSET by
nonregulatory actions is discretionary for the agency or program. An information/request is
submitted to RSET, either by the applicant or the Regulatory Project Manager. Some
projects will require an initial screening (i.e., nationwide permits, minor actions) with no
further testing or evaluation necessary. For other projects, more information will be
required.
If RSET can make a favorable suitability determination based upon the existing
information, a memo will be prepared and signed by the RSET State Team. This initial
RSET evaluation will be completed within 30 days of receiving complete information from
the applicant. No further sediment evaluation will be required. If the RSET State Team
finds that the first level information is not adequate to make a suitability determination, the
applicant will be advised to prepare and submit a proposed Sampling and Analysis Plan
(SAP) to acquire additional information. The SAP must be approved by RSET. The RSET
State Team may take up to 30 days for this review, with an additional 15 days for resolution
of any existing issues and completion of documentation. Once a SAP is approved, the
applicant conducts sampling and analysis of the sediment material as directed by the SAP in
order to furnish the information required in one of the subsequent levels.
Once sampling is complete, the applicant prepares and submits a report of the results of the
sampling and analysis effort to RSET. RSET reviews the adequacy of the information and
prepares a suitability determination and distributes it for review and concurrence by the
agencies that developed and approved this SEP. The review process may take up to 30
days, with an additional 15 days for issue resolution and documentation. Those projects
involving large and complex data sets may require additional time for review and
documentation.
3.6 CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS
The agencies that participate in RSET have established a process for the review and
approval of sediment assessment efforts, and developed a process for resolution of disputes
when conflicting agency positions and authorities surface during the sediment assessment
process. This process is a modification and extension of the RDT. The RDT was
established by the Pacific Northwest Regional Administrators (Charter signed in July 2002).
At present, the RDT includes the four federal agencies involved in RSET, including NMFS,
USFWS, EPA, and the Corps. When an issue is elevated from the RSET Regional Team, it
will go to the RDT's NSC. If a RSET issue needs to be elevated to the Operational
Management Committee (OMC) (Tier 3 of the RDT), or eventually to the Executive
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 3-6 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Administrators (Tier 4), the states will be represented at each of these levels for the duration
of the RSET discussion.
3.7 VERIFICATION OF MULTI-YEAR MAINTENANCE DREDGING PERMITS
Corps' permits for maintenance dredging may be issued for a period of up to 10 years.
During this time, no additional Corps permitting activity may be required. Neither the
Biological Opinion from NMFS or USFWS, nor the state water quality certification are
issued for 10 years. These will need to be renewed during the life of the permit. In
addition, the dredged material evaluation process has a different set of approval
requirements and timelines that focus on a year-to-year evaluation of maintenance dredging
projects to ensure the material is still suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal. These
requirements are covered under the concepts of "recency" and "frequency" described in
Chapter 5. Holders of permits for maintenance dredging will have to continue to coordinate
with RSET to determine if additional sampling and analysis is necessary before dredging
begins in any given year. Each dredging event will be evaluated based on the state of the
science, and new information may change evaluation requirements.
3.8 PROCESS FOR CORPS CIVIL WORKS DREDGING
The majority of current Corps civil works dredging involves the maintenance of existing
channels and harbor ways. The coordination of maintenance dredging in federally
authorized channels is governed by the process described in 33 CFR 335-338 (Discharge of
Dredged Material into Waters of the United States or Ocean Waters; Operations and
Maintenance). Generally, the coordination process for civil works dredging projects
mirrors the regulatory program, with a few procedural exceptions. Corps dredging is
subject to requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), CWA and
amendments, MPRSA, and ESA. The general steps in coordinating Corps civil works
dredging include the following:
1) A public notice is issued describing the proposed work. If a new sediment
characterization is necessary, data are collected and analyzed prior to the issuance of
the public notice.
2) An environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA) is
prepared for the project. Typically, for maintenance dredging, a "Finding of No
Significant Impact" or FONSI is prepared in conjunction with the completion of a
CWA Section 404 (b)(l) evaluation. If an EIS is prepared for new dredging work,
Corps authorization to proceed is documented in a Record of Decision document.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 3-7 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
For work found to have "no significant impact," a document called a Statement of
Findings (SoF) is completed at the end of the public coordination period.
3) For projects in the coastal zone, a determination of consistency with the enforceable
provisions of the state coastal zone program is prepared and submitted to the
appropriate state agency along with the public notice. The federal Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) consistency concurrence will be requested from the state.
4) If threatened or endangered species are known or suspected in the project area, the
biological opinion will be checked to ensure that the activity is covered. NMFS
and/or USFWS will be notified that the activity is included in the biological opinion.
If the activity is not included as part of the existing biological opinion, a biological
assessment for the project will be prepared.
5) Any substantive comments received as a result of the public notice will be addressed
to the greatest extent practicable. Maintenance dredging is not initiated until all
necessary environmental coordination is completed, including the receipt of a water
quality certification from the applicable state. For ocean disposal, a letter of
concurrence for the activity is required from EPA Region 10.
3.9 CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT EVALUATION
This SEF stemmed from the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) program
and the Dredged Material Evaluation Framework (DMEF) for the lower Columbia River;
therefore, it still holds an emphasis on dredged material evaluation. The premise of this
SEF is a risk-based evaluation and, as such, is an approach that could prove useful to other
regulatory programs. The expectation is that for the near term, state and federal dredging
and state cleanup in Washington and Oregon will be consistent with this guidance, and
Idaho cleanup and EPA Superfund may find this document a useful resource. Consistency
across the board with Superfund projects is a reasonable goal, but may not always be
desirable or possible. With coordination between RSET and CS programs, an integrated
approach is possible. Therefore, a cleanup project may follow the process outlined here, but
because of site conditions, source issues, etc., deviations from the process are likely.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 3-8 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
4. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This SEF utilizes an evaluation framework that considers multiple lines of evidence using a
phased approach process, where applicable, to reach management decisions. This section
presents processes for both dredging projects managed under Corps' jurisdiction (e.g.,
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act [CWA] or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act)
and dredging projects or site assessment projects that contain contaminated sediments.
Chapter 4 discusses both types of sediment evaluation processes because the sediment
assessment techniques are similar with the ultimate goal to arrive at a management decision.
Also, applicants are finding that many of the routine maintenance dredging projects contain
contaminated sediments (CSs). CSs are defined as unacceptable for open, in-water
disposal. The risk-based framework will guide the assessment/management process by
providing structure, organization, and flow for the actions to be taken in assessing risks and
making management decisions.
The objectives of the risk-based framework are as follows:
Ensure assessments are comprehensive, clear, and consistent and attempt to reduce
the uncertainties of the proposed action;
Ensure any evaluation that follows the steps of this SEF is complete in its
consideration and analysis of present and future exposures, effects, and risks on
human and ecological receptors of concerns, which will include consideration of
threatened and endangered species at the dredging location and disposal site for
dredging or CS projects;
Consider the likelihood for all possible routes of exposure (Figures 4-1 and 4-2) and
effects to ensure that required or important site-specific environmental factors are
not omitted from the evaluation process;
Provide a measure of clarity to sediment investigation and management to facilitate
meaningful participation in the assessment and decision-making process by
scientists, regulatory agencies, and representatives of affected communities;
Promote active stakeholder involvement to ensure the results of the assessment can
be successfully applied within the decision-making process; and
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 4-1 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
Media of
Exposure
Pathway
Secondary
Media
Pathway
Tertiary
Media
Direct
Contact
Direct
Contact
Bioaccumulation
Direct
Contact
Sediment I Disposal Transport Processes (Examples)
Method
Leaching
Surface Runoff
Volatilization
Bioaccumulation
Potential Receptors
-0) -ฃ= ~a E ฃ < 0) ^= -Q
)> ซ2 .- "5 =3 COo.'E=ro
1.E LL CQ^ I LUCOOI
> X X X X X X
> X X X
X X X X
X X X X
Consideration of these transport processes
are not addressed in this SEP.
Please refer to the following guidance manuals for additional
information on exposure pathways associated with these disposal
options.
1) Corps. 2003. Upland Testing Manaul, ERD/EL TR-03-1.
2) EPA. 1998. Guidance for In Situ Subaqueous Capping of
Contaminated Sediment, EPA 905-B96-004.
Figure 4-1. Dredging Generic Conceptual Site Model
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
Media of
Concern
Exposure
Pathway
Direct Contact
Sediment
Resuspension,
Solubilization
Secondary
Media
Pathway
Tertiary
Media
Bioaccumulation
Deposited
Sediment
Water Column
Redeposited
Tissue
Direct Contact
Potential Receptors
CD
CD
X
X
ro
E
ro
1
T3
m
ro
X X X X
(U
'o
(U
Q.
LU
ro
I
"ro
o
O
Figure 4-2. Site Investigation Generic Conceptual Site Model
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Ensure consistent and relevant application of the assessment and management
process (where possible) for projects whether they are for sediment assessment or
dredge material characterization.
The testing required under this guidance manual can be time consuming and expensive.
One of the objectives of this manual is to develop and refine procedures that will reduce
uncertainty and ultimately the time and cost of dredged material testing programs and CS
investigations. The basic framework consists of a phased or iterative evaluation process
that is consistent with available and upcoming national guidance. A generalized sediment
evaluation framework to make management decisions is presented in Figure 4-3.
4.2 CONSIDER PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Conceptual site models (CSMs) and project sampling and analysis plans (SAPs) are
developed and used to address specific programmatic goals. Knowledge of these
programmatic objectives must be factored into the assessment process to ensure a complete
set of information is collected and analyzed to aid in the decision-making process. The
degree of success achieved in using a specific sediment assessment framework within the
context of a regulatory program will be determined in large part by the extent to which
program-specific objectives are acknowledged and accounted for when designing and
applying the assessment framework.
4.2.1 Conceptual Site Model
A CSM is invaluable in establishing the appropriate technical and managerial approach for
addressing the specific issues associated with a project including disposal options, whether
it is a dredging project or a site assessment. Concurrent with the initial data collection and
analysis, a CSM for the site is also developed. A CSM identifies and describes contaminant
sources, the processes linking those sources to the sediment in question, and the physical,
chemical, and biological processes occurring within the sediment that affect exposure. It
also defines the receptors of concern (ROCs), and describes how ROCs are exposed to the
contaminants associated with the sediment. A CSM allows for a graphical representation of
the relationships between receptors and resources in the environment and the stressors to
which they may be exposed. The CSM can also provide an avenue for beginning to address
uncertainties in the relationships and exposure pathways and presence/absence of important
receptors at a particular project site or disposal location. A generic CSM for a dredging
project is presented in Figure 4-1, and a generic CSM for a contaminated site assessment is
presented in Figure 4-2.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 4-4 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
LU
LU
Define Project Scope
Project Goals
Existing Information
Conceptual Site Model
Screening Assessment
Compare Existing Data to Screening
Guidelines
Contaminants of Concern
Compile Initial Physical/Chemical Data
Is existing or
collected information
sufficient
for a management
decision?
N
Y
Management
Decision
LU
LJJ
SAP Deve
1
RSET Review
1
Collect Addil
|
ir v
Additional Direct Water
Chemical Issues Column Effects
Non-standard Elutriate Tests
Contaminants of Models
Concern
Fate and
Transport Issues
Ma
lopment 1
and Approval
ional Data
V 1
Direct Indirect
Benthic Effects Bioaccumulation
Effects
Solid Phase Bioaccumulation
Toxicity Tests Tests
Fish Tissue
Monitoring
Models
ir
nagement
Decision
Figure 4-3. Generalized Sediment Evaluation Framework to Make Management Decisions
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
4-5
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
The CSM provides a powerful tool for both the project proponent and the regulatory
agencies to communicate ecological, human health, or other issues among assessors,
managers, and interested parties. The CSM identifies the complete and potentially
complete exposure pathways, and provides a template to conduct exposure pathway
evaluations. It also provides a means to identify relevant receptors and potential response
actions. The CSM is dynamic in the sense that, when available, additional data are used to
refine and increase the accuracy of the CSM, as necessary, to reflect the current
understanding of the project, as well as guide in the decision-making process.
4.2.2 Developing Assessment Questions
The CSM will provide a basis for developing sediment and/or site-specific assessment
questions that must be answered to reach conclusions about whether the sediment/site poses
risk. The design and conduct of sediment assessments should be driven by these
sediment/site-specific questions. Developing these questions will lead to selecting the lines
of evidence and tools that will be used in the assessment. This progression of actions is
important because assessment tools vary in terms of their relevance to questions. For
example, the most widely used Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs) typically address
toxicity, but do not likely address a common assessment question: Is there a "reason to
believe" that bioaccumulative chemicals in the sediment pose an unacceptable risk to upper
trophic levels? Considerable effort should be devoted to formulating and refining specific
and detailed questions that must be answered to reach conclusions about the nature and
extent of bioaccumulative risks (see Chapter 9).
4.2.3 Dredging Projects
The primary purpose of a dredging project is to remove material to maintain or create water
depths to allow for safe passage or berthing of vessels. The evaluation of dredged material
is to determine whether there will be unacceptable impacts either during the dredging
process or at the disposal site. Figure 4-4 provides a general flow chart of technical
evaluation steps that could occur to evaluate sediments proposed for dredging and disposal.
The following assessment issues are of primary concern:
Ensuring the dredging process itself will not result in unacceptable impacts to the
environment at the dredging site;
Ensuring the disposal of dredged material will not adversely affect or degrade the
disposal site (in-water or in some cases on land);
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 4-6 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Figure 4-4. General Dredging Flow Chart
Dredge Project
Develop CSM
Existing
Information?
Compare with
Guideline Values
Open Water
Disposal
Management
Decision
Develop Study
Design, SAP
Collect Data
Evaluate Point-of-
Dredging Impacts
Evaluate Point-of-
Disposal Impacts
Sediments
Exceed
SQG?
Implement 401 Water
Quality Certificate
Requirements
Dredging Elutriate
Test
Elutriate
Exceed
WQC?
Mixing Zone
Evaluation
Elutriate
Exceed WQC at
Mixing Zone
Boundary(a)?
Open-Water
Disposal
Sediments
Exceed SL or
Biological
Criteria?
Evaluate Data
with RSET
Suitable for Open-
Water Disposal
Evaluate Alternative
Disposal Options
Confined Disposal
Confined Aquatic
Disposal
Nearshore CDF
Upland CDF
May require modified
elutriate tests, column
settling tests, leaching
tests, or landfill
characterization. See
Inland Testing Manual
(EPA/Corps 1994),
Upland Testing Manual
(EPA/Corps 2003), and
other relevant federal
and/or state guidance.
Additional Controls
or Monitoring, as
needed
Note:
(a) Not all states allow mixing zones.
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Ensuring sediment that will be exposed after dredging will not cause unacceptable
impacts at the dredging site;
Ensuring dredging and disposal activities will not expose ROCs to contaminants at
concentrations that will cause adverse effects; and
Ensuring the suspended sediment will not result in unacceptable impacts to water
quality.
4.2.4 Contaminated Sediment Projects
The primary goal of assessing CSs is to determine the potential effects of the sediments in
place. The site characterization process outlined in Figure 4-5 is similar to a remedial
investigation (RI) and should allow for the accomplishment of the following goals:
Identify and quantify the contamination present in sediments;
Understand the vertical and horizontal distribution of the contaminants in the
sediments;
Understand the physical, chemical, and biological processes and temporal trends
affecting the fate and bioavailability of sediment contaminants at the site;
Identify the complete human and ecological exposure pathways for the
contamination;
Identify current and potential human and ecological risks posed by the
contaminants;
Identify potential bioaccumulation risks; and
Assess the degree in which disturbance of contaminants in the sediments may
impact species in and around the site.
4.3 LEVELS AND MULTIPLE LINES OF EVIDENCE
This SEF uses a two-level approach risk-based framework to consider multiple lines of
evidence based on risk. This SEF utilizes a two-level approach because types and amount
of information necessary to reach management decisions will vary from site to site or
project to project. Most dredged material characterizations and sediment cleanup
assessments will involve the use of a variety of physical, chemical, and biological
information to reach decisions about the presence/absence of risk and how best to manage
uncertainty and evident risk when determining appropriate disposal/remediation options.
This assessment framework has been designed with levels to encourage investigations that
optimize the amount of effort expended in the assessment with respect to the complexity of
both the project/site and assessment questions that must be answered to reach management
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 4-9 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
This page is intentionally left blank.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 4-10 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Figure 4-5. Generic Contaminated Site Assessment
Evaluate
Bioaccumulation
Reason to Believe
Bioaccumulation
Evaluation
Pass
Biological
Interpretative
Criteria?(a)
N
Site Investigation
Develop CSM
Existing
Information?
N
Develop Study
Design, SAP
N
Y
Evaluate
Management
Options
Compare with Direct
Toxicity-Based
Sediment Quality
Guidelines
N
Y
i
r
Management
Decision
Y
Pass
Biological
Interpretative
Criteria?(a)
N
(a) See Chapter 8 for Interpretative Criteria
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
decisions. A level, as presented in Figure 4-3, is a stage in the assessment process that
concludes with a decision to either:
1. Exit the assessment because sufficient information has been collected to answer
questions about the need for and type of management that will be required, or
2. Continue the assessment because insufficient information exists to reach a
management decision for the proposed action.
In many cases, management decisions may be possible during Level 1 of an assessment
when the elements of the CSM have been completed and a decision is possible. In more
ambiguous circumstances, or where the complexity of the site requires it, more
comprehensive assessments and data collection may be required in a Level 2 evaluation
before definitive management decisions can be made. The strength of a phased assessment
framework in this SEF includes clear discussion and decision points where the need to
continue the evaluation is addressed.
This risk-based framework is also structured to allow for iteration. As information is
collected and analyzed during an evaluation, the assessment process must allow for making
additions and refinements to the CSM and questions that are formulated during the initial
stages of assessment. Such iteration allows the assessment to become more focused and
remain relevant as the evaluation proceeds.
Figures 4-3 and 4-6 present the assessment and management framework for sediments.
Figure 4-6 provides additional details for what is included in a Level 1 evaluation. As
shown on these figures, Level 1 includes CSM development, pre-assessment, and initial
assessment tasks, while Level 2 can include a more intense sediment-dredged material/site
assessment, including additional chemical and/or biological testing, or modeling tasks.
The categories of information/data needs described below are used in a sequential manner
for evaluating the risk of in-place sediments and the suitability of dredged material for
unconfined aquatic disposal. This sequential approach is called a tiered evaluation process.
At each level, a decision is made regarding the adequacy of the existing data to make a
suitability determination. If existing data satisfy the CSM, they are adequate for
management decision-making purposes and there is no need to proceed to Level 2. If data
do not satisfy the CSM, data at the next level are required before a management decision
can be made. This arrangement is summarized and illustrated in Figure 4-3 and presented
in additional detail in Figures 4-4 and 4-5.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 4-13 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
0)
T3
O
5
a:
Define Project Scope
Establish Project Goals
Develop Project Conceptual Model
o Identify contaminants of concern
o Identify resources of concern
o Describe relevant exposure pathways
o Define available management options
o Develop assessment questions/
hypotheses
o Identify uncertainty
Review Existing Information
Physical
Chemical
Biological
Is the collected
information sufficient
for a management
decision?
Y
Develop SAP
Conduct Screening Assessment
Collect Initial Data
Compare to Screening Guidelines
Physical
Chemical
Biological
Is the collected
information sufficient
for a management
decision?
Management
Decision
Figure 4-6. Detail of Level 1 Tasks
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
4-14
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Transition to Level 2. The compilation and review/screening of existing information,
preliminary identification of uncertainties, and other locational factors comprise the initial
tasks in Level 1. In some instances, the existing information may be sufficient to address
all of the elements identified in the CSM to make a management decision. The transition
from Level 1 to Level 2 occurs when the screening of collected data against the CSM
indicates the need for additional tasks that are required to reach a management decision,
whether it is assessment of direct toxicity, indirect bioaccumulation effects, or other tasks,
as shown on Figure 4-3. The transition from Level 1 to Level 2 can be triggered by
exceedances of appropriate sediment screening levels, the type and magnitude of
uncertainty, or other analytical results that indicate a need for more detailed assessment of
the sediment or water column. For example, for a navigational dredging project, if existing
information supports the CSM regarding a decision for unconfined aquatic disposal, no
additional data are needed. However, if no information exists or it does not support the
CSM for the initial site/sediment characterization, the project proponent will be required to
prepare and submit a SAP for additional data collection. Chapter 5 describes the details of a
SAP applicable to the complexities of a dredging project and associated CSM. It also
discusses the guidelines for preparing and submitting the plan. Chapter 6 provides further
details on the proper implementation of sediment sampling and laboratory analyses. This
additional data collection may provide sufficient analytical data to make a management
decision. For example, for a dredging or site investigation project, if the analytical data
were all below appropriate sediment screening levels, uncertainties did not exist or were
reasonably managed, and there was no "reason to believe" that bioaccumulation issues are
present at the site, the investigation may be concluded at this point with the decision of no
unacceptable risk from sediment/dredged material at this site.
4.4 LEVEL 1
4.4.1 Initial Assessment
During the initial assessment phase of an evaluation, the reasons why a dredging
characterization study or sediment evaluation is being conducted should be defined.
Projects may be contemplated to address any number of programmatic and/or regulatory
goals or objectives. The reasons motivating the project will impact how the CSM is
developed and how the subsequent assessment is conducted. For example, will the
assessment primarily be of potential risks to a disposal site or of potential risks from the in-
place sediments?
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 4-15 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
For both dredging assessments and contaminated site assessments, the initial assessment
stage is generally similar.
Dredging Assessments. The most routine sediment assessments occur in support of
navigation or maintenance dredging operations. The objective is to remove the sediment to
allow for safe navigation and berthing and find the appropriate disposal location for the
material. The results of the sediment assessment will be used to determine how the
material, once removed from the channel, will be managed, or if the proposed approach
poses unacceptable risks. The management alternatives range broadly from unrestricted
open water disposal or beneficial uses (e.g., beach nourishment or habitat creation) for
materials posing no or minimal risk to upland disposal for sediments where risks are
determined (EPA/Corps 2004). Data are collected to evaluate both point of dredging
impacts and point of disposal impacts. A generic dredging flow chart is presented in
Figure 4-4.
Similar to a site investigation, the main objective of the initial assessment in a dredging
assessment is to clearly define the goals of the project that in turn will drive and structure
what information that may need to be collected during the primary assessment to facilitate
the decision-making process.
The initial data collection and review should address the following assessment questions:
When was the most recent dredging activity completed at this location?
What are the contaminants of concern (CoCs)?
What data on physical, chemical, lexicological, and biological characteristics are
available and are these data of sufficient quality?
What are the likely historical and ongoing sources of contaminants?
What are the key ROCs at the dredging and disposal sites?
What is the uncertainty associated with the data?
How can the uncertainty associated with the data be managed?
Additionally, information about the site is evaluated to define site-specific CSM. Details of
how a CSM is prepared and used is provided in Section 4.2.1. A generic CSM for dredging
projects is presented in Figure 4-1.
Contaminated Site Assessments. Within the context of a site investigation program,
generally some risk is presumed to exist at the site at the beginning of the assessment. In
most cases, a site is nominated to such a program because available evidence exists
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 4-16 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
supporting the presence of some risk. The available information compiled during the
assessment will be used to determine the nature, extent, and magnitude of that risk and to
aid in the identification and selection of the best set of management and/or remediation
technologies to apply at the site. A generic site investigation flow chart is presented in
Figure 4-2.
The main objective of the initial assessment is to clearly define the goals and CSM of the
project that in turn will drive and structure what information needs to be collected during
subsequent tasks to facilitate the decision-making process. The initial data collection and
review should address the following questions:
Are there local sources of contamination, either past or present (e.g., marinas and
fueling areas; industrial/municipal discharges; shipping; inputs from industrial,
municipal, or agricultural sources; spills and urban and residential surface runoff)?
What chemicals may have been released from these sources (i.e., what are the
CoCs)?
What data on physical, chemical, lexicological, and biological characteristics are
available, and are these data of sufficient quality?
What are the key ROCs?
4.4.2 Primary Assessment
The primary assessment is designed to further the understanding of the project (utilizing and
updating the CSM) and will begin with collecting new data. Such data may include
information about contaminant sources, ROCs, and biological or chemical data from the
sediment/site. This data collection effort should include a review of data quality and would
culminate in identifying preliminary lists of contaminants. The types of preliminary data
required are dependent on whether the assessment being conducted is a dredging
assessment or a contaminated site assessment, as discussed below.
The technical data gathering aspects for the primary assessment phase of this SEF for a CS
evaluation or a dredging assessment are similar. They both include 1) collecting and
analyzing existing and preliminary biological or chemical data, and 2) comparing initial
data to appropriate sediment and tissue guidelines.
The primary assessment for a contaminated site assessment and a dredging assessment does
have differences. For example, a CS assessment typically has known or suspected sources
of contamination and entails developing site-specific assessment questions aimed at
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 4-17 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
delineating the areas of concern. Additionally, a CS assessment is not always associated
with maintenance dredging nor does it require dredging as its alternative.
The primary assessment phase for both dredging and a contaminated site assessment both
conclude with a comparison of existing or preliminary data to appropriate and relevant
physical, chemical, and/or biological guidelines (see Section 7.5 for a discussion concerning
the use of these guidelines). RSET then determines whether sufficient information exists to
make a regulatory decision. If there is not sufficient information for a regulatory decision,
the project transitions to a Level 2 assessment.
4.4.3 Use of Guidelines
The initial and primary assessment phase concludes with a comparison of existing or
preliminary data to appropriate and relevant physical, chemical, or biological guidelines.
There is merit in using sediment and tissue guidelines in combination with other sources of
information to identify sediments at the initial assessment phase that require no further
evaluation because they pose little potential for risk. For some programs, there also may be
merit in incorporating approaches within the initial assessment for using sediment and
tissue guidelines along with other lines of evidence to identify sediments that pose some
high potential for risk.
The kinds of information and/or guidelines that can be used in combination at this stage in
the assessment to reach decisions about the need for further analysis include the following:
Proximity to contaminant sources. Information may include current and historical
permitted or unpermitted point sources, or nonpoint sources from urban, residential,
or agricultural areas. In addition, information on anthropogenic or non-
anthropogenic sediment transport mechanisms such as flooding, boat traffic, or
aggradation/erosion in the vicinity may also be relevant. This will allow the
assumption that sediments that are far removed from sources of pollution are less
likely to contain contaminants to be substantiated or disputed.
Grain size distribution of the sediment. If the sediment is associated with highly
erosional areas and largely composed of coarse-grained material, the sediment is
unlikely to contain contaminants.
Sediment chemistry. The potential for direct sediment toxicity to benthos may be
assessed through the use of SQGs. Their use is intended to provide insight as to
whether or not benthic toxicity is expected. Lower threshold SQGs (i.e., chemical
levels associated with a low probability of toxicity) can be used along with an
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 4-18 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
evaluation of bioaccumulation potential to reach conclusions about the need for
further assessment. SQGs that identify sediments with a greater likelihood for
producing effects can be used to focus assessments or accelerate consideration and
selection of management alternatives. The manner in which SQGs are used within
an assessment framework will be determined in large measure by the objectives and
constraints of the relevant regulatory programs involved, as well as the nature of the
assessment questions developed during the initial assessment from the CSM. Use of
SQGs must also be guided by a clear understanding of how the SQGs to be used
were derived, what type and level of effects they address, their predictive ability,
and their appropriate/recommended uses.
Sediment toxicity data. Recent sediment toxicity test data can be used to reach
conclusions about the need for further testing or analysis. Similarly, potential risks
to ROCs beyond the benthos may also trigger the need for further testing or analysis.
Tissue chemistry. Recent chemistry data from organisms collected at the site or in
the water body surrounding the site can be compared to existing health advisory
levels and bioaccumulation triggers (BTs) to reach conclusions about potential
bioaccumulative risk.
In some cases, the use of guidelines, including sediment and tissue guidelines, will be used
to reach conclusions that no further assessment is required because the assessment questions
could be satisfactorily addressed using information available at this stage of the evaluation
and the uncertainties managed sufficiently. In cases where such a comparison with
guideline values results in ambiguous answers to the assessment questions concerning the
presence of unacceptable risk and uncertainties cannot be sufficiently managed, the
assessment would proceed to sediment/site assessment after revising, as necessary, the list
of contaminants of potential concern, the CSM, and the assessment questions. In cases
where the assessment questions were confidently addressed through the use of guidelines,
the investigation proceeds to an evaluation and selection of management alternatives.
4.5 LEVEL 2DREDGING ASSESSMENT
Level 2 for dredging sites consists of physical and chemical testing, biological testing,
bioaccumulation testing, and special evaluations. It draws from the original or revised
CSM. See Figure 4-4 for a general dredging flow chart.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 4-19 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
4.5.1 Physical and Chemical Testing
Physical and chemical testing requirements are presented in Chapter 7. Following the
Level 1 evaluation, physical and chemical testing may be required to provide a reliable
screen to predict potential contaminant effects from discharge of the dredged material. The
pathways of concern for potential effects are through the bulk sediment itself and/or through
the water column during dredging and/or disposal. This manual (specifically Chapter 7)
focuses on requirements and procedures for testing bulk sediments. Water column testing
may also be required as discussed in Chapter 11.
4.5.2 Biological and Bioaccumulation Testing
Biological testing requirements are presented in Chapter 8. Biological effects tests may be
necessary if Level 1 and Level 2 (physical and chemical testing) evaluations indicate the
dredged material contains contaminant concentrations that may be harmful to aquatic
organisms. Level 2 biological testing of dredged material will be required when chemical
testing results exceed guideline values. An appropriate set of aquatic organisms and
bioassays shall be used to make a determination regarding the suitability of the dredged
material for aquatic disposal. Tests involving whole sediment determine the potential
effects for bottom-dwelling organisms. Tests using suspension/elutriates of dredged
material are used to assess the potential effects on water column organisms. A
bioaccumulation evaluation is required when there has been a "reason to believe"
determination that certain bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCoCs) may pose a
potential unacceptable risk to human health or ecological health in the aquatic
environments. Bioaccumulation testing is discussed in Chapter 9.
4.5.3 Special Evaluations
Special evaluations are nonroutine evaluations that require coordination between RSET and
the dredging proponent to determine the specific testing required. As part of this ongoing
process, RSET will continually review new tests and evaluation procedures that have been
peer reviewed and are deemed ready for use in the regulatory evaluation of either CS
investigations or proposed dredged material. RSET will subsequently make
recommendations about their potential implementation and use. Physical, chemical, and
biological testing evaluations of dredged material may result in a requirement to conduct
special evaluations (see Chapter 11).
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 4-20 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
One of the following four circumstances is expected to trigger special evaluations:
1. Biological testing results (i.e., bioaccumulation tests, tissue analysis) are
indeterminate;
2. Sediments/tissues contain chemicals for which threshold values have not been
established;
3. Sediments/tissues contain chemicals for which the biological tests described in
Chapter 7, 8, and 9 are inappropriate; or
4. Unresolved issues regarding potential risks to Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed
species.
If special evaluations are determined necessary by RSET, specific tests or evaluations and
interpretive criteria will be specified by RSET in coordination with the applicant.
Alternative analyses that may be conducted as part of the special evaluations may include,
for example, steady-state bioaccumulation tests and a human health/ecological risk
assessment.
4.6 LEVEL 2CONTAMINATED SITE ASSESSMENT
Level 2 for contaminated site assessments consists of sediment/site assessment, evaluation
and selection of management alternatives, verification and monitoring, and adaptive
management and assessment. It draws from the original or revised CSM. See Figure 4-2
for a general site investigation flow chart.
4.6.1 Sediment/Site Assessment
During the sediment assessment phase of the evaluation, more comprehensive and site-
specific sediment and/or data will be collected and analyzed for the purpose of clarifying
the nature, extent, and magnitude of risks posed by CSs.
Decision Point. At this juncture of the evaluation, judgments are reached with the input of
stakeholders regarding whether the lines of evidence analyses are sufficient for the
decision-making process. Such judgments would be based on the extent to which each of
the assessment questions are addressed by the evidence collected and the results of the
uncertainty analysis. If the assessment is judged to be sufficient for the decision-making
process, and the uncertainty is sufficiently managed and/or appropriate mitigation applied,
the risks are then summarized using the CSM and other means, as appropriate, and a
transition is made to evaluating and selecting management alternatives. In cases where the
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 4-21 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
weight of evidence is judged to be insufficient for the decision-making process, critical
uncertainties are addressed by iterating back into the assessment.
4.6.2 Evaluation and Selection of Management Alternatives
Following the SEF depicted in Figure 4-3, the management decision or evaluation of
alternatives phase of an assessment can be reached either directly following the Level 1
assessment or at the conclusion of a sediment/site assessment (Level 2). Iteration between
the Level 2 tasks and an appropriate management decision may be necessary. In cases
where an early determination is reached during Level 1 that risks are present, additional site
or process data may be needed to guide the selection of the most appropriate management
alternative(s). Likewise, it may be necessary at times to conduct additional evaluations or
reanalyze information collected during the sediment/site assessment to inform the process
of selecting management alternatives.
Identify Risk Management Alternatives. The first action to be taken in selecting a
management alternative is to assemble a list of feasible/available management options. At
this stage of the selection process, the list should include the full range of possible options
(i.e., there should be no presumptive management alternative). Premature culling of
alternatives before collecting and analyzing sufficient information to support the selection
process will invite criticism of the process, reduce credibility in the assessment, and
potentially raise the risks to human and ecological ROCs. The broad range of risk
management alternatives for sediment sites can be grouped into the following categories
and subcategories:
Control of ongoing sources,
Constraints on site use in conjunction with other actions,
In situ management,
Monitored natural recovery,
In-place capping with clean sediment,
Treatment (e.g., chemical or biological),
Ex situ management of material,
Dredging followed by isolation (e.g., landfill, confined disposal facility), and
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 4-22 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Dredging followed by treatment, including physical, chemical, thermal, and
biological prior to disposal.
Additional guidance on available risk-management options is available in other guidance
documents (e.g., Upland Testing Manual and Guidance for In Situ Subaqueous Capping of
Contaminated Sediments).
General information about each of the available or feasible alternatives should be collected.
Such information would include the basic logistical and engineering elements of the
alternatives, distance and routes to management sites, and a listing of site features or
characteristics with the potential to impact the effectiveness of the alternative to remediate
risks (e.g., hydrodynamic characteristics affecting sediment stability/mobility, geotechnical
properties of the sediment, etc.). Collecting this information will help identify the need for
additional data collection or analysis that may be necessary before a definitive comparison
can be made of the risks and benefits associated with each of the management alternatives.
Compare the Risks Associated with Alternatives. All the management alternatives for
CSs carry their own specific set of strengths and weaknesses, advantages and
disadvantages, and risks. Efforts have been made to rank management alternatives for CSs
in terms of their overall feasibility, effectiveness, and practicality. What has emerged from
these efforts is the conclusion that there is no universally superior technology for managing
CSs. One of the consequences of this commonly accepted conclusion is that the decision
process used to select management alternative(s) must include a comparison of the
alternatives with respect to the characteristics of the site. Because management decisions
will involve reconciling tradeoffs, most sites will require using a combination of
management alternatives.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 4-23 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
5. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
5.1 OVERVIEW
The development of a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), whether for a proposed dredging
project (defined as maintenance or new dredging) or contaminated sediment (CS)
investigation, is an essential step in the tiered evaluation process for those projects found to
require additional information following review within Level 1. The basic sampling and
analysis structure described below is patterned after those utilized to successfully evaluate
dredging projects or CS projects in the Pacific Northwest. Field sampling and laboratory
testing can be the most expensive part of the sediment characterization process. This is why
a thorough, detailed, and approved SAP is essential prior to field work.
For dredging projects, the SAP must be designed to characterize the material proposed to be
dredged. This includes the dredging prism, as well as any advanced maintenance and
anticipated overdepth or side slope dredging. The new surface material (NSM) should also
be sampled (see Section 5.9.4).
An important component of any sampling and testing program is pre-project coordination
with all concerned personnel. This may include a face-to-face meeting. Personnel involved
may include management, field, analysis/data management personnel; representatives of
regulatory agencies; and the permit applicant (project proponent). The purposes of SAP
coordination include the following:
Defining the objectives and scope of the sampling effort,
Defining the conceptual site model (CSM),
Ensuring communication among participating groups, and
Ensuring agreement on methods, quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) details,
and contingency planning.
The more explicitly the objectives of the program can be stated, the easier it will be to
design an appropriate SAP. A complete SAP provides adequate information regarding
clearly identified project descriptions, a CSM and assessment questions, maps and profiles,
sampling locations, sampling procedures, volumes, sampling depths, logistical concerns, an
analyte list, and analytical methodologies.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 5-1 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
5.2 INFORMATION REQUIRED IN A SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
(BASED ON REGULATORY PROGRAM)
The sampling plan serves as the main source of information about a proposed project, the
history of the project site, and the proposed methods to evaluate the sediments. The
majority of the information needed in a SAP is the same whether the project is for dredging
or a sediment characterization project. A SAP should contain the following general
categories of information in as much detail as possible:
Level 1 Information. This level involves the gathering and documentation of existing
information. This would include information such as site history; current site use;
identification of potential sources of contamination; information on adjacent lands,
especially known chemicals of concern (CoCs) or cleanup sites; past permitting; and an
overview of previous sediment evaluations at the site. For a dredging project, the SAP
should include a discussion of rank based on the CSM (see Section 5.3.1). Rank affects
the number of sediment samples and analyses required of the project. More than one
rank could be assigned to a single project depending upon the size of the proposed
dredging area and the distribution of potential contaminant sources.
Project Description (Dredging Project). A project description for a dredging project
includes a plan view of the site and a description of the action intended. The proposed
dredging plan should contain such information as the depth and physical nature of the
material to be dredged; advanced maintenance, side slope, and overdepth dredging;
practicable widths and depths of dredging; and proposed dredging methods for
determining composite sampling or delineating representative project segments. It is
also recommended that proposed disposal methods and locations (e.g., unconfined or
confined in-water or upland) be identified in order to review and evaluate the adequacy
of the SAP.
Project Description (CS Project). A project description for a CS project includes a
plan view of the site and a description of the action intended. It is also important to
identify all areas of potential concern so that the sediment characterization is as
effective and complete as possible.
Computation of Sampling and Analysis Requirements (Dredging Project). Project
rank and volume of dredged material, development of a proposed dredging plan,
identification of dredged material management units (DMMUs), and allocation of field
samples are all requirements for developing a SAP. This will include bathymetry,
proposed core locations, one or more cross-sections of the dredging prism, and the type
and volume of sediment to be dredged.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 5-2 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Computation of Sampling and Analysis Requirements (CS Project). An
understanding of source pathways and locations of known or suspected contamination is
important. Typically, contaminated areas and areas near potential sources are sampled
with greater frequency, with fewer samples outside of suspected areas of contamination.
The sampling strategy (e.g., number of samples, frequency, depth, etc.) is less
prescribed and usually determined through negotiations between the project proponent
and regulators. Therefore, multiple figures may be required, including, but not limited
to, the following:
Figures and photographs showing potential source areas,
Figures showing previous locations of characterizations or dredging, and
Plan view of the site with proposed sampling locations.
Conceptual Site Model. A CSM includes identification and description of potential
contaminant sources; potential processes linking sources to the sediment; physical,
chemical, and biological processes occurring within the sediment that could affect
exposure; and how receptors of concern are exposed to the contaminants associated with
the sediment.
Sampling Procedures. Sampling procedures include the field sampling schedule,
sampling technology, positioning methodology, decontamination of equipment, sample
collection and handling protocols, core logging, sample extrusion, sample compositing
and subsampling, sample transport, and chain-of-custody.
Physical and Chemical Testing. Physical and chemical testing includes grain size
analysis, sediment conventionals, CoCs, extraction/digestion methods, analysis
methods, detection limits, holding times, and QA requirements (see Chapters 6 and 7).
Biological Testing. This section includes holding time requirements, proposed testing
sequence, bioassay protocols (type of media and species), bioaccumulation testing, and
QA requirements (see Chapter 9).
Personnel Responsibilities. Personnel responsibilities include individual roles and
responsibilities for project planning and coordination, field sampling, chemical and
biological testing, QA/QC management, and final report preparation.
Submittals. Submittals include a draft SAP, final SAP with responses to comments or
concerns by agencies addressed, and results of sampling and analyses written up for
review and concurrence (see Section 5.6).
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 5-3 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
5.3 PROCESS OF RANKING A SITE (DREDGING)
This section contains both an initial management area ranking (Section 5.3.1) and an
individual project evaluation (Section 5.3.2). The management area ranking refers to the
initial rankings assigned to specific sites or reaches where dredging or sediment evaluation
has historically occurred. These initial rankings serve as one of the project variables
factored into the development of sediment SAPs.
The individual project component refers to the Level 1 evaluation process for a specific
dredging proposal. Included in the Level 1 evaluation for specific dredging proposals are
guidelines pertaining to the following:
Exclusion from further testing based upon grain size and TOC (Section 5.6),
Proximity to known sources of contamination,
Frequency of dredging (Section 5.7), and
Recency of data (Section 5.8).
5.3.1 Initial Management Area Rankings
To assign initial rankings, RSET relied on best professional judgment of Corps and EPA
representatives who have been working and evaluating sediment quality data in the region.
Reaches or sites where dredging may be expected or has occurred in the past are assigned
one of five possible ranks: exclusionary, low, low-moderate, moderate, or high. In that
order, these ranks represent a scale of increasing potential for concentrations of CoCs
and/or adverse biological effects. Table 5-1 identifies the parameters that better define
these rankings. The ranking system is based on the following two major factors:
1. The availability of historic information on the physical, chemical, and/or biological-
response characteristics of the sediments from a reach or site; or
2. The number, kinds, and proximity of chemical sources (existing and historical)
known to occur in or near a particular reach or site.
The initial management area rankings based on volume and type of sediment represent
general guidance prior to evaluating existing information. Revisions to the rankings can
and will occur as the result of additional information. In addition, a specific project site or
reach can be reranked based upon the results of new sediment testing or by means of a
partial characterization.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 5-4 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
Table 5-1. Management Area Ranking Definitions
Ranking
Parameters
Exclusionary
Available data indicate coarse-grained sediment with at least 80 percent sand
retained in a No. 230 sieve and a total organic carbon content of less than 0.5
percent TOC. Locations sufficiently removed from potential sources of
sediment contamination based on historical information and/or best
professional judgment. Typical locations include the mouth and mainstem
channel of the lower Columbia River.
Low
Available data indicate low concentrations of CoCs and/or no significant
response in biological tests. Locations with higher percentage of finer-
grained sediments and organic material but few sources of potential
contamination. Typical locations include adjacent entrance channels, rural
marinas, navigable side sloughs, and small community berthing facilities.
Low-Moderate
Available data indicate a "low" rank may be warranted, but data are not
sufficient to validate the ranking.
Moderate
Available data indicate moderate concentrations of CoCs in sediments in a
range known to cause adverse response in biological tests. Locations where
sediments are subject to several sources of contamination, or where existing
or historical use of the site has the potential to cause sediment contamination.
Typical locations include urban marinas, fueling, and ship berthing facilities;
areas downstream of major sewer or stormwater outfalls; and medium-sized
urban areas with limited shoreline industrial development.
High
Available data indicate high concentrations of CoCs in sediments and/or
significant adverse responses in at least one of the last two cycles of
biological tests. Locations where sediments are subject to numerous sources
of sediment contamination, including industrial runoff and outfalls, or where
existing or historical use of the site has the potential to cause sediment
contamination. Typical locations include large urban areas and shoreline
areas with major industrial development.
5.3.2 Project Specific Evaluations
Level 1 involves the review of all available historical information to determine if there is a
reason to believe that significant contamination may be present at a proposed dredging site.
Included in the Level 1 evaluation is the determination of whether the sediments to be
dredged fall under a "frequency guideline." They may be excluded from further testing
because they are frequently dredged and have two rounds of successive evaluation where no
CoCs have been shown (Section 5.7). For projects with newly obtained sediment
characterization data, recency guidelines have a bearing on the longevity of the information
for decision purposes (Section 5.8). As new guidelines are developed (e.g., updated
bioaccumulation triggers [BTs]), existing data may need to be subjected to a one-time
review to ensure sediments are still below the new guidelines.
Review of Historical Information. The agencies involved in the review and approval of
dredging projects in the region can and do serve as a source of historical information about
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
5-5
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
sediments and proposed dredging locations. The agencies share a common responsibility to
make available any and all such information. However, the compilation of all available
historical information about sediment quality or potential sources of contamination for a
specific dredging project is the responsibility of the project proponent. An accurate
compilation of historical data can result in substantial cost savings. For example, qualified
data may eliminate or reduce the need for testing, help limit the number of contaminants
tested, and reduce the amount of dredged material needed to be tested.
Quality Assurance of Existing Data. The value of historical data is controlled by its
reliability, which in turn depends upon the quality, timeliness, and completeness of the data.
For example, 22-year-old data may provide valuable input on a historical contaminant
source that no longer exists, even though it cannot be used for determinations of suitability.
In contrast, recent data from a well designed sampling effort may be sufficient to make a
final suitability determination on a project, or substantially reduce additional testing
requirements. The following types of information are required to use existing data for
suitability determinations:
Sampling and analytical methods for both chemistry and biological tests,
Chemical detection limits (see Table 7-2),
Biological test control sediment, and
QC measures for both chemistry and biological tests.
5.4 DETERMINATION OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
The following guidelines specify the maximum volume of dredged material that can be
represented by a single analysis. The guidelines are considered "the minimum
requirements." Therefore, the dredging proponent may opt, or regulatory agencies may
require, additional analyses for volumes less than the maximum.
a) Dredged Material Management Units. In determining the number of samples and
analyses required to fully characterize project sediments, the concept used is a DMMU.
A DMMU can represent the total volume of sediment to be dredged for a small project,
or it can be a subunit of the total volume of a larger project. Typically, a DMMU
represents a unit of sediments similar in nature that can be characterized by a single
sediment analysis. Thus, a separate decision can be made for each DMMU that can be
characterized and dredged separately from other sediment in the project. The
acceptability of dredged material for unconfined aquatic disposal is determined for
individual DMMUs independently of other management units within the project, and is
based on the results of the analysis representing that DMMU.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 5-6 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Table 5-2 presents the maximum volume of sediment in a DMMU that can be
characterized by a single analysis based on predetermined area ranking. The presence
of heterogeneous or discrete layers in the dredge cut may warrant further subsampling
or assignment of a smaller DMMU. Dredging proponents have the option to propose
smaller DMMUs. For example, if 25 percent of the sample volume is visually different
from the rest of the sediment profile and can be sampled and dredged separately, an
additional DMMU may then be warranted. The volume for a DMMU ranked high is
based upon the ability to discretely handle each barge load of material separately.
Subsequent DMMU volumes in Table 5-2 are based upon the best professional
judgment of RSET and a need to provide a general guide based upon volume.
b) Sampling Intensity (Dredging Project): The number of samples required of a
proposed project, or that can be composited or combined for a single analysis, will be
determined on a case-by-case basis using best professional judgment. The number of
samples and the compositing scheme will vary depending upon such factors as (1) a
reason to believe that contamination may exist at the surface or in subsurface sediments,
(2) the heterogeneity of the sediments, (3) the project rank, (4) the aerial extent of a
DMMU, and (5) the proposed depth of dredging. In general, sampling intensity will
increase with suspected contamination, higher project ranking, greater aerial extent,
increasing depth, or the occurrence of stratification. In heterogeneous sediments,
typically a minimum of three samples composited for one analysis is used to
characterize a single DMMU.
Table 5-2. Dredged Material Management Units
Ranking
Heterogeneous
Homogeneous
(Volumes in cubic yards)
Exclusionary
Low
Low-Moderate
Moderate
High
NA
50,000
35,000
20,000
up to 5,000
NA
100,000
70,000
40,000
up to 10,000
Notes:
1 . Volumes are based upon barge load capacity of 5,000 cubic yards.
2. The volume for a DMMU ranked high is based upon the ability to discretely handle each barge load of material separately.
Subsequent DMMU volumes are based upon the best professional judgment of RSET and a need to provide a general guide
based upon volume.
3. NA = not applicable
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 5-7 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
c) Sampling Intensity (CS Project): The sampling strategy (e.g., number of samples,
frequency, depth, etc.) is less prescribed and usually determined during negotiations
between the project proponent and regulators. In addition, a CS investigation is more
concerned with horizontal and vertical extent of contamination. Samples are typically
not composited but rather handled and tested on an individual basis. Samples may be
divided by depth based on stratification and likelihood of contamination.
5.5 DETERMINATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL VOLUMES
The volume of dredged material determines, in part, the minimum number of sediment
samples and analyses required for full characterization of a dredging project. The potential
volume of sediment is usually determined from a pre-sampling bathymetric survey. The
calculation of dredged material volume must include the following:
Advance maintenance dredging, which is a term used to describe additional
dredging cut or width in locations known to shoal very rapidly. Advance
maintenance refers to the removal of a sufficient volume of sediment to ensure a
reasonable length of time before having to dredge again.
Sediments anticipated to slough from the side slopes and from under piers and
wharves during dredging.
Overdepth dredging, which is a term used to account for the limited ability of
dredges to achieve a precise depth of cut. Overdepth dredging refers to the partial
removal of sediment 1 to 2 feet deeper than the planned depth of dredging.
Sediments to be removed below the dredging prism to allow for a sufficient cap to
be placed, or to remove sediment with higher concentrations than were previously at
the surface. This will be necessary in areas where NSM needs to be isolated from
the environment.
The calculation and/or differentiation of dredged volume may be affected by one of the
following variables:
a) Heterogeneous Sediments. Heterogeneous sediments are those in which the physical
characteristics are dissimilar within the sampling depth. Characteristics of such
sediments include obvious layering of sediments, lenses of dissimilar material (either in
grain size or color), or obvious gradation of sediment size. Sediments that are deposited
over a long period of time may be heterogeneous in nature.
In heterogeneous sediments, the volume of dredged material may be differentiated either
by discrete sediment lenses or by depth. If a discrete lens is present in the sediment
profile, volumes may be calculated on the basis (depth and areal extent) of that lens. To
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 5-8 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
qualify for a separate characterization, however, the volume of the discrete lens must be
amenable to being dredged separately from other sediment occurring in the dredging
prism.
The depth for sample compositing should be determined using the CSM in projects with
heterogeneous sediment lacking discrete lenses. Heterogeneous sediment projects must
divide the volumes between a "surface layer" (e.g., the top 2 to 4 feet below existing
sediment surface) and a "subsurface layer" down to the bottom of the planned dredge
cut. The volumes comprising each of the layers must be calculated separately. The
practical depth of a cut based on proposed dredge technology is considered a
manageable unit of dredged material. For example, it is the typical cut depth achieved
by one drop of a bucket clamshell dredge in unconsolidated sediments.
b) Homogeneous Sediment. Homogeneous sediments appear the same in physical
characteristics throughout the sampling depth and lack obvious color striations,
layering, or sorting of grain size. For shoals that are dredged frequently or new projects
that involve the dredging of native material, the entire dredging prism may be
considered homogeneous, and the volume need not distinguish between surface and
subsurface layers.
5.6 PREPARATION AND SUBMITTAL OF A DRAFT SAMPLING AND
ANALYSIS PLAN
A draft SAP is prepared once the project proponent has an understanding of the project
objectives. The project objectives are defined as a dredging project or a sediment
characterization project for a potential cleanup. The draft SAP describes the CSM, selected
number of samples and analyses, specific sampling locations, and DMMUs for dredging
projects.
In applying the above SAP concepts for a dredging project, DMMUs are typically
determined by the rank, volume, and type of sediment specified in Table 5-1. The DMMU
volumes are only for a dredging project and may be modified during SAP development and
review. Additional sampling and/or analyses beyond the minimum number may be required
based on the CSM to achieve an appropriate SAP and ultimately a dredging plan. Sample
stations may be added and/or moved to select different, equally representative spots to
ensure uniformity of acceptability throughout the project. Stations may be moved or added
in response to information on point sources, spills, or new CoCs, or to acquire data that help
draw boundaries between clean sediments and CSs.
The draft SAP must be submitted to the appropriate subgroup of RSET for review (see
Chapter 3). Note: If the SAP requires extensive corrections and changes, resubmittal and
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 5-9 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
review by RSET may be necessary prior to proceeding with sampling. RSET will prepare a
letter of approval to proceed with the sampling effort with recommended corrections or
changes to the draft SAP. Such corrections and changes must be reflected in the final SAP
that is submitted to RSET with the report containing the results of the sampling and analysis
effort.
5.7 FREQUENCY OF DREDGING GUIDELINE
The frequency of dredging guideline provides a second method by which dredged material
may be excluded from further testing for specific periods of time. The frequency guideline
pertains to dredging projects that occur on a frequent basis, such as every year or, at most,
every 2 or 3 years. Such dredging commonly reflects a situation of routine and rapid
buildup of shoals with relatively homogeneous sediments. The quality of the sediment at
the dredging site tends to stay the same for successive years, barring any significant
changed condition at or upstream of the site.
To qualify for consideration under the frequency guideline, a project requires full
characterization of sediments for two successive dredging events. Provided the sediments
are found suitable for unconfmed aquatic disposal for each dredging event, the "frequency"
of additional characterization after that will depend upon the rank of the project site
determined by the results of the first two rounds of testing.
In effect, the frequency guideline specifies a period of time in which a qualified dredging
project is "excluded" from having to do any further testing. The time durations provided
for by the frequency guidelines are the same as for the "recency of data" guidelines
described below. That is 2 years for high ranked areas, and 5, 6, 7, and 10 years for
moderate, low-moderate, low, and exclusionary ranked areas, respectively. Areas or
projects ranked exclusionary under Section 5.9.1 do not need to be considered under the
frequency guideline because they have already qualified for exclusion from further testing
on the basis of grain size and total organic carbon.
5.8 RECENCY OF DATA GUIDELINE
The recency of data guideline refers to the duration of time for which newly obtained and
qualified physical, chemical, or biological information is considered adequate for decision-
making without further testing. Recency guidelines are based on the area or project site
rankings that, in turn, reflect a consideration of the presence and operating status of
contaminant sources located at or near the area to be dredged. The recency guideline for
exclusionary, low, low-moderate, and moderate ranked areas is 10, 7, 6, and 5 years,
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 5-10 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
respectively. In high ranked areas, the recency guidelines allow characterization data to be
valid for a period of 2 years.
The recency guidelines do not apply when a known "changed" condition has occurred since
the most recent sampling effort, such as an accidental spill or the siting of a new discharge
outfall. For subsurface sediments, the potential for contamination from groundwater
sources must also be considered. As new guidelines are developed (e.g., updated BTs),
existing projects data may need to be subjected to a one-time review to ensure that
sediments are still below the guidelines.
5.9 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS FOR SPECIAL CASES
The following sections discuss special types of sediment evaluation. These special cases
will be evaluated by RSET on a case-by-case basis. These include the requirements for
establishing exclusionary status, methods for confirming project ranking, exceptions for
small projects, and evaluation of sediment exposed by dredging.
5.9.1 Establishment of Exclusionary Status
This section provides a process to establish an exclusionary status for projects or project
locations that would likely qualify as exclusionary, but are lacking data to validate such a
determination. Typically such areas or projects would already be ranked low or low-
moderate and exist in a high current location. Three factors have to be considered to
establish an exclusionary status: (1) the potential influence of active point sources of
contamination on the sediments to be dredged, (2) the grain size of the sediments, and (3)
the total organic carbon contents in the sediments.
Sediment samples obtained for the initial determination of an exclusionary status should be
taken to the full depth of the proposed dredge cut by a core sampling device. Core
sampling indicates the grain size distribution of the sediments for the entire depth of the
dredge cut. However, core sampling is not always possible in very compact coarse sandy
substrates. Some reaches of the Columbia River, for example, cannot be sampled by coring
devices because of the inability to position a research vessel in high currents or drive a
coring device into very compact, coarse sandy sediment. In such cases, the inability to use
a coring device or the ability of a grab sampler to characterize the material to be dredged
will have to be documented in the final sampling report. Sediment samples obtained to
"confirm" an existing exclusionary status (see Section 5.9.2) may be taken with a suitable
grab sampler as long as a representative sample can be obtained.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 5-11 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
5.9.2 Confirmation of Project Ranking
Confirmatory sampling and analysis is primarily intended for application to frequently
dredged projects ranked low or exclusionary. It should be done at least as often as called for
under the frequency guidelines. The main purpose of confirmatory sampling is to re-affirm
the historical record and show that no significant environmentally unacceptable changes have
occurred to the project sediments. Confirmatory sampling is also intended to be accomplished
at lesser cost, but with an acceptable level of confidence in support of an existing project
ranking or suitability determination. Confirmatory sampling shall duplicate earlier sediment
testing as much as possible, thereby providing spatial and analytical consistency between
testing periods.
If the results of confirmatory sampling and analysis indicate the project or shoal sediments
have changed significantly for the worse, project reranking to a higher level and further
sampling may be necessary.
5.9.3 Exceptions for Small Projects
For small projects, as defined in Table 5-3, the cost of testing must be balanced against the
environmental risks posed by a very small volume of dredged material. Small volumes
generally represent low potential risk that unacceptable adverse effects will result at the
disposal site from the specific and/or cumulative discharges. These no test volumes have
been evaluated by Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) (Management Plan
Report, Phase II 1989, Kendall 1990, Stirling 1995). As a result, a small volume of
sediment to be removed at a dredging site can obviate the need for testing.
Table 5-3. "No Test" Volumes for Small Projects
Ranking
Low
Low-Moderate
Moderate
High
"No Test" Volume
Less than 10,000 cy
Less than 1,000 cy
Less than 1,000 cy
Not Applicable
Note: cy = cubic yards
To clearly define what constitutes a small project, there are two key qualifiers. First,
intentional partitioning of a dredging project to reduce or avoid testing requirements is not
acceptable. Second, recognizing that multiple small discharges can cumulatively affect a
disposal site, "project volumes" are defined in as large a context as possible. One example
of this latter qualifier is recurring maintenance dredging of a small marina where "project
volume" will be the projected dredging volume over a 5-year period. Another example is a
multiple-project dredging contract where a single dredging contractor conducts dredging for
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 5-12 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
several projects under a single contract or contract effort. Again, the "project volume" will
be summed across all projects, as will any sampling and compositing efforts prior to testing.
Small projects in low, low-moderate, or moderately ranked areas, volumes for which no
testing need be conducted are shown in Table 5-3. There is no "no test" volume for high
ranked areas. In the absence of conclusive evidence of unsuitable sediments, projects with
these or lesser volumes will be considered suitable for unconfmed aquatic disposal.
5.9.4 New Surface Material Exposed by Dredging
Dredging operations can alter the condition of a project site by exposing a new surface layer
of bottom material to direct contact with biota and the water column. This aspect of
dredging must be considered during preparation of the SAP because, for some projects, the
newly exposed surface could have greater concentrations of CoCs than existed before
dredging. This issue will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by RSET during review of
the SAP. Testing of NSM may be required in high and moderate ranked areas.
Several options were considered for inclusion as decision guidelines pertaining to the issue
of newly exposed surface material. One of the following courses of action may be triggered
to address the disposition of, and responsibility for, NSM that might be left following a
dredging operation:
If dredging results in the exposure of NSM having higher chemical concentrations
than the sediment that was dredged, the dredging proponent may be required to
over-dredge the site or cap the newly exposed bottom material. Final decisions
pertaining to the need to over-dredge or to cap will be based upon the results of
appropriate biological tests.
If dredging results in the exposure of NSM as clean as, or cleaner than, the overlying
sediments, no additional requirements are triggered under this manual. There may
be additional requirements under the cleanup process.
Surface sediments with elevated concentrations of CoCs are present adjacent to the
dredging site, but not in the site proposed to be dredged, will be considered on a case-
by-case basis, depending on the regulatory context. Issues to be considered include
potential future recontamination of the newly dredged area from adjacent sediments, the
relative size of the adjacent contaminated area, and whether or not the dredging
proponent is liable for cleanup of the adjacent area.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 5-13 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
6. SAMPLING PROTOCOLS
6.1 OVERVIEW
When required, sampling and testing must be coordinated far enough in advance of
dredging or site characterization/remediation activities to allow time for chemical testing,
possible biological (toxicity and/or bioaccumulation) testing, and data review. An accurate
assessment of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of proposed dredged
sediment or sediment under characterization is dependent upon the collection of
representative samples. Steps must be taken during the sampling process to ensure that
samples accurately represent the area to be assessed. This chapter discusses the
recommended procedures for sample acquisition and handling. This is the first step in the
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) process that is needed to guarantee reliable data
for dredged material evaluation or sediment characterization, monitoring, and cleanup.
Failure to meet these requirements or follow any specified procedure will likely cause
rejection of the testing results. A number of regional programs have developed standard
sampling protocols. This chapter and the associated appendices provide an overview of
these widely accepted practices.
Pre-sampling bathymetric surveys should be conducted to provide information on current
shoaling patterns, the character of the dredge prism, and volumes of sediment present at the
time of sampling. For proposed dredging projects, the timing of sampling should be
coordinated with RSET. Coordination of timing is not as critical for sediment
characterization projects, but early and frequent coordination with the local regulatory
agency is crucial.
6.2 SAMPLING APPROACH
If sampling and analysis are required for a project, the applicant will be required to sample
the sediment for chemical and, if necessary, biological analyses. The recommended volume
needed for each type of analysis is listed in Table 6-1. There are four alternative sampling
approaches for both proposed dredging and sediment characterization projects, including:
Alternative 1: Collect enough sediment for physical (grain size) characterization only.
Alternative 2: Collect only enough sediment to conduct physical and chemical
analyses. If biological testing is necessary, re-sampling will be required.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc g-J INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
Table 6-1. Sample Storage Criteria
Sample Type
Particle Size
Total Solids
Total Volatile Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Ammonia
Metals (except
Mercury)
Semi-volatiles,
Pesticides, and PCBs
Total Sulfides5
Mercury
Volatile Organics
Bioassay
Bioaccumulation
Holding
Time
6 months
14 days
14 days
14 days
7 days
6 months
14 days until
extraction
1 year until
extraction
40 days after
extraction
7 days
28 days
14 days
8 weeks
8 weeks
Sample Size1
100-200 g
(150 mL)
125 g
(100 mL)
125 g
(100 mL)
125 g
(100 mL)
25 g (20 mL)
50 g (40 mL)
150 g
(120 mL)
50 g (40 mL)
5 g (4 mL)
100 g
(2-40 mL jars)
4 liters
16 liters
Temperature2
4ฐC
4ฐC
4ฐC
4ฐC
4ฐC
4ฐC
4ฐC
-18ฐC
4ฐC
4ฐC5
-18ฐC
4ฐC
4ฐC7
4ฐC7
Container3
1 -liter glass
(combined)
125 mL plastic
125 mL glass
2-40 mL glass6
5-1 liter glass
16-1 liter glass
Archive4
X
11 Recommended minimum field sample sizes for one laboratory analysis. Actual volumes to be collected have been
increased to provide a margin of error and allow for retests.
11 During transport to the lab, samples will be stored on ice. The mercury and archived samples will be frozen immediately
upon receipt at the lab.
3/ All containers should have Teflonฎ lined lids. Containers should be laboratory provided pre-cleaned certified containers for
the specified analyses. The laboratory may request a different sample size than specified in this table.
4/ For every test sediment or DMMU, a 250 mL container is filled and frozen to run any or all of the analyses indicated.
51 The sulfides sample will be preserved with 5 mL of normal zinc acetate for every 30 g of sediment.
61 The volatiles jars should be filled with zero head-space.
11 Headspace purged with nitrogen.
g = grams; mL = milliliter; ฐC = degrees Celsius; PCBs = poly chlorinated biphenyls; DMMU = dredged material management
unit
Alternative 3. Collect sufficient sediment for physical, chemical, and biological tests.
Archive adequate sediment for biological testing pending the results of the chemical
analysis.
Alternative 4: Collect sufficient sediment for physical, chemical, and biological tests.
Run these tests concurrently.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
6-2
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
The sampling approach should be clearly documented in the Sampling and Analysis (SAP),
as outlined in Chapter 5. The selection of either Alternative 3 or 4 is encouraged if
chemical analysis is anticipated, because they provide chemical and biological data on
subsamples of a single homogenized sample. These alternatives are also advantageous
because they both preclude the cost involved with collection of additional sediment.
Alternative 4 is the least time consuming, and is likely the most economical when the need
for biological testing is expected (note the sediment holding times in Table 6-1). For
Alternative 2, biological analysis can proceed without re-analysis of sediment chemistry, in
the case of dredging projects. Re-analysis of sediment chemistry may be useful in order to
correlate previous levels of contaminants at each sampling station to the current levels of
contaminants in sediments used for biological testing. Biological samples must be taken
from the same stations as the sediment chemistry samples.
Biological testing is used to provide data for an impact assessment of the contaminants of
concern through use of toxicity and bioaccumulation tests with appropriate, sensitive
organisms (see Chapter 8, Biological [Toxicity] Testing). Toxicity testing is used to
determine the potential effects from a direct contact perspective for benthic organisms.
Bioaccumulation testing is used to determine the potential for uptake of sediment
contaminants for benthic organisms.
6.3 POSITIONING METHODS
Accurate positioning of sampling stations is essential in investigations of sediment
characteristics. All samples should be obtained as close as possible to the target locations
provided in the project SAP. All sediment sampling locations should be recorded to a
horizontal accuracy of ฑ2 meters (or as approved in the SAP). Such accuracy can be
obtained by survey landmarks and a variety of positional hardware, such as a Global
Positioning System (GPS). Commercial-grade GPS receivers are available that provide
real-time sub-meter accuracy. However, other uncontrollable factors such as water currents
or wind drift will reduce the usefulness of the sub-meter accuracy GPS. If sampling
locations are referenced to a local coordinate grid, the local grid should be tied to the North
American Datum (NAD) (NAD 1983) to allow conversion to latitudes and longitudes. The
use of a standard horizontal datum will allow sediment quality data to be accurately
mapped, including display and analysis using geographic information system (GIS)
software.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc g_3 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
6.4 SAMPLING METHODS
For dredging projects, the goal of sediment sampling for characterization of each individual
dredged material management unit (DMMU) is to collect a sample (or a number of
composited samples) representative of the DMMU. The agencies have established
minimum sampling requirements based on volumetric measurements, tabulated in
Chapter 5. For sediment characterization projects, discrete individual samples should be
collected in a manner such that the data will be representative of current conditions at the
site. Compositing of sediment samples is not recommended for site characterization or
environmental cleanup projects, unless approval is obtained during the initial planning stage
of the collection efforts.
The type of sampling required, however, depends on the type of project. Dredging projects
are concerned with the contaminant concentrations found throughout and beneath the
dredge prism. Sediment characterization projects are generally interested in determining
the vertical and horizontal magnitude and extent of the contaminants to ascertain current
environmental impacts in lakes, rivers, estuaries, and coastal waters. Each sediment
program will employ different sampling devices.
Core samplers and grab samplers are two types of sediment sampling devices. Core
samplers are typically used to sample thick sediment deposits, collect sediment profiles for
the determination of the vertical distribution of sediment characteristics, or characterize the
entire sediment column. Grab samplers are typically used to collect surficial sediments for
the assessment of the horizontal distribution of sediment characteristics. The sampling
methodology to be used should be presented in the SAP along with the rationale for its use.
6.4.1 Core Sampling
Core samplers are used to obtain sediment samples for geological characterizations and
dating, investigate the historical input of contaminants to aquatic systems, and characterize
the depth of contamination at a site. One limitation of core samplers is that the volume of
any given depth horizon within the profile sample is relatively small. Depending on the
number and types of analyses required, repetitive sampling at the site might be required to
obtain the desired quantity of material from a given depth. There are several methods
available for obtaining core samples, including gravity cores, Gus samplers, augers with
split spoons, hydraulic push cores, box cores, piston cores, and vibracorers. Vibracorers are
the most commonly used coring device in sampling programs in United States because they
are able to collect deep cores in most types of sediments, yielding excellent sample
integrity. The methodology chosen will depend on equipment availability, cost, anticipated
sediment recoveries, and sediment matrix.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc g_4 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Only samples that are correctly collected should be used for subsequent testing. Core
samples should meet the following acceptability conditions (EPA 2001):
The core sampler is not inserted at an angle or tilted upon retrieval.
The core is collected the required depth to meet the study objectives, with no loss of
sediment.
6.4.2 Grab Sampling
Grab samplers consist either of a set of jaws that shut when lowered onto the surface of the
sediment or a bucket that rotates into the sediment when it reaches the bottom. Grab
samplers have the advantage of being relatively easy to operate, readily available,
moderately priced, and versatile in terms of the range of substrate types they can effectively
sample. There are several different methods for obtaining surface samples, including
Peterson, Shipek, Ponar, Ekman, and van Veen. These samplers are effective in most types
of surface sediments and in a variety of environments. Grab sampler capacities range from
approximately 0.5 L to 75 L. If a sampler does not have sufficient capacity to meet the
study plan requirements, additional samples can be collected and composited to obtain the
requisite sample size. When using grab samplers, care should be taken to prevent washout,
which results in loss of surficial, fine grained sediments that are often important from a
biological and contamination standpoint. In addition, grab samples should be visually
inspected to ensure that the following acceptability conditions are satisfied (EPA 2001):
The sampler is not overfilled, ensuring the sediment surface is touching the top of
the sampler.
Overlying water is present (indicates minimal leakage). This overlying water should
be removed prior to processing and storage by siphoning, not decanting.
The overlying water is clear or not excessively turbid.
The sediment-water interface is intact and relatively flat, with no sign of channeling
or sample washout.
The desired depth of penetration has been achieved.
There is no evidence of sediment loss (incomplete closure of the sampler,
penetration at an angle, or tilting upon retrieval).
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc g_5 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
6.5 SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING PROCEDURES
Proper sample collection and handling procedures are vital to maintain the integrity of the
sample. If the integrity of the sample is compromised, the analysis results may be skewed
or otherwise unacceptable. Sample collection and handling include procedures for
decontamination, sampler deployment, sample logging, sample extrusion, compositing,
subsampling, sample transport, chain-of-custody, archiving, and storage, all of which need
to be addressed in the SAP. Guidance can be found in the Methods for Collection, Storage
and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical and Toxicological Analyses: Technical
Manual (EPA 2001), which contains detailed information on sample handling procedures.
Project proponents are urged to contact RSET for the latest protocols. General guidance
can be found in Appendix B, and is summarized below.
6.5.1 Decontamination Procedures
Sampling containers are typically decontaminated by the laboratory or manufacturer prior to
use. For most sampling applications, site water rinse of sampling equipment in between
stations is normally sufficient (Puget Sound Estuary Program [PSEP] 1997). However,
when sampling multiple locations, including some that are suspected of known
contamination, a site water rinse may not be sufficient to minimize cross-contamination of
sampling equipment between stations. In these cases, it may be necessary to decontaminate
sampling equipment in-between stations. An approach recommended by the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2000) for field samples of unknown
composition includes (non-toxic) soap and water wash, distilled water rinse, acetone or
ethanol rinse, and site water rinse. If sediment can be sampled from the interior of the
sampling device and away from the potentially contaminated surfaces of the sampler, it
might be adequate to rinse with water between stations. All decontamination rinsate water
shall be collected and properly disposed. The use of dedicated sampling equipment such as
bowls and spoons can reduce the amount of decontamination required in the field.
6.5.2 Sample Collection
The appropriate vessel or sampling platform is one of the most important considerations in
preparing for field sampling. The vessel must be appropriate for the water body type, and
should provide sufficient space and facilities to allow collection, any on-board
manipulation, and storage of samples. The vessel should provide space for storage of
decontamination materials, as well as cleaning sampling gear and containers to avoid cross-
contamination.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc g-g INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Sampling procedures and protocols will vary depending on the sampling methodology
chosen.
Grab samplers penetrate to different depths depending on size, weight, and the sediment
substrate. Careful use of grab samplers is required to avoid problems such as loss of fine-
grained surface sediments, mixing of sediment layers during impact, over penetration, lack
of sediment penetration, and loss of sediment from tilting or washout during ascent.
Regardless of the sample methodology chosen, the speed of descent should be controlled,
with no "free-fall" allowed, and after sample collection, the sampling device should be
lifted slowly off the bottom.
Core sampling methodology should include the means for determining when the core
sampler has penetrated to the required depth, such as a tape measure or lead line, and
referenced to the bathymetry (tide, river stage, and/or river datum corrected, if necessary).
The sampling location must be referenced to the actual deployment location of the sampler,
not another part of the sampling platform such as the bridge of a sampling vessel.
Only sediments that are correctly collected with grab or core sampling devices should be used
for subsequent physical, chemical, and biological testing. Acceptability of grabs can be
ascertained by noting that the sampler was closed when retrieved, is relatively full of sediment
(but not overfilled), and does not appear to have lost surficial fines. Core samples are
acceptable if the core was inserted vertically in the sediment and an adequate depth was
sampled.
6.5.3 Volatiles and Sulfides Subsampling
The volatiles and sulfides subsamples should be taken immediately upon extrusion of cores
or immediately after accepting a grab sample for use. For composited samples, one core
section or grab sample should be randomly selected for the volatiles and sulfides sampling
before compositing, because homogenization may lead to loss of volatiles and
semivolatiles.
6.5.4 Field Measurements and Observations
Field measurements and observations are critical to any sediment collection study, and
specific details concerning sample documentation should be included in the study plan. As
samples are collected, and after the volatiles and sulfides subsamples have been taken, logs
and field notes of all samples should be taken and correlated to the sampling location map.
Data to be noted in field logs include, but are not limited to, time and date of sample,
sample identification, weather conditions, field/subcontractor representatives, sampling
method, depth to mudline (tide corrected, river stage, and/or river datum, if necessary),
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc g_7 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
sediment compaction (typical in core samples), sediment characteristics (texture, odor,
visual), and presence of debris and/or benthos. Photographs of the sampling stations and
sediment samples are often useful to ensure the correct stations were sampled and to
document weather and water conditions during sampling. Additionally, photographs of
core samples can document sediment horizons, historical changes, and vertical extent of
contamination.
6.5.5 Compositing and Subsampling
Compositing refers to combining aliquots from two or more samples and analyzing the
resulting pooled sample (Keith 1993). Compositing is often necessary when a relatively
large amount of sediment must be obtained at each sampling site (e.g., to conduct several
different physical, chemical, and biological analyses). Compositing might be a practical,
cost-effective way to obtain average sediment characteristics for a particular site, but not to
dilute a heavily contaminated sample.
The decision to subsample and/or composite sediment samples within or among stations
depends on the purpose and the objectives of the study, the heterogeneity of the sediments,
the volume of the sediment required for analytical and/or biological testing, and the degree
of statistical resolution that is acceptable. Subsampling and compositing might be
accomplished in the field if facilities, space, and equipment are available, or alternatively, in
a laboratory setting following sample transport.
Subsampling is useful for collecting sediment from a specific depth of a core sample,
splitting samples among multiple laboratories, obtaining replicates within a sample,
collecting a sufficient volume of sediment for (potential) biological testing, or forming a
composite.
Prior to Subsampling from a grab sampler, the overlying water should be removed by slow
siphoning using a clean tube (PSEP 1997). If the overlying water is turbid, it should be
allowed to settle, if possible. Subsampling can be performed by using a decontaminated
spoon or scoop (Note: sediment that is in direct contact with the sides of the grab sampler
should be excluded as a general precaution against potential contamination from the
device). Subsamples from individual grab samples should be placed into a decontaminated
mixing bowl. When the required volume of sediment is retrieved, the sediment can be
mixed to form a homogeneous sample. Mixing can be accomplished by hand mixing or by
use of a mechanical mixer. Once the sediment is homogenized, the subsample can then be
placed into clean, pre-labeled container(s) depending on the type of analyses.
There are various methods for Subsampling sediment cores including gradual extrusion,
dissection of a core using a jigsaw, reciprocating saws, use of a segmented gravity corer, a
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc g-g INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
hand corer, or scoops or spoons. Sediment that comes into contact with a cutting device
should not be used for physical, chemical, or biological testing due to potential
contamination. Generally, when the sediment is extruded from the core tube, it is important
to observe the core for total length, compaction, depth stratification, sediment
characteristics (texture, odor, visual), and presence of debris and/or benthos. The sediment
core can be separated into sections of desired thickness using a cutting device. Cutting
devices range from stainless steel shear knives to Teflonฎ or nylon string. When the
required volume of sediment from each section is retrieved, the sediment can be mixed to
form a homogeneous sample. Once the sediment is homogenized, the subsample can then
be placed into clean, pre-labeled container(s) depending on the type of analyses.
6.5.6 Sample Storage, Sample Transport, and Holding Times
Transport and storage methods should be designed to maintain structural and chemical
qualities of sediment and pore water samples. If the sediment cores are not sectioned or
subsampled in the field, they may be stored upright, in the core liner or core barrel, and
secured in either a transport container (e.g., cooler or insulated box) with ice or ice packs
for intact transportation to the laboratory. If sectioning or subsampling of the sediment
cores takes place in the field, the samples are usually transferred to the laboratory issued
containers for storage. Sediments collected using grab samplers are usually transferred to
the laboratory issued containers in the field for storage.
Proper storage conditions should be achieved as quickly as possible after sampling. For
those parameters that are preserved via refrigeration (i.e., chemical and toxicity testing)
samples should be stored in the field in refrigerated units on board the sampling vessel or in
insulated containers containing ice or frozen ice packets. Sediment containers should be
stabilized in an upright position in the transport container. If a sample is to be refrigerated,
the sample container should be filled to the brim to reduce oxygen exposure. If a sample is
to be frozen (archived), the sample container should be filled to approximately 90 percent of
its volume (i.e., 10 percent headspace) to allow for expansion of the sample during freezing.
Proper sample storage is critical to accurate assessment of sediment toxicity. Limits for
effective holding times are governed by sediment type and contaminant characteristics
(ASTM 2000). Because these qualities are not always known, a general recommendation is
store sediments and interstitial water in the dark at 4 degrees Celsius (ฐC) (SETAC 2001).
Table 6-1 outlines the storage and holding time requirements for each type of analysis.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc g_9 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
6.5.7 Chain-of-Custody Procedures
Samples delivered to the laboratory should be accompanied by a chain-of-custody record
that includes the name of the study, location of the collection, date and time of collection,
type of sample, sample name or number, number of containers, analyses required, and the
collector's signature. Sample transport and chain-of-custody procedures are listed in
Appendix B.
6.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS
Accuracy in the field should be assessed through the use of appropriate field equipment and
trip blanks, and achieved through adherence to all sample handling, preservation, and
holding time requirements. Field blank samples should be analyzed to check for procedural
contamination that may cause sample contamination. Equipment rinsate blanks should be
used to assess the adequacy of decontamination of sampling equipment between individual
sample collections. Trip blanks should be used to assess the potential for contamination of
samples due to contaminant (i.e., volatile organic compounds) migration during sample
shipment, handling, and storage. Procedures for preparation of field blanks, equipment
rinsate blanks, and trip blanks should also be described. Accuracy of the field instruments
should be assessed by using daily instrument calibration and calibration checks. Field
blank, equipment rinsate blank, and trip blank analysis frequencies should also be specified.
6.6.1 Trip Blanks
Trip blanks are used to detect volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination of samples
during sample shipping and handling. Trip blanks are 40-milliliter (mL) volatile organic
analysis (VOA) vials of ASTM Type II water that are filled in the laboratory, transported to
the sampling site, and returned to the laboratory with VOC and VPH samples. Trip blanks
are not opened in the field. The planned frequency for trip blanks is one trip blank per
cooler containing samples for VOC analysis.
6.6.2 Equipment Rinsate Blank Samples
Equipment rinsate blanks (ERB) are samples of ASTM Type II water passed through and
over the surface of decontaminated sampling equipment. The rinse water is collected in
sample bottles, preserved, and handled in the same manner as the samples. ERBs are used
to monitor effectiveness of the decontamination process. The planned frequency for ERBs
is one per day per equipment type. If more than one type of equipment is used to collect
samples for a particular matrix, an ERB is then collected and submitted for each
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 6-10 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
representative group of equipment. Typically, ERBs are analyzed for the same analytes as
the corresponding samples collected that day.
6.6.3 Field or Decontamination Water Blanks
Field blanks are samples of the source water used for decontamination. This blank is used
to monitor for potential contaminants introduced from the water source during field
decontamination procedures. Typically, at least one sample for each source of water or one
field blank per lot number of analyte-free water for a specified event will be collected and
analyzed for the same parameters as the corresponding field environmental samples. If
more than one lot number of ASTM Type II water is used, or if potable water from more
than one location is used, additional field blanks are collected because these constitute
different sources.
6.6.4 Duplicate (Blind) Field Samples
"Blind" duplicate field samples are collected to monitor the precision of the field sampling
process. Duplicates will be collected for surface water samples only, because the inherent
variability of sediment and tissue samples precludes obtaining a true duplicate. The identity
of the duplicate sample is not noted on the laboratory chain-of-custody form. The field
team leader will choose at least 5 percent (1 in 20) of the total number of sample locations
known or suspected to contain moderate contamination, and duplicate field samples will be
collected at these locations. The identity of the duplicate samples is recorded in the field
sampling logbook, and this information is forwarded to the data quality evaluation team to
aid in reviewing and evaluating the data. The source of the blind field duplicate for the QA
samples will not be revealed to the laboratory. The blind field duplicate sample will have a
unique sample identification number on the chain-of-custody form sent to the laboratory
such that the laboratory cannot determine its source.
6.7 ARCHIVING ADDITIONAL SEDIMENT
In areas where the exposed sediment is anticipated to be contaminated at levels greater than
the in situ sediment, a sample will be collected and archived from the first foot below the
dredging design depth, which must include an allowance for over dredging or advanced
maintenance. Samples should be archived individually, not composited, especially where
the applicant has proposed large DMMUs. This will allow possible future analysis to
evaluate chemical concentrations in the newly exposed sediment if this is deemed necessary
by RSET.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 6-11 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
The archived sediment must be frozen. Because the holding time for mercury will likely be
exceeded, and sediments for volatiles analysis cannot be frozen, mercury and any volatile
chemicals of concern (CoCs) will not need to be analyzed for the archived sediments unless
these chemicals are anticipated to be a problem in the newly exposed sediments. In this
case, analysis will need to occur immediately.
6.8 DATA SUBMITTAL
A key component of the sampling effort is the completeness of the data package submitted
for regulatory review. Chapter 12 contains detailed information regarding data submittal
requirements.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 6-12 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
7. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL TESTING
7.1 OVERVIEW
The physical and chemical characterization of sediments is designed to provide a reliable
screen of the potential for biological effects from in-place contaminated sediments (CSs) or
dredged material that is subjected to open-water disposal. The pathways of concern for
biological effects are through the bulk sediment itself and through the water column during
sediment removal or disposal activities. This chapter focuses on requirements and
procedures for testing and interpreting chemical analytical results of bulk sediment.
Guidelines for evaluating water column effects during dredging and disposal are provided
in Chapter 11.
Interpretive guidelines for evaluating chemical analytical results consist of chemical
screening levels and bioaccumulation criteria. Chemical screening levels have been
developed for the standard list of chemicals of concern (CoCs), as shown in Table 7-1,
which are designed to be protective of direct biological effects to benthic and aquatic
organisms. The entire analyte list of CoCs (Table 7-1) should normally be tested for at all
sites and dredging projects. Exceedance of chemical screening levels triggers the need for
bioassay testing, as discussed in Chapter 8. In addition, the presence of contaminants not
accounted for in the dataset used to develop Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs) may
trigger bioassay testing. Bioaccumulation criteria are currently under development for
bioacculative chemicals of concern (BCoCs). Exceedances of bioaccumulation criteria, or
in the interim, elevations above reference, may trigger the need for bioaccumulation testing,
as described in Chapter 9.
The marine SQGs have been used since 1988, with some updates, and validated through
environmental studies of cleanup sites and dredged material disposal sites. Freshwater
SQGs have been more recently developed in 2002, and have not been as extensively
validated, though additional validation studies are planned in the next few years. Therefore,
the freshwater SQGs are considered interim guidelines until more data can be collected and
validation studies completed. Agencies may require bioassay testing to be conducted
concurrently with chemical analyses to provide additional data, particularly in areas where
there are few existing data, for chemicals not represented in the database, and for chronic or
sublethal endpoints. It is expected that these additional studies would be focused on larger
and more complex cleanup sites and dredging projects so as not to present an undue burden
on small applicants.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 7-1 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
Table 7-1. Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern
Chemical
CAS (1)
Number
Marine
SL1
(dry
weight
SL2
(dry
weight)
SL1 (3)
(mg/kg-
OC)
SL2 (3)
(mg/kg-
OC)
Interim Freshwater
SL1
(dry
weight
SL2
(dry
weight)
Metals (mg/kg)
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7440-22-4
7440-66-6
150
57
5.1
260
390
450
0.41
6.1
410
150
93
6.7
270
390
530
0.59
6.1
960
20
1.1
95
80
340
0.28
60
2.0
130
51
1.5
100
830
430
0.75
70
2.5
400
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (fig/kg)
Total LPAH
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Total HPAH
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzofluoranthenes (b+k)
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l ,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
91-20-3
208-96-8
83-32-9
86-73-7
85-01-8
120-12-7
91-57-6
206-44-0
129-00-0
56-55-3
218-01-9
205-99-2
207-08-9
50-32-8
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
5,200
2,100
560
500
540
1,500
960
670
12,000
1,700
2,600
1,300
1,400
3,200
1,600
600
230
670
5,200
2,100
1,300
500
540
1,500
960
670
17,000
2,500
3,300
1,600
2,800
3,600
1,600
690
230
720
370
99
66
16
23
100
220
38
960
160
1,000
110
110
230
99
34
12
31
780
170
66
57
79
480
1,200
64
5,300
1,200
1,400
270
460
450
210
88
33
78
6,600
500
470
1,100
1,000
6,100
1,200
470
31,000
11,000
8,800
4,300
5,900
600
3,300
4,100
800
4,000
9,200
1,300
640
1,300
3,000
7,600
1,600
560
55,000
15,000
16,000
5,800
6,400
4,000
4,800
5,300
840
5,200
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (jig/kg)
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
106-46-7
95-50-1
120-82-1
118-74-1
110
35
31
22
110
50
51
70
3.1
2.3
0.81
0.38
9
2.3
1.8
2.3
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
7-2
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
Table 7-1. Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals of Concern (continued)
Chemical
CAS1'
Number
Marine
SL1
(dry
weight)
SL2
(dry
weight)
SL12/
(mg/kg-
OC)
SL2/
(mg/kg-
OC)
Freshwater
SL1
(dry
weight)
SL2
(dry
weight)
Phthalates (ug/kg)
Dimethyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
131-11-3
84-66-2
84-74-2
85-68-7
117-81-7
117-84-0
71
200
1,400
63
1,300
6,200
160
200
1,400
900
1,900
6,200
53
61
220
4.9
47
58
53
110
1,700
64
78
4,500
46
260
220
26
440
370
320
45
Phenols (u.g/kg)
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
108-95-2
95-48-7
106-44-5
105-67-9
87-86-5
420
63
670
29
400
1,200
63
670
29
690
Miscellaneous Extractables (u.g/kg)
Benzyl alcohol
Benzoic acid
Dibenzofuran
Hexachlorobutadiene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Pesticides (jig/kg)
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
Aldrin
alpha-Chlordane
Dieldrin
Heptachlor
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Total PCBs
100-51-6
65-85-0
132-64-9
87-68-3
86-30-6
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
309-00-2
12789-03-6
60-57-1
76-44-8
58-89-9
57
650
540
11
28
16
9
34
130
73
650
540
120
40
1,000
15
3.9
11
12
58
6.2
11
65
400
60
440
120
Tributyltin3'
TBT pore water (j-ig/L)
TBT dry weight ((^g/kg ion)
56573-85-4
0.15
75
75
Notes:
I/ CAS = Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number
2/ Screening levels are normalized by the fraction of organic carbon, expressed as mg/kg-OC.
3/ Tributyltin is a Chemical of Special Concern, not a Standard List Chemical of Concern. See Testing, Reporting, and Evaluation of Tributyltin
Data in PSDDA and SMS Programs at URL http://www.nws.usace.armv.mil/dmmo/8th arm/tbt 96.htm
= No numerical criterion for this chemical
Hg/kg = micrograms per kilogram
ug/L = micrograms per liter
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
7-3
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
This chapter includes a number of updates and revisions to previous guidance documents
(EPA/Corps 1998a, 2000), including the following:
Updated sediment screening level guidelines (Table 7-1), including both dry-weight
and equivalent carbon-normalized values for marine sediments, development of
guidelines for freshwater sediments, and removal of outdated bioaccumulation
triggers (BTs) (currently under development, see Chapter 9);
Updated chemical analytical methods and quantitation limits for sediment testing
(Table 7-2);
Development of recommended chemical analytical methods and quantitation limits
for tissue testing (Table 7-3);
Revision of the dredging exclusionary criterion to a total organic carbon (TOC)
basis rather than total volatile solids (TVS) basis (Section 7.4);
Inclusion of additional constituents (TPH, organophosphorus pesticides) as
chemicals of special concern (Section 7.5.2), and development of procedures for
evaluating and nominating emerging chemicals for inclusion in the SEF (Section
7.5.3);
More explicit specifications for data quality requirements (Section 7.7); and
Generalization of evaluation methods and criteria to be consistent to the extent
possible between dredging projects and CS investigations.
7.2 GENERAL TESTING PROTOCOLS
Recommended chemical analytical methods and quantitation limits for sediment testing are
presented in Table 7-2. These testing and analytical protocols generally follow the latest
version of the Recommended Protocols for Measuring Selected Environmental Variables in
Puget Sound (Puget Sound Estuary Program [PSEP] 1996), Methods for Collection,
Storage, and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical and Toxicological Analyses (EPA
2001), and Appendix F: Methods for Chemical and Physical Analysis, Great Lakes Dredged
Material Testing and Evaluation Manual (EPA/Corps 1998b). RSET must approve any
modifications of these protocols. Any requests for modifications to these protocols should
occur during the preparation of the project Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) (see
Chapter 5).
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 7-4 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
Table 7-2. Recommended Analytical Methods and Quantitation Limits for Sediment
Parameter
Prep Method
Analysis Method
Sample Quantitation
Limit (SQL) y
Conventionals:
Total Solids (%)
Total Organic Carbon (%)
Total Sulfides (mg/kg)
Ammonia (mg/kg)
Grain Size (%)
EPA 2450-G
EPA 531 OB mod
PSEP 1997
Plumb 1981
ASTMD-422mod
0.1
0.1
1.0
0.1
1.0
Metals (mg/kg):
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
EPA 60 10/6020 2/
EPA 60 10/6020
EPA 60 10/6020
EPA 60 10/6020
EPA 60 10/6020
EPA 60 10/6020
EPA 7471
EPA 60 10/6020
EPA 60 10/6020
EPA 60 10/6020
EPA 60 10/6020
EPA 60 10/6020
EPA 60 10/6020
EPA 60 10/6020
EPA 60 10/6020
EPA 60 10/6020
EPA 7471
EPA 60 10/6020
EPA 60 10/6020
EPA 60 10/6020
0.5
5
0.5
5
5
5
0.05
5
0.5
5
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (jig/kg):
LPAH
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
2-Methylnaphthalene
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
HPAH
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzofluoranthenes
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
7-5
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
Table 7-2. Recommended Analytical Methods and Quantitation Limits for Sediment
(continued)
Parameter
Prep Method
Analysis Method
Sample Quantitation
Limit (SQL) v
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (jig/kg):
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
EPA3550-mod
EPA3550-mod
EPA3550-mod
EPA 3550/3540
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270/8081
20
20
20
10
Phthalates (jig/kg):
Dimethyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
20
20
20
20
100
20
Phenols (jig/kg):
Phenol
2 Methylphenol
4 Methylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
20
20
20
20
100
Miscellaneous Extractables (jig/kg):
Benzyl alcohol
Benzoic acid
Dibenzofuran
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 3550/3540
EPA 3550-mod
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270/8081
EPA 8270
50
100
20
20
10
20
Pesticides/PCBs (fig/kg):
DDE (p,p'-, o,p'-)
ODD (p,p'-, o,p'-)
DDT (p,p'-, o,p'-)
Aldrin
Chlordane
Dieldrin
Heptachlor
Lindane
Total PCBs
EPA 3540
EPA 3540
EPA 3540
EPA 3540
EPA 3540
EPA 3540
EPA 3540
EPA 3540
EPA 3 540
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8082
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
10
Tributyltin (ug/L) 3/:
TBT in pore water (|ig/L Ion)
TBT in sediment (jig/kg)
NMFS/Hoffman
NMFS
Krone 1989
Krone 1989
0.03
5
Notes:
" SQLs are based on dry sample weight assuming no interferences; site-specific method modifications may be required to achieve these
SQLs in some cases.
Includes hydrochloric acid digestion per EPA 3050-B.
3/ Tributyltin is a chemical of special concern; analysis of this constituent in pore- water or bulk sediment will be determined on a project-
specific basis.
EPA Method 3550 is modified to add matrix spikes before the dehydration step, not after.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram; ng/kg = micrograms per kilogram; ug/L = micrograms per liter; % = percent;
ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
7-6
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
Table 7-3. Recommended Analytical Methods and Quantitation Limits for Tissue
Parameter
Prep Method
Analysis Method
Sample Quantitation
Limit (SQL) y
Conventionals
Lipids (%)
Bligh/Dyer
Bligh/Dyer
0.01
Metals (mg/kg)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
EPA3050B/PSEP
EPA3050B/PSEP
EPA3050B/PSEP
EPA 7471
EPA 200.87 60107 7060A
EPA 200.87 60107 713 1A
EPA 200.87 60107 7421
EPA 7471
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.01
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (jig/kg)
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
3540C, 3541 or 3550B
3540C, 3541or3550B
EPA 8270-SIM
EPA 8270-SIM
1-5
1-5
Miscellaneous Semivolatiles (jig/kg)
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
Pentachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
3540C, 3541or3550B
3540C, 3541or3550B
3540C, 3541 or 3550B
EPA 8081
EPA 8270-SIM
EPA 8151
1
25
5
Pesticides (jig/kg)
DDE (p,p'-, o,p'-)
DDD(p,p'-, o,p'-)
DDT (p,p'-, o,p'-)
Chlordane (alpha, gamma)
Oxy-chlordane
Nonachlor (trans, cis)
3540C, 3541or3550B
3540C, 3541or3550B
3540C, 3541or3550B
3540C, 3541or3550B
3540C, 3541or3550B
3540C, 3541or3550B
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
2
2
2
2
2
2
PCBs (fig/kg) 2/
PCB Aroclors
PCB Congeners
PCB Congeners (Low Level)
3540C, 3541or3550B
3540C, 3541 or 3550B
EPA 1668A
EPA 8082
EPA 8082
EPA 1668A
5-10
0.5-1.0
0.05-0.1
Dioxins/Furans (ng/kg) 3/
TCDD
Dioxins/Furans
EPA 82907 16 13
EPA 82907 161 3
EPA 82907 16 13
EPA 82907 16 13
1
1 -5
Organotins (jig/kg) 3/
Tributyltin
EPA3550BorNMFS
Krone
10
Notes:
" All sample quantitation limits are expressed on a wet-weight basis
21 Selection of PCB analytical method will be determined on a project-specific basis
3/ Dioxins/furans and tributyltin are chemicals of special concern; analysis of these constituents will be determined on a project-specific
basis
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram; ng/kg = micrograms per kilogram; ng/kg = nanograms per kilogram
7.3 CONVENTIONAL TESTING PROTOCOLS
Conventional parameters should be analyzed according to the following specifications:
Grain size: Measurement of grain size will be determined following the measurement
techniques specified in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 422
(modified). Measurement requires use of a sedimentation sieve series consisting of the
following sieve sizes: 5 inch, 2.5 inch, 1.25 inch, 5/8 inch, 5/16 inch, No. 5, No. 10, No.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
7-7
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
18, No. 35, No. 60, No. 120, and No. 230. Material passing the 230 sieve determines the
percent fines. Reporting will include both the percent of sediment retained in each sieve as
well as the percent passing. Hydrogen peroxide will not be used in preparations for grain
size analysis, because hydrogen peroxide breaks down organic aggregates and may
therefore overestimate the percent fines. Hydrometer analysis will be used for particle sizes
finer than the 230 mesh.
Water content will be determined using ASTM D 2216. Sediment classification designation
will be made in accordance with U.S. Soil Classification System, ASTM D 2487, using the
results of the grain size analysis.
Total Organic Carbon: A modified EPA Method 5310B is recommended for analysis of
TOC in sediment samples. A description of the modified TOC method recommended for
use in the Pacific Northwest is provided in Bragdon-Cook (1993). TOC is a key index
parameter that affects the adsorptive capacity and bioavailability of organic contaminants in
sediments.
The analysis of other conventional parameters may also be required, as listed in Table 7-2.
In particular, analysis of ammonia and sulfides may be useful in interpreting bioassay test
results (see Chapter 8), and determining whether conventional parameters may be
contributing to sediment toxicity.
7.4 GRAIN SIZE/ORGANIC CARBON SCREENING
An initial screen of bulk sediment quality may be conducted using grain size and TOC
results. The purpose of this initial screen is to characterize sediments likely to have
minimal amounts of fine-grained sediment and sedimentary organic matter and therefore
lower potential for adsorption and retention of CoCs. Most commonly, this type of screen
is used in large navigational dredging projects with mid-channel sand deposition. This type
of screen may not be conducted in areas adjacent to known current or historical sources of
contamination and is therefore generally not suitable for CS investigations.
Sediments with TOC contents less than 0.5 percent have a high probability of no adverse
effects in bioassay tests, with the exception of certain eastern watersheds (see below). If the
results are less than 20 percent fines in the grain size analysis and less than 0.5 percent
TOC, and there are no known current or historical sources in the vicinity of the project site,
the material may qualify for unconfmed aquatic disposal based on exclusionary status. If
the results are higher than 20 percent fines or greater than 0.5 percent TOC (i.e., the results
exceed either or both of the guidelines), or the site may have been impacted by current or
historical sources, the sediment must undergo chemical analysis for CoCs.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 7-8 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Certain watersheds east of the Cascades that are influenced by mining activities will be
excluded from using this screening criterion and will be required to collect chemistry data.
Metals and other inorganic constituents are the predominant CoCs associated with mining,
and the toxicity of sediments in mining regions may be more related to clay mineral content
than organic carbon content.
7.5 CHEMICAL TESTING PROTOCOLS AND GUIDELINES
There are three categories of CoCs that are considered in developing testing requirements
for dredging projects. These CoC lists may also be consulted when developing a scope of
work for CS investigations; however, CS investigations are generally more tailored to site-
specific conditions and more focused on defining the nature and extent of CoCs that are
known or suspected based on current or historical activities and/or previous sampling data.
The three categories of CoCs include the following:
Standard CoC List: Default list of constituents analyzed in a majority of dredging
projects. Past studies have shown that many of the CoCs on the standard list are
relatively widespread in the Pacific Northwest and may have multiple sources.
Chemicals of Special Occurrence: Constituents to be considered for analysis in
special areas or in association with particular sources, activities, or land uses.
Testing will be required only when those sources, activities, or land uses are present
or have historically been present in the vicinity of the project site.
BCoCs: Constituents with potential for bioaccumulation in higher-level organisms
(e.g., humans, fish, birds, mammals). See Chapter 9 and Appendix A for a
discussion and list of BCoCs.
7.5.1 Standard List of Chemicals of Concern.
The standard CoCs are listed in Table 7-1, along with sediment quality screening level
guidelines, which are discussed later in this chapter. Recommended analytical methods and
quantitation limits are presented in Table 7-2. The standard CoCs include constituents with
one or more of the following characteristics:
A demonstrated or suspected adverse biological or human health effect,
A relatively widespread distribution above natural or background conditions in the
Pacific Northwest,
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 7-9 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
A potential for remaining in a toxic form for long periods (i.e., years or decades) in
the environment (environmental persistence), and/or
A potential for entering the food web (bioaccumulative).
If Level 1 research on current and historical site activities, analysis of existing analytical
data, or analysis of new data collected in accordance with SEF guidelines shows that certain
CoCs are not present in the project vicinity, these chemicals need not be included in any
further testing unless there is a changed condition at the site.
Table 7-1 presents the dry-weight interpretive marine and freshwater guideline values for
each chemical. These guideline values are described further in Section 7.8. The values in
this table are predictive of direct toxicity to benthic and epibenthic organisms;
bioaccumulation-based values have not yet been developed for sediments, but will be added
to this table once they are available (see Chapter 9 for bioaccumulation testing
requirements). Table 7-2 presents recommended preparation methods, analytical methods,
and sample quantitation limits (SQLs) for sediments. These methods have generally been
able to achieve SQLs required for interpretation and screening of chemical data. Other
methods may be proposed to RSET for approval during the SAP review.
7.5.2 Chemicals of Special Occurrence
Chemicals of special occurrence may be associated with specific activities, industries, or
land uses. They may exhibit localized concentrations, but they are not believed to be
widespread in the Pacific Northwest. The following chemicals of special occurrence will be
considered for inclusion in sediment testing programs when there is a reason to believe a
current or historical source of these chemicals is or has been present:
Butyltins (including tributyltin, or TBT). Butyltin testing per the method of Krone et al.
(1989) may be required in areas affected by vessel maintenance and construction activities,
marine shipping, and frequent vessel traffic (e.g., shipyards, boatyards, marinas, marine
terminals). In marine sediments, pore water analysis has been shown to improve the
reliability of toxicity predictions and is generally recommended over bulk sediment analysis
(Michelsen et al. 1996); TBT pore water extraction protocols are described in Hoffman
(1998). At some marine sites, however, analysis of TBT in bulk sediment may be
appropriate, either on a dry-weight or carbon-normalized basis (EPA 1996). In freshwater
environments, analysis of TBT in bulk sediment on a dry-weight basis is preferred.
Dioxins/furans. Testing for polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and polychlorinated
dibenzofurans (PCDD/PCDF) may be required in areas potentially impacted by known
sources of dioxin/furan compounds, or in areas where the presence of dioxin/furan compounds
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 7-10 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
has been demonstrated in past testing. A P450 biomarker test may be utilized to screen for the
presence of dioxin-like compounds (associated with the induction of the Ah-receptor).
However, care must be used in interpreting the results of such a test as other compounds that
interact with the Ah-receptor (such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs] and
polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs]) will also show a positive result in this test. Analysis by
EPA Method 1613 or 8290 is recommended.
Organophosphorus Pesticides. Testing for organophosphorus pesticides and potentially
other types of pesticides (i.e., triazines) may be considered in areas dominated by agricultural
land use and in sediments affected by cropland runoff, particularly in certain eastern drainages
where large portions of the watershed are under cultivation. Analysis by EPA Method 8141 is
recommended (see RSET Issue Paper No. 4 in Appendix C).
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs). Testing for TPHs may be considered at sites
where quantities of petroleum product have been released to the aquatic environment (e.g.,
crude oil or fuel spills, waterfront tank, or pipeline leaks). EPH/VPH analysis (extractable and
volatile petroleum hydrocarbons) provides quantitation of aliphatic and aromatic carbon
ranges and is the recommended analytical method (Ecology 1997). Gross TPH
determinations (i.e., quantitation of gasoline-, diesel-, and oil-range constituents, per NW-
TPH or comparable methods) may be useful as a screening tool to help map the distribution of
petroleum spills, but appears to be of limited value in predicting sediment toxicity (see RSET
Issue Paper No. 2 in Appendix C).
Guaiacols. Guaiacol and chlorinated guaiacols may be required in areas where kraft pulp
mills are located. Only guaiacol, and not chlorinated guiacols, will be measured near sulfite
pulp mills because these mills do not use a bleaching process.
Resin Acids. Resin acids may be required analytes in areas of pulp mills. Resin acids may
include abietic acid, dehydroabietic acid, dichlorodehydroabietic acid, isopimaric acid, and
sandaracopimaric acid.
7.5.3 Evaluation and Nomination of Emerging Chemicals
An "emerging chemical" may be added to the list of chemicals of special concern if it is
found at least occasionally in sediments of the Pacific Northwest at levels of concern likely
to be associated with ecological or human health effects, including direct effects to aquatic
organisms and/or indirect effects through bioaccumulation. If it is unclear whether the
chemical is present in sediments at potentially toxic levels, federal, state, and/or local
agencies should be encouraged to collect additional data (e.g., through regional monitoring
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 7-11 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
programs or special research projects) until sufficient data are available to evaluate the
chemical for inclusion in the SEP.
In considering a candidate chemical for inclusion as a chemical of special concern, the
regional database and technical literature will be reviewed to determine whether a listing is
warranted, not warranted, or indeterminate because of insufficient data. The weight-of-
evidence for establishing a reason to believe the chemical is causing sediment toxicity will
consider the following:
Local/regional contaminant sources (usage rates, industrial associations),
Environmental occurrence (frequency and magnitude of detection in regional
monitoring data),
Toxicity (presence in the environment above ecological or human health toxicity
thresholds),
Persistence (half life, ability to degrade), and
Mobility (hydrophobicity, partitioning behavior).
A chemical of special occurrence may be promoted to the standard CoC list if the chemical
is found to be prevalent in sediments of the Pacific Northwest at concentrations commonly
associated with biological effects, and if a sufficient body of data has accumulated to allow
the development of reliable sediment quality guidelines. The development of sediment
quality guidelines will typically require 100 or more synoptic data points (i.e., paired
chemical and biological testing results) from multiple studies and environments over a
range of concentrations.
On the other hand, a chemical may be delisted from the standard CoC list if the chemical is
no longer prevalent in the Pacific Northwest at levels of concern, if the chemical is shown
to have reduced toxicity based on more recent toxicological data, and/or if concentrations
have dropped significantly below the historical levels upon which the listing was based.
The rationale for listing or delisting chemicals as chemicals of special concern or standard
CoCs will be considered on a case-by-case basis using the criteria listed above during
periodic reviews of the SEP.
7.6 TISSUE TESTING
Recommended tissue analytical methods and quantitation limits are presented in Table 7-3
for primary (List 1) BCoCs. These testing and analytical protocols generally follow the
latest version of the Recommended Protocols for Measuring Selected Environmental
Variables in Puget Sound (PSEP 1996) and Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 7-12 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Data for Use in Fish Advisories (EPA 2000a). RSET must approve any modifications of
these protocols. Any requests for modifications to these protocols should occur during the
preparation of the project SAP (see Chapter 5).
7.7 DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING
7.7.1 Quality Assurance/ Quality Control
To support sediment management decisions, it is imperative that quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) procedures be implemented during field and laboratory activities. It is
also important that the quality of the data be evaluated and reported. Field and laboratory
QA/QC procedures are generally tailored to the scope and complexity of the project and the
level of risk being managed. For example, a state or federal sediment cleanup investigation
will require a more rigorous QA/QC program than a small dredging project in a low-risk
area.
QA/QC measures, control limits, and contingency response procedures are outlined in a
QA/QC chapter of the SAP for dredging projects, and in a Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) for CS investigations. Field QA/QC procedures are described in Chapter 6.
Standard laboratory QA/QC procedures may include, depending on the particular method
and analyte, matrix spikes/matrix spike duplicates, laboratory duplicates, method blanks,
surrogate spikes, laboratory control samples, calibration protocols, and other procedures
necessary to quantify the accuracy and precision of the analytical results. Laboratory
QA/QC procedures are generally prescribed in the analytical method specifications or in
laboratory standard operating procedures (SOPs).
7.7.2 Analytical Sensitivity
Analytical sensitivity is characterized by method detection limits (MDLs) and sample
quantitation limits (SQLs, also known as reporting limits, practical quantitation limits, etc.)
(EPA 1989a, DOD Quality Systems Manual 2005). The MDL is a minimum concentration
of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99 percent confidence that the
analyte concentration is greater than zero. MDL studies are generally conducted using
ideal, laboratory-prepared samples of a spiked clean matrix. The SQL is established by the
low standard of the initial calibration curve or low-level calibration check standard. At a
minimum, the SQL should be three to five times the MDL.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 7-13 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
To generate appropriate and useable data, achieve data quality objectives, and support
accurate sediment management decisions, the SQLs should be less than the screening levels
listed in Table 7-1, in particular, SL1, the lower screening level.
Regarding data quality, the following three scenarios are possible:
SQL is less than SL1. All reasonable steps should be taken, including additional
cleanup steps, re-extraction, etc., to keep the SQLs below the sediment screening
levels. Assuming all other QA/QC criteria are met (see Section 7.7.1), this produces
data of the highest quality.
MDL exceeds SL1. In this scenario, the analytical method used is not sufficiently
sensitive to make an informed sediment management decision. An undetected result
with an MDL exceeding the SL1 will generally be considered an exceedence of the
SL1 unless it can be demonstrated that all reasonable steps were taken to control the
MDL and SQL, including additional cleanup procedures, re-extraction and re-
analysis, as necessary. In such cases, RSET may consider the results of other
analytes in the same class of compounds, site history, existing sediment quality data
from the site vicinity, and other lines of evidence to determine whether the elevated
MDL represents a significant data gap and a potential false negative result.
MDL is less than SL1; SQL exceeds SL1. In some circumstances, matrix
interference, high water content, or other sample characteristics may compromise
the sensitivity of the analytical method. However, it must be shown that all
reasonable steps were taken to control the SQL, including additional cleanup
procedures, re-extraction and re-analysis, as appropriate. These data are generally
acceptable for use in sediment management decisions, but will be qualified as
having lower precision and accuracy and greater uncertainty.
For undetected compounds, laboratories should report both the MDL and the SQL. If
problems or questions arise regarding the ability to achieve sufficiently low MDLs and
SQLs, the project proponent should contact RSET. In all cases, sediments or extracts
should be kept under proper storage conditions until the chemistry data are deemed
acceptable by the regulatory agencies (see Table 6-1). This retains the option for re-
analysis and lower-level quantitation, if necessary.
7.7.3 Reporting of Estimated Concentrations below the SQL
Laboratories have the ability to identify and provide an estimated quantitation of CoCs at
concentrations below the SQL and above the MDL; however, quantitations in this region
have a lower accuracy and precision compared to quantitations above the SQL (i.e., third
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 7-14 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
scenario in Section 7.7.2). Laboratories shall be required to report estimated values
between the MDL and the SQL; typically these values will be qualified with a "J" flag
because they are below the lowest calibration standard.
7.7.4 Chemical Summations
Several chemical groups are reported as a summation of individual compounds.
Summations are reported for PAHs, low- and high-molecular weight polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (LPAHs and HPAHs), and total PCBs. Other chemical groups (e.g.,
carcinogenic PAHs, PCB congeners, dioxins/furans) are typically summed using weighting
factors proportional to the relative toxicity of the individual constituents (see Toxicity
Equivalency Factors below). The rules for chemical summation are as follows:
The group summation is performed using all detected concentrations. Undetected
results are considered zero value and are not included in the sum. (Note: Other
statistical approaches for treatment of nondetected values may be used in other
regulatory programs; for example, risk assessments conducted under CERCLA and
state cleanup investigations may use one-half detection limit values for chemical
summation purposes).
The estimated values between the MDL and the SQL (i.e., J-flagged values) are
included in the summation at face value.
If all constituents in a chemical group are undetected, the group sum is reported as
undetected, and the highest SQL of all the constituents is reported as the SQL for the
group sum.
PAHs. LPAHs include the following compounds: naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene,
acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, fluorene, phenanthrene, and anthracene. HPAHs include the
following compounds: fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene,
benzo(b+k)fluoranthenes, benzo(a)pyrene, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene,
and benzo(g,h,i)perylene. Total PAHs includes the sum of all LPAH and HP AH
compounds.
Total PCBs. Total PCB aroclors includes the sum of the following aroclors: Aroclor-1016,
1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, and 1260. If present, Aroclor-1262 and Aroclor-1268 should
be reported, but not included in the total PCB summation. It should be noted that total
PCBs calculated by summing PCB aroclor mixtures is not comparable to total PCBs
calculated by summing individual PCB congeners due to fundamental differences in the
methods of analysis and quantitation.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 7-15 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Toxicity Equivalency Factors. Toxicity equivalency factors (TEFs) are often used in risk
assessment calculations to sum certain chemical groups (in particular, carcinogenic PAHs,
PCB congeners, and dioxins/furans) based on the potency values of the individual
compounds. TEFs have been applied to both sediment and tissue data to provide a toxicity-
based chemical index concentration; however, there may be varying partitioning and
bioaccumulation behavior of the compounds comprising the TEF. As a result, it is
generally recommended that sediment-tissue partitioning relationships (i.e., biota-sediment
accumulation factors [BSAFs]) be evaluated on the basis of individual chemicals rather than
the summed concentrations of a chemical group.
The use of TEFs for addressing human health risks has been approved by EPA as well as
international organizations (e.g., World Health Organization), and is therefore an acceptable
approach under this SEF. Draft TEFs for addressing ecological risks to mammals, birds,
and fish have been developed for PCBs and dioxins/furans (EPA 2003a); however,
considerable uncertainty remains as to the accuracy of the draft values and the underlying
toxicological basis for their use. Therefore, draft wildlife TEFs may be used as part of a
weight-of-evidence approach, but they should not be the sole criterion for making
ecological risk decisions until additional field and laboratory validation studies are
completed to ensure the accuracy and reliability of these values.
7.8 BENTHIC INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES
Chemical screening levels have been developed to predict and manage potential adverse
biological effects on benthic and epibenthic organisms that may be associated with the
sediment chemical concentrations. The screening levels may be used to evaluate benthic
risk associated with in place sediments, or if dredging is proposed, the newly exposed
sediment surface and the unconfmed open-water disposal site, as applicable. Biological
tests serve to integrate chemical and biological interactions of contaminants present in a
sediment sample, including the availability for biological uptake, by measuring the toxic
effects on appropriately sensitive benthic organisms in bioassay tests (see Chapter 8).
The RSET screening levels listed in Table 7-1 are derived from regional toxicity data from
sediment sites in the Pacific Northwest. Two screening values were developed based on
different criteria for the acceptability of the sediment bioassay results. The lower screening
level (SL1) corresponds to a concentration below which adverse effects to benthic
organisms would not be expected, and the upper screening level (SL2) corresponds to a
concentration at which minor adverse effects may be observed in the more sensitive groups
of benthic organisms (see PSEP 1988, Ecology 1991, 1995, 2003).
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 7-16 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
If BCoCs are present at levels of concern, a separate bioaccumulation assessment will need
to be performed for both dredging projects and contaminated sediment investigations to
assess the potential for contaminant accumulation in the tissue of higher-level organisms.
For BCoCs, RSET is in the process of developing tissue and possibly sediment
bioaccumulation triggers (BTs). BTs for tissues will be developed first to allow routine
evaluation of tissue data, either on a project-specific or regional basis. Sediment BTs may
eventually be developed based on tissue BTs, for specific disposal sites, watersheds, or
projects (see Chapter 9 for further discussion).
7.8.1 Data Sources
Sediment quality values for marine sediments were developed using the Apparent Effects
Threshold (AET) approach. These values are well established in the Pacific Northwest and
have been in use for over a decade in regional dredging programs (e.g., EPA/Corps et al.
1988, 1998a), at federal cleanup sites (e.g., Commencement Bay, EPA 1989b), and at State
of Washington cleanup sites (per Sediment Management Standards 1995, Chapter 173-204
WAC). The marine screening levels in Table 7-1 are derived from the Washington State
Sediment Management Standards (SMS) to the extent they are available. Because some of
the SMS values are normalized to organic carbon, equivalent dry-weight values were
calculated using the same regional database and methodology, as presented in PSEP 1988.
Because the SMS has not promulgated marine sediment quality values for chlorinated
pesticides, these values were taken from the lowest AETs reported in Corps et al. 1996.
More recently, the State Washington developed and published freshwater sediment quality
guidelines using the Floating Percentile Method, which strives to optimize the balance
between the sensitivity and reliability of the guidelines (Ecology 2003). The freshwater
SQG model was developed in 2002 based on approximately 276 paired sediment chemistry
and four acute bioassay endpoints from 19 areas throughout western Washington and
Oregon. Additional regional data sets will be available in the near future to update the
existing data sets and allow for a revised set of freshwater SQGs, which will include greater
geographic scope and chronic/sublethal bioassay endpoints. The process being
implemented for regular updates to the SEF will be followed to allow for appropriate,
periodic updates to the interim freshwater SQGs.
In the meantime, project and site managers should be aware that the freshwater SQGs are
likely to be more representative of benthic effects in areas west of the Cascades, with
traditional industrial and urban sources. Areas east of the Cascades, or areas affected by
agriculture and mining wastes, may require supplemental bioassay testing.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 7-17 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
7.8.2 Freshwater vs. Marine Screening Levels
RSET will follow the specifications of the Inland Testing Manual, in which salinities less
than 1 ppt are considered freshwater, salinities greater than 25 ppt are considered marine,
and salinities between 1 and 25 ppt are considered estuarine. This is consistent with the
definition of marine environments in the SMS for the State of Washington (greater than
25 ppt in sediment pore waters); however, the SMS definition of freshwater environments is
slightly more restrictive (less than 0.5 ppt in sediment pore waters) (WAC 173-204-200[11,
12, and 14]) and transitional brackish water environments must be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis (WAC 173-204-330). Biological testing organisms must be carefully selected in
estuarine (brackish water) conditions, because some organisms are more tolerant of these
transitional environments (e.g., the amphipod Eohaustorius estuarius; EPA/Corps 1998a).
In estuarine environments, RSET should be consulted to determine which set of chemical
screening levels is more appropriate.
If sediments are proposed for open-water disposal, the sediment testing program should be
structured to determine potential impacts to the aquatic community at the point of disposal.
Therefore, the selection of an appropriate set of screening levels (e.g., freshwater or marine)
will be based on the location of the disposal site. For example, if freshwater sediments are
proposed to be dredged and disposed at an open-water marine site, marine screening levels
and test organisms are appropriate for assessment of impacts at the point of disposal. It
should be noted that subjecting freshwater sediments to marine bioassay testing protocols
presents particular challenges, and the sediments should be allowed sufficient time to
equilibrate with seawater before marine organisms are introduced.
7.8.3 Dry Weight vs. Carbon-Normalized Values
For all dredging projects and freshwater contaminated sediment investigations, dry-weight
based screening levels will be used.
For marine contaminated sediment investigations conducted under the Washington SMS,
many of the semivolatile organic constituents (including PAHs, chlorinated hydrocarbons,
phthalates, PCBs, and miscellaneous extractables) are regulated on the basis of organic
carbon-normalized concentrations (dry weight concentration divided by the fraction of
organic carbon). Under the SMS, carbon-normalized screening levels are appropriate to use
for marine sediments with a carbon range of 0.5 to 4 percent TOC (Michelsen and Bragdon-
Cook 1992, Bragdon-Cook 1993). If sediments are outside this range (either carbon rich or
carbon poor), dry-weight values are generally used.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 7-18 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
For marine contaminated sediment investigations conducted in other states and regulatory
programs, it is expected that dry-weight based screening levels will generally be preferable.
Dry-weight and carbon-normalized sediment quality values have been shown to provide
similar levels of predictive reliability (PSEP 1988, Ecology 1991, 2003); however, dry-
weight based values are simpler to implement. The dry-weight and carbon-normalized
marine values are both derived using the same database and statistical methodology (i.e.,
AET method).
7.8.4 Dredging Projects
SL1 values are intended to identify chemical concentrations that are at or below levels at
which there is no reason to believe dredged material disposal would result in unacceptable
adverse effects to benthic organisms. In addition to the benthic screening level assessment
presented in this chapter, a separate bioaccumulation assessment will also need to be
performed if there is reason to believe BCoCs are present at levels of concern (see
Chapter 9).
Sediments in dredged material management units (DMMUs) containing chemical
concentrations at or below SL1 levels and bioaccumulation criteria (when available) are
judged to be suitable for unconfmed open-water disposal. Sediments proposed for open-
water disposal with one or more chemical concentrations exceeding SL1 levels and/or
bioaccumulation criteria will require follow-up bioassay testing and/or bioaccumulation
testing, respectively. In addition, agencies may require supplemental bioassay testing for
freshwater areas, particularly in regions or for chemicals not well-represented by the
existing dataset.
Such biological testing provides a more site-specific measurement of the potential for the
sediments to cause biological effects to aquatic life or higher-level receptors. In such cases,
biological testing results will take precedence and "override" the chemistry results. If one
or more chemicals are present at concentrations above SL1 guidelines or bioaccumulation
criteria (when available), and follow-up biological testing is not pursued, the associated
DMMU will be determined unsuitable for open-water disposal.
Sediments that exceed SL1 levels or bioaccumulation criteria and fail follow-on biological
testing, if such testing is pursued, will generally need to be managed in an alternative and
more protective manner (e.g., in a confined disposal facility such as a confined aquatic
disposal site, nearshore fill site, upland disposal facility, commercial landfill, etc.). If
sediments are intended to be placed in a confined disposal facility, and thus removed from
direct contact with the aquatic environment, bioassay and bioaccumulation testing will not
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 7-19 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
be necessary. However, other tests may be required (e.g., elutriate or leachate tests)
depending on the location and configuration of the facility (EPA/Corps 2003; see also
Section 11.4).
7.8.5 Contaminated Sediment Projects
The screening levels presented in Table 7-1 are designed to be protective of direct toxicity
effects to benthic organisms. As such, these screening levels are also useful for protecting
the invertebrate prey base of salmonid species listed under the ESA. Development of
sediment quality values for protection of ESA-listed salmonids is a subject of ongoing
research.
If there is reason to believe BCoCs are present at levels of concern, an assessment of
indirect effects caused by bioaccumulation of contaminants in fish/shellfish and higher-
level receptors must also be performed, as discussed in Chapter 9.
In the State of Washington, the use of the SMS is required by regulation at all sediment
cleanup sites (see Chapter 173-204 WAC). The SMS includes marine Sediment Quality
Standards (SQSs) and Cleanup Screening Levels (CSLs), set at the lowest and second-
lowest AET values, respectively, and equivalent to the SLland SL2 values in Table 7-1.
The CSL values define minor adverse effects levels above which contaminated sediment
sites are defined and prioritized for state cleanup investigations. Sites with sediment
concentrations below the CSL but above the SQS are considered a lower priority but may
still be considered for active cleanup, source control measures, or environmental
monitoring. The marine SL1 and SL2 values provided in Table 7-1 may be used in a
similar manner to rank and prioritize contaminated sediment sites, provided this approach is
consistent with the regulatory program(s) having jurisdiction over the site.
Per the SMS, the SQS values are considered cleanup goals for contaminated sediment
projects. Cleanup standards, however, which are used to define the extent of the remedial
action, are established on a site-specific basis within an allowable range of values between
the SQS and the CSL, in consideration of the natural recovery potential of the site,
engineering feasibility, and cost.
The marine SQVs provided in Table 7-1 may be used by other regulatory agencies to assess
marine/estuarine contaminated sediment used in a similar manner to define cleanup goals
and cleanup standards, provided this approach is consistent with the regulatory program(s)
having jurisdiction over the site.
The freshwater SQVs presented in Table 7-1 are interim values, which were derived with
the goal of balancing false negatives and predicted-no-hit efficiency rates with false
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 7-20 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
positives and predicted-hit efficiency rates. The reliability of these guidelines will be
presented in an appendix (Evaluation of Reliability of Proposed Freshwater Sediment
Quality Guidelines) at a later date. RSET intends to validate the methodology used to
derive the freshwater SQGs, and there will be further assessment of the reliability of the
screening values to estimate potential toxicity. The incorporation of larger sediment
bioassay datasets developed over the last few years that represent greater regional
representation will be vital for developing a refined set of sediment screening criteria. As
discussed previously, agencies may require bioassay testing to be conducted for sites that
have sediment concentrations of analytes below the interim SL1 Freshwater SQGs to assist
in the validation of these interim values.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 7-21 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
8. BIOLOGICAL (TOXICITY) TESTING
8.1 OVERVIEW
Biological effects testing may be necessary if the Level 1 evaluation indicates the test
sediment contains contaminant concentrations that may be directly or indirectly harmful to
aquatic organisms. Level 2 biological testing of sediment will be required when chemical
testing results exceed appropriate guideline values and interpretative criteria. A standard
suite of bioassays is used to make a determination regarding the potential for unacceptable
risks to benthic receptors from in-place contaminated sediments (CSs) or the suitability of
dredged sediment for aquatic disposal, approved upland disposal, or beneficial reuse. Tests
involving whole sediment determine the potential effects for bottom-dwelling (benthic)
organisms. Tests using suspension/elutriates of sediment/dredged material are used to
assess the potential effects on water column organisms. A bioaccumulation evaluation
(Level 2 task) is required when there is an established "reason to believe" that
bioaccumulation endpoints may pose a potential risk to human health or ecological health in
the aquatic environment through the bioaccumulation exposure pathway (Chapter 9).
Prior to the 1980s, the assessment of water and sediment quality was often limited to
physical and chemical characterizations. However, quantifying chemical concentrations
alone is not always adequate to assess potential adverse environmental effects, interactions
among chemicals, or bioavailability of chemicals to aquatic organisms. Because the
relationship between total chemical concentrations and biological availability is poorly
understood, when regulatory guideline values or interpretative criteria are exceeded,
controlled laboratory bioassay and bioaccumulation tests are performed to provide
additional lines of evidence for environmental effects.
The approach most often adopted is to expose representative aquatic/benthic species to
appropriate test media to assess lethal and sublethal effects and, if appropriate, conduct an
evaluation of bioaccumulation potential. These tests provide information about different
possible adverse biological effects in the environment. In addition, testing using multiple
species reduces uncertainty about the results and limits errors in interpretation of these tests.
This chapter includes information on recommended bioassay tests and species, quality
control requirements for each test, and the interpretive criteria used for decision-making.
References are provided for more detailed information on test protocols and test
interpretation. Chapter 9 provides information on bioaccumulation tests.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc g-J INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
8.2 SEDIMENT SOLID PHASE BIOLOGICAL TESTS
Biological testing can be conducted to measure effects on organisms exposed to the water
column or to whole sediment. The biological testing suite discussed in this section
addresses solid phase toxicity testing using whole sediment. Both marine and freshwater
species used for bioassay testing are specified. Several additional biological tests are under
development or review and may be added in the future. Biological test species are selected
based on the salinity conditions at the potentially contaminated site under investigation or
the open-water disposal site considered for the dredged material. For dredging projects in
freshwater systems that plan on the use of the marine/ocean disposal sites, marine bioassays
will be required (if such biological testing is necessary).
8.2.1 Marine Bioassays
Marine bioassays are required when the test sediments and/or the proposed disposal
location for dredged material are in a brackish or saline environment, as opposed to
freshwater environments (see Section 8.2.2).
10-day Amphipod Acute Mortality Test
- Rhepoxynius abronius
- Ampelisca abdita1
- Eohaustorius estuarius2
Chronic Test
- Neanthes arenaceodentata (Los Angeles karyotype) 20-day growth test
Sediment larval test
- Echinoderm
Dendraster excentricus3
Strongylocentrotus purpuratus
Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis
- Bivalve
Crassostrea gigas
Mytilus species
1 May be substituted if test sediment contains greater than 60 percent fines
2 May be considered for substitution if test sediment is greater than 60 percent fines and salinity is less than 25
parts per thousand
3 Recommended echinoderm species
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc ง_2 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
The protocols to be used to run the recommended marine bioassays are described by the
Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP), and can be found in Recommended Guidelines for
Conducting Laboratory Bioassays on Puget Sound Sediments (PSEP 1995). These PSEP
protocols are consistent with national guidance on bioassay testing.
Amphipod Species Substitution. The hierarchy of amphipod selection begins with
Rhepoxynius abronius as the primary recommended species and Ampelisca abdita and
Eohaustorius estuarius as secondary substitutes, depending on test sediment grain size and
salinity. Rhepoxynius abronius has been shown to be responsive to high percent fines in
sediments, particularly high clay content sediments, and has been shown to exhibit
mortalities greater than 20 percent in clean, reference area sediments with this grain size
(DeWitt et al. 1988, Fox 1993). The regulated party may wish to consider substituting
Ampelisca abdita for Rhepoxynius abronius when fines exceed 60 percent. Ampelisca is
relatively grain size insensitive to concentrations of fines greater than 60 percent. Any
proposed species substitutions must be submitted to appropriate regulatory agency prior to
use, and the substitutions must be documented in the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for
the proposed dredging project or site investigation/risk assessment.
8.2.2 Freshwater Bioassays
The following freshwater bioassays will be required when the test sediment and/or the
proposed disposal location for dredged material is in a low salinity (generally 5 parts per
thousand [ppt] or below) environment:
Amphipod - Hyalella azteca 10-day Mortality Test
Midge - Chironomus tentans 10-day Mortality and Growth Test
Standard protocols exist for each of these tests, established both by American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) and EPA (ASTM 1995, EPA 1994). Either protocol may be
used for the freshwater bioassays. Adherence to the protocol performance standards aids in
interpreting bioassay responses by limiting effects from factors other than sediment toxicity
due to the contaminants of interest. Additionally, longer term biological tests have been
developed by ASTM (ASTM 2000) and may be required under certain circumstances by the
regulatory agencies. These include the Hyalella azteca 28-day mortality and growth test
and the Chironomus tentans 20-day mortality and growth test.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc ง_3 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
8.2.3 Bioassay Testing Performance Standards
This section contains the specific quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements
for solid phase biological testing. The parameters covered include:
Negative Control and Reference Sediment,
Quality Control Limits for the Negative Control Treatment,
Quality Control Limits for the Reference Treatment,
Positive Control, and
Water Quality Monitoring.
General procedures are given first, followed by specific performance standards for each
bioassay. These standards aid in interpreting the bioassay responses because they control
for environmental effects that may produce confounding factors not associated with the
toxicity of the contaminants of interest. Table 8-1 summarizes the performance standards
for negative controls and reference sediment following the bioassay-specific procedures.
Negative Controls. Negative control sediments are used in bioassays to check laboratory
performance. Negative control sediments are clean sediments in which the test organism
normally lives (or are cultured) and which are expected to produce low mortality. Negative
control reliability must be demonstrated.
The sediment larval test utilizes a negative seawater control rather than a control sediment.
The seawater control will be collected from a location approved by the DMMO/DMMT or
appropriate local regulatory agency (PSEP 1995).
Reference Sediment. Agency regulations prescribe the use of bioassay reference
sediments for test comparison and interpretations that closely match the grain size
characteristics of the test or disposal site sediments. The reference sediment provides a
point of comparison for evaluating the potential effects of the test sediment. If chemical
concentrations in the reference area are not well-documented, a complete chemical
characterization may be required. However, all reference sediments should be analyzed for
total solids, total volatile solids, total organic carbon, ammonia, sulfides, and grain size
(PSEP 1995).
All bioassays have performance standards for reference sediments. Failure to meet these
standards may result in the requirement to retest. In some cases, control sediments can be
substituted for reference sediments if they have similar characteristics (PSEP 1995).
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc ง_4 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Replication. For marine bioassays, five laboratory replicates of test sediments, reference
sediments, and negative controls will be run for each bioassay. For freshwater bioassays,
eight laboratory replicates of test sediments, reference sediments, and negative controls will
be run for each bioassay (per ASTM and EPA guidance).
Positive Controls. A positive control (sometimes called the reference toxicant test) will be
run for each bioassay. Positive controls are chemicals known to be toxic to the test
organism and provide an indication of the sensitivity of the particular organisms used in a
bioassay. Positive controls are generally performed on spiked fresh/sea water and
compared with historical laboratory reference toxicity test results to confirm that organism
responses are within control limits established by the testing laboratory.
Water Quality Monitoring. Water quality monitoring of the overlying water will be
conducted for the bioassays. This consists of daily measurements of salinity, temperature,
pH, and dissolved oxygen for the amphipod and sediment larval tests. These measurements
will be made every 3 days for the Neanthes marine bioassay. Ammonia and sulfides will be
determined at test initiation and termination for all tests. Monitoring will be conducted for
all test and reference sediments and negative controls (including seawater controls, if used).
Parameter measurements must be within the limits specified for each bioassay.
Measurements for each treatment will be made on a separate chemistry beaker set up to be
identical to the other replicates within the treatment group, including the addition of test
organisms.
Bioassay-Specific Procedures - Marine
Amphipod Bioassay. This test involves exposing amphipods to test sediments for 10 days,
and counting the surviving animals at the end of the exposure period. Daily emergence data
and the number of amphipods failing to rebury at the end of the test will be recorded as
well. The control sediment has a performance standard of 10 percent mortality. The
reference sediment has a performance standard of 20 percent mortality greater than the
control sediment. For example, if the control sediment yields 7 percent mortality, the
reference sediment performance standard is 27 percent mortality. Test species selection is
discussed in Section 8.2.1.
Sediment Larval Bioassay. This test monitors larval development of a suitable
echinoderm or bivalve species in the presence of test sediment. The test is run until the
appropriate stage of development is achieved in a sacrificial seawater control. At the end of
the test, larvae from each test sediment exposure are examined to quantify abnormality and
mortality.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc ง_5 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
The seawater control has a performance standard of greater than 70 percent mean normal
survivorship in seawater control. The reference sediment has a performance standard of 35
percent normalized combined mortality and abnormality (NCMA) greater than the seawater
control performance.
Initial counts will be made for a minimum of five 10-milliliter (mL) aliquots. Final counts for
seawater control, reference sediments, and test sediments will be made on 10-mL aliquots.
The sediment larval bioassay has a variable duration (not necessarily 48 hours) determined
by the developmental stage of organisms in a sacrificial seawater control.
Ammonia and sulfides toxicity may interfere with test results for this bioassay. Aeration
will be conducted throughout the test to minimize these effects, if required. Please refer to
recent Sediment Management Annual Review Meeting (SMARM) Clarifications on how to
minimize the potential influence of confounding factors such as ammonia.
Neanthes Growth Test. This test utilizes the polychaete Neanthes arenaceodentata in a 20-
day growth test. The growth rate of organisms exposed to test sediments is compared to the
average individual growth rate of organisms exposed to a reference sediment. The control
sediment has a performance standard of 10 percent mortality. The reference sediment has a
performance standard of 80 percent of the control average individual growth rate and 20
percent mortality.
Bioassay-Specific Procedures - Freshwater
Amphipod 10-day Survival Bioassay. This bioassay measures the survival of the
amphipod Hyalella azteca after a 10-day exposure to the test sediment. The control has a
performance standard of 20 percent absolute mean mortality. The reference sediment
performance standard is 25 percent absolute mean mortality.
Amphipod 28-day Survival/Growth Bioassay This test measures the survival and
growth of the amphipod Hyalella azteca after a 28-day exposure to the test sediment. The
control has a performance standard of 20 percent absolute mean mortality and a growth
performance standard of 0.15 milligram (mg) minimum mean individual biomass. The
reference sediment performance standard is 30 percent absolute mean mortality and 0.15
mg minimum mean individual biomass for growth.
Midge 10-day Survival/Growth Bioassay. This bioassay measures the survival and
growth of the midge Chironomus tentans after a 10-day exposure to the test sediment. The
control has a performance standard of 30 percent absolute mean mortality and a growth
performance standard of 0.6 mg minimum mean wet weight or a 0.48 mg mean ash-free dry
weight per individual (per EPA). (Ash-free dry weights are regarded as a more accurate
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc g-g INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
weight.) The reference performance standard is 30 percent absolute mean mortality and 80
percent of the final negative control growth weight.
Midge 20-day Survival/Growth Bioassay. This test measures the survival and growth of
the midge Chironomus tentans after a 20-day exposure to the test sediment. The control has
a performance standard of 32 percent absolute mean mortality and a growth performance
standard of 0.48 mg minimum mean individual biomass. The reference sediment
performance standard is 35 percent absolute mean mortality and 80 percent of the final
negative control growth biomass.
Table 8-1. Summary of Marine and Freshwater Bioassay Test Performance Standards
Marine Bioassays
Performance Standards
Amphipod Mortality
Negative control < 10 percent mortality
Reference sediment < negative control mortality + 20 percent
Juvenile Infaunal
Growth
Negative control < 10 percent mortality
Reference sediment < 20 percent mortality
Final reference sediment growth > 80 percent of final negative
control growth
Sediment Larval NCMA
Seawater control > 70 percent mean normal survivorship
Reference sediment > 35 percent x seawater control NCMA
Freshwater Bioassays
Performance Standards
Amphipod 10-day
Mortality
Negative control < 20 percent mortality
Reference sediment < 25 percent mortality
Amphipod 28-day
Mortality and Growth
Negative control < 20 percent mortality
Final negative control growth > 0.15 mg/individual
Reference sediment < 30 percent mortality
Final reference sediment growth > 0.15 mg/individual
Midge 10-day Mortality
and Growth
Negative control < 30 percent mortality
Final negative control growth > 0.48 mg ash-free dry
weight/individual
Reference sediment < 30 percent mortality
Final reference sediment growth > 80 percent of final negative
control growth
Midge 20-day Mortality
and Growth
Negative control < 32 percent mortality
Final negative control growth > 0.48 mg/individual
Reference sediment < 35 percent mortality
Final reference sediment growth > 80 percent of final negative
control growth
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
8-7
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
8.2.4 Bioassay Interpretive Criteria
The response of bioassay organisms exposed to discrete test sediment in a site investigation
or for use in a risk assessment, or composited sediment representing each dredged material
management unit (DMMU) will be statistically compared to the response of these
organisms in reference treatments (or default to control treatments if the reference sediment
does not meet specified performance standards). Depending on the purpose of the sediment
evaluation, this will determine whether in-place sediment at a site under investigation poses
an unacceptable risk to ecological receptors or, in the case of dredged material, is
suitable/unsuitable for unconfmed aquatic disposal.
Biological test interpretation in the Pacific Northwest relies on two levels of observed
response in the test organisms. These are known as "one-hit" or "two-hit" failures. The
bioassay-specific guidelines for each of these response categories are listed below. In
general, a one-hit failure is a marked response in any one biological test. A two-hit failure
is a lower intensity of response. It must be found in two or more biological tests for the test
sediment to potentially cause adverse impacts to ecological receptors at a contaminated site,
or found unsuitable for aquatic disposal in a dredged material situation. At the moment,
only acute bioassay tests are available for use in freshwater ecosystems. Additionally,
longer term sediment bioassays have been developed (ASTM 2000) and may be required in
certain circumstances by the regulatory agencies.
One-Hit Failure. When any one biological test shows a test sediment response relative to
the negative control and reference sediment that exceeds the bioassay-specific response
guidelines and is statistically different from the reference, the in-place sediments are
considered to potentially cause adverse impacts to ecological receptors at a contaminated
site, or the DMMU is judged to be unsuitable for aquatic disposal. The acceptable methods
for determining statistical significance are in EPA/Corps 2000, PSDDA User's Manual.
Two-Hit Failure. When any two biological tests show test sediment responses, which are
less than the bioassay-specific guidelines for a one-hit failure (e.g., the freshwater amphipod
bioassay requires a mean test mortality greater than the mean reference mortality plus 15
percent), but show a lower level effect and are statistically different from the reference
sediment, the in-place sediments are considered to potentially cause adverse impacts to
ecological receptors at a contaminated site, or the DMMU is judged to be unsuitable for
aquatic disposal.
For example, in a freshwater amphipod bioassay, the mean test mortality was 40 percent,
the mean reference mortality was 30 percent, and the two results were statistically different.
Also, in a freshwater midge bioassay, the mean test mortality was 20 percent, the mean
reference mortality was 10 percent, and the two results were statistically different. In this
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc g-g INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
case, mean test mortalities were below the mean reference mortalities plus bioassay-specific
guidelines (15 percent for the amphipod and 20 percent for the midge). However, the test
sediments elicited lower level effects in mortality as evidenced by statistical differences
from the reference sediments in both tests, qualifying as a two-hit failure.
This interpretation of solid phase biological test results will be used for decision-making in
environmental cleanup of CSs under state and federal guidelines, the Clean Water Act
(CWA) Section 404(b)(l) evaluation/Section 401 water quality certification process, and
the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) Section 103 evaluation
process. The application of these interpretive guidelines to a set of sample test results is
described in EPA/Corps 2000, PSDDA User's Manual.
The determination of a "statistically different" response involves two conditions: First, the
response in the tested CS or in the tested DMMU must be greater than 20 percent different
from the control response; and second, a statistical comparison between mean test and mean
reference responses must show a significant difference. The appropriate method for making
the latter determination is discussed in EPA/Corps 2000, PSDDA User's Manual. This
reference also contains a description of the Biostat bioassay software developed by the
Corps. This software contains the appropriate statistical tests to determine sediment
suitability.
Marine Bioassays
Amphipod Bioassay. For the amphipod bioassay, mean test mortality greater than 20
percent absolute over the mean negative control response, and greater than 30 percent
absolute over the mean reference sediment response, and statistically different from the
reference (alpha = 0.05), is considered a one-hit failure.
Juvenile Infaunal Growth Test. Juvenile Neanthes growth test results that show a mean
test individual growth rate less than 80 percent of the mean negative control growth rate,
and less than 50 percent (relative) of the mean reference sediment growth rate, and
statistically different from the reference (alpha = 0.05), is considered a one-hit failure.
Sediment Larval Bioassay. For the sediment larval bioassay, test and reference sediment
responses are normalized to the negative seawater control response. This normalization is
performed by dividing the number of normal larvae from the test or reference treatment at
the end of the exposure period by the number of normal larvae in the seawater control at the
end of the exposure period, and multiplying by 100 to convert to percent. The normalized
combined mortality and abnormality (NCMA) is then 100 minus this number. If the mean
NCMA for a test sediment is greater than 20 percent, 30 percent absolute over the mean
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc ง_9 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
reference sediment NCMA, and is statistically different from the reference (alpha = 0.10), it
is considered a "hit."
NCMA (in percent) = 100% - (number of normal larvae from test or reference treatment /
number of normal larvae from seawater control) x 100.
Freshwater Bioassays
Amphipod 10-day Survival Bioassay. For the amphipod bioassay, mean test mortality
greater than 15 percent over the mean reference response, and statistically different from the
reference (alpha = 0.05), is considered a hit.
Amphipod 28-day Survival/Growth Bioassay For the amphipod 28-day survival
bioassay, mean mortality in the test sediment greater than 25 percent over the mean
reference response, and statistically different from the reference (alpha = 0.05), is
considered a hit. For the growth test, a mean reduction in biomass greater than 40 percent
and statistical significance is considered a hit.
Midge 10-day Survival/Growth Bioassay. For the midge 10-day mortality test, a mean
mortality in the test sediment of 20 percent over reference and statistically different from
reference (alpha = 0.05) is a hit. For the midge 10-day growth test, a mean reduction in
biomass greater than 40 percent and statistical significance is considered a hit. If either or
both endpoints fail the guideline, the test is considered a hit.
Midge 20-day Survival/Growth Bioassay. For the midge 20-day mortality test, a mean
mortality in the test sediment of 25 percent over the mean reference response, and
statistically different from the reference (alpha = 0.05), is considered a hit. For the growth
test, a mean reduction in biomass greater than 40 percent and statistical significance is
considered a hit.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 8-10 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
Table 8-2. Summary of Freshwater and Marine Bioassay Test Interpretive Criteria
Marine Bioassays
Test Criteria ("one-hit" failure)
Amphipod Mortality
Mean test mortality > mean negative control mortality + 20
percent
AND
Mean test mortality > mean reference mortality + 30 percent
AND
Statistical difference between test and reference (alpha = 0.05)
Juvenile Infaunal
Growth
Mean test growth rate < 80 percent of mean negative control
growth rate
AND
Mean test growth rate < 50 percent of mean reference growth rate
AND
Statistical difference between test and reference (alpha = 0.05)
Sediment Larval
NCMA
Mean test NCMA > 20 percent
AND
Mean test NCMA > mean reference NCMA + 30 percent
AND
Statistical difference between test and reference (alpha = 0.10)
Freshwater Bioassays
Test Criteria ("one-hit" failure)
Amphipod 10-day
Mortality
Mean test mortality > mean reference mortality + 15 percent
AND
Statistical difference between test and reference (alpha = 0.05)
Amphipod 28-day
Mortality and Growth
Mean test mortality > 25 percent
AND/OR
Mean test biomass < 60 percent of mean reference biomass (i.e.,
greater than 40 percent reduction of biomass from reference)
AND
Statistical difference between test and reference (alpha = 0.05)
Midge 10-day
Mortality and Growth
Mean test mortality > mean reference mortality + 20 percent
AND/OR
Mean test biomass < 60 percent of mean reference biomass (i.e.,
greater than 40 percent reduction of biomass from reference)
AND
Statistical difference between test and reference (alpha = 0.05)
Midge 20-day
Mortality and Growth
Mean test mortality > mean reference mortality + 25 percent
AND/OR
Mean test biomass < 60 percent of mean reference biomass (i.e.
greater than 40 percent reduction of biomass from reference)
AND
Statistical difference between test and reference (alpha = 0.05)
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
8-11
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
8.3 REFERENCE SEDIMENT COLLECTION SITES
Bioassays must be run with reference sediments that are well-matched to the test sediments
for grain size and other sediment conventionals such as total organic carbon. The sampling
protocol used for the collection of reference sediment can affect its performance during
biological testing. The following guidelines should be followed when collecting reference
sediments:
Use experienced personnel,
Follow protocols,
Sample from a biologically active zone,
Avoid anoxic sediment below the redox potential discontinuity (RPD) horizon, and
Use wet-sieving method.
The wet-sieving protocol is used in the location of an appropriate reference station. Wet-
sieving is imperative in finding a good grain size match with the test sediment. Wet-sieving
is accomplished using a 63-micron (#230) sieve and a graduated cylinder; 100 mL of
sediment is placed in the sieve and washed thoroughly until the water runs clear. The
volume of sand and gravel remaining in the sieve is then washed into the graduated cylinder
and measured. This represents the coarse fraction; the fines content is determined by
subtracting this number from 100. Wet-sieving results will not perfectly match the dry-
weight-normalized grain size results from the laboratory analysis, but should be relatively
close.
In some areas of the Pacific Northwest region, the Corps and EPA have identified locations
suitable for use as reference sites. Reference site selection will be made on a case-by-case
basis with information and guidance provided by the Corps and EPA. Reference site grain-
size should match, as closely as possible, that of the test sediment and/or the disposal
environment. In the absence of a match, the agencies will select coarser grained sediment
for use, contingent upon the selected bioassay test organism. This is likely to yield better
test performance and be environmentally conservative. Reference site selection and
reference sample collection must be coordinated with RSET, as well as any other state or
federal agency with regulatory interest in the bioassay results.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 8-12 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
9. BIOACCUMULATION EVALUATION
9.1 OVERVIEW
Bioaccumulation testing is conducted following chemical analysis if there is a reason to
believe chemicals present in project or site sediments may be contributing to levels in
invertebrate or fish tissues that could be harmful to aquatic life, aquatic-dependent wildlife,
or humans eating fish and shellfish. Alternatively, the project proponent may opt to
conduct bioaccumulation testing concurrently with sediment chemistry if it appears likely
that it will eventually be required or if other project constraints exist, such as a need for
rapid decision-making.
Currently, this evaluation is conducted on a case-by-case basis. Contaminant
concentrations in sediments or tissue that may be harmful have not been fully evaluated or
finalized by either dredging or cleanup programs. Work is currently underway to calculate
science-based bioaccumulation triggers (BTs) for both tissues and sediments. These BTs
will address the long-term effects of bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCoCs) in
sediments, whether at the disposal site or at a cleanup site. Impacts associated with dredging
residuals may also occur at the point of dredging or downstream. These are difficult to
quantify, yet there is an increasing awareness that this route of exposure can be important.
The RSET agencies will continue to discuss the best methods of controlling and assessing
the impacts of dredging residuals containing BCoCs (see Chapter 11).
Reason to believe will evolve and become progressively more certain and less conservative
as BTs are calculated and finalized. A key concept behind reason to believe is there should
be evidence that tissue levels are above levels of concern in the waterbody, and
concentrations of the same chemical(s) are also elevated above levels of concern in the
project or site sediments. Once BTs are established for tissues and sediments, this dual
determination will establish reason to believe that contaminants could be bioaccumulating
to levels of concern, which will trigger bioaccumulation testing. An interim process for
establishing reason to believe is presented in Section 9.3, and relies on elevation above
reference in tissues and sediments.
Bioaccumulation testing is normally conducted using multiple species, which reduces
uncertainty about the results and limits errors in interpretation of these bioassays.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-1 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
There are three basic methods that can be used to evaluate bioaccumulation potential:
Laboratory Bioaccumulation Testing. Sediments from the site or project area are
collected and taken to a laboratory, where several species are exposed to the
sediments under controlled conditions. Ideally, the chemicals reach steady-state
equilibrium between the sediments and tissues of the test species.
In Situ Bioaccumulation Testing. Organisms of the tests species are placed in the
field in webbing or cages and exposed to sediments at the site or project area for a
specified length of time. This approach more accurately represents conditions in the
field, but can be more time-consuming.
Collection of Field Organisms. Fish and/or benthic infauna (frequently shellfish)
may be collected from the site or project area for chemical analysis of contaminants
in tissues. Species to be collected are selected based on their site fidelity,
representativeness of feeding guilds at the site, exposure and feeding strategies, and
commercial, recreational, and cultural significance. This approach can be less costly
and time-consuming, but is primarily applicable to evaluation of the
bioaccumulative effects of in situ sediments, or those where the highest
concentrations are known to be at the surface.
Laboratory bioassays are most appropriate when the bioaccumulation potential of material
proposed for dredging needs to be assessed and concentrations are likely to be higher in the
subsurface sediments than at the surface. Because in situ tests and field organisms are
primarily exposed to surface sediments, these approaches are more appropriate for
evaluating sediments that may remain in place, such as those proposed for natural recovery
or those already deposited at a dredged material disposal site. The bioaccumulation testing
approach should be selected to address all the potential routes of exposure identified in the
conceptual site model.
Regardless of how the bioaccumulation data is collected, the resulting tissue concentrations
are compared to values that are protective of three exposed populations - aquatic life,
aquatic-dependent wildlife, and human populations. Tissue and sediment data can be used
together to derive biota-sediment accumulation factors (BSAFs), which can in turn be used
to develop sediment BTs for cleanup or dredging. Bioaccumulation test results could still
be used on a project-specific basis to override predictions of bioaccumulation based on
sediment BTs.
This chapter includes information on the identification of BCoCs, establishing reason to
believe for triggering bioaccumulation testing, recommended bioaccumulation tests and
species, the quality control requirements for each test, and the interpretive criteria (BTs)
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-2 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
used for decision-making. References are provided for more detailed information on test
protocols and test interpretation.
9.2 BIOACCUMULATIVE CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
The identification of BCoCs plays a major role in establishing reason to believe that a
bioaccumulation evaluation needs to be performed, particularly in the absence of tissue and
sediment BTs. BCoCs can be identified at several levels. RSET intends to use the
approach to identifying BCoCs outlined in Hoffman (2005), along with the lists of
chemicals generated by that approach (see Appendix A). The approach relies on a review
of the occurrence of contaminants in sediments and tissue, chemical properties of
contaminants such as Kow, known toxicity of the contaminants to human and ecological
receptors, and comparison of tissue levels to available residue-effects levels. Contaminants
are placed on one of several lists depending on the amount of information available and the
weight-of-evidence indicating their potential to bioaccumulate, prevalence in the region,
and toxicity.
RSET made one modification to the approach outlined in Hoffman (2005). In the EPA
approach, all standard divalent metals were placed on List 1 because they have been
measured in tissues at concentrations exceeding residue-effects levels. It is recognized,
however, that aquatic species bioaccumulate trace metals to varying degrees and with
varying toxicological consequences depending on their ability to regulate trace metals.
Thus, many of these metals do not substantially bioaccumulate, and retention of them on
List 1 would likely lead to an unnecessary number of bioaccumulation evaluations. These
metals were divided into those likely to bioaccumulate based on having organic forms and
those not likely to bioaccumulate, and placed on List 1 or List 4 accordingly.
This initial list of BCoCs is based largely on marine data from west of the Cascades.
Freshwater areas may have different patterns of use and occurrence; therefore, certain
analytes could be assigned to different lists. RSET is in the process of accumulating
freshwater tissue data to evaluate the presence or absence of bioaccumulative chemicals in
tissues in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and until this can be completed, the marine
BCoC list will be used for both freshwater and marine areas. Analytical methods and
detection limits associated with the List 1 BCoCs are provided in Chapter 7.
It is also anticipated and encouraged that agencies will refine the RSET-wide BCoC list
based on regional data. The term "region" in this context means a connected waterbody
which, based on size, geography, or other factors, would be expected to encompass the
home ranges of a variety offish and wildlife receptors. Examples might include the lower
Duwamish River along with Elliott Bay, or the lower Willamette River (below Willamette
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-3 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Falls). Rather than developing an all-encompassing narrative description of a region, a list
of regions in each Corps district will be developed and appended to the SEP.
The RSET-wide list is available as a default for areas where more specific data is not
available. As soon as reasonably possible, tissue data should be reviewed by waterbody to
identify a subset of BCoC, which are detected at elevated levels in tissues for each
waterbody. This will only be possible in areas where sufficient tissue data have been
collected; however, this may include the most contaminated areas where tissue assessments
are currently or have previously been conducted. In this manner, the BCoC list can be
narrowed down for each waterbody to include only those chemicals that are currently
detected in tissues above reference area concentrations (assuming that detection limits are
appropriate). As soon as BTs are available for tissues, the list can be narrowed further to
those chemicals that exceed these screening values.
This approach is intended to avoid requiring project proponents to conduct bioaccumulation
testing for contaminants that may be on the RSET-wide BCoC list because they are present
in other areas, but not the project area. For example, industrial chemicals found in urban
waterways west of the Cascades may not be likely in agricultural areas east of the Cascades.
However, if a project is located in an area where a regional BCoC list has not been
developed, a BCoC list for a larger region would still apply. For example, a Puget Sound-
wide list could be used, or the RSET-wide list provided in Appendix A.
Smaller site- or project-specific areas are not appropriate for the purposes of establishing
BCoC lists, as fish and affected wildlife may range widely beyond these areas and be
affected by more than one source of contaminants. It is also important from a policy
perspective to have consistency among projects within an operational area, such as a
federally authorized navigable waterway or large Superfund site. However, cleanup
programs may opt to conduct bioaccumulation testing and require cleanup of smaller areas
of sediment impacted by BCoCs, if localized risks to aquatic life, wildlife, or humans exist.
For the same reasons, cleanup sites are not limited to the regional BCoC lists developed to
streamline dredging evaluations.
9.3 REASON TO BELIEVE
The approach used to evaluate reason to believe will become more focused over time as
first tissue BTs, then sediment BTs, become available. A fundamental principle behind
bioaccumulation-based sediment BTs is that there is a demonstrated relationship between
concentrations of bioaccumulative contaminants in sediments and in tissues of aquatic life
living in the area. However, the exact concentration in sediment that will lead to
unacceptable levels of bioaccumulation is unknown and likely varies among waterbodies
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-4 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
due to many site-specific factors. To move forward in the face of these unknowns, RSET
will rely on establishing multiple lines of evidence to develop a reason to believe that
bioaccumulation would or would not likely occur at an individual site.
As discussed above, the first step in establishing reason to believe is to identify the list of
BCoCs in tissues in the waterbody affected by the project (Figure 9-1). This may be the
disposal site area for dredging projects, or the waterbody within which a contaminated site
is located. The generic BCoC list provided in Appendix A may be used if no tissue data are
available for an area. If tissue data are available for a waterbody, tissue concentrations may
be compared either to tissue BTs (if available) or to reference area tissue concentrations (if
no BTs are yet available) to identify the specific BCoCs in tissues in that waterbody.
The tasks involved in identifying the BCoC list are shown above the dashed line in Figure
9-1, and would generally be carried out by the agencies, as resources allow. Activities in
the central part of the flow chart would be carried out by project proponents or responsible
parties, and decisions in the final part of the flow chart would be made by the agencies.
If no tissue data exist or existing data have not yet been compiled for an area, reason to
believe would be based on concentrations of all List 1 BCoCs that are detected in sediments
(see Appendix A). The second step is to review the sediment chemistry data for the BCoCs
in tissues in the waterway, and compare them to sediment BTs. If sediment BTs are not
available, comparison to sediment concentrations in reference areas could be used to
determine whether BCoCs are elevated in the sediments. Thus, chemicals present in
sediment and in regional tissues at elevated levels would establish a sufficient reason to
believe.
The project proponent may alternatively choose to present information indicating the
chemical is not present at levels of concern in tissues, based on compilation or collection of
tissue data and a risk assessment addressing the three pathways for which BTs will be
derived, consistent with the methods outlined in Section 9.8. Finally, if the project design
would reduce concentrations of bioaccumulative chemicals below detection limits (e.g.,
dredging into native sediments), bioaccumulation testing need not be conducted.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-5 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
FINAL PROCESS
Sentember 30, 2006
INTERIM PROCESS
yes
Regional tissue
data available?
no
Agency
Responsibility
Develop regional BCoC list1
Use default BCoC list
Tissue BTs or
reference values
available?
Refine BCoC list to
chemicals above BTs or
referenced values
yes
no
Use existing regional or
default BCoC list
Collect sediment data
BCoCs above
sediment BTs?
Sediment BTs
available?
yes
no
Project
Proponent
Responsibility
BCoCs also
elevated in
sediments?2
yes
no
Conduct bioaccumulation
studies
yes
Tissue results
above BTs?3
no
yes
no
Agency
Responsibility
Unsuitable/
Cleanup needed
I Passes
rioaccumulation |
evaluation
Figure 9-1. Bioaccumulation Evaluation Framework
1 As agency staff and funding allows.
Subject to small project exemptions (see Table 5-3).
Until tissue BTs are available program-wide, risk-based evaluation criteria will be developed as needed on a project-by -
project basis, consistent with current practice.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
9-6
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Elevation above reference will be a central part of reason to believe in the interim period
before tissue and sediment BTs are developed. The first step in this process is to establish
reference areas suitable for the cleanup site or disposal site in question. Reference area
performance standards (i.e., attributes that reference areas should meet) are described in
PSEP (1991). These generally include low contaminant concentrations, low bioassay
responses, and a healthy benthic community. Reference areas for the Puget Sound and
associated chemical concentrations are identified in PSEP (1991), and are likely applicable
to other marine areas and disposal sites. Other areas, such as freshwater environments, will
require more detailed evaluation. The Corps and other agencies are actively evaluating
potential reference areas within the region, and should be contacted for project-specific
recommendations.
Once reference areas have been established or selected, whether on a programmatic or site-
specific basis, contaminant concentrations typical of the reference area can be established
and used to identify a level above which sediment or tissue concentrations would be
considered to be elevated (e.g., above the 90th percentile of the reference range). The exact
statistic that would be used depends on the distribution and quantity of the data for the
reference area, and may vary by chemical class (depending on factors such as whether most
of the data are detected or undetected). Chemical concentrations for the Puget Sound
reference areas are provided in PSEP (1991). A similar analysis will be conducted for other
reference areas as they are identified.
Basing reason to believe on tissue and sediment elevations above reference in the interim
before BTs can be established, while somewhat unavoidable, is likely to increase the
number of bioaccumulation evaluations that will be required. These additional evaluations
and testing results will provide the data needed to back-calculate sediment BTs over time.
However, for smaller projects, this additional testing may be an unreasonable burden.
Therefore, the no-test volumes for small dredging projects, as defined in Table 5-3, will also
apply to bioaccumulation evaluations. Cleanup sites have no minimum volume or area
requirements and bioaccumulation evaluations may be required by the agencies at their
discretion if other "reason to believe" criteria are met.
In areas with sufficient regional tissue and sediment data, BSAFs may be developed that
will allow back-calculation of sediment BTs. In general, these BSAFs would apply to the
same size areas as the waterbody-specific BCoC lists, and be based on the same tissue data,
along with co-located sediment data. Alternatively, bioaccumulation testing results could
be used. BSAFs may be calculated by the agencies or by project proponents as needed and
as resources allow. The existence of these values will refine and streamline reason to
believe by providing sediment screening values that would trigger bioaccumulation testing.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-7 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
However, in some cases these back-calculated values may be below natural or regional
background concentrations. In that case, a more programmatic means may need to be
identified to decrease sediment contaminant concentrations or bioavailability in an area to
acceptable levels (e.g., additional source control or employing best management practices
during dredging), if possible. In the meantime, comparisons to reference would be made as
described for the interim process.
This interim approach will be updated as tissue and sediment BTs are developed.
9.4 LABORATORY BIOACCUMULATION TESTING
The Ocean Testing Manual and Inland Testing Manual provide information on
bioaccumulation tests for freshwater and marine sediments. Two bioaccumulation tests are
required, utilizing species from two different trophic niches representing a suspension-
feeding/filter-feeding and a burrowing deposit-feeding organism.
For marine sediments, a 28-day bioaccumulation test will be conducted with both an adult
bivalve (Macoma nasuta) and an adult polychaete (Nereis virens, Nepthys, or Arenicola
marina).
For freshwater sediments, the test will be conducted with the oligochaete (Lumbriculus
variegates) and another species to be determined at the time of testing. Selection of
additional approved species for freshwater bioaccumulation testing is in progress; this
section will be updated once a recommendation has been reached and public review has
taken place.
The test exposure duration will normally be 28 days utilizing the EPA protocol (Lee et al.
1989), after which a chemical analysis will be conducted of the tissue residue to determine
the concentrations of BCoCs. However, some high Kow contaminants (e.g., poly chlorinated
biphenyls [PCBs], TBT, DDT) may not reach equilibrium between the sediments and
tissues of the test species over the duration of a 28-day test. In these cases, modifications to
the test may be required to extend its duration to up to 45 days (Dredged Material
Management Plan [DMMP] 2000). Alternatively, the residue measured at the end of a 28-
day test could be adjusted upward using an estimate of the proportion of the final steady
state concentration reached in 28 days. The steady state adjustment of 28-day measured
tissue residues can be made using procedures in Feijtel et al. (1997). The Inland Testing
Manual (EPA/Corps 1998c) also provides a method to adjust steady state residue estimates
for chemicals that take longer than 28 days to equilibrate between sediment and tissue.
However, the Feijtel et al. (1997) adjustment is based on more recent studies and data than
is the Inland Testing Manual steady state adjustment.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-8 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Protocols for tissue digestion and chemical analysis will follow the PSEP recommended
procedures for metals and organic chemicals (PSWQAT 1997b,c).
Laboratory testing is the method of choice when subsurface sediments are to be dredged or
cleaned up. Subsurface sediments may have higher concentrations than surface sediments,
because each of the following two methods assesses primarily surface sediments.
9.5 IN SITU BIOACCUMULATION TESTING
Consensus-based American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2001) protocols have
been developed for in situ caged bivalves that can be used to assess bioaccumulation
potential and associated biological effects from contaminants in marine, estuarine, and
freshwater species. In situ testing can also help integrate toxicity and bioaccumulation
testing because effects endpoints such as survival, growth, and reproduction have been
developed for some bioaccumulation test species, and can be measured in the same
organisms.
The main advantage of this approach is the ability to characterize exposure and effects over
space and time and under environmentally realistic test conditions at the specific project or
site in question. The main disadvantage is the cost, although costs do not increase
incrementally with time as in laboratory toxicity or bioaccumulation tests because daily
maintenance is not required. Other disadvantages include the potential for confounding
factors in the field, the difficulty of locating suitable reference sites, and the lack of
exposure to subsurface sediments that may be a concern in dredging projects.
In situ test organisms other than bivalves are also available, and these methods are evolving
in both marine and freshwater environments. Please see RSET Issue Paper 20 for a
complete discussion of marine and freshwater species that are available and the basis for the
recommendations below.
9.5.1 Marine/Estuarine In Situ Tests
Marine and estuarine bivalves have long been used in monitoring programs throughout the
United States and internationally, and protocols for their use are well-established (see
ASTM 2001). Species that are indigenous to the Pacific Northwest and appropriate for
estuarine or marine salinities include:
Mussels -Mytilus trossulus, M. californianus, M. galloprovincialis (M. edulis is
also frequently used),
Oysters - Crassostria gigas, Ostrea lurida, and
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-9 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Clams -Macoma balthica, Protothaca staminea, Venerupisjaponica.
Other selections are also possible; see ASTM (2001) for a complete list of marine and
estuarine species, their geographic distributions, and salinity tolerances.
9.5.2 Freshwater In Situ Tests
Because fewer freshwater in situ projects have been completed in the Pacific Northwest, a
thorough review was conducted to evaluate which species might be appropriate. Based on
the criteria identified above, three groups of organisms are recommended as satisfying the
criteria and being present in the Pacific Northwest. In order of preference these are 1)
bivalves, 2) gastropods, and 3) decapods (crayfish) (Salazar and Salazar 1998). Freshwater
protocols are also provided in ASTM (2001).
Corbicula fluminea is recommended as the first choice for in situ freshwater assessments of
bioaccumulation potential because it has been used extensively in laboratory testing, field
monitoring, and in situ assessments of both toxicity and bioaccumulation potential
(however, Corbicula should not be used in areas where it has not yet been introduced).
Either a gastropod or freshwater crayfish would be potentially useful as a second species.
Lumbriculus variegates (an oligochaete) has also been suggested by several agencies as a
potential species that could be used. Further identification of appropriate in situ species will
be conducted by RSET as needed.
9.6 COLLECTION OF FIELD ORGANISMS
Recommended guidelines for collection and processing of tissue samples can be found in
PSWQAT (1997a), and guidelines for analysis of metals and organics in tissue samples can
be found in PSWQAT (1997b,c). Additional considerations for collecting and analyzing
tissue samples for bioaccumulation assessments can be found in Exponent (1998).
Selection of field organisms for sampling must be done on a project-specific basis in
consultation with the agencies.
9.7 INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES FOR BIOACCUMULATION DATA
Currently, bioaccumulation testing is required when there is reason to believe that specific
CoCs may be accumulating in target tissues at levels of concern. Reason to believe was
previously established by comparing sediment concentrations to BTs. However, most of
these existing sediment BTs were based on the DMMP program's screening levels (SLs)
and maximum levels (MLs), which were themselves derived from sediment toxicity tests
rather than bioaccumulation tests or bioaccumulation-based risk evaluations (PSDDA
1988).
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-10 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Therefore, there has been a recognized need to update the BTs to be directly reflective of
potential toxicity through bioaccumulation exposure pathways. Because the original
sediment BTs were not based on actual bioaccumulative risks and may be higher than levels
protective of human health and wildlife, these original sediment BTs have been removed
from this SEF and are no longer used to establish reason to believe (see Section 9.3). It
should be noted that recently the Seattle District DMMP has calculated an updated sediment
BT for PCB Aroclors and a porewater BT for TBT. These more recent BTs were calculated
using risk-based procedures consistent with the bioaccumulation-based protocols outlined
in this chapter, and are appropriate for use as interim BTs until final BTs can be calculated
by RSET.
To develop updated tissue and sediment BTs, the RSET Bioaccumulation Subcommittee
determined the first step was to identify BCoCs. A draft list of BCoCs is provided in
Appendix A (adapted from Hoffman [2005]). Next, RSET will need to establish
scientifically defensible BTs for fish and shellfish tissues based on three individual receptor
groups: aquatic life (including Endangered Species Act [ESA] species), wildlife such as
birds and mammals that eat primarily fish and aquatic invertebrates, and human health.
Methods for developing tissue BTs for each of these three receptor groups are addressed
more specifically below.
The most significant obstacle in pursuing the traditional dredging program approach is
establishing BTs for sediments that are scientifically defensible because of the site-specific
nature of BSAFs. Nevertheless, the subcommittee recognizes this as a clear goal of the
dredging program. It will simplify the decision process for applicants and reduce the cost
of testing. Ultimately, RSET envisions that site-specific or region-specific BSAFs will be
available with which DMMOs can develop sediment BTs.
9.7.1 Bioaccumulation Triggers for Tissues
Tissue triggers are expected to be used by both dredging and cleanup programs to identify
target levels that may be applied region-wide. Developing tissue triggers is the first step
toward establishing sediment triggers and/or a watershed-wide approach to source
reduction, and would also serve as the criteria to which the results of bioaccumulation
testing would be compared. The Bioaccumulation Subcommittee identified several groups
of receptors for which tissue triggers need to be established:
Human consumption offish and shellfish,
Wildlife consumption offish and invertebrates, and
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-11 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Aquatic life, including ESA listed and special status species (fish, mussels, snails,
etc.).
Tissue levels for the first two sets of receptors will be based on back-calculation using
established risk assessment techniques and receptors common in the Pacific Northwest (see
Section 9.8). Tissue levels for protection of aquatic life will be based on tissue-residue-
effects data contained in databases such as the Environmental Residue Effects Database
(ERED), once appropriate quality assurance has been applied. Note that this approach will
not protect fish against contaminants that do not appreciably bioaccumulate in tissues, such
as tetrachloroethene, or contaminants whose parent compound is rapidly metabolically
transformed to other compounds, such as Aldrin and many polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs) for such contaminants will
need to be developed separately by the SQG Subcommittee or the Bioaccumulation
Subcommittee.
Each of the above receptor groups is protected under all of the regulatory programs
addressing sediments; therefore, it is assumed that generally the lowest of the applicable
levels will be used. However, the approaches and input values used to derive each of the
levels must be transparent and readily available for review, as some aspects may vary on a
site-specific basis. For example, fish consumption rates may vary by region, disposal site,
or watershed, as may the wildlife and ESA receptors present.
Cleanup site managers, and to some degree dredging agencies, should be provided the
opportunity to modify the values based on good science and site-specific factors, as long as
the modifications are recorded in an appropriate document such as a suitability
determination or record of decision. In addition, the RSET manual itself may include
multiple sets of BTs for different purposes. For example, human health exposure scenarios
may be very different at a deepwater dredged material disposal site than in an urban
waterway. The need for multiple sets of BTs at a programmatic level will be assessed
further as tissue BTs are continually developed.
9.7.2 Bioaccumulation Triggers for Sediments
The general consensus in the scientific and regulatory community is that it is difficult to
accurately back-calculate sediment triggers from tissue levels using literature-derived
BSAFs from field studies, due to large uncertainties in BSAFs for the same chemical
derived from different data sets (PTI1995). This is largely due to differences in sediment
geochemistry, bioavailability of contaminants, and food webs from one area to the next, as
well as an assumption of equilibrium, which may not actually exist in many environments.
To date, no regulatory program in North America has established sediment BTs applicable
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-12 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
over large areas, such as a multi-state region. However, BSAFs can be developed on a site-
specific, watershed, or disposal site basis using tissue data paired with sediment data from
the home range of the species being evaluated. Care must be taken to ensure the BSAF is
meaningful (i.e., there is a statistically significant regression curve or sufficient paired
sediment/tissue data to calculate a mean with low variability) (Exponent 1998). It is also
important to take into account the home range of the species sampled and pair the sediment
and tissue data accordingly. Methods for calculating statistically meaningful BSAFs and
draft BSAFs for several non-polar organic compounds are presented in PTI (1995) and
Exponent (1998).
For the purposes of the dredging program, the most relevant BSAF may be at the disposal
site, since this is where the material will reside after dredging and the long-term exposures
of concern may occur. BSAFs for the waterbody of origin may also be used to determine
the effects of dredging residuals or contaminants released during dredging. It may be
possible to use past monitoring data to develop disposal site-specific BSAFs that can be
applied to derive sediment BTs for each disposal site (or for a set of disposal sites that are
similar in nature and receptors, such as ocean disposal sites along the coast of Oregon or
those in Puget Sound). In deriving and applying such BSAFs, it will be important to
consider whether sediment characteristics affecting bioavailability are similar at the
disposal site and in the dredged material being disposed there.
Similarly, BSAFs may be developed for certain chemicals and watersheds as part of large
Superfund site evaluations, and under source control (e.g., total maximum daily load) and
National Resource Damage Assessment processes. In these cases, it may be more
productive to use a geographic information system (GlS)-based approach to determine
which areas of sediment in the site or watershed need to be cleaned up to reduce overall
loading to a level that would, in turn, reduce tissue concentrations to acceptable levels. This
may be accomplished by identifying the factor by which tissue concentrations need to be
reduced (e.g., to 50 percent of current levels), and then using GIS tools to identify areas
that, if cleaned up, would reduce the area-weighted average sediment concentration within
that organism's home range to 50 percent or less of its previous value. This could also be a
method for designing and evaluating large dredging projects in contaminated areas, in terms
of the dredged material (and any residuals) as a source prior to, during, and after dredging,
and evaluating these sources in the context of regional bioaccumulation concerns.
Because of both environmental and programmatic differences, it is not necessary or even
possible to use the same approach or have the same criteria for bioaccumulation in
sediments. For example, tissue triggers may be developed to be protective of a wide variety
of regional wildlife receptors and human exposure scenarios, but which ones will apply at
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-13 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
any given site or disposal site will vary depending on the environment in which that site is
located and the uses that are present. BSAFs used to back-calculate from tissue levels to
sediments may also vary depending on geochemical conditions and food webs present in
each environment. Superfund sites with parties having the resources to conduct complex
food web modeling or monitoring evaluations may develop site-specific sediment BTs,
compared to small dredging projects in which standardized ratios or BSAFs calculated from
regional regressions may be employed. It is most important that all programs and agencies
have consistent, protective tissue levels as the same goals, and are working toward meeting
these watershed-wide values in a manner that best meets their project needs.
9.7.3 Collection of Missing Data
For areas where not enough data exist to establish watershed BCoCs, determine reason to
believe, or develop BSAFs, it is recommended that the agencies and the regulated
community share the burden of data collection. A single database is needed to maintain
bioaccumulation data, and an agency should be identified to manage the database. For
consistency with the sediment data management system, SEDQUAL is recommended
because it has the capability of maintaining tissue as well as sediment data.
9.8 DERIVATION OF BIOACCUMULATION TRIGGERS
This section identifies the proposed methods for calculating tissue BTs for each of the three
identified exposure pathways. These tissue BTs would be used to focus the BCoC list by
region, and as criteria against which the results of bioaccumulation testing can be compared
to determine whether sediments are suitable for open-water disposal or require cleanup. As
the first step in this process, the Bioaccumulation Subcommittee has established methods
and equations for use in these calculations. The Subcommittee is currently compiling
potential input parameters for use in the equations from projects that have been widely
reviewed and approved regionally, which will allow tissue BTs to be derived for the
wildlife and human health exposure pathways.
Derivation of tissue BTs for aquatic life based on tissue residue effects data is a more
resource-intensive process and, in this case, the Subcommittee has recommended relying on
existing species sensitivity distribution (SSD) and water quality criteria-based values as a
starting point, with some updating and review. However, the water quality criteria-based
approach has a number of disadvantages and uncertainties that make it most appropriate as
an interim approach, only to be used on a provisional basis if there are not yet enough data
to develop a SSD. SSDs should be calculated before attempting to back-calculate to
sediment BTs. Once a complete set of tissue BTs has been assembled, sediment BTs can be
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-14 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
derived. Methods for deriving sediment BTs are currently reserved and will be addressed as
the next step in the process.
Derivation methods for both tissue and sediment BTs contain assumptions and methods that
may result in very low values, although every attempt will be made to derive values that are
realistic while still being protective. Concentrations below background or reference values
are a possibility and will need to be evaluated and addressed. A necessary step following
the derivation of any draft BTs will be not only public review and comment, but a "dry run"
or ground-truthing exercise will occur to ensure the derived values are implementable in the
dredging and cleanup programs for which they are intended.
9.8.1 Tissue Bioaccumulation Triggers for Aquatic Life
The toxicity of bioaccumulated chemicals to aquatic biota can be evaluated with a tissue
residue approach (TRA) toxicity assessment. By associating the toxic response of aquatic
biota with the tissue concentration of the chemical causing the effect, complicating factors
associated with exposure media-based (i.e., water and sediment) dose-response studies can
largely be eliminated. Toxic effects can then be directly expressed as a function of tissue
residues. Elimination or minimization of confounding factors, such as bioavailability, is the
great advantage of using tissue residues to evaluate toxicity of environmental contaminants
compared to evaluating toxicity using chemical concentrations in water, sediment, or diet.
The main precept of the TRA is that it generates critical body residues (CBRs), such as
LR50s, LRios, or lowest observed effect residues (LOERs), for a given toxicant that exhibit
relatively low variability among species. The reduced variability in the biological response
compared to exposure media concentrations associated with toxicity (e.g., LCso) is highly
desirable for generating tissue BTs that are protective of all species. Additionally, CBRs
for many of the primary BCoCs are based on an extensive quantity of literature associating
tissue residues with adverse effects, and some causal relationship studies between whole
body tissue concentrations and the biological response, allowing the TRA approach to be
highly technically defensible.
Because data from a variety of taxa are used to generate the CBRs and corresponding BTs,
for most contaminants, the CBRs will be the same for fish and invertebrates. Not all CBRs
will have broad taxonomic application and exceptions will occur (e.g., TBT); however, for
most chemicals, the species sensitivity distributions for fish and invertebrates largely
overlap. Each compound or class of compounds will be evaluated for its ability to represent
toxicity for a wide range of species.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-15 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
9.8.1.1 Protocols for the Development of Tissue Bioaccumulation Triggers
Thus far, the following three methods by which tissue BTs can be developed have been
identified:
1. SSDs of existing tissue residue-effects literature,
2. Bioaccumulation modeling using existing water quality criteria as an input into the
model, and
3. CBRs defined on a molar basis for chemicals with known modes of toxic action.
Tissue BTs can be developed for some chemicals using existing residue-effects information
in the technical literature. For chemicals without sufficient residue-effects information in
the literature, a bioaccumulation model or knowledge of the molar concentration of the
chemical in tissue associated with toxicity would need to be used to develop tissue BTs,
with an increased uncertainty of the usefulness of the guidelines. If the mode of action of a
chemical is known, a tissue BT could be developed by back-calculating from the molar
concentration of that chemical in tissue associated with toxicity.
One issue of concern that applies to both the bioaccumulation modeling and species SSD
generation approaches is selection of the toxicological endpoints to incorporate into BT
derivation. EPA's past methodology for deriving ambient water quality criteria (AWQC)
(Stephan et al. 1985) considers contaminant effects on survival, reproduction, and growth.
Consistent with more recent AWQC approaches, RSET intends to incorporate behavioral
studies with ecologically relevant endpoints into tissue BT derivation. However, behavioral
studies will be carefully screened to ensure that they are of high quality and reflect a
bioaccumulation endpoint (e.g., related to contaminants in tissues rather than in water).
RSET believes the most scientifically defensible tissue BTs will be derived from using
measured residue-effects information from a number of species to calculate the BT. The
SSD approach provides the greatest opportunity to utilize all available residue-effects
information for a given chemical to derive its tissue BT; thus, the SSD approach will be
used for tissue BT derivation. For chemicals where sufficient literature data are not
available to derive tissue BTs using the SSD approach, either the bioaccumulation modeling
or molar residue approaches can be used to develop tissue BTs, although with greater
uncertainties associated with the calculated BT. Each of these approaches is described in
further detail below.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-16 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
9.8.1.2 Species Sensitivity Distribution Approach
The species sensitivity distribution approach uses existing toxicological literature in a
manner similar to the existing EPA methodology used to develop AWQC (Stephan et al.
1985). It is the approach used in Europe to derive water quality criteria, and has also been
used to derive sediment quality criteria such as the Long and Morgan (1991) effects range-
low values and Washington's sediment management standards. As used in water quality
criteria development, the SSD is generated from laboratory toxicity data.
SSDs are most commonly expressed as cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of the
toxicity of a chemical to a set of species. When toxicity data (such as a set of LC50 values
for a number of species) are rank ordered from low to high (or high to low), generation of
the SSD as a cumulative distribution function permits one to identify a concentration at
which a defined proportion of the species comprising the SSD is not adversely affected.
One of the primary assumptions of the SSD approach is that it represents the true but
unknown distribution of toxicity data for all aquatic species. The larger the toxicity data set
used to derive an SSD, the more likely it is that this assumption will be met. Thus, tissue
BTs derived from SSDs containing larger amounts of toxicity data are more likely to
accurately define tissue residues that, if not exceeded, are protective offish.
One important consideration is making sure that ESA-listed species are represented in the
data set, either directly or through a similar surrogate. Each SSD will be examined to ensure
that species are included that are representative of ESA-listed species. If no tissue reside
data are available for appropriate species, water quality data may be evaluated to determine
the relative sensitivity of ESA-listed species to toxicants compared to species that are
included in the SSD.
ERED, available at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/ered/ (Bridges and Lutz 1999), and
Jarvinen and Ankley (1999) are the primary sources of residue-effects information that can
be used to develop SSDs.
The toxicity datasets used to develop water quality criteria employ a statistically derived
description of the concentration-response curve, such as an LC50 or EC20. By contrast,
much of the available tissue residue-effects literature describes only one point on a dose-
response curve (e.g., a residue resulting in a 38 percent reduction in survival relative to
control survival). Other residue-effects literature commonly contains no description of the
magnitude of the observed effect, the proportion of species responding to a given tissue
residue, or a statistically derived descriptor of the dose-response curve. This literature, all
of which contains information termed the lowest unquantified effect dose (LUED), may be
of limited utility in the derivation of tissue BTs, while comprising a substantial portion of
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-17 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
the available residue-effects literature. However, if it is assumed that LUED values are
analogous to LOERs, a species sensitivity distribution can be generated with both tissue-
based LUED and LOER data, providing a sizable increase in the amount of literature
available for use in developing SSDs.
For development of tissue BTs, a decision must be made regarding at what level of effect
(or the proportion of species to be protected) the tissue BT should be set. Consistent with
EPA's AWQC derivation methodology, RSET intends to use the 5th percentile of an SSD
derived from the adverse effects data for survival, reproduction, growth, and behavior as the
selected BT. Each SSD will be examined to determine where species representative of
ESA-listed species fall within the distribution. An additional lower threshold value may be
used in cases where it would be necessary to protect an ESA-listed species, to be applied in
areas where those species are present.
A potential difficulty with using measured residue-effects data to derive tissue BTs is data
availability. There is less information available in the literature on tissue residues
associated with toxicity than there is on water column or sediment concentrations associated
with toxicity. This does not preclude the use of literature data to derive tissue BTs, but the
limited available information for many chemicals will limit both the number and reliability
of tissue BTs derived using SSDs. Hence, this approach will only be used as sufficient data
become available for each BCoC, and one of the two methods below may be used in the
meantime.
9.8.1.3 Bioaccumulation Modeling Approach
At its simplest, a tissue BT could be derived from the product of a water quality criterion
and a bioconcentration factor (BCF) (or bioaccumulation attenuation factor [BAF]). This
approach for developing tissue BTs has previously been proposed by several investigators
(Dyer et al. 2000, Shephard 1998, Nendza et al. 1997, Calabrese and Baldwin 1993, Cook et
al. 1992). As many water quality criteria and BCFs are already available, this approach
could be used to quickly generate tissue BTs for a number of chemicals. The simpler
bioaccumulation models are not data intensive, which is potentially a large advantage
during the development of tissue BTs.
Through a review of the existing residue-effects literature, Shephard (2004) demonstrated
that the product of existing EPA water quality criteria and a standardized set of BCFs
resulted in tissue screening concentrations for aquatic life were lower than 94.5 percent of
measured tissue residues associated with adverse effects on survival, reproduction, and
growth. This is in excellent agreement with the intended 95 percent level of protection for
aquatic genera, which is the goal of the EPA water quality criteria (Stephan et al. 1985).
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-18 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
However, because this approach is frequently overprotective, the SSD approach described
above will be used in preference.
Another observation made by Shephard (2004) was that no statistically significant
differences exist in tissue residues associated with toxicity in marine and freshwater biota.
This leads to the possibility that generally applicable tissue BTs can be generated from
bioaccumulation models, eliminating the need to derive separate sets of tissue BTs for
marine and freshwater biota.
Tissue BTs derived from a bioaccumulation model have many uncertainties. These
uncertainties include the accuracy of water quality criteria used as an input to the model,
and the appropriateness of using a single BCF or BAF to derive generally applicable tissue
BTs. Addressing these uncertainties during tissue BT development may result in BTs with
large safety factors relative to the safety factors of tissue BTs derived from SSDs.
Measured contaminant residues in field collected fish tissues that exceeded tissue guidelines
generated by both a bioaccumulation model and a SSD were found to be statistically
significantly correlated with fish community health in a statewide survey offish in Ohio
(Dyer et al. 2000). The Dyer et al. (2000) study is one of the few studies available that has
simultaneously evaluated the predictive utility of tissue guidelines developed from both
bioaccumulation models and SSDs.
9.8.1.4 Molar Residues Associated with Known Modes of Toxic Action
Since the finding by McCarty (1986) that lethal tissue residues of chemicals in fish whose
mode of action is narcosis are relatively constant when expressed on a molar basis (e.g.,
millimoles of chemical per kilogram of body weight, or mmol/kg), an extensive amount of
research has been performed to quantify molar residues of both individual chemicals and
mixtures of chemicals with the same mode of action associated with toxicity. Ranges of
molar residues in aquatic biota tissues for chemicals with a number of modes of action are
summarized in McCarty and Mackay (1993).
Most if not all of the available literature used to generate the molar residue-effect ranges in
McCarty and Mackay (1993) can also be used to generate SSDs. A large advantage of the
molar residue approach, shared with the bioaccumulation modeling approach to tissue BT
derivation, is that BTs can be calculated for many chemicals with little or no toxicity
information. In the case of the molar residue approach, the minimum data requirements to
derive tissue BTs are knowledge of the mode of action of the chemical and the range of
residues associated with toxicity for other chemicals sharing the same mode of action.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-19 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Several potential difficulties exist with the molar residue approach. Although all organic
chemicals are believed to be at least as toxic as their potential to elicit narcosis, many
chemicals that are narcotics during short-term lethality tests have other modes of action
during chronic exposure periods. Thus, it cannot be assumed that just because some
information exists documenting a chemical elicits narcotic toxicity during short-term
lethality testing, it will also be a narcotic during longer term exposures. Some chemicals,
particularly metals, have multiple modes of action, making it difficult to define a molar
residue protective of all potential toxic effects. The mode of action for some chemicals is
not currently known, precluding the use of the molar residue approach to derive tissue BTs
for such chemicals.
9.8.1.5 Chemicals for Which Tissue Residue Values Cannot Be Derived
In theory, tissue residue values for protection offish and invertebrates can be derived for
any chemical or compound that is bioaccumulated into aquatic biota tissues. In practice,
tissue residues associated with toxicity have seldom been measured for organic chemicals
that are freely water soluble, or at least have a high water solubility. As shown by McCarty
et al. (1991), for organic chemicals with a log K0w < 1.5, the chemical concentration in the
water phase of the organism dominates toxicity, and total body residues associated with
toxicity should be similar to the respective threshold LCso in water.
Tissue BTs for fish and invertebrates should not be derived for chemicals that fall into the
following three rather broad categories:
1. Chemicals that do not appreciably bioaccumulate but are nevertheless toxic,
2. External toxicants such as contact herbicides, and
3. Chemicals that are rapidly biotransformed into more (or less) toxic metabolites
relative to toxicity of the parent compound.
Some chemicals are quite toxic without appreciable bioaccumulation. Cyanide is one
example of a highly toxic chemical with a low bioaccumulation potential. Most chemicals
in this group have high water solubility and may not preferentially partition from water to
tissues, resulting in low tissue residues associated with toxicity. These chemicals are
unlikely to be on lists of bioaccumulative chemicals, reducing the need for tissue BTs for
this group.
External toxicants do not need to enter the body of an organism to elicit toxicity. In
addition to contact herbicides that act by destroying the cell wall of the plant, a few other
chemicals can act as external toxicants under some circumstances. Iron and aluminum are
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-20 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
two chemicals that, under certain conditions of water quality, form flocculent materials that
coat the gills of aquatic species, causing death by suffocation without entering the body of
the organism. As another example, oil coating a bird may cause hypothermia and death.
The toxicity of some compounds is enhanced by transformation (biological, chemical, or
physical) after they have been bioaccumulated. For example, the chlorinated insecticide
Aldrin is rapidly (within a few hours or days) metabolically transformed to the more toxic
Dieldrin (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 1995) by most aquatic species.
Under these conditions, the concentration of the parent compound in tissue may have little
or no relationship to the toxicity of the transformation product. The largest group of
chemicals this applies to is PAH compounds. Some PAH compounds are metabolically
transformed into more toxic PAH epoxides; the chemical form often responsible for the
carcinogenic effects of some PAHs. Other PAHs are photochemically activated, which
enhances the toxicity of bioaccumulated parent PAH compounds. Available tissue residue-
effects literature for PAHs shows substantial variations among body residues associated
with the same toxic endpoint, which cut across taxonomic lines. This variability makes it
difficult to develop a single PAH tissue BT that is protective of all species.
Existing data do not currently permit development of generally applicable tissue residue
values for either individual PAH compounds or mixtures of PAHs. The Bioaccumulation
Subcommittee recommends that RSET not attempt to develop tissue BTs for either
individual PAH compounds or PAH mixtures at this time. PAH toxicity to aquatic species
can be evaluated by comparing their concentration in water or sediment to existing
environmental guidelines, standards, or criteria. However, tissue BTs for protection of
wildlife and human health can be derived using the methods discussed in Sections 9.8.2 and
9.8.3.
9.8.1.6 Sensitivity of Endangered Species to Chemicals
Relatively few toxicity studies have been performed with endangered species, or at least
with the specific ESA-listed stocks, strains, or subspecies of species that are more common
elsewhere in their range. EPA, USFWS, and USGS have combined to fund several studies
of the contaminant tolerance of several ESA-listed aquatic species, primarily fish, in recent
years (Besser et al. 2001, Dwyer et al. 1999). The findings of these studies have provided
support for the hypothesis that most water quality criteria are protective of ESA-listed
aquatic species. On a body residue basis, additional support for this hypothesis is available
from studies with the ESA-listed bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Studies with cadmium
(Hansen et al. 2002a) and copper (Hansen et al. 2002b) have found that while whole body
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-21 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
residues associated with toxicity are low, they are not as low as residues associated with
toxicity in other aquatic species.
However, it is not assumed that the methods described above will be protective of ESA-
listed species in every case. Residue-effects data will be reviewed for appropriate surrogate
species for an ESA-listed species (e.g., rainbow trout for listed salmonids) during the
development of each tissue BT to determine whether or not each value can be considered
protective of ESA-listed species. In addition, if the value that would be protective of ESA-
listed species is lower than the selected SSD threshold, the value that would be protective of
ESA-listed species will be identified along with the standard threshold value for use in areas
with related ESA listings.
9.8.2 Tissue Bioaccumulation Triggers for Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife
This section provides the approach to be used to develop BTs for aquatic-dependent
wildlife. This BT represents the concentration or target level of a bioaccumulative
contaminant in a prey item that is considered protective of birds and mammals that prey on
aquatic species such as fish or invertebrates. Thus, contaminants present in prey items at or
below the trigger level will not harm the most sensitive life stage of bird or mammal
predators. Because it can be difficult and costly to directly measure tissue concentrations in
higher order receptors, prey items are considered sentinels, which can be monitored to
determine if action is warranted to protect aquatic-dependent wildlife from bioaccumulative
chemicals in a watershed. Though sediment ingestion is another pathway by which
chemicals can enter aquatic dependant wildlife, the dietary pathway tends to be the
dominant source for bioaccumulative chemicals (Bridges et al. 1996).
It is important to note that tissue BTs for aquatic-dependent wildlife may not be protective
of the prey species themselves. Rather, the BTs are derived based on Toxicity Reference
Values (TRVs) previously established and reported for the protection of sensitive life stages
of higher trophic level species. Therefore, TRVs for the receptors identified in a watershed
must be available to calculate BTs for aquatic-dependent wildlife.
9.8.2.1 Defining Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife Receptors
Recognizing the difficulties of developing tissue BTs on a site-specific basis, guidance is
provided here for developing tissue BTs for wildlife prey items that are more broadly
applicable to a wide range of areas. If the wildlife sentinel species discussed herein are for
some reason less appropriate for a particular site or project, the same general approach may
then be used to develop BTs for the prey items of additional wildlife species. However, it is
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-22 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
likely that the concepts presented in this paper will be applicable to most if not all areas
where BCoCs that could impact higher trophic level wildlife are present.
Certain avian and mammalian receptors are frequently considered as "representative" or
sentinel wildlife receptors as shown in Table 9-1. These include the great blue heron,
belted kingfisher, merganser, osprey, and bald eagle, which all consume large amounts of
fish in their diets. Most of these receptors are found in both freshwater and marine
environments. Depending on the type of water body under consideration, shorebirds (such
as the stilt, avocet or sandpiper) may also serve as representative receptors because these
birds typically consume aquatic invertebrates including insects and crustaceans, which may
bioaccumulate metals/metalloids to a higher degree than fish consumed by predominantly
fish-eating birds. Mammals that commonly feed on crustaceans and fish in watersheds
include river otter, sea otter and mink.
Table 9-1. Common Aquatic-dependent Wildlife Receptors in Freshwater and Marine
Systems
Candidate Wildlife
Receptors
Birds
Great Blue Heron
Belted Kingfisher
Red-Breasted Merganser
Black-Necked Stilt
American Avocet
Spotted Sandpiper or Western
Sandpiper
Bald Eagle
Osprey
Mammals
North American River Otter17
Northern Sea Otter27
American Mink17
Steller's Sea Lion
Orca Whale
Scientific Name
Ardea herodias
Ceryle alcyon
Mergus serrator
Himantopus mexicanus
Recurvirostra Americana
Actitis macularia or
Calidris mauri
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Pandion haliaetus
Lutra canadensis
Enhydra lutris lutris
Mustela vision
Eum etopias jubatus
Orcinus orca
Present in
RSET Region?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes (summer)
Yes (summer)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dominant Food Items
Fish, crustaceans, small
mammals
Fish and crayfish
Small fish
Aquatic (including emergent)
insects, small fish
Mostly crustaceans and insects
(including emergent)
Aquatic insects, mollusks,
worms, crustaceans
Fish, fish-eating and non-fish
eating birds, some mammals
Fish
Fish predominantly. Also
crustaceans (crayfish)
Marine fish, shellfish, and
invertebrates
Crustaceans (crayfish), fish
Marine fish, salmon,
macroinvertebrates
Fish, marine mammels
Predominantly a freshwater species
27 Predominantly a marine species
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
9-23
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
9.8.2.2 Development of Tissue Bioaccumulation Triggers
Tissue BTs will be derived after selecting the receptor species and identifying TRVs from
the literature that are protective of the receptors. The TRVs selected from the literature
provide information about the likelihood of biological effects to aquatic-dependent wildlife
(e.g., reduced survival, growth, and reproduction), and address what level of
bioaccumulation constitutes an "unacceptable adverse effect." Key parameters identified
for use in modeling come from the literature and are based on studies specific to the
receptor. Additional site- or project-specific parameters can be used to fine-tune the model
and potentially adjust the tissue BT in an area if warranted.
TRVs from the scientific literature or other noted data sources will be the primary focus
when developing the generic prey tissue BTs for RSET. Two types of TRV studies are of
greatest relevance to setting wildlife prey item tissue BTs: dietary TRV and egg-based
TRV studies. The approach for establishing tissue BTs using each type of TRV study is
presented below.
9.8.2.3 Establishing Prey Tissue Bioaccumulation Triggers Using Dietary Toxicity
Reference Value Studies
The most straightforward way to determine if concentrations of BCoCs are of concern in
wildlife prey items is to compare concentrations measured in these organisms at a site to the
dietary test concentrations from a well-conducted TRV study for the wildlife species of
interest. The TRV ideally should represent a no-observed-adverse effect level (NOAEL).
Where a NOAEL is not available, a low-observed-adverse effect level (LOAEL) can be
considered, although LOAELs may not be protective of listed species and safety factors
may need to be incorporated in the assessment. The use of dietary studies for establishing
TRVs makes the implicit assumption that the dietary exposure pathway is of greater
importance than other exposure pathways such as incidental sediment ingestion. This is
generally the case for most receptors, although the sediment ingestion pathway can be of
high importance for receptors such as shorebirds.
TRV studies should be based on sensitive toxicity endpoints such as reproduction as a
matter of priority. Also, the dietary TRV selected should be protective of the most sensitive
life stage of a receptor for a particular test chemical (i.e., if a test chemical exerts toxicity at
lower concentrations to developing embryos or juveniles compared to adults, then a TRV
protecting these more sensitive life stages should be used in the assessment). TRV studies
with toxicity endpoints relative to impacts on growth and survival may also be considered
when more sensitive reproductive endpoint TRV studies are not available. The studies
should be dietary to have maximum relevance to establishing tissue BTs for use at in-place
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-24 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
contaminated sediment (CS) sites and dredging/disposal sites. For the dietary approach,
injection or other non-dietary based studies have less relevance in establishing tissue BTs
because the goal in establishing tissue BTs is to determine what levels in wildlife food
could cause them harm and be easily monitored.4 Fortunately, many dietary studies are
available for BCoCs in the scientific literature and can be used for establishing tissue BTs
for wildlife protection.
Commonly used databases containing wildlife TRV studies include EPA's Soil Screening
Levels (EPA 2003b), Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL) Toxicological Benchmarks
(ORNL 1997), EPA's Ecotoxicology Database (ECOTOX) (ECOTOX 2003), and the
Corps' ERED (ERED 2003). The scientific literature should be consulted in cases where
TRV studies are not available from these sources.
The tissue BT is established using the NOAEL (or LOAEL with adjustment) dietary test
concentration from a well-conducted TRV study. As an example, the selenium NOAEL for
mallards is 4 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) in the diet (Heinz et al. 1989). Therefore, if
selenium concentrations greater than 4 mg/kg in aquatic invertebrates or fish at a given site
are measured, it could be concluded that there is a potential risk to aquatic-dependent birds
feeding on these organisms. Ideally, an adjustment for the difference in food ingestion rate
to body weight ratios between the test wildlife species in the TRV study and the species of
interest at the site should be made. This adjustment is made as follows:
17TR RW
Tissue BT =CL. test site
BWtest FIRsite
Where:
Tissue BT = Allowable prey concentration for wildlife (mg/kg)
CtiSSue = Chemical concentration in TRV test diet (food item)
Food ingestion rate of TRV test species (kilogram [kg]/day)
Body weight of TRV test species (kg)
BWsite = Body weight of site species (kg)
FIRsite = Food ingestion rate of site species (kg/day)
Food ingestion rates and body weights of site-specific wildlife species of interest can be
determined from many literature sources, including EPA's Wildlife Exposure Factor
Handbook (EPA 1993a). Site-specific species with a higher food ingestion rate to body
4 Gavage studies can be considered if well-conducted dietary studies are not available for a BCoC. Gavage
represents forced oral administration to the stomach using oil, water, or capsule. Resulting tissue BTs
established from this type of study should be interpreted with greater caution. As a matter of priority well-
conducted dietary studies are always the preferred type of TRV study.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-25 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
weight ratio than that of the test species would have a lower tissue BT and vice versa.
Similarly, allometric scaling for the TRY to account for differences in body weight may be
applied, which can also be found in EPA (1993a).
9.8.2.4 Establishing Prey Tissue Bioaccumulation Triggers Using Egg-Based Toxicity
Reference Value Studies
The dietary model above can be used for establishing tissue BTs protective of wildlife for
many organic and inorganic compounds. However, some types of chemicals such as DDE,
PCBs, "dioxin-like"5 compounds (EPA 2003c), mercury, and selenium (Fairbrother et al.
1999, Adams et al. 2003) have demonstrated effects on avian development at the level of
the egg. In these cases, developing tissue BTs based on eggs is more appropriate than the
dietary pathway because the reproductive effects and corresponding TRVs are based on
concentrations in bird eggs rather than in the diet, as the dietary pathway model above may
not result in tissue BTs that are sufficiently protective.
Estimated egg-based TRVs (NOAELs or LOAELs) are available for fish-eating birds for
PCBs (calculated as total PCBs) and DDE (Custer et al. 1999, Elliott et al. 1996, Wiemeyer
et al. 1984, 1988, 1993, Yamashita et al. 1993), and an egg-based approach would be the
preferred method for assessing these particular chemicals. Examples and explanations of
using the egg-based approach can be found in EPA (2003c) and other references (Giesy et
al 1995, USFWS 1994).
A simple egg-based model for developing tissue trigger levels follows below.
Tissue BT = TRVegg/BMFegg
Where:
Tissue Trigger Level (mg/kg) = Tissue concentration in prey protective of avian
predators
TRVegg = Egg-based Toxicity Reference Value (mg/kg)
BMFegg = Biomagnification factor from prey to egg (unitless); includes
biomagnification from prey to adult, followed by adult to egg
The BMFegg value can be derived from site-specific data (if available) or from the literature.
Examples of site-specific derivation of BMFs can be found in Henny et al. (2003), USFWS
(2004), and Braune and Norstrom (1989). Other methods for estimating BMFs can be
found in USFWS (1994).
5 Compounds that demonstrate "dioxin-like" effects include dioxins, furans, and some PCB congeners (EPA
2003a).
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-26 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
9.8.3 Tissue Bioaccumulation Triggers for Human Health
This section provides a proposed approach to deriving BTs in aquatic tissues that would be
protective of human health. For the purposes of this assessment, only human health risks
associated with consumption of bioaccumulative chemicals in fish or shellfish are
considered. At some sediment sites, it may be necessary to also consider other potential
pathways (e.g., direct human contact with sediments). However, where fish and shellfish
consumption is one of the potential exposure pathways, the food-related pathway typically
is a more substantial contributor to site risks than direct contact with sediments. Thus,
initial focus on fish and shellfish consumption is appropriate.
Tissue BTs will need to address both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects of BCoCs
through application of a carcinogenic slope factor (CSF) for carcinogenic effects and a
reference dose (RfD) for non-carcinogenic effects. EPA-approved toxicity values are
described on the EPA Integrated Risk Information System web site6 and EPA's Provisional
Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Superfund (PPRTV). 7 Additional interim toxicity
values can be obtained by contacting EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment
(NCEA).8
Tissue BTs for carcinogenic effects of BCoCs can be calculated using the following general
algorithm:
, , TRxAT xBW
TissueBT (mg/kg) = -
EFxEDxFIxIRxO.OOl kg/gxCSF
Tissue BT = target tissue concentration in fish or shellfish tissue (mg/kg wet
weight)
TR = target risk for individual carcinogens
ATC = averaging time (exposure duration (years) x 365 days/year)
BW = body weight (kg adult or child)
0.001 = conversion of grams fish to kg
EF = exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = exposure duration (years)
FI = fraction of intake assumed from site
6 http ://www. epa. gov/iris/search. htm
7 http://hhpprtv.ornl.gov/
8 http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/aboutncea.cfm?ActType=AboutNCEA
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-27 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
IR = ingestion rate for fish or shellfish (g/day)
CSF = carcinogenic slope factor (mg/kg-day)"1
For non-carcinogenic effects, the following algorithm can be used to derive tissue BTs for
fish and shellfish tissue:
T. VTS // i THQxBWxATnxRfD
TissueBT (mg/kg) =
EFxEDxFIxIRxO.OOlkg/g
Tissue BT = target tissue concentration in fish or shellfish tissue (mg/kg wet
weight)
THQ = target hazard quotient
ATn = averaging time (exposure duration (years) x 365 days/year)
BW = body weight (kg adult or child)
0.001 = conversion of grams to kg
EF = exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = exposure duration (years)
FI = fraction of intake assumed from site
IR = ingestion rate for fish or shellfish
RfD = reference dose for non-cancer effects (mg/kg-day)
9.8.3.1 Selection of a Target Risk and Hazard Index.
For carcinogenic effects of BCoCs, a total cumulative target risk level of 10"5 (upper-end) is
proposed, which is consistent with regulatory requirements set out by ODEQ and Ecology.
This risk level represents the middle of the risk range (10"4 to 10"6) typically identified as
acceptable by EPA and allows for exposure to multiple carcinogenic BCoCs. To achieve
this risk level, tissue BTs for individual BCoCs are set at risk levels of 10"6.
In deriving tissue BTs for non-cancer endpoints, a cumulative hazard index of 1.0 is
proposed. In order to not exceed this cumulative level, initial tissue BTs for individual
BCoCs will be derived through application of a hazard index of 0.1 for screening. Where
multiple BCoCs are present at concentrations greater than the non-cancer tissue BT, site
managers may consider additional evaluation to determine whether the BCoCs identified at
the site could affect the same target organs at the concentrations present. If this is not the
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-28 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
case, it may be appropriate to adjust the resulting BTs to result in a cumulative hazard index
of 1.0.
9.8.3.2 Selection of Receptor Population and Endpoint
It is desirable to have a single tissue BT to address all human health considerations.
However, the tissue BT will need to be protective of both adults and children consuming
fish and shellfish. The tissue BT will also need to be protective of both the carcinogenic
and non-carcinogenic effects of BCoCs. Where EPA has both a CSF and an RfD available
for a BCoC, the carcinogenic effect will typically provide the lowest risk-based
concentration for various reasons, including the assumption that there is no threshold for
carcinogenic effects. However, in some contexts, there may be some BCoCs for which the
tissue BT calculated based on non-cancer endpoints is lower (more health-protective) than
that derived based on the CSF. In addition, depending on the consumption rates assumed
for adults and children, the tissue BT for non-carcinogenic effects may be lower for children
consuming fish than for adults, particularly at the 10"5 cancer risk level. Thus, once the
target risk level and the consumption rates are selected for use in deriving tissue BTs, these
considerations will need to be evaluated to derive a tissue BT protective of all receptors and
endpoints.
9.8.3.3 Exposure Assumptions
As described above, the tissue BTs will be derived to be protective of all populations (e.g.,
recreational, subsistence, Native American) and endpoints. To meet this objective, fish
consumption rates for various populations present in the region will need to be reviewed to
determine the most representative rates for adults and children. Because consumption rates
are highly variable among various populations, it may be beneficial to derive more than one
set of rates depending on the specific situation. Where site-specific consumption rate
studies have been conducted, risk managers may determine whether they should be applied
on a case-by-case basis.
Although studies of tribal consumption rates have estimated fish and shellfish consumption
rates for children, most studies of recreational fish and shellfish consumption have focused
on adults only; therefore, some rates may need to be developed based on adults, with some
consideration of their likely applicability to children. Because recreational rates are much
lower than those identified for subsistence populations and because not all sites are
locations for subsistence fishing, it may be appropriate to calculate separate tissue BTs for
recreational and subsistence populations and determine on a site-by-site basis which is most
appropriate as the basis for a tissue BT.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-29 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
An additional area for consideration is the fraction of seafood harvest that may be affected
by site-specific contamination. Issues that may be considered include resource
sustainability, site area, overall harvest area, fidelity of site use, the role multiple smaller
site remediation/disposal actions may have on larger systems, and policy regarding
acceptable risks associated with resource use independent of location. It is proposed that
the generic tissue BTs be initially developed based on a default fractional intake of 100
percent followed by potential evaluation of alternate fractional intakes based on the
aforementioned factors.
Some cooking methods change the concentrations of some BCoCs in fish and shellfish.
However, given the variability in cooking methods applied by various populations in the
region, cooking loss factors are not proposed for the generic tissue BTs.
9.8.3.4 Bioaccumulation Triggers for Compounds with Common Toxic Mechanisms
Tissue contaminant concentrations that trigger sediment bioaccumulation testing are usually
computed for individual compounds. However, deriving BTs on a compound by compound
basis is not always appropriate when compounds of similar chemical structure and a
common toxicity mechanism are present. In such cases, BTs may be developed on a
chemical class basis. Chlorinated dioxins/furans and polychlorinated biphenyls (CDFBs)
and carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs) are chemical classes
recommended to calculate BTs at the group level.
Using a toxic equivalency approach to determine exceedance of a BT for CDFBs.
The toxicity of CDFBs as a group may be assessed using a toxic equivalency approach.
Each compound within the CDFB group is assigned a toxic equivalency factor (TEF)
describing the toxicity of that CDFB relative to the toxicity of a reference compound,
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). A CDFB that is equal in toxicity to TCDD
would have a TEF of 1 .0. A compound that is half as toxic as TCDD would have a TEF of
0.5, and so on. Multiplying the tissue concentration of a CDFB by its TEF produces the
tissue concentration of TCDD that is equivalent in toxicity (TEQ) to the CDFB
concentration of concern. Computing the TEQ for each CDFB in a tissue sample followed
by summing all TEQ values permits expression of all CDFB concentrations in terms of a
total TCDD toxic equivalent tissue concentration (i.e., total tissue TCDD TEQ).
Total tissue TCDD TEQ = cซ x TEFซ
n=l
If the total tissue TCDD TEQ exceeds the BT for TCDD, sediment bioaccumulation testing
is warranted.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-30 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
There have been several efforts to develop TCDD TEFs for dioxin/furans and PCBs having
TCDD like toxicity (EPA 2000b). The most recent effort occurred at an expert meeting
organized by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1997 (Van den Berg et al. 1998).
The WHO effort examined a number of lines of evidence to develop a consensus based list
of TEFs. The results of the 1997 WHO effort have been incorporated into EPA's draft
dioxin reassessment (EPA 2000b). Table 9-2 provides the WHO 1997 TEFs for dioxins and
furans. Table 9-3 provides the WHO 1997 TEFs for PCBs.
Using a relative potency approach to determine exceedance of a BT for cPAHs.
Unlike CDFBs, many of which are resistant to metabolism by aquatic biota, cPAHs may be
metabolized by aquatic biota to compounds that do not pose human health risks (Varanasi et
al. 1989). It is important to note that the toxicity of cPAH compounds is still very much an
area of active research. Another issue is that current analytical methods may not be capable
of detecting cPAH concentrations of concern. The ability of different biota classes (e.g.,
fish, crustaceans, and mollusks) to metabolize cPAHs is variable (James 1989). Fish are
generally thought to efficiently metabolize cPAHs (Varanasi et al. 1989). In contrast,
mollusks metabolize cPAHs to a low or negligible extent (James 1989). The need for
assessing risks posed by cPAHs as a group is of particular concern in dredging situations
affecting shellfish resources.
The toxicity of multiple cPAHs may be evaluated using the relative potency approach. This
approach involves comparison of the cancer causing ability of a particular cPAH to a
reference compound, benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), by means of a relative potency factor (RPF). A
cPAH with an RPF of 1 .0 would be as effective as BaP in inducing cancer. A cPAH with
an RPF of 0.5 would be half as effective as BaP in inducing cancer, and so on. Multiplying
the concentration of a cPAH by its RPF produces the concentration of BaP having
equivalent cancer inducing ability (BaP Eq) to the cPAH concentration in question. By
computing the BaP Eq for every cPAH in a tissue sample and then summing all BaP Eqs,
the concentrations of all cPAHs in the tissue sample may be expressed in terms of a total
BaP Eq concentration.
k
Total tissue BAP Eq = ^Cซ x RPFซ
n=l
If the total tissue BaP Eq exceeds the BT for BaP, sediment bioaccumulation testing is
warranted.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 9-3 1 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
Table 9-2. WHO 1997 TEFs for dioxins and furans
Compound
TEF
Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD
1
1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.0001
Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF
0.1
0.05
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.0001
Table 9-3. WHO 1997 TEFs for PCBs
IUPAC #
77
81
105
114
118
123
126
156
157
167
169
189
Compound
3,3',4,4'-TCB
3,4,4',5-TCB
2,3,3',4,4'-PeCB
2,3,4,4', 5-PeCB
2,3',4,4',5-PeCB
2',3,4,4',5-PeCB
3,3',4,4',5-PeCB
2,3,3',4,4',5-HxCB
2,3,3',4,4',5'-HxCB
2,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB
3,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB
2,3,3',4,4',5,5'-HpCB
TEF
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0005
0.0001
0.0001
0.1
0.0005
0.0005
0.00001
0.01
0.0001
Abbreviations: T-tetra, Pe-penta, Hx-hexa, Hp-hepta, O-Octa, DD-
dibenzodioxin, DF-dibenzofuran, CB-chlorobiphenyl, IUPAC-
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
9-32
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
RPFs have been developed by EPA for seven cPAHs (EPA 1993b). These RPFs are based
on the ability of cPAHs to induce mouse skin tumors. Table 9-4 provides the RPFs for
these compounds.
Consensus on cPAH RPF values is not as great as the consensus reached on human CDFB
TEFs. The California EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has
prepared a list of cPAH RPFs (California EPA 1999) to support air toxics risk assessment
that is much more extensive than EPA's list. The RPF development approach used by
California EPA considers a wider range of endpoints and datasets than EPA. Further
discussion on the source and values for RPFs should be considered for subsequent drafts of
this SEF.
Table 9-4. EPA RPFs for cPAH
Compound
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benz[a]anthracene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz [a,h] anthracene
Indeno[ 1 ,2,3 -cd]pyrene
TEF
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.001
1.0
0.1
9.9 SEDIMENT BIOACCUMULATION TRIGGERS
[RESERVED]
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
9-33
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
10. DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
10.1 INTRODUCTION
In previous chapters we discussed the need for a CSM and appropriate sampling and
analysis procedures to enable sound management decisions. This chapter discusses the
need for disposal site identification to further focus data collection and evaluation to ensure
the characterization is adequate to meet disposal objectives. This chapter is not intended to
evaluate disposal options or make engineering recommendations, but rather to introduce the
user to the potential options and concepts that govern their use. The Corps and EPA have
written many guidance documents on disposal and the factors that need to be considered
and evaluated to determine the best disposal option. Please refer to the Dredging
Operations and Technical Support Program (DOTS) (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/) for
guidance documents and publications.
Dredging for maintenance of navigational depths, deepening of berthing areas, or removal
of contaminated sediments (CSs) is typically conducted in industrial urban areas where a
general understanding of the sediment quality is known. While the majority of dredged
materials are considered acceptable for a wide range of disposal alternatives, contaminant
levels in some sediment have produced concern that dredged material disposal, especially in
open waters and wetlands, may adversely affect water quality and aquatic life (Permanent
International Association of Navigation Congresses [PIANC] 1990). Determining the
appropriate disposal option can be one of the costliest, time-consuming, and controversial
aspects of the project. Thus, having at least an initial understanding of the preferred
disposal alternative will be valuable during the characterization and permitting process.
Understanding the requirements of the proposed disposal location is an important step to
include in the conceptual site model (CSM) because sediment evaluation should always
have a clearly defined purpose and objective(s) whether it is for maintenance dredging or
CS dredging. To assist in this evaluation, many agencies like the Corps and EPA, and
technical subcommittees like PIANC, have developed comprehensive, yet simplified
approaches to the identification, development, evaluation, and selection of environmentally
and economically preferable alternatives for the handling and treatment of clean sediments
and CSs. The following sections summarize the likely alternatives for dredged material
disposal, and discuss much of the relevant information needed to assess and develop
dredged material disposal alternatives.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 10-1 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
10.2 DISPOSAL OPTIONS
The removal, transport, and placement of dredged sediments are the primary components of
the "dredging process." In design and implementation of any dredging project, each part of
the dredging process must be closely coordinated to ensure a successful dredging operation
(EPA/Corps 2004). Planning for maintenance dredging projects involving uncontaminated
sediment can be quite different from planning for a remedial dredging project. The main
goal of a maintenance dredging project is to remove sediment to the appropriate navigational
depth, and most of the planning tends to be directed to meeting this goal. The main goal for
CS dredging projects is usually the improvement and protection of the environment, as well
as navigation. Therefore, project managers for these projects are often forced to plan for all
situations to be discussed with the regulatory and scientific community.
The major disposal options in the Pacific Northwest consist of the following:
Unconfined Open Water
Beneficial Use (see Chapter 13 for additional details)
Confined In-water (Capping)
- Thin Cap
- Thick Cap
Dredging with Confined Disposal
- Confined Aquatic Disposal
- Nearshore Fill
Upland Disposal
Other management options may also exist (e.g., natural recovery), but are not discussed in
detail in this document.
10.3 EVALUATION OF DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR UNCONTAMINATED
SEDIMENTS
In 1972, Congress enacted the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)
(also known as the Ocean Dumping Act) to prohibit the dumping of material into the ocean
that would unreasonably degrade or endanger human health or the marine environment.
Virtually all material that is ocean dumped today is dredged material (sediments) removed
from the bottom of water bodies in order to maintain navigation channels and berthing
areas.
Ocean dumping cannot occur unless a permit is issued under MPRSA. In the case of
dredged material, the decision to issue a permit is made by the Corps, using EPA's
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 10-2 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
environmental criteria and subject to EPA's concurrence. For all other materials, EPA is
the permitting agency. EPA is also responsible for designating recommended ocean
dumping sites for all types of materials.
The criteria and procedures for ocean dumping permits for dredged material are covered by
EPA's ocean dumping regulations at 40 CFR Parts 220 to 229. These regulations also
cover the criteria and procedures for designation and management of ocean dumping sites.
All proposed dredged material disposal activities regulated by the MPRSA and Clean Water
Act (CWA) must also comply with the applicable requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations. In addition to
MPRSA, CWA, and NEPA, a number of other federal laws, Executive Orders, etc., must be
considered in evaluation of dredging projects.
The geographical jurisdictions of MPRSA and CWA are indicated in Figure 2-1 in
Chapter 2. As shown in Figure 2-1, an overlap of jurisdiction exists within the territorial
sea. The precedence of MPRSA or CWA in the area of the territorial sea is defined in 40
CFR 230.2 (b) and 33 CFR 336.0 (b). Material dredged from waters of the United States
and disposed in the territorial sea is evaluated under MPRSA. In general, dredged material
discharged as fill (e.g., beach nourishment, island creation, or underwater berms) and placed
within the territorial sea is evaluated under the CWA.
There are currently estuarine and ocean sites in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay on the
Washington Coast, ocean disposal sites off Coos Bay and the mouth of Columbia River in
Oregon, as well Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) disposal sites in Puget
Sound and flow lane disposal sites in the Columbia River. Table 10-1 gives descriptions
and coordinates for these sites.
10.4 EVALUATION OF DISPOSAL OPTIONS - CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
Identification of reasonable disposal sites for CSs must take into account scientific methods
that evaluate multiple criteria, including ecologic, geologic, hydrogeologic, economic,
social, and other factors. CSs can be removed by dredging, either through mechanical
means (i.e., clamshell) or with suction (i.e., hydraulic cutterhead dredge).
Evaluation of a CS disposal site looks at direct and indirect physical impacts. Direct
physical impacts include, but are not limited to, changes in hydrologic and hydrogeological
conditions, habitat, and aesthetic conditions. The initial storage capacity must be sufficient
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 10-3 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
Table 10-1. DMMP: Puget Sound Disposal Site Characteristics
Site
Anderson Island
(nondispersive site)
Bellingham Bay
(nondispersive site)
Commencement Bay
(nondispersive site)
Elliott Bay ll
(nondispersive site)
Port Gardner
(nondispersive site)
Port Angeles
(dispersive site)
Port Townsend
(dispersive site)
Rosario Strait
(dispersive site)
Area
(acres)
318
260
310
415
318
884
884
650
Depth
(feet)
442
96
540 to 560
300 to 360
420
435
361
97 to 142
Disposal Zone
Diameter (feet)
1,800
(circle)
1,800
(circle)
1,800
(circle)
1,800
(circle)
1,800
(circle)
3,000
(circle)
3,000
(circle)
3,000
(circle)
Target Area
Diameter (feet)
1,200
(circle)
1,200
(circle)
1,200
(circle)
1,200
(circle)
1,200
(circle)
none
none
none
Disposal Site
Dimensions (feet)
4,400 by 3,600
(ellipsoid)
3,800 by 3,800
(circular)
4,600 by 3,800
(ellipsoid)
6,200 by 4,000
(Tear drop shape)
4,200 by 4,200
(circular)
7,000 by 7,000
(circular)
7,000 by 7,000
(circular)
6,000 by 6,000
(circular)
Site Coordinates
(NAD83: Lat/Long)
Lat: 47ฐ 09.42'
Long: 122ฐ 39.47'
Lat: 48ฐ 42.82'
Long: 122ฐ 33.11'
Lat: 47ฐ 18.21'
Long: 122ฐ 27.91'
Lat: 47ฐ 35.91'
Long: 122ฐ 2 1.45'
Lat: 47ฐ 5 8. 85'
Long: 122ฐ 16.74'
Lat: 48ฐ 11. 67'
Long: 123ฐ24.94'
Lat: 48ฐ 13.61'
Long: 122ฐ 59.03'
Lat: 48ฐ 30.87'
Long: 122ฐ 43. 56'
Positioning
VTS/DGPS
DGPS
DGPS
VTS
VTS
DGPS
VTS
VTS
VTS
Notes: VTS = USCG Vessel Traffic Service; DGPS = Differential Global Positioning System; NAD = North American Datum
" The original disposal site coordinates were shifted 300 feet to the south by the PSDDA agencies in 1991 following disposal site monitoring. The disposal zone was not changed,
so the coordinates plotted within the disposal zone will show the target zone center coordinates are off center to the south relative to the disposal zone.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
to guarantee both solids retention and discharge of clarified water, complying with
discharge standards. If determined beneficial, consolidation measures are implemented to
increase the long-term storage capacity.
10.5 CONFINED IN-WATER DISPOSAL (CAPPING)
The principle behind confined in-water disposal (capping) is that when the sediments are
capped, the contaminants will no longer be bioavailable or transferred within the
environment (Palermo et al. 1998). Capping occurs when the costs of removal are deemed
greater than the benefit and navigation depths are not of primary concern.
There are generally two types of caps, including:
Thin Cap. A thin cap typically occurs in areas with less sediment contamination and
consists of clean sands/silts less than 3 feet thick without armoring.
Thick Cap. A thick cap typically occurs in areas with greater sediment
contamination and consists of clean sands/silts greater than 3 feet thick with
armoring to protect from scouring.
10.5.1 Capping Benefits
Capping has a positive impact on the long-term quality of ecological functions provided by
habitats. Chemical contamination and existing surficial debris that degrade these habitats
are isolated from the environment. The loss of existing biota is considered to be an
acceptable cost of remediation in areas where the benthos is currently stressed, depauperate,
or a pathway for contaminant transfer to higher trophic levels exists. Over time, and
coupled with successful source control, the waterways can be expected to constitute much-
improved habitat for invertebrates, fish, and birds.
10.5.2 Thin Cap
Thin capping, also known as enhanced natural recovery, is often used where hazards
presented by CS to human health and the environment is low. Thin capping improves the
chemical or physical properties of the upper riverbed, which constitute the biologically
active zone. Thin capping typically has a target thickness of 1 foot or less and is used in
low-energy environments. The cap material would be determined during design. The
added material supplements natural sedimentation and enhances the natural recovery
process, producing variation in the coverage depths and allowing for considerable mixing
between the contaminated and clean layers. The result is a riverbed consisting of mounds
of clean material and areas where no cap is evident. Enhanced natural recovery has been
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 10-5 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
successfully applied to the West Harbor Operable Unit of the Wycoff/Eagle Harbor
Superfund Site located off of Bainbridge Island, Washington.
10.5.3 Thick Cap
Placement of a thick cap placed over a problem area is intended to effectively contain and
isolate the CSs from the overlying water column and habitat. In navigational areas where
the total thickness of CS is not removed, a thick cap could be placed over the dredged area.
The cap needs to be thick enough to resist erosion from mechanical scour, wave action, or
burrowing organisms. In addition, the cap needs to be designed to prevent contaminant
migration through the cap into the surrounding water body. Minimum cap thickness is
developed in the engineering evaluation, but it is typically greater than 3 feet. The most
common type of capping material is a dredged sand or upland sand. Placement of a thick
cap in areas where it would raise the channel bottom above the required navigational depth
would require modification of the navigation channel or limiting the size of ships and vessel
traffic.
Evaluation of the potential for scour (e.g., boat scour, tidal or river fluctuations, and erosive
outfall discharges) may require the placement of armoring. Armoring typically consists of
quarry spalls or light, loose riprap obtained from an upland quarry or pit. A filter material
may be required between the cap and armor layers to prevent the armor from sinking into
the cap.
10.6 CONFINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL
Confined aquatic disposal (CAD) is defined as placing sediments in an existing subaquatic
pit or excavated pit and capping it with a thick cap section. The primary long-term
contaminant transport pathway for a CAD is contaminant migration through the cap and re-
exposure of contaminants to the marine environment. This can occur through contaminant
migration, bioturbation, or cap erosion. Therefore, a CAD may be of limited value in areas
where future dredging would disturb the site or where currents and wave climate and
physical disturbance by navigation (e.g., anchor-dragging or propeller wash) could impact
the cap. The primary design component of a CAD facility is the physical (i.e., thickness
and gradation) and chemical quality of the cap, depth and topography of the site, and
currents at the site. CADs can generally be built without a net loss of habitat and in some
instances a net gain.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 10-6 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
10.7 NEARSHORE CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY
Nearshore confined disposal facilities (CDFs) typically involve placing the sediments
designated for confinement in the shallow subtidal/intertidal environment surrounded by an
engineered structure (berm or dike) for containment of dredged material. The confinement
dikes or structures in a CDF enclose the disposal area above any adjacent water surface,
isolating the dredged material from adjacent waters during placement (Figure 10-1). In this
document, confined disposal does not refer to subaqueous capping or CAD.
UPLAND
Figure 10-1. Upland, Nearshore, and Island CDFs
CDFs provide an excellent opportunity to confine the dredged material and incorporate
development of upland areas to improve berthing areas. Filling a basin with dredged
sediment must consider the potential effects on existing structures in the adjacent upland
area, because the weight of the fill could cause compression of underlying and immediately
adjacent soils. The result could be settlement of the upland ground surface in the vicinity of
the filled area. Existing structures in the immediate area that are pile-supported could
experience a lesser degree of settlement, primarily resulting from compression that occurs
in soils underlying the pile tips, as well as downdrag of compressing soils along the pile
sides.
Nearshore CDFs generally result in a net loss of aquatic habitat that may require mitigation.
Management options may be needed to meet the requirements of direct physical impacts
and CDF site capacity. These options involve dewatering, consolidating, or reducing the
size of dredge, or enlarging the site by previous excavation, higher dikes, or larger area.
Geotechnical considerations also need to be taken into account if the site is going to be used
as a berthing area or shore-side facility.
10.8 UPLAND DISPOSAL
Upland disposal facilities can include either existing municipal landfills (mixed), or on-site
monofills that are dedicated solely to the sediment remediation project. For either type of
landfill, the sediments would need to be hauled to the site via a truck or hydraulic line with
effluent discharge back to the water body, and subsequent dewatering would be required.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 10-7 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
10.8.1 Solid Waste Landfills
Existing solid waste landfills are now accepting CSs. These landfills have evaluation
methods and standards for acceptance criteria for transport and disposal. Landfill operators
should be contacted directly to determine sampling, testing, and reporting requirements.
Existing landfills have means and methods to handle the sediments and ameliorate the
potential contaminant transport pathways.
10.8.2 Upland Confined Disposal Facilities
Upland CDFs are defined as disposal facilities that are developed on site or adjacent to the
dredge location where the project proponent has responsibility for the development and
management of the CDF. The main challenge of a newly constructed CDF is to eliminate
contaminant transport pathways. Primary pathways for short-term contaminant transport
are loss to the water column during transport, rehandling, and dewatering at the upland
disposal site. Primary long-term contaminant transports are lost through the containment
media (dike material, liners, or ground surface). Upland disposal can be turned into a
benefit by filling low spots or capping other more contaminated soils and then sequestering
the sediments by placing a permanent cap (e.g. asphalt), thus allowing use of the remediated
site.
In Washington, upland disposal facilities need to be designed and constructed in accordance
with the Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 173-304.
Characteristics used to evaluate upland placement sites include the following:
Site configuration and access;
Topography, runoff patterns, and adjacent drainage;
Groundwater levels, flow, and direction;
Soil properties; and
Proximity to ecologically sensitive areas and/or human resources.
10.9 OTHER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Natural Recovery. Natural recovery of CS may occur over time through a combination of
several processes, including chemical degradation, diffusion from the sediment matrix into
the water column, burial of CS under newly deposited clean material, and mixing of the CS
with clean sediments above and below through bioturbation. Expected rates for natural
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 10-8 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
recovery are generally within 10 years or less of the sediment remedial action (provided
source control is in place). A monitoring program verifies natural recovery.
The suitability for natural recovery is a function of many factors, including the contaminant
type, enrichment ratio, sedimentation rate, source inputs, currents, and mudline slope.
Natural recovery can be a relatively cost-effective remedial solution for areas in which low
to moderate enrichment ratios are predicted to reduce over time to below the defined
sediment quality objectives based on modeling. However, in more highly CSs, natural
recovery or enhanced natural recovery may not successfully remediate the sediment to
below the sediment quality objective within a negotiated time frame, so more active
remedial methods need to be considered.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 10-9 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
11. SPECIAL EVALUATIONS
11.1 OVERVIEW
Chapters 4 through 10 provide a framework for the assessment and characterization of
freshwater and marine sediments for dredging projects and contaminated sediment (CS)
investigations. In most cases, the methods and procedures provided will be sufficient to
evaluate the potential risk of in-place sediments, as well as the potential environmental
effects of dredging and disposal activities. In some cases, however, additional information
may be needed above and beyond the standard suite of physical, chemical, and biological
tests to make an informed sediment management decision. This chapter briefly describes
the types of special evaluations that may be required on a case-by-case basis. Because of
their unique and site-specific nature, the design of sampling and analytical procedures for
special evaluations will require close coordination with RSET.
The following circumstances, for example, may warrant conducting a special evaluation to
resolve ambiguities or uncertainties in the sediment management decision-making process:
Biological testing results (i.e., bioassay tests, bioaccumulation tests, tissue analyses)
are indeterminate;
Sediments and/or tissues contain chemicals that are likely present in toxic amounts,
but for which screening levels or threshold values have not yet been established;
Sediments and/or tissues contain chemical mixtures that are suspected of causing
synergistic or antagonistic effects;
Sediments and/or tissues contain chemicals for which the biological tests described
in Chapters 8 and 9 are inappropriate;
Additional information is needed regarding potential risks to Endangered Species
Act (ESA)-listed species, particularly if spawning areas or highly functional juvenile
rearing areas may be impacted by project activities;
Dredging, disposal, or other in-water construction activities have the potential to
cause unacceptable water quality impacts; or
Site conditions and/or dredging methods could potentially generate significant
quantities of contaminated dredging residuals.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 11-1 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
If special evaluations are determined necessary by RSET, site-specific tests or evaluations
and interpretive criteria will be specified by RSET in coordination with the applicant.
Special evaluations may include, but are not limited to, the following:
Steady-State Bioaccumulation Test (Section 11.2),
Human Health/ Ecological Risk Assessment (Section 11.3),
Elutriate Testing (Section 11.4), and
Evaluation of Dredging Residuals (Section 11.5).
11.2 STEADY-STATE BIOACCUMULATION TEST
In a special evaluation, bioaccumulation testing may be necessary to determine the steady-
state concentrations of contaminants in organisms exposed to the dredged material when
compared with organisms exposed to the reference material. Testing may be done in the lab
or, in rare cases, in the field, as described in Sections 11.2.1 and 11.2.2, respectively.
Testing options may include time-sequenced laboratory exposures in excess of the standard
28 days to reach a steady-state concentration. Special evaluations of data collected will
follow the interpretation guidance specified in Chapter 9.
11.2.1 Time-Sequenced Laboratory Testing
This test is designed to detect statistically significant differences, if any, between steady-
state bioaccumulation in organisms exposed to the dredged sediments and steady-state
bioaccumulation in organisms exposed to reference sediments. If organisms are exposed to
biologically available contaminants under constant conditions for a sufficient period of
time, bioaccumulation will eventually reach a steady-state (equilibrium) in which maximum
bioaccumulation has occurred, and the net exchange of contaminant between the sediment
and organism is zero.
The necessary species, apparatus, and test conditions for laboratory testing are similar to
those utilized for the Level 2 bioaccumulation test. Discussions should occur between the
project proponent and RSET or appropriate agencies to determine an appropriate study
design based on the constituents of interest. For example, potential study designs could
include running the test over a longer time period than 28 days. Additionally, tissue
subsamples taken from separate containers during the exposure period can be collected to
provide the basis for determining the rate of uptake and elimination of contaminants. From
these rate data, the steady-state concentrations of contaminants in the tissues can be
calculated.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 11-2 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
11.2.2 Field Assessment of Steady-State Bioaccumulation
Measuring concentrations in field-collected organisms may be considered as an alternative
to laboratory exposures. A field sampling program designed to compare project site and
reference tissue levels provides an indication of whether contaminants at the project site are
contributing to bioaccumulation in excess of ambient conditions in the watershed. The
appropriate selection of species to target for field collection is an important component of
study design. Life history parameters such as trophic status, feeding guilds, habitat
preferences, and foraging ranges should be considered and discussed with RSET and/or
appropriate agencies prior to conducting such a field program to ensure consistency with
proj ect obj ectives.
This assessment involves measurements of tissue concentrations from individuals of the
same species collected within the boundaries of the project site and a suitable reference site.
A determination is made based on a statistical comparison of the magnitude of contaminant
tissue levels in organisms collected within the boundaries of the reference site with
organisms living within the project site. However, collecting a sufficient number of
individuals of the same species, size range, and age at both the reference site and the project
site can make this type of assessment difficult. Temporal and spatial trends in
bioaccumulation can violate steady-state assumptions and further confound data
interpretation. For these reasons, steady-state bioaccumulation tests are generally
performed in the laboratory. Nevertheless, field measurements of tissue burdens are often a
critical part of the weight of evidence in a bioaccumulation assessment and can be designed
to address specific questions required for regulatory decision-making (see Chapter 9).
11.3 HUMAN HEALTH/ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
When deemed appropriate by RSET, a human health and/or ecological risk assessment may
be required to evaluate a particular chemical of concern (CoC), such as dioxin, mercury,
PCBs, etc. National guidance on chemicals such as dioxin is subject to rapid changes as
new information becomes available. Project-specific risks to human health or ecological
health should be evaluated using the best available current technical information and risk
assessment models.
A risk assessment must be developed on a case-specific basis and be formulated with all
interested parties participating. If a risk assessment is the method of choice for a special
evaluation, either as a stand alone task or in conjunction with bioassay tests and/or tissue
analysis, it must be accomplished with RSET and all parties actively participating.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 11-3 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
11.3.1 Oregon State Risk Assessment Guidance
The state of Oregon's cleanup law emphasizes risk-based decision-making. State statute
and rules require that human health and ecological risk be given equal consideration.
ODEQ oversees cleanup of contaminated sites, including those involving sediments via a
process that parallels the EPA Superfund process. A remedial investigation, risk
assessment, and feasibility study are completed to provide the basis for selecting a remedy.
Oregon has specific rules defining acceptable risk, which can be found at OAR340-122-
0115.
ODEQ has developed an ecological risk assessment process that utilizes a multi-level
approach. The multi-level approach, with review at each major decision point, is intended
to facilitate more efficient use of resources, which ensures necessary work is done and risk
managers receive information sufficient to support effective remedial action decisions.
Components of the Guidance for Ecological Risk Assessment can be downloaded by
visiting the following web site: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/cleanup/ecocover.htm.
For human health risk assessments, both statute and rules provide the option of performing
either a deterministic risk assessment or a probabilistic risk assessment. ODEQ has
developed a guidance document for each of these options. Copies of ODEQ's Human
Health Risk Assessment Guidance Documents can be downloaded by visiting the following
web site: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/cleanup/hh-intro.htm.
11.3.2 Washington State Risk Assessment Guidance
The state of Washington has adopted Sediment Management Standards (SMSs) as Chapter
173-204 WAC. SMSs were promulgated for the purpose of reducing and ultimately
eliminating adverse effects on biological resources and significant health threats to humans
from surface sediment contamination. They apply to marine, low salinity, and freshwater
surface sediments within the state of Washington, and can be found at the following web
site: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/wacl73204.html.
Copies of Ecology's Human Health Risk Assessment Guidance Documents as Chapter 173-
340 WAC under MTCA can be downloaded by visiting the following web site:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/9406.html.
11.3.3 Idaho State Risk Assessment Guidance
The IDEQ Risk Evaluation Manual (REM) presents a roadmap for evaluating risk, from
discovery through clean up. This manual presents a description of the steps in the risk
evaluation process and general information related to the data requirements and
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 11-4 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
implementation of the risk evaluation process. It is a manual to determine whether
groundwater, surface water, or soil at a particular location is contaminated to the extent it
poses a human health risk. It will help evaluate whether an investigation or cleanup is
needed and, if so, what its scope and nature should be. This manual provides a consistent
method for addressing contamination.
Copies of the IDEQs REM can be downloaded by visiting the following web site:
http://www.deq.idaho.gov/Applications/Brownfi elds/index.cfm?site=risk.htm.
11.3.4 Additional Existing Risk Assessment Guidance
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk
Assessment. USEPAEPA/630/R095/002F 01 April 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, 175 pp. Available at:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid= 12460.
EPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1 - Human Health
Evaluation Manual, Part A, Interim Final. EPA/540/1-89/0002. Publication 9285.7-01A.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk/tooltrad.htmtfgdec.
EPA. 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing
and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments (interim final). Environmental Response
Team, Edison, NJ. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk/tooltrad.htmtfgdec.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999. Risk Assessment Handbook Volume I: Human
Health Evaluation. EM 200-1-4. Available at:
http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/engmanuals/em200-l-4/toc.htm.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1996. Risk Assessment Handbook Volume II:
Environmental Evaluation. EM 200-1-4. Available at:
http://www.usace.armv.mil/inet/usacedocs/eng-manuals/em200-l-4vol2/.
Cura, J.J., Heiger-Bernays, W., Bridges, T.S., and D.W. Moore. 1999. Ecological and
Human Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Aquatic Environments. Technical Report
DOER-4, US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center,
Dredging Operations and Environmental Research. Available at:
http ://el. erdc.usace. army .mil/dots/doer/pdf/trdoer4. pdf.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 11-5 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
11.4 ELUTRIATE TESTING
Water quality effects caused by the introduction of sediment and sediment-associated
contaminants into the water column must be considered at the point(s) of dredging and
point(s) of disposal, as applicable. Laboratory elutriate tests, designed by the Corps'
Waterways Experiment Station (see below), are used to predict water quality effects during
dredging and disposal activities, particularly when CSs are being disturbed as part of the
proposed activities.
Water column effects caused by dredging and related in-water construction activities (e.g.,
capping, disposal) are intermittent, discontinuous, and relatively short-lived. Therefore,
water column effects associated with these activities, and simulated by elutriate tests, do not
pose a long-term bioaccumulation concern (EPA/Corps 1998c). Dredging residuals, on the
other hand, may contribute to long-term bioaccumulation risk if CSs are resuspended during
dredging and redeposited on the surface of the project area where they may continue to be
exposed to the aquatic community after the construction work is completed. Dredging
residuals are discussed in Section 11.5.
Elutriate testing will generally be required for those chemicals that exceed SL2 guidelines
in bulk sediment (see Section 7.8). Regional program experience, primarily at Superfund
sites in which elutriate testing has been performed over a wide range of contaminant
concentrations (e.g., Commencement Bay, Duwamish Waterway, Portland Harbor, and
others), has shown that water quality effects are unlikely to occur at either the dredging or
disposal sites if bulk sediment concentrations are below these criteria (or alternatively,
below bulk sediment biological effects criteria; see Chapter 8).
Several types of elutriate tests are available to assess water quality effects, including:
Dredging Elutriate Test (DRET) to assess water quality effects at the point of
dredging (Di Giano et al. 1995),
Standard Elutriate Test (SET) to assess open-water disposal of dredged material
(EPA/Corps 1977),
Modified Elutriate Test (MET) and Column Settling Test (CST) to assess discharges
from a confined dredged material disposal facility (Palermo 1986, Palermo and
Thackston 1988).
These tests are described in more detail in the Inland Testing Manual (EPA/Corps 1998c)
and Upland Testing Manual (EPA/Corps 2003).
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 11-6 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
11.4.1 Mixing Zones
The guidelines at 40 CFR 230.10(b) state in part that "No discharge of dredged or fill
material shall be permitted if it: (1) causes or contributes, after consideration of disposal site
dilution and dispersion, to violations of any applicable State water quality standard." This
requirement applies at the edge of a state designated mixing zone (EPA/Corps 1998c).
Elutriate test results are intended to simulate water quality conditions at the point of
discharge. For water quality CoCs, hydrodynamic modeling may be needed to characterize
the degree of dilution and dispersion that occurs between the point of discharge and the
mixing zone boundary, per the guidelines at 40 CFR 230.10(b).
Hydrodynamic modeling results are typically expressed in terms of a dilution factor, which
describes the reduction in water column concentration that occurs during transport through
the mixing zone. The ADDAMS modeling system (Automated Dredging and Disposal
Alternatives Modeling System, Schroeder et al. 2004, www.wes.army.mil/el/elmodels),
developed by the Corps' Waterways Experiment Station, includes several computer
modules to assist in the design and evaluation of dredging and disposal operations. In
particular, the program modules DREDGE (Hayes and Je 2000) and STFATE (EPA/Corps
1998c, Appendix C) predict water quality effects associated with dredging and open-water
disposal operations, respectively. Standard dilution models such as PLUMES (Frick et al.
2001) and CORMIX (Jirka et al. 1997) may be used to evaluate mixing and dilution of
point-source discharges (e.g., outfalls conveying dredging elutriate return flows from
upland or nearshore confined disposal facilities).
11.4.2 Receiving Water Impacts
The elutriate testing and hydrodynamic modeling results are used to estimate water column
concentrations in the receiving water at the appropriate point of compliance, typically the
authorized mixing zone boundary as specified in the Section 401 Water Quality
Certification for the project. The estimated water column concentrations are compared to
water quality standards or criteria that are based on exposure durations consistent with the
duration of the construction activity. Because dredging and related in-water construction
activities (e.g., capping, disposal) are intermittent and discontinuous in time and space,
acute water quality criteria are generally considered appropriate for such evaluations
(EPA/Corps 1998c). The agency responsible for issuing the Section 401 Water Quality
Certification will establish the specific water quality standards and criteria that will be used
to regulate the project.
If there is sufficient reason to believe based on bulk sediment enrichments that elutriate
testing should be conducted on constituents that do not have state promulgated or nationally
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 11-7 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
recommended water quality criteria, RSET will use best professional judgment to determine
appropriate criteria to use in evaluating potential water quality effects. This may include
consideration of standards or criteria in use in other EPA regions, states, or in the peer-
reviewed scientific literature.
11.4.3 Elutriate Bioassay Tests
If water quality criteria are predicted to be exceeded at the mixing zone boundary based on
elutriate test chemistry and predicted mixing zone dilution and dispersion, the project
proponent may elect to perform serial-dilution bioassay tests on the elutriate water, as
specified in the Inland Testing Manual (EPA/Corps 1998c, Sections 6.1 and 11.1). Such
tests are designed to provide a more site-specific measurement of water column toxicity and
contaminant bioavailability. If the receiving water of concern is freshwater and contains
salmonid species, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) should be included as one of the
test species for elutriate bioassay testing whenever possible.
If, after allowance for mixing, the predicted water column concentration does not exceed
0.01 of the toxic (LCso or ECso) concentration as determined from the elutriate bioassay
tests, the dredged material is predicted not to be acutely toxic to aquatic organisms.
11.4.4 Contingency Water Quality Controls
If unacceptable toxic effects are predicted to occur outside the authorized mixing zone, the
project proponent must consult with RSET to determine what additional controls or best
management practices (BMPs) should be implemented to alleviate contaminant releases to
the water column. These controls may include, but are not limited to, the following:
Deployment of silt curtains, adsorbent booms, or other physical containment
devices;
Modification of operational procedures or equipment to minimize contaminant
releases to the water column (e.g., use of environmental dredge buckets, slower
dredging rates, etc.);
Restriction of in-water construction activities to periods when more favorable
mixing and dilution can be achieved; and
Specifying a more rigorous water quality monitoring program during construction,
potentially including "early warning" stations, contingency plans, and adaptive
management of construction operations to anticipate and avoid the development of
unacceptable water quality excursions.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 11-8 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
11.5 EVALUATION OF DREDGING RESIDUALS
Dredging operations inevitably leave behind some residual contamination in the dredged
area as well as in adjacent areas through dispersion and transport of the dredged sediments
(EPA 2005). There are two distinct types of dredging residuals: (1) leftover CS below the
dredge cutline that was never removed, and (2) sediment disturbed or resuspended during
dredging that settles back to the sediment bed. The first type of undisturbed residual
contamination, sometimes called "undredged inventory," may be minimized during the site
characterization and remedial design process by developing an accurate conceptual site
model (CSM) supported by adequate sampling density that describes the nature and extent
of contamination, and faithfully captures the details of the contaminant distribution during
the development of the engineered dredge plan. This section is focused on the second type
of dredging residuals, sometimes called "generated dredge residuals," that may require
adaptive management during and following the dredging action if accumulated residuals are
found to contribute unacceptably to ongoing site risk.
A variety of processes contribute to generated dredge residuals, including:
Sediment dislodged by the dredgehead that falls back to the bottom, such as
sediment that falls from an overfilled bucket or from the outside of the bucket;
Sediment resuspended during dredging that settles back to the bottom near the point
of dredging or in down-current areas;
Sediment that sloughs into the dredge cut from adjacent areas; and
Sediment that spills back to the water during handling and transport (e.g., during
barge filling or shore-to-land transfer).
A number of site-specific factors can affect the thickness and concentration of generated
dredge residuals, including:
Thickness and contaminant profile of the dredge prism;
Dredging equipment and operations (i.e., type of bucket or cutterhead, production
rate, lift thickness, sequencing, etc.);
Local hydrodynamics (e.g. currents, tides);
Steepness of dredge cuts and proximity to side slopes;
Nature of underlying material, and feasibility of overdredging into less CS; and
Extent of debris and obstructions.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 11-9 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Although not strictly "dredging" residuals, it should be noted that residual deposits of CSs
can also be generated at certain types of disposal sites. When placing sediments through the
water column into a confined aquatic disposal site, for example, care must be taken to
minimize sediment waves, resuspension, and spillage during transport. Otherwise, residuals
of CSs may be dispersed outside the disposal site boundaries.
11.5.1 Predicting Dredging Residuals
Responding to sediment contamination due to dredging residuals can cause unforeseen
impacts to project schedules and budgets if the project design does not adequately anticipate
and plan for the possibility of residuals. Currently, there is no commonly accepted method
to accurately predict dredging residual concentrations, but research in this area is ongoing
(Steering Committee for Dredging Resuspension, Release, Residual, and Risk 2006).
Recent work by several groups has been focused on developing consistent assessment
methods for use over a range of project conditions in efforts to develop a residuals
management decision framework. Although there remains a need for additional post-
construction monitoring data focused on characterizing residuals, a review of the growing
database of empirical measurements collected over the last decade, including several
projects in the Pacific Northwest, has allowed some generalizations to be made. Further
data collection and evaluation is being performed by a number of parties at environmental
dredging sites across the United States to improve our understanding of dredging residuals
as well as our predictive capabilities.
Review of data from several environmental dredging case studies (including sites in
Commencement Bay, Duwamish Waterway, and other sites throughout the country)
indicate that contaminant concentrations in residuals are similar to the depth-averaged
contaminant concentrations in the overlying dredge prism (Patmont and Palermo 2006).
The empirical data from pilot and full-scale environmental dredging projects also suggest
that the mass of generated residuals (both total solids and contaminants) remaining after
completion of dredging has ranged from about 2 to 9 percent of the total mass in the dredge
prism, averaging about 5 percent of the dredge prism mass (Patmont and Palermo 2006).
However, total residuals (i.e., including undisturbed and generated fractions) have been
measured up to 20 percent at sites with problematic field conditions. The available data
suggest that site factors such as the presence of debris, hardpan/bedrock, and relatively high
water content sediments (an inherent characteristic of generated residuals, and thus a
concern for second-pass dredging) all contribute to increases in dredging residuals. To
date, these existing case studies have not shown pronounced differences in levels of
generated residuals between hydraulic and mechanical dredging methods.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 11-10 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Currently, mass balance calculations have been used to provide estimates of the thickness
and concentration of generated residuals, considering the range of empirically determined
mass release rates (averaging 5 percent, see above). Such calculations may need to account
for changes in sediment density (i.e., generated residuals are low-density, high water
content). In some cases, however, residuals may consolidate to near in situ sediment
density values within days or weeks.
11.5.2 Post-Dredge Confirmation Sampling and Response Actions
The nature and extent of dredging residuals may be delineated using a post-dredge
confirmation sampling program. Post-dredge confirmation sampling is routinely performed
at sediment cleanup sites, and may also be required for some navigation dredging projects
where thick sequences of CSs are being removed. Typically grab samples are collected and
analyzed for CoCs at the newly exposed sediment surface. In some cases, however, short
core samples may be needed to distinguish residuals caused by leftover undredged
inventory from generated residuals caused by disturbance and resuspension of sediments
during dredging.
The nature and thickness of the residuals will influence the selection of an appropriate
response action if a response action is warranted. If residuals are found to contribute
unacceptably to ongoing site risk, the following response actions may be considered
(Steering Committee for Dredging Resuspension, Release, Residual, and Risk 2006,
Patmont and Palermo 2006):
Natural recovery, in areas with relatively thin and/or low-risk residual
concentrations;
Thin covers or engineered caps, in areas where water depths can accommodate
additional shoaling (i.e., where navigation, habitat, or other depth-dependent uses
will not be impacted), and/or where additional dredging is impracticable or
ineffective; and
Additional dredging passes in areas with thicker and higher concentration residuals
where significant additional mass removal may be effectively accomplished.
In summary, dredging residuals are a reality of dredging technology. They should be
anticipated and planned for during remedial alternative selection, design, and construction.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 11-11 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
12. DATA SUBMITTALS
12.1 OVERVIEW
The multi-state sediment quality database in the Pacific Northwest is the Environmental
Information Management (EIM) database managed by Ecology. It is a sediment quality
management and analysis database that stores physical, chemical, and biological data, and
has statistical and special tools for analyzing the data. The database contains both aquatic
and upland data and has additional features for upland environmental cleanup projects. The
merger of the former sediment quality (SEDQUAL) database with the EIM database will
improve functionality and database maintenance. User agencies will still be responsible for
the quality of the data in EIM and are recommended to review the transferred data fields
from the former SEDQUAL database. Because of its multi-state applications and analytical
tools, EIM was adopted as the official database for the SEP.
EIM is a web-based program. Data will be uploaded directly to the database using the web-
based user interface. Data downloads or queries are also accomplished using the web-based
users interface. Ecology warns there is a limitation of the physical size of the data query
due to capacity of the servers. Special studies requiring extensive data studies should be
requested via email at eim data coordinator@ecy.wa.gov or by telephone at (360) 407-6258.
Data obtained from a qualified sampling and testing effort should be submitted to RSET
covering the following categories of information:
A sediment characterization report, which includes the items listed below in Section
12.2. The report will be scanned or the file added to this SEF web site or a linked
web site so that the data will be available publicly. The preferred method of
sediment quality report publication is in digital Adobeฎ PDF (portable document
format). CDs of the reports should be available on request, or downloaded from the
author's agency's web site.
QA1 and QA2 reports are preferred to be submitted to the regulating agencies on
one or two CD disks.
Other documents are extremely useful as part of the data submittal. These include,
but are not limited to, the following:
1. Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAPs),
2. Habitat Protection Plans,
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 12-1 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
3. Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(b)l evaluations, and
4. Contractor reports with QA data included.
12.2 SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION REPORT
The preferred format for the sediment characterization report is the standard 5 section
scientific report. A good example is found in the following book:
Ambrose, H.W, and Amborse, K.P. 1987. A Handbook of Biological Investigation,
Fourth Edition, Hunter Books, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
The sediment characterization report should include the following items:
QA report documenting deviations from the SAP and the effects of QA deviations
on the testing results;
A plan view showing the actual sampling locations;
The sampling coordinates in latitude and longitude, including the projection
standard, units, and datum used;
Methods used to locate the sampling positions within an accuracy of 2 meters;
The compositing scheme;
The type of sampling equipment used, the protocols used during sampling and
compositing, and an explanation of any deviations from the sampling plan;
Sampling logs with sediment descriptions;
Chain-of-custody procedures used;
An explanation of any deviations from the sampling plan;
Chemical and biological testing results, including QA data (Chemical testing results
shall be presented in the same order as the list of chemicals of concern (CoCs)
presented in Table 7-1); and
Explanation of any deviations from the analysis plan.
12.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE DATA REPORT
The term "quality assurance" describes the system of activities intended to provide evidence
to the producer or user of a product or service that it meets predefined standards of quality
with a stated level of confidence (Taylor 1987). To facilitate timely decision-making, the
"Data Completeness" (QA1) must be submitted with the sediment evaluation report.
Section 12.5 provides a QA1 Data Checklist to ensure data completeness.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 12-2 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
Additional QA data are needed to fully validate the chemical and biological testing data.
These data are used in the data quality comparison, and are referred to as "QA2." These
include such information as chromatograms, calibration curves, etc. Requirements for QA2
data have also been compiled are in Section 12.6.
The QA2 data may be submitted up to 3 months following sampling, and should be sent
directly to Ecology with a copy of the transmittal letter provided to the DMMO.
12.4 INFORMATION ABOUT EIM
EIM is a web-based program available to interface from the Ecology web site at
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/eim/. Users will need to establish an account and use the import
module located at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecv/eimimport/submit.htm. Users will need to
access the data using the Microsoftฎ Internet Explorer 6.0 or above. Other browser clients
or versions will be supported by the EIM import module. Users are encouraged to
download the EIM submittal guidelines manual and the EIM data dictionary.
12.5 FIELD DATA COLLECTION QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
Chapter 6 provides the minimum sampling protocols. The sampling process is but one
component to the overall program of obtaining quality data. Collecting a representative
sample can be difficult, but it is the most crucial in the process of obtaining valid data
(ODEQ 1997). Proper planning and development of data quality objectives (DQOs) (EPA
2006) are an integral component to obtaining quality field data (see Figure 12-1) (EPA
2000c). During this process, specific quality acceptance criteria should be documented.
Data packages, QA/QC reports, and the sediment quality report should contain evaluations
of the field DQOs to provide a full picture of QA. Special attention should be paid towards
study error control (EPA 2006).
Systematic
Planning
(e.g., DQO
Process)
PLANNING
>
QA
Project
Plan
* IMPLEM
ENTA
Data
Verification
and
Validation
TION f
| Defensible Products and Decisions H
Data
Quality
Assessment
Figure 12-1. Project Life Cycle Components
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
12-3
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
12.6 QA1 DATA REPORT CHECKLIST
The following checklist can be used to ensure the data to be submitted are complete.
Test
Sediment
Reference
Sediment
Control
Sediment
Water
Control
Sample Locations and Compositing
Latitude and Longitude (to nearest 0. 1 second)
NAD 1983 HARN (requirement for SEDQUAL)
Station name (e.g. Carr Inlet)
Water depth (corrected to MLLW)
Drawing showing sampling locations and ID numbers
Compositing scheme (sampling locations/depths for composites)
Sampling method
Sampling dates
Estimated volume of dredged material represented by each DMMU
Positioning method
^
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
/
S
S
S
S
S
V
S
/
S
S
S
V
Sediment Conventionals
Preparation and analysis methods
Sediment conventional data and QA/QC qualifiers
QA qualifier code definitions
Units (dry weight except total solids)
Method blank data (sulfides, ammonia, TOC)
Method blank units (dry weight)
Analysis dates (sediment conventionals, blanks, TOC CRM)
TOC CRM ID
TOC CRM analysis data
TOC CRM target values
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
/
S
S
S
S
S
V
S
S
S
/
S
S
S
/
V
S
S
S
S
Grain Size Analysis
Fine grain analysis method
Analysis dates
Triplicate for each batch
Grain size data (complete sieve and phi size distribution)
S
S
S
V
S
S
V
S
S
Note: Shaded boxes indicate those type of data are not applicable for that column.
Figure 12-2. QA1 Data Checklist for Locations, Physical, and Conventional Analyses
Chemicals of Concern Analysis Data
Extraction/digestion method
Extraction/digestion dates (test sediment, blanks, matrix spike, reference
material)
Analysis method
Data and QA qualifier included for:
Test sediments
Reference materials including 95% confidence interval (each batch)
Method blanks (each batch)
Matrix spikes (each batch)
Matrix spike added (dry weight basis)
Replicates (each batch)
Units (dry weight)
Method blank units (dry weight)
QA/QC qualifier definitions
Surrogate recovery for test sediment, blank, matrix spike, ref material
Analysis dates (test sediment, blanks, matrix spike, reference material)
Metals
V
V
V
V
V
/
Semivol.
S
S
S
S
S
Pest/PCBs
S
S
S
S
S
Volatiles
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Note: Shaded boxes indicate those type of data are not applicable for that column.
Figure 12-3. QA1 Data Checklist for Chemicals of Concern
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
12-4
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
These tables are the minimum requirements in the sediment quality report as required by the
QA-1 data system. This checklist is to be used as a guide. For a complete explanation of
the requirements to attain QA-1 level data, the user should consult the requirements in the
PSDDA Guidance Manual. The reference is as follows:
PTI Environmental Services. 1989a. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis
Guidance Manual: Data Quality Evaluation of Proposed Material Disposal Projects
(QA-1). Prepared for Department of Ecology Sediment Management Unit, Contract
C0089018, Olympia, Washington.
12.7 QA2 DATA REPORT CHECKLIST
These tables are the minimum requirements in the sediment quality report as required by the
QA-2 data system. This checklist is to be used as a guide. For a complete explanation of
the requirements to attain QA-2 level data, the user shall consult the requirements in the
following reference:
PTI Environmental Services. 1989b. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis
Guidance Manual: Data Quality Evaluation of Proposed Material Disposal Projects
(QA-2). Prepared for Department of Ecology Sediment Management Unit, Contract
C0089018, Olympia, Washington.
Test
Sediment
Reference
Sediment
Control
Sediment
Water
Control
Sample Locations and Compositing
Latitude and Longitude (to nearest 0. 1 second)
NAD 1983 HARN (requirement for SEDQUAL)
Station name (e.g., Carr Inlet)
Water depth (corrected to MLLW)
Drawing showing sampling locations and ID numbers
Compositing scheme (sampling locations/depths for composites)
Sampling method
Sampling dates
Estimated volume of dredged material represented by each DMMU
Positioning method
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Sediment Conventionals
Preparation and analysis methods
Sediment conventional data and QA/QC qualifiers
QA qualifier code definitions
Units (dry weight except total solids)
Method blank data (sulfides, ammonia, TOC)
Method blank units (dry weight)
Analysis dates (sediment conventionals, blanks, TOC CRM)
TOC CRM ID
TOC CRM analysis data
TOC CRM target values
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Grain Size Analysis
Fine grain analysis method
Analysis dates
Triplicate for each batch
Grain size data (complete sieve accurate to . 1 units)
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Note: Shaded boxes indicate those type of data are not applicable for that column.
Figure 12-4. QA2 Data Checklist for Locations, Physical, and Conventional Analyses
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
12-5
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
Chemicals of Concern Analysis Data
Extraction/digestion method
Extraction/digestion dates (test sediment, blanks, matrix spike,
reference material)
Analysis method
Data and QA qualifier included for:
Test sediments
Reference materials including 95% confidence interval (each
batch)
Method blanks (each batch)
Matrix spikes (each batch)
Matrix spike added (dry weight basis)
Replicates (each batch)
Units (dry weight)
Method blank units (dry weight)
QA/QC qualifier definitions
Surrogate recovery for test sediment, blank, matrix spike, ref. material
Analysis dates (test sediment, blanks, matrix spike, reference material)
Instrument calibration checks raw data
Duplicate analysis of samples at least 5%
ICP interference check samples and serial dilution analysis
Certified reference material verification
Mass spectra chromatograms
Final sample volumes and dilution factors (include wet/dry ratios)
Tentatively identified compounds
PCBs analyzed as congeners and not Arochlors
GC/MS tuning procedures in accordance with EPA CLP
Ongoing calibration materials in analytical train
Metals
/
/
/
V
S
V
/
V
/
S
S
/
S
V
/
V
Semivol.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Pest/PCBs
/
/
/
S
V
S
S
/
S
/
S
V
V
S
/
S
S
Volatiles
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Note: Shaded boxes indicate those type of data are not applicable for that column.
Figure 12-5. QA2 Data Checklist for Chemicals of Concern
12.8 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL FOR BIOLOGICAL DATA
Chapter 8 covers the minimum requirements for biological testing. Standardization of data
reporting is strongly recommended. To best facilitate the standardization of biological data,
the Puget Sound Protocols (PSEP) procedures for data reporting will continue to be used. A
PDF of the PSEP protocol references can be found at http://www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/
protocols/protocol.html. Currently the SEDQUAL templates will be used until such time
that EIM templates have been developed for bioassay data.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
12-6
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
13. BENEFICIAL USES FOR SEDIMENT
13.1 BACKGROUND AND DEFINITION OF "BENEFICIAL USE"
The following is an introduction to beneficial use and its importance to overall sediment
management in the Pacific Northwest. Coordinating dredging activities in the coastal zone
for the purposes of retaining sand in the littoral system to foster more balanced, natural
system processes, and potential reduced costs of disposal is important to regional sediment
management.
The RSET agencies are responsible for sediment management in the Pacific Northwest.
One management option is beneficial use. Beneficial use is defined as the use of dredged
material as a resource for productive purposes (e.g., habitat creation, mitigation, beach
nourishment, restoration, etc.). While the term beneficial indicates some benefit is gained
by a particular use, the term has come to generally mean any use of dredged material other
than deepwater disposal of the material. The descriptor "beneficial" depends on one's
perspective; therefore, in this manual the definition has been kept general to encourage a
wide array of potential projects.
Natural sand movement and replenishment of the littoral cells along the coasts and in rivers
has been greatly altered by dams and coastal developments in the Pacific Northwest.
Dredged material can and should be considered a resource, and its use should be supported
wherever possible. While dredged material disposal facilities will always be needed in
some capacity for CSs, in the spirit of resource conservation, re-use, and recycling, it is
imperative to evaluate and cultivate emerging beneficial use strategies to ensure a practical,
productive and integrated long-term program for the management of dredged sediments.
Depending on its characteristics, particularly grain size and degree of contamination,
dredged sediments may be suitable for beach nourishment projects, structural or non-
structural fill, landfill cover(s), habitat development projects, wetland enhancement/
restoration projects, capping open water disposal areas, or a variety of other uses. The use
of suitable dredged material in habitat and wetland creation, enhancement, and restoration
offers a unique opportunity to use sediments as a resource and, at the same time, restore and
improve degraded habitats in ocean, riverine, estuarine, and adjacent uplands. Degraded
lands such as active and inactive landfills, brownfield sites, and quarry sites can offer
another unique opportunity to combine the use of dredged material with the environmental
and economic restoration of otherwise unproductive or contaminated properties. All of
these sites have disturbed environments and limited natural resource value in their present
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 13-1 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
condition. Many of these sites also generate leachate and surface water runoff that
contaminate surrounding soils, aquifers, and surface water. The beneficial use of dredged
sediment for land remediation under properly controlled conditions and in conjunction with
engineering and institutional controls can provide a safe and economical way of
remediating these sites.
Several technical manuals and guidance documents have been issued on both the federal
and state levels on beneficial use of dredged material. In particular, the Corps Engineer
Manual No. 1110-2-5026, Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material, provides guidance for
planning, designing, developing, and managing dredged material for potential uses. Web
sites that have useful information regarding beneficial use of dredged sediments include
http://www.wes.army.mil/rsm http://www.el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/budm/ and
http://www.glc.org/dredging.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 13-2 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
14. REFERENCES
Adams W.J., K.V. Brix, M. Edwards, L.M. Tear, D.K.DeForest and A. Fairbrother. 2003.
Analysis of Field and Laboratory Data to Derive Selenium Toxicity Thresholds for
Birds. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Vol. 22 (9): 2020-2029.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 2001. Standard Guide for
Conducting In Situ Field Bioassays with Cage Bivalves. American Society for
Testing and Materials, ASTM E2122-02.
ASTM. 2000. Test Method for Measuring the Toxicity of Sediment-Associated
Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates. ASTME1706-00. American Society
for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
ASTM. 1995. 1995 Annual Book of ASTM Standards: Section 11; Volume 11.05
Biological Effects and Environmental Fate; Biotechnology; Pesticides. Standard
Test Method E 1706. ASTM 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA. USA.
Besser, J.M., FJ. Dwyer, C.G. Ingersoll, and N. Wang. 2001. Early Life-Stage Toxicity of
Copper to Endangered and Surrogate Fish Species. EPA/600/R-01/051, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, D.C. 11 pp. plus appendix.
Bragdon-Cook, K. 1993. Recommended Methods for Measuring TOC in Sediments.
Clarification Paper presented at Sediment Management Annual Review Meeting,
Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis Program.
Braune, B.M. and RJ. Norstrom. 1989. Dynamics of Organochlorine Compounds in
Herring Gulls. 3. Tissue Distribution and Bioaccumulation in Lake Ontario Gulls.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Vol 8(10): 957-968.
Bridges, T.S. and C.H. Lutz. 1999. Interpreting Bioaccumulation Data with the
Environmental Residue-Effects Database. Dredging Research Technical Note
EEDP-04-30, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS,
USA.
Bridges, T.S., D.W. Moore, V. McFarland, T.D. Wright, J.R. Wilson, and R.M. Engler.
1996. Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Notes: Proposed New
Guidance for Interpreting the Consequences of Bioaccumulation from Dredged
Material. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Environmental
Laboratory. EEDP-01-41. August.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 14-1 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Calabrese, EJ. and L. A. Baldwin. 1993. Performing Ecological Risk Assessments. Lewis,
Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
California EPA. 1999. Cancer Potency Evaluation for Benzo[a]Pyrene. In: Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines Part II: Technical Support Document
for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors. Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment. 100pp.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 1995. Canadian Water Quality
Guidelines. Environmental Quality Guidelines Division, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Cook, P.M., A.R. Carlson, and H. Lee II. 1992. Tissue Residue Approach. In: Sediment
Classification Methods Compendium. Office of Science and Technology, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., USA. 10 pp.
Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1996. Progress Re-evaluating Puget Sound
Apparent Effects Thresholds (AETs), Vol. 1: 1994 Amphipod and Echinoderm
Larval AETs. April 1996.
Cura, J.J., W. Heiger-Bernays, T.S. Bridges, and D.W. Moore. 1999. Ecological and
Human Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Aquatic Environments. Technical
Report DOER-4, US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and
Development Center, Dredging Operations and Environmental Research. Available
at: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/doer/pdf/trdoer4.pdf.
Custer, T.W., C.M. Custer, R.K. Hines, S. Gutreuter, K.L. Stromborg, P.O. Allen, andM.J.
Melancon. 1999. Organochlorine Contaminants and Reproductive Success of
Double-crested Cormorants from Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry. Vol 18(6):1209-1217.
DeWitt T.H., G.R. Ditsworth, and R.C. Swartz. 1988. Effects of natural sediment features
on the phoxocephalid amphipod, Rhepoxynius abronius: implications for sediment
toxicity testing. Marine Environ. Res. 25:99-124.
DiGiano, F.A., C.T. Miller, and J. Yoon. 1995. Dredging Elutriate Test (DRET)
Development. Prepared for US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Dredging Operations Technical Support Program, August 1995.
DMMP (Dredge Material Management Program). 2000. Clarifications to the DMMP
Bioaccumulation Protocol. Prepared by David R. Kendall (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers) and Russ McMillan (Department of Ecology) for the DMMP/SMS
agencies.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 14-2 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
DOD (Department of Defense). 2005. DOD Quality Systems Manual for Environmental
Laboratories, DoD Environmental Data Quality Workgroup, Department of Navy,
Version 3, Washington, D.C., May 2005.
Dwyer, F.J., O.K. Hardesty, C.E. Henke, C.G. Ingersoll, D.W. Whites, D.R. Mount, and
C.M. Bridges. 1999. Assessing Contaminant Sensitivity of Endangered and
Threatened Species: Toxicant Classes. EPA/600/R-99/098, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, Florida. 15 pp.
Dyer, S.D., C.E. White-Hull, and B.K. Shephard. 2000. Assessment of Chemical Mixtures
via Toxicity Reference Values Overpredict Hazard to Ohio Fish Communities.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 34:2518-2524.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2003. Development of Freshwater
Sediment Quality Values for Use in Washington State: Phase II Report;
Development and Recommendations of SQVs for Freshwater Sediments in
Washington State. Publication Number 03-09-088. September 2003.
Ecology. 1997. Analytical Methods for Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Publication No. ECY
97-602, Washington State Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program,
Olympia, WA.
Ecology. 1995. Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan Appendix: Guidance on the
Development of Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plans Meeting the Requirements
of the Sediment Management Standards. Chapter 173-204 WAC.
Ecology. 1991. Sediment Cleanup Standards User Manual (SCUM2). First Edition.
Washington State Department of Ecology, Sediment Management Unit, Olympia,
WA.
ECOTOX. 2003. Ecotoxicological database. Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/
Elliott, I.E., RJ. Norstrom, and G.E. Smith. 1996. Patterns, Trends, and Toxicological
Significance of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon and Mercury Contaminants in Bald Eagle
Eggs from the Pacific Coast of Canada, 1990-1994. Archives Environmental
Contamination Toxicology. 31(3): 354-67.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning
Using the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/G-4. Washington, DC.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 14-3 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
EPA. 2005. Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA-540-R-05-012.
December 2005. Available at
http ://www. epa. gov/superfund/resources/sediment/guidance.htm.
EPA. 2003 a. Framework for Application of the Toxicity Equivalence Methodology for
Polychlorinated Dioxins, Furans, and Biphenyls in Ecological Risk Assessment.
External Review Draft. EPA/630/P-03/002A. June 2003.
EPA. 2003b. A Compendium of Chemical, Physical, and Biological Methods for
Assessing and Monitoring the Remediation of Contaminated Sediment Sites.
National Exposure Research Laboratory. February 2003.
EPA. 2003c. Analyses of Laboratory and Field Studies of Reproductive Toxicity in Birds
Exposed to Dioxin-like Compounds for Use in Ecological Risk Assessment. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/R-03/114F. 51 pp.
EPA. 2001. Methods for Collection, Storage, and Manipulation of Sediments for chemical
and Toxicological Analyses: Technical Manual. Office of Water. EPA 823-B-01-
002. October 2001.
EPA. 2000a. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish
Advisories. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/guidance.html.
EPA. 2000b. Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds, Part II: Health Assessment for 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds, Chapter 9: Toxic
Equivalency Factors (TEF) for Dioxin and Related Compounds. SAB Review Draft,
NCEA-I-083.
EPA. 2000c. EPA Quality Manual for Environmental Programs. 5360 A1, Washington,
DC. May5, 2000.
EPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. USEPA EPA/630/R095/002F 01
April 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum,
Washington, DC, 175 pp. Available at:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid= 12460.
EPA. 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing
and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments (interim final). Environmental
Response Team, Edison, NJ. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk/tooltrad.htmtfgdec.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 14-4 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
EPA. 1996. Recommendations for a Screening Level for Tributyltin in Puget Sound
Sediment. Prepared for EPA Region 10 Superfund Program by Roy F. Weston, Inc.,
Seattle, WA.
EPA. 1994. The Technical Basis for Revisions to the Dredged Material Management
Program's Bioaccumulative Contaminants of Concern List. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA.
EPA. 1993 a. Wildlife Exposure Factor Handbook. Volumes I-II. Office of Research and
Development, Washington D.C. EPA/600/R-93/187a.
EPA. 1993b. Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-
93/C89.
EPA. 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1 - Human Health
Evaluation Manual, Part A, Interim Final. EPA/540/1-89/0002. Publication 9285.7-
01A. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. Available at:
http ://www. epa. gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragsa.
EPA. 1989b. Record of Decision for Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats CERCLA
Site. September 30, 1989.
EPA/Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2004. Evaluating Environmental Effects of
Dredged Material Management Alternatives - A Technical Framework. EPA 842-
B-92-008. Revised May 2004.
EPA/Corps. 2003. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Disposal at Island,
Nearshore, or Upland Confined Disposal Facilities (Upland Testing Manual).
ERCD/EL TR-03-1, US Army Engineers Research and Development Center.
January 2003.
EPA/Corps. 2000. Dredged Material Evaluation and Disposal Procedures, User Manual for
the Puget Sound Dredged Material Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) Program. February
2000.
EPA/Corps. 1998a. Dredged Material Evaluation Framework, Lower Columbia River
Management Area. November 1998.
EPA/Corps. 1998b. Great Lakes Dredged Material Testing and Evaluation Manual.
Prepared by EPA Regions 2, 3, and 5, Great Lakes National Program Office, and
USACE Great Lakes and Ohio River Division. September 30, 1998.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 14-5 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
EPA/Corps. 1998c. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of
the U.S. Inland Testing Manual. EPA 823-B-98-004. February 1998.
EPA/Corps. 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material for Ocean Disposal Testing Manual.
EPA 503/8-91/001. February 1991.
EPA/Corps. 1988. PSDDA Report: Evaluation Procedures Technical Appendix - Phase I
(Central Puget Sound). June 1988.
EPA/Corps. 1977. Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged Material into
Ocean Waters: Implementation Manual for Section 103 of Public Law 92-532
(Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972). US Army Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
ERED (Environmental Residue Effects Database). 2003. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at:
http://www.wes.army.mil/el/ered/
Exponent. 1998. Review of Bioaccumulation Methods for Fish and Shellfish. Bellevue,
Washington. Prepared for Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia,
Washington.
Fairbrother, A., K.V. Brix, I.E. Toll, S. McKay, and WJ. Adams. 1999. Egg Selenium
Concentrations as Predictors of Avian Toxicity. Human and Ecological Risk
Assessment. Vol 5: 1229-1253.
Feijtel, T., P. Kloepper-Sams, K. Den Haan, R. Van Egmond, M. Comber, R. Heusel, P.
Wierich, W. Ten Berge, A. Gard, W. De Wolf, and H. Niessen. 1997. Integration
of Bioaccumulation in an Environmental Risk Assessment. Chemosphere. 34:2337-
2350.
Fox, D. 1993. Reference Sediment Performance Analysis. Clarification paper prepared for
PSDDA agencies for Annual Review Meeting, Puget Sound Dredged Disposal
Analysis Program.
Frick, W.E., P.J.W. Roberts, L.R. Davis, J. Keyes, DJ. Baumgartner, and K.P. George.
2001. Draft Dilution Models for Effluent Discharges, 4th Edition (Visual Plumes),
EPA Environmental Research Division, NERL, ORD, Athens, GA.
Giesy, J.P., W.W. Bowerman, M.A. Mora, D.A. Verbrugge, R.A. Othoudt, J.L. Newsted,
C.L. Summer, RJ. Aulerich, SJ. Bursian, J.P. Ludwig, G.A. Dawson, TJ. Kubiak,
D.A. Best, and D.E. Tillitt. 1995. Contaminants of Fishes from Great Lakes-
influenced Sections and above Dams of Three Michigan Rivers. III. Implications
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 14-6 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
for Health of Bald Eagles. Archives Environmental Contamination Toxicology Vol
29(3): 309-321.
Hansen, J.A., P.O. Welsh, J. Lipton and MJ. Suedkamp. 2002a. The Effects of Long-Term
Cadmium Exposure on the Growth and Survival of Juvenile Bull Trout (Salvelinus
confluentus). Aquat. Toxicol. 58:165-174.
Hansen, J.A., P.G. Welsh, J. Lipton and D. Cacela. 2002b. Effects of Copper Exposure on
Growth and sSurvival of Juvenile Bull Trout. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 131:690-697.
Hayes, D.F., and C-H Je. 2000. Draft DREDGE Module User's Guide. Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Utah. Available at:
http://el.erdc.usace.armv.mil/elmodels/pdf/dredge.pdf
Heinz, G.H., D.J. Hoffman, and L.G. Gold. 1989. Impaired reproduction of mallards fed
an organic form of selenium. J. Wildl. Manage. Vol 53(2): 418-428.
Henny, C.J., J.L. Kaiser, R.A. Grove, V.R. Bentley, and J.E. Elliott. 2003. Biomagnification
Factors (fish to osprey eggs from Willamette River, Oregon, U.S.A.) for PCDDs,
PCDFs, PCBs, and OC Pesticides. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.
84(3):275-315.
Hoffman, E. 2005. The Technical Basis for Revisions to the DMMP's BCoC List (in
preparation). EPA Region 10, Seattle, WA.
Hoffman, E. 1998. Tributyltin Analysis: Clarification of Interstitial Water Extraction and
Analysis Methods - Interim. DMMP Clarification Paper and SMS Technical
Information Memorandum. December 22, 1998.
James, M. 1989. Chapter 3: Biotransformation and Disposition of PAH in Aquatic
Invertebrates. In: Metabolism of Poly cyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Aquatic
Environment. U Varanesi ed. CRC Press, pp. 69-91
Jarvinen, A.W. 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. SET AC Press, Pensacola, Florida, USA.
Jirka, G.H., R.L. Doneker, and S.W. Hinton. 1997. User's Manual for CORMIX: A
Hydro-Dynamic Mixing Zone Model and Decision Support System for Pollutant
Discharges into Surface Waters. EPA 823/B-97-006.
Kendall, D.R., 1990. Reduced Testing Requirements for Small Projects Above "No Test"
Volume: Biological Testing Requirements for Nondispersive Disposal Sites, Second
PSDDA annual review meeting minutes.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 14-7 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Krone, C.A., D.W. Brown, D.G. Burrows, R.G. Bogar, S.L. Chan, and U. Varanasi. 1989.
A method for analysis of butyltin species in measurement of butyltins in sediment
and English sole livers from Puget Sound. Marine Environmental Research, v. 27, p.
1-18.
Lee, H. II, B.L. Boese, J. Pelletier, M. Winsor, D.T. Specht and R.C. Randall. 1989.
Guidance Manual: Bedded Sediment Tests. EPA-600/X-89-302, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Pacific Ecosystems Branch, Bioaccumulation Team, Newport,
Oregon.
Long, E.R. and L.G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects ofSediment-
Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. Technical
Memorandum NOS OMA 52, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Seattle, Washington, USA.
Management Plan Report, Phase II. 1989. Management Plan Report: Unconfmed Open-
water Disposal of Dredged Material, Phase II. Prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Seattle District; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10; and
Washington State Departments of Ecology and Natural Resources.
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.
McCarty, L.S., D. Mackay, A.D. Smith, G.W. Ozburn and D.G. Dixon. 1991. Interpreting
Aquatic Toxicity QSARs: The significance of Toxicant Body Residues at the
Pharmacological Endpoint. Sci. Total Environ. 109/110:515-525.
McCarty, L.S. 1986. The Relationship between Aquatic Toxicity QSARs and
Bioconcentration for Some Organic Chemicals. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5:1071-
1080.
Michelsen, T. and K. Bragdon-Cook. 1992. Organic Carbon Normalization of Data;
Technical Information Memorandum. Washington State Department of Ecology.
Michelsen, T., T.C. Shaw, and S. Stirling. 1996. Testing, Reporting, and Evaluation of
Tributyltin Data in PSDDA and SMS Programs. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal
Analysis (PSDDA) Issue Paper and Sediment Management Standards (SMS)
Technical Information Memorandum. October 1996.
Moore, D.W., T.M. Dillon, J.Q. Word, and J.A. Ward. 1994. Quality Assurence/Quality
Control (QA/QC) Guidance for Laboratory Dredged Material Bioassays. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 14-8 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Nendza, M., T. Herbst, C. Kussatz, and A. Gies. 1997. Potential for Secondary Poisoning
and Biomagnification in Marine Organisms. Chemosphere. 35:1875-1885.
Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL). 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening
Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Sediment-Associated Biota: 1997
Revision. ES/ER/TM-95/R3. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee.
ODEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality). 1997. Field Sampling Reference
Guide, Revision 5.0. Portland, OR.
Palermo, M.R. 1986. Development of a Modified Elutriate Test for Estimating the Quality
of Effluent from Confined Dredged Material Disposal Areas. Tech. Report D-86-4.
US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Palermo, M.R., I.E. Clausner, M.P. Rollings, G.L. Williams, T.E. Myers, T.J. Fredette, R.E.
Randall. 1998. Guidance for Subaqueous Dredged Material Capping. June 1998.
Palermo, M.R., and E.L. Thackston. 1988. Refinement of Column Settling Test Procedures
for Estimating the Quality of Effluent from Confined Dredged Material Disposal
Areas. Tech. Report D-88-9, US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Patmont, C., and M. Palermo. 2006. Dredging Residuals Overview. Presented at the 4 Rs
Dredging Workshop, Vicksburg, MS. April 25 to 27, 2006.
PIANC (Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses). 1990.
"Management of Dredged Material from Inland Waterways," Report of Working
Group No. 7 of the Permanent Technical Committee I, Supplement to Bulletin No.
70, General Secretariat of PIANC, Brussels, Belgium.
Plumb, R.H. 1981. Procedures for Handling and Chemical Analysis of Sediment and
Water Samples. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Environmental Laboratory, USAGE, Waterways Experiment Station.
PSDDA (Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis). 1988. Evaluation Procedures Technical
Appendix - Phase I (Central Puget Sound). Puget Sound Dredged Disposal
Analysis, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Seattle, Washington.
PSEP (Puget Sound Estuary Program). 1996. Recommended Protocols for Measuring
Selected Environmental Variables in Puget Sound Estuary Program. Prepared for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Seattle District. January 1996.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 14-9 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
PSEP. 1995. Recommended Guidelines for Conducting Laboratory Bioassays on Puget
Sound Sediments. Prepared by Washington Department of Ecology for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Office of Puget Sound, Seattle,
Washington and Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, Washington.
PSEP. 1991. Reference Area Performance Standards for Puget Sound. Puget Sound
Estuary Program. EPA 910/9-91-041.
PSEP. 1988. 1988 Update and Evaluation of Puget Sound AET. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and Puget Sound Estuary Program. Seattle, WA.
PSWQAT (Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team). 1997a. Recommended Guidelines for
Sampling Marine Sediment, Water Column, and Tissue in Puget Sound. Puget
Sound Water Quality Action Team. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington.
PSWQAT. 1997b. Recommended Guidelines for Measuring Metals in Puget Sound Water,
Sediment, and Tissue Samples. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. Prepared
for US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington.
PSWQAT. 1997c. Recommended Guidelines for Measuring Organic Compounds in Puget
Sound Water, Sediment, and Tissue Samples. Puget Sound Water Quality Action
Team. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle,
Washington.
PTI (PTI Environmental Services). 1995. Analysis of BSAF Values for Nonpolar Organic
Compounds in Finfish and Shellfish. PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue,
Washinton. Prepared for Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia,
Washington.
PTI Environmental Services. 1989a. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis Guidance
Manual: Data Quality Evaluation of Proposed Material Disposal Projects (QA-1).
Prepared for Department of Ecology Sediment Management Unit, Contract
C0089018, Olympia, Washington.
PTI Environmental Services. 1989b. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis Guidance
Manual: Data Quality Evaluation of Proposed Material Disposal Projects (QA-2).
Prepared for Department of Ecology Sediment Management Unit, Contract
C0089018, Olympia, Washington.
Salazar, M.H. and S.M. Salazar. 1998. Using Caged Bivalves as Part of an Exposure-dose-
response Triad to Support an Intergrated Risk Assessment Strategy. In:
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 14-10 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Proceedings: Ecological Risk Assessment: A Meeting of Policy and Science. A. de
Peyster and K. Day (eds). SET AC Press, Pensacola, Florida, pp 167-192.
Salazar M.H. and S.M. Salazar. 1995. In Situ Bioassays Using Transplanted Mussels: I.
Estimating Chemical Exposure and Bioeffects with Bioaccumulation and Growth.
In: Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment - Third Volume. J.S. Hughes,
G.R. Biddinger, E. Mones, (eds). American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadephia, Pennsylvania, pp. 216-241.
Schroeder, P.R., M.R. Palermo, T.E. Myers, and C.M. Lloyd. 2004 The Automated
Dredging and Disposal Alternatives Modeling System (ADDAMS), EEDP-06-12,
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
SET AC (Society of Environmental Toxicity and Chemistry). 2002. SET AC Pellston
Workshop on the Use of Sediment Quality Guidelines and Related Tools for the
Assessment of Contaminated Sediments. Fairmont, Montana. August 2002.
Shephard, B.K. 1998. Quantification of Ecological Risks to Aquatic Biota from
Bioaccumulated Chemicals. In: National Sediment Bioaccumulation Conference
Proceedings, EPA 823-R-98-002, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. p. 2-31 to 2-52
Shephard, B.K. 2004. An Evaluation of Uncertainties Associated with Tissue Screening
Concentrations Used to Assess Ecological Risks from Bioaccumulated Chemicals in
Aquatic Biota. Invited Platform Presentation, 13th Annual Meeting, Pacific
Northwest Chapter, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Port
Townsend, WA, April 15-17, 2004.
Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, DJ. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, G.A. Chapman, and W.A. Brungs.
1985. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. EPA 822-R85-100, Office of
Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
Steering Committee of the 4 Rs Dredging Workshop. 2006. Resuspension, Release,
Residual, and Risk (the "4 Rs"). Vicksburg, MS. April 25 to 27, 2006.
Stirling, S.K. 1995. Sampling and Testing Cost Relief for Small Projects Undergoing
Taylor, J.K. 1987. Quality Assurance of Chemical Measurements, Lewis Publishers.
Chelsea, MI.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 14-1 1 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999. Risk Assessment Handbook Volume I: Human
Health Evaluation. EM 200-1-4. Available at:
http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/engmanuals/em200-l-4/toc.htm.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1996. Risk Assessment Handbook Volume II:
Environmental Evaluation. EM 200-1-4. Available at:
http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usacedocs/eng-manuals/em200-l-4vol2/.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. Environmental Contaminants in Aquatic
Resources from the Columbia River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish
and Wildlife Office, Portland, Oregon. 112 pp. Available at:
http://oregonfwo. fws. gov/EnvContam/EnvContam Field/foocchain.htm
USFWS. 1994. Biological Opinion on the Effects of Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-/>-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) to be Attained through
Implementation of a Total Maximum Daily Load on Bald Eagles along the
Columbia River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregpn. 28 pp. Available
as .pdf from
http://oregonfwo.fws.gov/EnvContam/EnvContam_Field/Documents/Bald%20Eagle
/BEDIOX.BO.PDF
Van den Berg M, L Birnbaum, A Bosveld, B Brunstrom, P Cook, M Feeley, J Giesy, A
Hanberg, R Hasegawa, S Kennedy, T Kubiak, J Larsen, F Rolaf van Leeuwen, A
Dkien Liem, C Nolt, R Peterson, L Poellinger, S Safe, D Schenk, D Tillitt, M
Tysklind, M Younes, F Waern, T Zacharewski. 1998. Toxic Equivalency Factors for
PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for Humans and Wildlife. Environmental Health
Perspectives. 106(12):775-792.
Varanesi U, J Stein, M Nishimoto. 1989. Chapter 4: Biotransformation and Disposition of
Poly cyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) in Fish. In: Metabolism of Poly cyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Aquatic Environment. U Varanesi (ed). CRC Press.
pp. 93-1
Wiemeyer, S.N., C.M. Bunck, and CJ. Stafford. 1993. Environmental Contaminants in
Bald Eagle Eggs-1980-84-and Further Interpretations of Relationships to
Productivity and Shell Thickness. Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology. Vol 24(2): 213-227.
Wiemeyer, S.N., C.M. Bunck, and AJ. Krynitsky. 1988. Organochlorine Pesticides,
Polychlorinated-biphenyls, and Mercury in Osprey Eggs-1970-79-and Their
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 14-12 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Relationships to Shell Thinning and Productivity. Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology. Vol 17(6):767-787.
Wiemeyer, S.N., T.G. Lament, C.M. Bunck, C.R. Sindelar, FJ. Gramlich, J.D. Fraser, and
M.A. Byrd. 1984. Organochlorine Pesticide, Polychlorobiphenyl, and Mercury
Residues in Bald Eagle Eggs1969-79and Their Relationships to Shell Thinning
and Reproduction. Archives Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Vol
13(5): 529-549.
Yamashita, N., S. Tanabe, J.P. Ludwig, H. Kurita, M.E. Ludwig, and R. Tatsukawa. 1993.
Embryonic Abnormalities and Organochlorine Contamination in Double-crested
Cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) and Caspian Terns (Hydroprogne caspia) from
the Upper Great Lakes in 1988. Environmental Pollution. Vol 79(2):163-173.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc 14-13 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
APPENDIX A
BIOACCUMULATIVE CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
APPENDIX A
BIOACCUMULATIVE CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
This appendix provides the definitions for each of the four classifications of
bioaccumulative chemicals. It also provides the default lists of chemicals resulting from
these decision rules. These lists are to be applied RSET-wide in the absence of local
information to refine the bioaccumulative contaminants of concern (BCoCs). The
definitions in this appendix are based on the work of a Dredged Material Management
Program (DMMP) workgroup to refine BCoCs, which developed a document providing the
technical basis for the lists and placement of chemicals on the lists. This technical appendix
should be consulted for further detail on the derivation of the decision rules (EPA 2004).
List 1. Primary Bioaccumulative Contaminants of Concern
Definition 1:
logKow>3.5
AND
95th percentile of detected tissue concentrations (or maximum concentrations) >
Screening LOED
Definition 2:
logKow>3.5
AND
tissue detection frequency > 10 percent
AND
residue-effects LOED available
AND
known human and/or ecotoxicity
Chemicals are placed on List 1 because they are hydrophobic and tend to partition into the
organic fraction (Log Kow >3.5), and because the higher concentrations that have been
detected in regional tissue monitoring exceed values associated with adverse effects in
aquatic organisms (95th percentile tissue concentrations > 5th percentile LOED).
Alternatively, List 1 chemicals are hydrophobic, detected in regional tissue monitoring in at
least 10 percent of the samples tested, and have residue-effects data available in the
scientific literature. Furthermore, they are known to be toxic to human and/or aquatic
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc A-l INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
receptors in that they meet one or more of the following three criteria for human and
ecological toxicity:
Have a final chronic value less than 0.1 milligrams per liter (mg/L),
Have a cancer slope factor or Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) weight of
evidence (WOE) score of A or B, or
Have a reference dose value less than 0.06 milligrams/kilograms per day
(mg/kg/day).
Chemicals meeting either the first or second definitions discussed above have a weight-of-
evidence indicating they are of concern for bioaccumulation. Note both List 1 definitions
prioritize tissue data over sediment data. Theoretically, a chemical does not need to be
detected in sediments in order to be placed on List 1, although this is rarely the case.
Typically, most chemicals detected in tissues are also detected in sediments while the
reverse is not always true. It is for this reason that sediment detection is not a component of
either List 1 definitions. List 1 chemicals are presented in Table A-l.
The WOE evaluation placed polychlorodibenzodioxins (PCDD) and
polychlorodibenzofurans (PCDF) on Lists 2 and 3, respectively, while 2,3,7,8-TCDD was
placed on List 1 based on definition 2. The tissue data sets that were queried for this effort
did not include studies that analyzed for PCDD/PCDF. Studies that analyze for dioxins and
furans do so because of site-specific need, and typically report results as 2,3,7,8-TCDD
TEQ. Thus, the DMMP made the decision to put dioxins and furans on List 1 based on the
results for 2,3,7,8-TCDD as well as best professional judgment. Dioxins and furans have a
special status on List 1 in that they are only required for evaluation on an as-needed basis
depending on site-specific conditions.
While the lists and the WOE analysis addressed the isomers of DDT (e.g., 2,4' and 4,4'
DDD, DDE, and DDT) separately from total DDT, they were lumped together for purposes
of list placement. Both 4,4'-DDE and 4,4'-DDT meet List 1 definition 2 and thus total
DDT was placed on List 1.
In the absence of Koc values, best professional judgment was used to select metals that may
bioaccumulate for List 1. The remaining metals that are standard analytes have been placed
on List 4.
Based on the summary and survey performed by D.M.D. Inc., standard methods for all
List 1 chemicals are available and currently performed by regional laboratories (see Table 3
in EPA 2004).
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc A-2 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
List 2. Candidate Bioaccumulative Contaminants
Definition 1:
logKow>3.5
AND
no tissue data available9
AND
sediment detection frequency > 50 percent
AND
median of detected sediment samples exceeds lOx MDL (lOx reference area
concentrations for trace metals) OR sediment detection frequency > 10 percent
AND median of detected samples exceed 50x MDL (50x reference area
concentrations for trace metals)
AND
known human and/or ecotoxicity
Definition 2:
logKow>3.5
AND
no sediment or tissue data available
AND
known human and/or ecotoxicity
Chemicals are placed on List 2 because available information indicates that they may be of
concern, but additional information (primarily from regional tissue and sediment
monitoring) is needed in order to make a definitive placement on Lists 1 or 4. According to
definition 1, List 2 chemicals are hydrophobic and either frequently detected in sediments at
concentrations that are somewhat in excess of detection limits (or reference values or
metals) or infrequently detected at concentrations that are well above detection
limits/reference values. Furthermore, List 2 chemicals are known to be toxic to human
and/or aquatic receptors in that they meet one or more of the following three criteria for
human and ecological toxicity:
Have a final chronic value less than 0.1 mg/L,
Have a cancer slope factor or IRIS WOE score of A or B, or
Have a reference dose value less than 0.06 mg/kg/day.
9 Chemicals for which only SEDQUAL tissue data is available must meet the DMMP's minimum criteria for
data sufficiency (e.g., data must be from a minimum of two surveys, representing at least two taxa and the
total number of samples must be greater than 30).
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc A-3 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Chemicals that meet definition 2 have not been regionally monitored in tissues or sediments
but are hydrophobic and documented to be toxic to human and/or aquatic receptors in the
scientific literature. List 2 chemicals are presented in Table A-2.
List 3. Potentially Bioaccumulative Contaminants
logKow>3.5
AND
no sediment or tissue data available
AND
no information on human and/or ecotoxicity
Chemicals are placed on List 3 when they do not meet any of the definitions of the other
three lists. Typically List 3 chemicals are just beginning to receive national attention due to
their potential for persistence and/or being detected in monitoring programs. The critical
distinction between List 2 (definition 2) chemicals and those on List 3 is that the former are
known to be toxic to human or aquatic receptors while the latter are not. List 3 chemicals
will be re-evaluated for list placement when/if additional toxicity and regional occurrence
data become available. List 3 chemicals are presented in Table A-3.
List 4. Not Currently Considered Bioaccumulative
Definition 1:
logKow<3.5
Definition 2:
logKow>3.5
AND
tissue detection frequency < 10 percent
AND
95th percentile of detected tissue concentrations (or maximum concentrations) <
Screening LOED OR No Screening LOED available OR 95th percentile of
nondetected concentrations (when all are NDs) < Screening LOED
AND
marine sediment detection frequency < 10 percent10
10 For trace metals which are expected to be detected in nearly all cases, the criterion is "< 10% elevated over
reference area concentrations." Reference area concentrations from PSEP (1991).
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc A-4 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
AND
freshwater sediment detection frequency < 10 percent5
Chemicals are placed on List 4 definition 1 because they are not sufficiently hydrophobic
(log Kow < 3.5) to warrant prioritization under this approach. Alternatively, definition 2
chemicals are sufficiently hydrophobic, but regional tissue and sediment data indicate that
they are rarely (if ever) detected and when detected are at concentrations that are less then
tissue-residue effects levels (when available). Chemicals are always placed on List 4 based
on positive information; the lack of information on a chemical is never justification for
being on List 4. Thus, chemicals that otherwise satisfy the List 4 definitions but have no
regional tissue data, would appear on either List 2 or 3 depending on what is known about
their human/ecological toxicity. List 4 is presented in Table A-4.
Table A-l. List 1: Primary Bioaccumulative Contaminants of Concern
Definition 1
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chlordane
Lead
Pentachlorophenol
Total Aroclor PCB
Pyrene
Selenium
Tributyltin
Definition 2
Dioxins/Furans11
Fluoranthene
Hexachl orob enzene
Mercury
Total DDTs (ortho and para isomers of DDT, DDE, and ODD)
11 Dioxins and furans are only required for analysis on an as-needed basis depending on site-specific
conditions.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc A-5 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest
September 30, 2006
Table A-2. List 2: Candidate Bioaccumulative Contaminants
Definition 1
Benzo(e)pyrene
Biphenyl
Endosulfan
Mirex
Perylene
Definition 2
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
4-Nonylphenol, branched
Chromium VI
Dacthal
Heptachl oronaphthal ene
Hexachl oronaphthal ene
Kelthane
Octachl oronaphthal ene
Oxadiazon
Parathion
pentabromodiphenyl ether
Pentachl oronaphthal ene
Tetrachloronaphthalene
Tetraethyltin
Tri chl oronaphthal ene
Trifluralin
Table A-3. List 3: Potentially Bioaccumulative Contaminants
1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,3-Tri chl orobenzene
1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene
1 -methylnaphthalene
1 -methylphenanthrene
2,6-Dimethyl naphthalene
2-methylnaphthalene
4,4'-Dichlorobenzophenone
4-bromophenylphenyl ether
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Aldrin
Anthracene
Antimony
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
B enzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
C1 -chry senes/benzo(a)anthracene
C1 -dibenz(a,h)anthracene
C1 -fluoranthene/pyrene
Cl-fluorenes
Cl-naphthalenes
C1 -phenanthrene/anthracene
C2-chrysenes/benzo(a)anthracene
C2-dibenz(a,h)anthracene
C2-fluorenes
C2-naphthalenes
C2-phenanthrene/anthracene
C3-chrysenes/benzo(a)anthracene
C3-dibenz(a,h)anthracene
C3-fluorenes
C3-naphthalenes
C3 -phenanthrene/anthracene
C4-chrysenes/benzo(a)anthracene
C4-naphthalenes
C4-phenanthrene/anthracene
Chrysene
Dib enzo(a, h)anthracene
Dib enzothi ophene
Dieldrin
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Endosulfan sulfate
Ethoxylated nonylphenol phosphate
Fluorene
Gamma-BHC/Gamma-
hexachl orocy cl ohexane
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachl orobutadi ene
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Methoxychlor
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc
A-6
INTERIM FINAL
-------
Table A-3. List 3: Potentially Bioaccumulative Contaminants (continued)
Nonylphenol Polychlorinated terphenyls
Pentachloroanisole Pronamide
Phenanthrene Tetradifon
Polybrominated terphenyls Toxaphene
Polychlorinated alkenes
Table A-4. List 4: Not Currently Considered Bioaccumulative Contaminants
Definition 1 Phenol
1,4-Dichlorobenzene Silver
Bromoxynil Tetrachloroethene
Chromium Toxaphene
Copper Trichloroethene
Dicamba Triphenyltin chloride
Dichlobenil zinc
Dimethyl phthalate
Diuron Definition 2
Ethylbenzene ! ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Fenitrothion 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Guthion 1,3-Dichlorobenzene
Methyl parathion Endrin
Methyltin trichloride Heptachlor
Naphthalene Hexachloroethane
Nickel
N-nitroso diphenylamine
REFERENCES
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. The Technical Basis for Revisions to
the Dredged Material Management Program's Bioaccumulative Contaminants of Concern
List. Draft Report. Prepared for the DMMP Agencies by U.S.EPA Region 10, Seattle,
WA.
http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/BCoC_Technical_Appendix_0
90804.pdf.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc A-7 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE HANDLING PROCEDURES
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE HANDLING PROCEDURES
Listed below are details concerning the sample handling procedures outlined in Chapter 7.
All sample handling procedures should be specified in the sampling and analysis plan.
Decontamination Procedures
It is recommended that all sampling equipment and utensils, such as spoons, mixing bowls,
extrusion devices, sampling tubes, cutter heads, etc., be made of noncontaminating
materials and thoroughly cleaned prior to use. The intention is to avoid contaminating the
sediments to be tested, because dredged material could possibly be found unacceptable
when it otherwise would be found acceptable for open-water disposal. While not strictly
required, an adequate decontamination procedure is highly recommended. The dredging
proponent assumes a higher risk of sample contamination by not following an established
protocol. The following procedure has been used successfully for other dredging projects:
Wash with brush and Alconox soap,
Double rinse with distilled water,
Rinse with nitric acid,
Rinse with metal-free water, and
Rinse with methanol.
While methylene chloride has been used extensively in the past as an organic solvent, and is
recommended by PSEP, its use is discouraged by the dredging regulatory agencies because
of its status as a potential carcinogen and its impact on the ozone layer.
After decontamination, sampling equipment should be protected from recontamination.
Any sampling equipment suspected of contamination should be decontaminated again or
rejected. If core sampling is being conducted, extra sampling tubes should be available on
site to prevent interruption of operations should a sampling tube become contaminated.
Sampling utensils should be decontaminated again after all sampling has been conducted
for a dredged material management unit (DMMU) to prevent cross-contamination.
Disposable gloves are typically used and decontaminated or disposed of between DMMUs.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc B-l INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
Volatiles and Sulfides Subsampling
The volatiles and sulfides subsamples should be taken immediately upon extrusion of cores
or immediately after accepting a grab sample for use. For composited samples, one core
section or grab sample should be selected for the volatiles and sulfides sampling.
Sediments that are directly in contact with core liners or the sides of the grab sampler
should not be used.
Two separate 4-ounce containers should be completely filled with sample sediment for
volatiles. No headspace should be allowed to remain in either container. Two samples are
collected to ensure an acceptable sample with no headspace is submitted to the laboratory
for analysis. The containers, screw caps, and cap septa (silicone vapor barriers) should be
washed with detergent, rinsed once with tap water, rinsed at least twice with distilled water,
and dried at greater than 105 degrees Celsius (ฐC). A solvent rinse should not be used
because it may interfere with the analysis.
To avoid leaving headspace in the containers, sample containers can be filled in one of two
ways. If there is adequate water in the sediment, the vial should be filled to overflowing so
that a convex meniscus forms at the top. Once sealed, the bottle should be inverted to
verify the seal by demonstrating the absence of air bubbles. If there is little or no water in
the sediment, jars should be filled as tightly as possible, eliminating obvious air pockets.
With the cap liner's PTFE side down, the cap should be carefully placed on the opening of
the vial, displacing any excess material.
For sulfides sampling, 5 mLs of two normal zinc acetate per 30 grams of sediment should
be placed in a 4-ounce sampling jar. The sulfides sample should be placed in the jar,
covered, and shaken vigorously to completely expose the sediment to the zinc acetate.
The volatiles and sulfides sampling jars should be clearly labeled with the project name,
sample/composite identification, type of analysis to be performed, date and time, and
initials of person(s) preparing the sample, and referenced by entry into the log book. The
sulfides sampling jars should indicate that zinc acetate has been added as a preservative.
Sampling Logs
As samples are collected, and after the volatiles and sulfides subsamples have been taken,
logs and field notes of all samples should be taken and correlated to the sampling location
map. The following should be included in this log:
Date and time of collection of each sediment sample;
Names of field supervisors and person(s) collecting and logging in the sample;
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc B-2 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
The sample station number and individual designation numbers assigned for
individual core sections;
Quantitative notation of apparent resistance of sediment column to coring;
The water depth at each sampling station (this depth should then be referenced to
mean lower low water [MLLW NAD 83] through the use of an on-site tide gage);
Length, depth interval (referenced to the sediment/water interface), and percent
recovery of core sections;
Weather conditions;
Physical sediment description, including type, density, color, consistency, odor,
stratification, vegetation, debris, biological activity, presence of an oil sheen, or any
other distinguishing characteristics or features; and
Any deviation from the approved sampling plan.
Extrusion, Compositing, and Sub-sampling
Depending on the sampling methodology and procedure proposed, sample extrusion,
compositing, and subsampling may take place at different times and locations. If core
sampling is conducted, these activities can either occur at the sampling site (e.g., on board
the sampling vessel) or at a remote facility. Grab samples will be processed immediately
upon sampling. If cores are to be transported to a remote facility for processing, they
should be stored at 4ฐC on board the sampling vessel and during transport. The cores
should be sealed in such a way as to prevent leakage and/or contamination. If the cores will
be sectioned at a later time, thought needs to be given to core integrity during transport and
storage to prevent loss of stratification. For cores or split-spoon sampling, the extrusion
method should include procedures to prevent contamination.
For composited samples, representative volumes of sediment should be removed from each
core section or grab sample comprising a composite. The composited sediment should be
mixed until homogenized to a uniform color and consistency, and should continue to be
stirred while individual samples are taken of the homogenate. This will ensure the mixture
remains homogenous and settling of coarse-grained sediments does not occur.
At least 6 liters of homogenized sample needs to be prepared to provide adequate volume
for physical, chemical, and biological laboratory analyses. Bioassays require approximately
4 liters of sediment, while chemical testing requires approximately 1 liter of sediment. Both
chemistry and bioassay samples should be taken from the same homogenate. Portions of
each composite sample will be placed in appropriate containers obtained from the chemical
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc B-3 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
and biological laboratories. See Table 7-1 of the main text for container and sample size
information. In high ranked areas, the sample taken from the foot beyond the dredging
overdepth should be placed in a 250 milliliter (mL) glass jar and frozen for possible future
analysis.
After compositing and subsampling are performed, the sample containers should be
refrigerated or stored on ice until delivered to the analytical laboratory. The samples
reserved for bioassays should be stored at 4ฐC in a nitrogen atmosphere, i.e., nitrogen gas in
the container headspace, for up to 56 days pending initiation of any required biological
testing. Each sample container should be clearly labeled with the project name, sample/
composite identification, type of analysis to be performed, date and time, and initials of
person(s) preparing the sample, and referenced by entry into the log book.
Sample Transport and Chain-of-Custody Procedures
Sample transport and chain-of-custody procedures should follow the PSEP protocols, which
include the guidelines described below.
If sediment cores are taken in the field and transported to a remote site for extrusion and
compositing, chain-of-custody procedures should commence in the field for the core
sections, and track the compositing and subsequent transfer of composited samples to the
analytical laboratory. If compositing occurs in the field, chain-of-custody procedures
should commence in the field for the composites, and track transfer of the composited
samples to the analytical laboratory.
Samples should be packaged and shipped in accordance with U.S. Department of
Transportation regulations as specified at 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
173.6 and 49 CFR 173.24.
Individual sample containers should be packed to prevent breakage and transported
in a sealed ice chest or other suitable container.
Ice should be placed in separate plastic bags and sealed, or blue ice used.
Each cooler or container containing sediment samples for analysis should be
delivered to the laboratory within 24 hours of being sealed.
A sealed envelope containing chain-of-custody forms should be enclosed in a plastic
bag and taped to the inside lid of the cooler.
Signed and dated chain-of-custody seals should be placed on all coolers prior to
shipping.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc B-4 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
The shipping containers should be clearly labeled with sufficient information (name
of project, time and date container was sealed, person sealing the container and
consultant's office name and address) to enable positive identification.
Upon transfer of sample possession to the analytical laboratory, the chain-of-custody
form should be signed by the persons transferring custody of the sample containers.
The shipping container seal should be broken and the condition of the samples
should be recorded by the receiver.
Chain-of-custody forms should be used internally in the lab to track sample handling
and final disposition.
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc B-5 INTERIM FINAL
-------
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest September 30, 2006
APPENDIX C
RSET ISSUE PAPERS
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy (Sept 06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc INTERIM FINAL
-------
APPENDIX C
RSET ISSUE PAPERS
These Issue Papers are early work products that were used to begin to address issues. Some
have been substantially revised or expanded. Please see the main body text for the most
current presentation of the issues. All Issue Papers included as Appendix C can also be
downloaded from the Corps' web site.
List of RSET Issue Papers
1 - Establishment and Use of Detection and Reporting Limits
2 - Development of Sediment Quality Guidelines for Petroleum Hydrocarbons
3 - Chemical Summation Techniques
4 - Evaluation of Modern Pesticides in Sediments
5 - TEF Methods for Wildlife
6 - PCB Analysis
8 - PCB Analytical Methods
9 - SQG Cost Effectiveness/Reliability
10 - Develop Regional Data Compilation/Database Structure
11 - Evaluate Ecology's Guideline Development/Reliability
16 - Framework for Assessing Bioaccumulation under RSET
17 - Tissue Bioaccumulation Triggers and Proposed Methods of Protection of Fish/ESA
Species
18 - Development of Tissue Trigger Levels for Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife
19 - Testing Protocols Available For Laboratory Based Freshwater Bioaccumulation
Testing Under RSET
20 - Testing Protocols for In-situ Freshwater Bioaccumulation Testing
21 - Framework for Deriving Tissue Concentrations to be Protective of People Consuming
Fish and Shellfish
25 - Integrating Range of Disposal Options into SEF
26 - Grain Size, Analysis, and Exclusion Criteria
27 - Disposal Site Issues
28 - Programmatic Consultation on SEF
29 - Frequency of Dredging Guideline
30 - Effect Level Question
31 - New Surface Material Exposed by Dredging
32 - Minor Text Changes and Clarifications
I:\WP\3064-RSET\Corps-RSET\CamRdy(Sept06)\RSET_Sept_28.doc C~\ INTERIM FINAL
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #1 - Establishment and Use of Detection and Reporting Limits
CHEMICAL ANALYTE LIST SUBCOMMITTEE: T Thornburg, Chair
(tthornburg@anchorenv.com): August 2, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: There are a diversity of reporting limits (RLs) being used in
sediment management programs. Best available science has progressed adequately to
lower the method detection levels and reporting limits for routine sediment metals and
organic contaminants of concern. May one set of method detection limits and
reporting limits be identified for all sediment quality programs? May a consistent set
of qualifier code definitions be developed and applied (e.g., "U" applied to RLs) for use
in all sediment management programs?
DISCUSSION: In the state of Washington, the SMS, PSDDA and PS AMP, CERCLA, and
NRDA sediment programs have each identified individual programmatic RLs (i.e., practical
quantitation limits). These programmatic limits are identified in Table C-14 of the Puget
Sound Estuary Program's (PSEP) Recommended Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Guidelines For the Collection of Environmental Data in Puget Sound (April 1997).
Additionally, this PSEP protocol identifies different sediment programmatic data qualifiers
in Tables D-l through D-6.
Key considerations in identification of programmatic RLs are to identify 1) sediment
chemical guidelines and/or criteria against which sediment data will be compared,
2) laboratory and analytical method capabilities, and 3) associated costs. Some regional
scientists have suggested that reduction of RLs is possible and necessary to adequately
support development of sediment quality criteria, especially for freshwater sediments.
There is also considerable confusion regarding consistent identification and application of
appropriate data qualifiers. Different sets of qualifiers and definitions exist, which are
generated and applied in various sediment program studies. These data are often later
consolidated into SEDQUAL. The "U" qualifier for undetected can be often reported at or
near the method detection limit (e.g., for metals or at the RL, e.g., for organics). Recently,
EPA Superfund developed a new, modified EPA CLP data qualifier list for work at the
Duwamish sediment cleanup site. Finally, application of appropriate data qualifiers is
necessary to support sediment quality criteria development (e.g., use of "J" or "E" estimated
data).
REFERENCES: PSEP QA/QC Protocol (see attachments)
RECOMMENDATION: Convene a cross-program panel with RSET staff, and agency
and commercial laboratory representatives to discuss development of consolidated
recommendations for sediment chemistry analytical methods, reporting limits, and data
qualifiers.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE: None yet
LIST OF PREPARERS: Brett Betts/Tom Gries, Washington Department of Ecology
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #2 - Development of Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs) for
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
CHEMICAL ANALYTE LIST SUBCOMMITTEE: T Thornburg, Chair
(tthornburg@anchorenv. com); August 6, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: What analytes and associated SQGs should be used for bulk
petroleum hydrocarbons and/or their constituents, such as polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs)?
DISCUSSION:
Background
Most existing SQG sets include guidelines for individual PAHs. To date, screening levels
for bulk petroleum hydrocarbons in sediment have not been developed due to the widely
varying mix of compounds that make up this group and the sense that toxicity was
adequately accounted for by considering typical constituents of petroleum products (e.g.,
PAHs). However, there are situations where bulk petroleum hydrocarbons are present in
sediment at elevated levels, and individual listed constituents either are absent or are present
at levels that would not indicate toxicity. There has been limited analysis of whether these
sediments pose a toxicity threat and in many cases the analysis for petroleum products is not
performed. For cleanup sites in Oregon and some sites in Washington with heavy
petroleum contamination, the policy has been to require bioassays to assess toxicity of
petroleum-contaminated sediment; however, a consistent concentration above which
bioassays would be required has not been established. Dredging programs in Washington
and along the Columbia River have relied on SQGs for individual PAHs and sums of PAHs.
Recent work developing SQGs for a variety of areas along the west coast has identified
issues with the predictiveness of individual PAH criteria. Specifically, PAHs do not appear
to be associated with substantial toxicity on an individual basis, and in some cases can be
dropped entirely from a data set without affecting the reliability of the resulting SQGs
(Ecology 2003, Bay et al. 2004, Germano Assts. 2003). When added together on a dry
weight basis, it is possible to see a relationship between the PAHs as a group and toxicity
within the data set. However, this relationship is still prone to substantial error and is not a
strong one. Taken together, these studies suggest the following conclusions:
PAHs exhibit behavior that does not support a toxicity model in which these
chemicals act independently of one another; rather some form of sum appears to
better model their potential for toxicity.
Dry weight sums of individual PAHs alone may not accurately reflect the
manner in which petroleum hydrocarbons express their additive toxicity and may
introduce error into SQG calculations.
These conclusions are consistent with what is known about petroleum toxicity to
invertebrates, as discussed below. Furthermore, they suggest that existing individual PAH-
-------
based guidelines may be underprotective, especially in situations where substantial bulk
petroleum exists.
Historically, regulation of bulk petroleum has largely occurred through total petroleum
hydrocarbon (TPH) measurements, which are difficult to relate directly to toxicity. More
recent theories for assessing the toxicity of petroleum and its constituents to benthic
organisms have focused on a narcosis-based approach. Narcosis is a form of toxicity
resulting from the presence of foreign molecules in hydrophobic or lipid tissues, which
depresses and disrupts various cellular functions (Abernathy et al. 1988, Franks and Lieb
1978). It is a well-studied phenomenon, as it is the basis for anesthesiology in medicine.
Because narcosis represents a general disruption of basic cellular functions, which are
essentially the same in all living organisms (microorganisms, invertebrates, fish, mammals,
humans), the narcosis endpoint is applicable to any freshwater or marine aquatic receptor.
Researchers have found that narcotic effects occur at similar tissue concentrations in a wide
variety of aquatic receptors (Abernathy et al. 1988, McCarty and Mackay 1993, McCarty
1991, EPA 1988).
In aquatic receptors, narcosis is manifested in various ways, including immobility, loss of
equilibrium in fish, and mortality (McCarty et al. 1992, Rogerson et al. 1983, Bobra et al.
1985, Mackay and Hughes 1984). These different manifestations are not really different
endpoints, but rather can be thought of as a continuum of increasing responses to cellular
dysfunction and shutdown. These effects are clearly related to population-level impacts, as
they affect the ability of the organism to perform day-to-day functions, such as foraging,
predator avoidance, and reproduction, and may finally result in mortality. Moreover, onset
of narcosis effects would be expected at similar exposure concentrations for any member of
an exposed assemblage of organisms, regardless of its taxonomic or community status.
In addition, the narcotic effect is not dependent on the specific lipophilic chemical or
chemicals present (Call et al. 1985). Various studies (Ferguson 1939, McGowan 1952,
Hermens et al. 1984, Hermens et al. 1985a, b, Deneer et al. 1988) have demonstrated that
the narcotic effect is instead related to the total number of foreign molecules present, and
therefore effects in tissue can be predicted from the total molar concentration of
contaminants in the tissue. Thus, it is not necessary to know the identity or toxicity of each
individual chemical, just the molar concentration of all the chemicals in tissue combined.
This property makes the narcosis endpoint particularly well-suited to the evaluation of toxic
effects of petroleum (and other) mixtures in the environment, as a single sediment or tissue
concentration can be selected that will be protective of aquatic receptors for a wide variety
of lipophilic organic chemicals, assuming these chemicals do not have other, more specific
interactions with the receptor causing toxicity.
Two methods could be employed to make use of this model in regulating petroleum
constituents in sediments or tissues. First, individual PAH concentrations could be added
together, normalized to a molar concentration, or to a reference Kow rather than using a dry
weight sum (as is currently employed in the dredging program). Kow-normalization is the
basis of EPA's approach to regulating PAHs in sediments, authored by DiToro et al. (2000).
Ecology recently compared the reliability of molar concentration sums vs. dry weight sums
vs. individual PAHs during the development of the freshwater sediment quality guidelines
-------
(Ecology 2003). This comparison indicated that dry weight sums showed greater
association with toxicity in the data set than did the use of individual PAHs, and molar
concentration sums showed greater association with toxicity in the data set than did dry
weight sums. However, the overall reliability of the three data sets was approximately the
same, indicating that there are errors associated with all three approaches. Most likely this
is due to the use of individual PAHs to represent the entirety of the bulk petroleum present,
when in fact all of the petroleum present contributes to narcosis toxicity.
Alternatively, bulk petroleum in the environment could be measured in molecular weight
fractions, which would then be added together on a molar concentration basis to obtain a
total petroleum concentration in molar units (umol/kg). This approach is similar to methods
adopted under the MTCA in Washington (WAC 173-340-740) and Massachusetts (MADEP
2002) to regulate petroleum hydrocarbons in soils. There is not currently enough VPH/EPH
or TPH data in SEDQUAL to test whether this approach has better reliability than those that
rely on individual PAHs.
Discussion
The following options are available for regulating individual PAHs and/or bulk petroleum
products in sediments and tissues:
Individual PAHs
Dry weight sums of PAHs
Molar or Koc-normalized sums of PAHs
Dry weight bulk measurements (e.g., TPH)
Molar sum bulk measurements (e.g., VPH, EPH)
The individual PAHs and dry weight sums/bulk measurements have the advantage of being
familiar, consistent with past practices, and consistent with current analytical techniques in
widespread use. However, both in practice and in theory, these approaches do not appear to
accurately model petroleum toxicity. The molar or Koc normalized approaches, particularly
those addressing bulk petroleum fractions, have the advantage of being consistent with
toxicological theory and reflect the emerging scientific consensus with respect to petroleum
toxicity and regulation. However, they rely on analytical techniques and calculation
methods that are not currently in widespread use (though the methods do exist at a
commercial level). Data would need to be collected using these analytical methods before
the reliability of this approach could be definitively determined, as these measurements
have not typically been done in sediments in the past.
It is worth noting that narcosis theory applies not only to bulk petroleum hydrocarbons, but
also to any lipophilic compound that does not have a specific mode of action.
Toxicologically speaking, narcosis effects would manifest as the sum of all such
compounds. Narcosis-based water quality guidelines have been derived for pulp mill
effluents as well as petroleum products in the Netherlands, for example. However,
determining the molar concentrations of such complex mixtures requires monitoring and
analytical techniques that are not currently in use in the United States. Nevertheless, it may
be reasonable to add certain chemicals that are already being measured and are expected to
have narcotic effects, such as phthalates and dibenzofuran, to the sum.
-------
REFERENCES:
Abernathy, S.G., D. Mackay, and L.S. McCarty. 1988. "Volume Fraction" Correlation for
Narcosis in Aquatic Organisms: The Key Role of Partitioning. Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry. 7:469-481.
Bay, S., D. Vidal, K. Ritter, P. Myre, J. Field, and T. Michelsen. 2004. Investigation of
Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Management of Contaminated Sediments in the Los
Angeles Area. Prepared by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project for the
Los Angeles Contaminates Sediments Task Force, Los Angeles, CA.
Bobra, A.M., W.Y. Shiu, and D. Mackay. 1985. Quantitative Structure-Activity
Relationships for the Acute Toxicity of Chlorobenzenes. In: Daphnia magna - Review.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 4:297-306.
Call, D.J., L.T. Brooke, M.L. Knuth, S.H. Poirier, and M.D. Hoglund. 1985. Fish
Subchronic Toxicity Prediction Model for Industrial Organic Chemicals that Produce
Narcosis. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 4:335-341.
Deneer, J.W., T.L. Sinnege, W. Seinen, and J.L.M. Hermens. 1988. The Joint Acute
Toxicity to Daphnia magna of Industrial Organic Chemicals at Low Concentrations. Aquat.
Toxicol. 12:33-38.
DiToro, D.M., DJ. Hansen, J.A. McGrath, R.C. Swartz, D.R. Mount, R.M. Burgess, RJ.
Ozretich, H.E. Bell, M.C. Reiley, and T.K. Linton. 2000. Equilibrium Partitioning
Sediment Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: PAH Mixtures.
Prepared by Hydroqual for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science
and Technology and Office of Research and Development.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2003. Development of Freshwater
Sediment Quality Values for Use in Washington State. Prepared by Avocet Consulting for
Washington Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program, Olympia WA.
EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1988. Estimating Toxicity of Industrial
Chemicals to Aquatic Organisms Using Structure Activity Relationships. R.G. Clements,
Ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC. EPA-560-6-88-001.
Ferguson,!. 1939. The Use of Chemical Potentials as Indices of Toxicity. Proc. Royal
Society of London 1278:387-404.
Franks, N. and W. Lieb. 1978. Where do General Anaesthetics Act? Nature. 274:339-342.
Germano Assts. 2003. An Update of Sediment Screening Guidelines for Wetland
Creation/Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Material in San Francisco Bay. Prepared for Port of
Oakland, Oakland, CA.
-------
Hermens, J., H. Canton, P. Janssen, and R. de Jong. 1984. Quantitative Structure-Activity
Relationships and Toxicity Studies of Mixtures of Chemicals with Anaesthetic Potency:
Acute Lethal and Sublethal Toxicity to Daphnia magna. Aquat. Toxicol. 5:143-154.
Hermens, J., E. Brockhuyzen, H. Canton, and R. Wegman. 1985a. Quantitative Structure
Activity Relationships and Mixture Toxicity Studies of Alcohols and Chlorohydrocarbons:
Effects on Growth of Daphnia magna. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 4:273-279.
Hermens, J., P. Leeuwangh, and A. Musch. 1985b. Joint Toxicity of Mixtures of Groups of
Organic Aquatic Pollutants to the Guppy (Poecilia reticulatd). Ecotox. Environ. Safety.
9:321-326.
Mackay, D. and A.I. Hughes. 1984. Three-Parameter Equation Describing the Uptake of
Organic Compounds by Fish. Environmental Science and Technology. 18:439-444.
MADEP (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection). 2002. Characterizing
Risks Posed by Petroleum Contaminated Sites: Implementation of the MADEP VPH/EPH
Approach. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Boston, MA. Policy
#WSC-02-411.
McCarty, L.S. 1991. Toxicant Body Residues: Implications for Aquatic Bioassays with
Some Organic Chemicals. In: Aquatic Toxicology and Risk Assessment, 14th Volume.
M. A. Mayes and M.G. Barren, Eds. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM
STP 1124, Philadelphia, PA.
McCarty, L.S., D. Mackay, A.D. Smith, G.W. Ozburn, and D.G. Dixon. 1992. Residue-
Based Interpretation of Toxicity and Bioconcentration QSARs from Aquatic Bioassays:
Neutral Narcotic Organics. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 11:917-930.
McCarty, L.S. and D. Mackay. 1993. Enhancing Ecotoxicological Modeling and
Assessment. Environmental Science and Technology. 27(9):1718-1729.
McGowan, J. 1952. The Physical Toxicity of Chemicals. II. Factors Affecting Physical
Toxicity in Aqueous Solutions. J. Appl. Chem. 2:323-328.
Rogerson, A., W.Y. Shiu, G.L. Huang, D. Mackay, and J. Berger. 1983. Determination and
Interpretation of Hydrocarbon Toxicity to Ciliate Protozoa. Aquatic Toxicology. 3:215-228.
-------
RECOMMENDATION:
Proposed Next Steps
Policy committee and broader RSET discussion of these issues in September
2004 with comments forwarded to the SQG and Analyte subcommittees.
Analyte subcommittee to evaluate "doability" of VPH/EPH approaches in the
region with respect to laboratories and costs, types of information obtained, and
how well it matches the needs of the toxicity models available; one question of
particular interest is whether the majority of sediment-related bulk petroleum
would be found in the EPH fraction, thus reducing the cost of the analysis.
SQG subcommittee to look at policy implications of changing from PAH to any
bulk approach with respect to use of older data and development of new
guidelines (it may be possible to develop them based on narcosis information
already in the literature, followed by field-verification over time).
SQG subcommittee also to eventually decide whether bulk measurements should 1) not be
used, 2) replace PAHs, 3) be added to PAHs as SQGs, and in what form (e.g., dry weight
vs. molar sums).
Interim Recommendations:
Continue to evaluate petroleum at marine sites based on existing PAH criteria,
and at freshwater sites based on criteria as recommended by the SQG
subcommittee (currently under review).
Consider bulk petroleum as a "Chemical of Special Occurrence" (per Section
8.4.2 of DMEF) at sites where petroleum is potentially a major issue (e.g., crude
oil or fuel spills, waterfront tank, or pipeline leaks). EPH/VPH is the
recommended analytical method as it provides differentiation of aliphatic and
aromatic carbon ranges. Traditional bulk TPH analysis may be used as a
screening tool to help map the distribution of bulk petroleum, but provides little
value in predicting sediment toxicity.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE: None yet available
LIST OF PREPARERS: Teresa Michelsen, Avocet Consulting and Jennifer Sutter,
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #3 - Chemical Summation Techniques
CHEMICAL ANALYTE LIST SUBCOMMITTEE: T Thornburg, Chair
(tthornburg@anchorenv. com): August 2, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: Is the current chemical summation method used by Washington
State Sediment Management Standards (SMS) and Corps Puget Sound Dredged
Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) program for total PCBs (Aroclors), total PAHs, and total
DDTs appropriate for inclusion as the default method in the new SEF?
DISCUSSION:
Standard procedure for Washington State SMS and Corps PSDDA process is to sum
detected concentrations only. If all results are non-detected, the total is the highest
individual detection limit.
If the summation procedure is changed, it may affect current screening criteria (AETs, etc).
Originally, Ecology's summation procedure was different from the Corps'; therefore,
screening criteria had to be recalculated.
SEDQUAL is currently using the Corps/ SMS procedure for summation. Qualified values,
i.e.
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #4 - Evaluation of Modern Pesticides in Sediments
CHEMICAL ANALYTE SUBCOMMITTEE: T Thornburg, Chair
(tthornburg@anchorenv. com): August 2, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: Are modern pesticides (e.g., organophosphorus, carbamates,
triazines, etc.) accumulating in sediments at potentially toxic levels? Should certain
modern pesticides be listed as "chemicals of special occurrence" to be considered for
evaluation in areas affected by agricultural runoff?
DISCUSSION: The persistence of modern pesticides, and their ability to accumulate in
sediments at potentially toxic levels, is not well studied. Sediment sampling for modern
pesticides in areas affected by agricultural runoff is rare; recent sediment sampling of the
Lower Snake River by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Walla Walla District has
shown common detections of only one modern pesticide, linuron, which is a phenyl urea
compound. This issue paper provides a review of agricultural usage rates, environmental
occurrence, and chemical properties that may be used to prioritize modern pesticides on a
project-specific basis for further evaluation. Because no sediment quality guidelines are
available for these chemicals, they would be classified as "chemicals of special
occurrence," and would be analyzed during agency investigations or monitoring programs
and where there is a "reason to believe" they are present, primarily in areas affected by
agricultural runoff. After sufficient data have been collected (including synoptic chemistry
and bioassay data), these chemicals may be evaluated to determine whether they contribute
to sediment toxicity, and if so, whether the observed effects are predictable enough to
support the development of screening levels.
The modern pesticides database is compiled in Table 1. This table contains chemical
properties, usage data, environmental occurrence, and other parameters that are used to
help prioritize the need for further study of these chemicals.
Chemicals of Interest:
Based on research conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 1997, 2002) in
Willamette and Yakima Valleys, the following types of pesticides are in common use in the
Pacific Northwest:
Organophosphorus
Carbamates
Thiocarbamates
Phenyl Urea
Triazine Compounds
Others
Methods of Analysis:
Numerous methods are available for analysis of modern pesticides. Because of the diversity
of types of modern pesticides, no one method provides comprehensive coverage. Also,
certain pesticides may be analyzed by customization of existing EPA methods (e.g. 8081 or
8270), whereas others are not clearly associated with any EPA method.
-------
Approximate costs and practical quantitation limits (PQLs) for commercial analysis of
sediment by the various pesticide methods is provided below:
EPA 8081 (OC Pests): $160 [PQL ~ 1 to 5 ppb]
EPA 8141 (OP Pests): $190 [PQL ~ 10 to 50 ppb]
EPA 8151 (OC Herbicides): $200 [PQL ~ 10 to 50 ppb]
EPA 8270 (Semivolatiles): $400 [PQL ~ 50 to 100 ppb]
EPA8318(Carbamates): $170 [PQL ~ 100 ppb]
EPA 8321 (Phenyl Urea): $250 [PQL ~ 25 ppb]
Although each analysis alone is not particularly expensive, to run all possible pesticide
methods could run well over $1,000. The Walla Walla District has successfully analyzed a
fairly broad suite of pesticides (organochlorine, organophosphorus, and organonitrogen)
using a customized 8270 analysis. This may have some application as a fairly inexpensive
reconnaissance method, because 8270 analysis is already required for many sediment
characterization projects to quantify PAHs, phenols, and other organic compounds.
However, there may be some loss of sensitivity with 8270 compared to other methods such
as 8141.
Evaluation Criteria:
Pesticide evaluation criteria are summarized in Table 1 and described briefly below.
Agricultural Application Rates. Application rates (pounds applied per year to the Yakima
or Willamette basin study areas) have been estimated by the USGS. Because the climate,
crop types, and cropping practices are different on the east and west sides of the Cascades,
the two areas are characterized by different pesticide usage rates and preferences.
Detection in River Water. Detection frequencies of modern pesticides in rivers and streams
in the Willamette and Yakima basins are summarized in Table 1. Water quality statistics
(50th and 90th percentiles, and maximum concentrations) are also presented. Similar to the
geographic differences in pesticide usage, the river waters in the eastern and western study
areas are characterized by different suites of detected pesticides.
Detection in River Sediment. Some of the most comprehensive studies of modern
pesticides in Pacific Northwest sediments have been performed by the USAGE Walla
Walla District (2003). At sites on the Lower Snake River and near the Clearwater River
confluence, linuron was the only modern pesticide detected, at concentrations ranging from
28 to 77 ug/kg. Using equilibrium partitioning theory, based on an interim Environment
Canada (1999) aquatic life criterion of 7 ug/L, and an average sediment organic carbon
content of 2 percent, an estimated sediment screening value for linuron is 210 ug/kg. Thus,
the observed linuron concentrations do not appear to be high enough to cause adverse
biological effects.
Exceedence of Water Quality Criteria. EPA water quality criteria are only available for
some organophosphorus pesticides (EPA 2002). Water quality criteria for certain other
-------
modern pesticides have been developed by Environment Canada (2002). A thorough
review of the basis and applicability of the Canadian values is beyond the scope of this
paper. The maximum detected concentrations for a few pesticides exceeded their aquatic
life criteria; however, in all but one instance, the 90th percentile concentrations did not
exceed the criteria. The one exception is azinphos-methyl (guthion), an organophosphorus
pesticide; in the Yakima basin, the 50th and 90th percentile concentrations of this pesticide
exceeded the EPA chronic criterion. Aside from this one constituent in Yakima, this
evaluation suggests occasional water quality excursions are possible, probably close to the
area of application, but exceedences are not ubiquitous or routine, and are likely short-
lived.
Hydrophobicity. The organic-carbon partitioning coefficient (Koc) is a measure of the
hydrophobicity of modern pesticides. Log Koc values are low to moderately low, ranging
from 1.24 to 3.63. By comparison, the log Koc value for DDE is about 100 to 10,000 times
higher (5.44). In general, modern pesticides are not strongly hydrophobic, and will exhibit
a weak tendency to adsorb to sediments.
Environmental Persistence. Environmental persistence is expressed in terms of half life,
based primarily on empirical lab or field experiments (SRC 2004). The half lives of
modern pesticides are relatively short, ranging from a few days or a few months, to a
maximum of about 1.5 years. By comparison, the half life of DDE is about 10 to 100 times
longer15 to 25 years. Based on these data, modern pesticides will degrade relatively
quickly in the environment, through biodegradation, hydrolysis, and other processes.
REFERENCES:
Environment Canada. 2002. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines.
http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/el 06.pdf
Syracuse Research Corporation, Environmental Fate Database CHEMFATE, and
BIODEG. Sponsored by EPA and maintained by Dr. Philip Howard.
http://www.syrres.com/esc/efdb.htm
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. National Recommended Water
Quality Criteria, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, EPA-822-R-02-047.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1997. Distribution of Dissolved Pesticides and Other
Water Quality Constituents in Small Streams, and Their Relation to Land Use in the
Willamette River Basin, Oregon. 1996. Prepared by C.W. Anderson, T.M. Wood, and
J.L. Morace, Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4268, Portland, OR.
USGS. 2002. Pesticides in Surface Water of the Yakima River Basin, Washington,
1999-2000Their Occurrence and an Assessment of Factors Affecting Concentrations
and Loads. Prepared by J.C. Ebbert and S.S. Embrey, Water-Resources Investigations
Report 01-4211, Portland, OR.
-------
RECOMMENDATION: Modern pesticides appear to pose a relatively low risk of
sediment toxicity, but may deserve further study in areas dominated by agricultural land
use and runoff. In general, modern pesticides are short lived in the environment and
exhibit a weak tendency to adsorb to sediments. In river and stream samples,
exceedences of water quality criteria are uncommon. Sediment samples collected by the
Walla Walla District to date have detected only linuron, at concentrations below those
likely to cause adverse effects.
Organophosphorus pesticides have the highest ranking for further evaluation, because 1)
these chemicals are in common use in both Willamette and Yakima basins; 2) these
chemicals have somewhat higher partitioning coefficients (2.67 to 3.63) compared to
many other modern pesticides; 3) these chemicals have some of the more stringent
aquatic life criteria, and the only domestic (i.e., EPA derived) aquatic life criteria; and 4)
azinphos-methyl (guthion) was the one pesticide that exceeded aquatic life criteria in a
large percentage of samples from the Yakima basin. Triazine compounds are a secondary
priority for study, because these are among the compounds most frequently detected in
agricultural river water on both sides of the Cascades. Organophosphorus and triazine
compounds may be analyzed using either EPA Method 8141 or a customized Method
8270. Method 8141 is recommended because it appears to provide better sensitivity.
The need to analyze other types of modern pesticides may be determined on a case-by-
case basis. For example, the Walla Walla District may continue to monitor linuron in
sediments of the Lower Snake River, based on detections in previous sampling events.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE:
8.4.2. Chemicals of Special Occurrence.
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #5 - TEF Methods for Wildlife
CHEMICAL ANALYTE LIST SUBCOMMITTEE: T Thornburg, Chair
(tthornburg@anchorenv.com): August 6, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: Summarize existing information and recommendations for use of
dioxin-like toxicity equivalency factors (TEFs) for assessing risks to humans and
wildlife from exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), PCDDs, and PCDFs. Are
TEFs for wildlife ready for prime time?
DISCUSSION: A procedure for assessing the toxicity to humans of a mixture of dioxins
and furans has been developed. This method utilizes TEFs for adjusting the potency values
of individual dioxin/furan isomers and PCB congeners relative to 2,3,7,8-TCDD and derives
a "summed" 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalent concentration of these compounds. These
compounds comprise a class of chemicals that include several hundred compounds in
closely related families; the chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs), chlorinated
dibenzofurans (CDFs), and certain PCBs.
For the SEF, depending on the need for analyzing for dioxins/furans, the TEF methodology
can be used for analytical data for these compounds collected in either bulk sediment or fish
tissue to estimate exposure. The SEF will only recommend PCB Congener analysis for fish
tissue, and the discussion of PCB Congener TEFs is limited to this application.
Central to the use of the TEF methodology is that all the compounds that are summed to
derive the 2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalence must have the same mechanism of toxicity. For
PCBs, dioxins, and furans, the common toxic mechanism of action is that all these
compounds require the presence of a cytosolic aryl hydrocarbon receptor (Ah-R). All these
compounds act as ligands to the Ah-R, and this binding to the Ah-R is a necessary first step
in initiating any dioxin-like toxic effects. Also central to the TEF approach is the concept of
additivity. Not only does there need to be a clear understanding of the relative potencies of
individual isomers/congeners relative to 2,3,7,8-TCDD, but it MUST be assumed that they
all work through an additive model of toxicity to exert their dioxin-like effects (i.e., all
toxicity is Ah-R mediated).
For human health, the TEFs that have been developed by the World Health Organization are
currently being used to assess human health impacts from exposure to "dioxin-like"
compounds (EPA 1994). These TEFs currently are available for CDD and CDF isomers.
For wildlife, EPA has reviewed the use of TEFs and has proposed a draft set of TEFs for
mammals, birds, and fish that include TEFs for CDDs, CDFs, and twelve dioxin-like PCB
congeners (EPA 1993, 2003). The greatest challenge in the evaluating whether these TEFs
are scientifically justified for use is the uncertainty associated with the derivation of these
TEFs relative to the uncertainty associated with other aspects of the ecological risk
assessment process (EPA 2003).
-------
It should be noted that the relative sensitivity to dioxin-like toxicity among species that
posses the Ah-R varies greatly, even within taxonomic class (Eisler 2000). For example,
the sensitivity of bird species tested to date to TCDD-induced embryo mortality varies by
about 200-fold, with domestic chickens generally more sensitive than wildlife species (EPA
2003). Similar differences have been observed amongst mammals and fish. Therefore,
there are relative potency issues within a particular species and inter-species differences in
sensitivity to dioxin-like toxicity.
The relative sensitivity of animal classes is not constant across chemical class either. For
example, while fish are generally more sensitive to PCDDs and PCDFs relative to birds and
mammals, they are much less sensitive to mono-ortho-substituted PCBs (EPA 2003).
Amphibians, reptiles, and primitive fish are relatively insensitive to dioxin-like chemicals.
Although Ah-R homologs have been identified in amphibians and primitive fish, their
toxicological significance is unknown. It has also been demonstrated that a wide variety of
invertebrates, including amphipods, cladocerans, midges, mosquito larvae, sandworms,
oligochaete worms, snails, clams, and grass shrimp, are insensitive to 2,3,7,8-TCDD
induced toxicity (EPA 2003).
Therefore, the application of TEFs for wildlife species presents additional complexities that
were not encountered in the development of TEFs for a single species (Humans). In
addition, the two fundamental assumptions in the use of TEFs have not been verified as
being true for all wildlife species being considered; the assumption that all toxicity
associated with the CDD, CDF, and PCBs are related to Ah-R interactions (there is some
evidence of reproductive and other toxic endpoints that may be derived from other toxic
mechanisms); and the assumption that the individual potencies of isomers/congers are
additive.
The potential development of appropriate TEFs for wildlife is an exciting opportunity for
addressing potential risks from this complex class of persistent compounds. Additional data
in the form of laboratory and field verification of some of the assumptions in the proposed
EPA methodology over the next few years should help RSET assess the technical
defensibility of this approach and whether it is ready for recommendation for use in the
Pacific Northwest.
-------
REFERENCES:
Eisler, R. 2000. Handbook of Chemical Risk Assessment: Health Hazards to Humans,
Plants, and Animals. Volume 2; Organics. Lewis publishers.
EPA(US Environmental Protection Agency). 1987. Interim Procedures for Estimating
Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and
dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs). Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/625/3-87/012. March
1987.
EPA. 1993. Interim Report on Data and Methods for Assessment of 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Risks to Aquatic Life and Associated Wildlife. Office of
Research and Development. EPA/600/R-93/055. March 1993.
EPA. 1994. Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds: Volume I: Executive
Summary. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/6-88/005Ca.
EPA. 2003. Framework for Application of the Toxicity Equivalence Methodology for
Polychlorinated Dioxins, Furans, and Biphenyls in Ecological Risk Assessment. External
Review Draft. EPA/630/P-03/002A. June 2003.
Tillit, D.E. 1999. The Toxic Equivalents Approach for Fish and Wildlife. Human and
Ecological Risk Assessment: Vol. 5 (1). Pp. 25-32.
RECOMMENDATION: Use of TEFs for assessing human health risks from CDDs and
CDFs that interact with the cytosolic aryl hydrocarbon receptor (Ah-R) are well established
and accepted. The EPA draft wildlife TEFs have only been recently developed and there
are still considerable uncertainties in their application in ecological risk assessments. RSET
can possibly present these approaches in an appendix with a discussion of uncertainties, but
wildlife TEFs are still a few years from being ready for general use. Additional field and
laboratory validation studies need to be completed to ensure that the assumptions inherent in
the Wildlife TEFs are acceptable and correct.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE: For risk assessment purposes, the use of TEFs for addressing
human health impacts from exposure to "dioxin-like" compounds is relatively well
established and has been approved by EPA, as well as international organizations (e.g.,
World Health Organization). Recently, there have been attempts to develop similar TEFs
for addressing ecological risks and draft TEFs for CDDs, CDFs, and twelve PCB congeners
have been developed for mammals, birds, and fish (EPA 2003). Because these are still draft
values and uncertainty in the underlying toxicological principles for their use exists, it is
recommended that they not be adopted by RSET at this time. These TEFs can be used a
part of a weight-of-evidence approach for estimating ecological risk, but they should not be
relied upon alone to make ecological risk decisions. There should be more information
coming out with the review of this draft EPA document that may help address the
uncertainties and provide a more technically defensible methodology for addressing
ecological risks from these compounds. Additional field and laboratory validation studies
need to be completed to ensure the assumptions inherent in the wildlife TEFs are acceptable
and correct.
LIST OF PREPARERS: Taku Fuji, Ph.D., Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #6 - PCB Analysis
CHEMICAL ANALYTE LIST SUBCOMMITTEE: T Thornburg, Chair
(tthornburg@anchorenv. com): August 10, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: PCB Analysis.
DISCUSSION:
Background: Currently, the DMEF contains screening levels (Screening Levels [SLs], Maximum
Levels [MLs], and Bioaccumulation Triggers [BTs]) for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in
sediments based on total PCBs. Recent advances in risk assessment for PCBs have indicated that
risk to humans and wildlife associated with PCBs may not be well-represented by a total PCB
value. In particular, it may only be possible to accurately assess dioxin-like cancer risk using PCB
congener data. This may require analyzing for all or a subset of the 209 congeners that are
considered PCBs. On the other hand, risks to benthic invertebrates may be well-characterized by a
total PCB value, because it is expected to occur through a narcosis mechanism rather than through
the Ah receptor, which is absent in invertebrates.
Issue: The science associated with evaluating bioaccumulative risks from PCBs has advanced
considerably since the development of the marine AETs and the original PSDDA BTs, both of
which are currently included in the DMEF manual. At this time, there is a consensus among the
Analyte Subcommittee that it is time to begin incorporating this new knowledge base into our
regulatory framework. Specifically, the committee has discussed whether sediments and/or tissue
should be analyzed for PCB congeners, considering the value of the information this would provide
us, the practical implications of doing so, and the cost associated with congener analyses.
The cost to analyze for PCB congeners is significantly greater than the cost for standard PCB
arochlor or homologue analysis (Table 1). However, this information, particularly in tissues, is
considered necessary in order to conduct risk assessments for the bioaccumulative pathways. On
the other hand, the committee does not consider it necessary to obtain congener data for sediments,
because risks to the benthic community are better modeled through a total PCB (or narcosis-based)
pathway. These recommendations affect the SQG and Bioaccumulation Subcommittees' work,
who would then need to formulate sediment and/or tissue standards accordingly.
There will be issues related to calculation of site-specific cleanup or dredging criteria based on
analysis of tissues and calculation of bioaccumulative risks associated with tissues, if sediments
and tissues are analyzed in different ways. However, these issues are unavoidable to some extent
even if congeners are analyzed in both sediments and tissues, because the pattern of congeners
present in each is affected by disproportionate accumulation of congeners with varying molecular
weights. As an alternative, the committee recommends using methods recently developed (Nedoff
et al. 2004, NOAA 1989) to estimate total PCBs in tissues from congener data, and back-calculate
to sediment concentrations based on these estimates (Table 2). Alternatively, GIS-based methods
can be used to evaluate the areas and extent to which PCBs in sediments need to be lowered to
reduce overall exposure concentrations within a species' home range to levels that should reduce
tissue concentrations to acceptable risk levels.
-------
Because of the higher costs associated with congener analysis and the more time-consuming
procedures associated with collecting tissue data, the determination of the need to evaluate this
contaminant becomes more critical. Before PCB tissue congener analysis is determined to be
necessary, there should be a "reason to believe" that PCBs may pose an unacceptable
bioaccumulation risk. In addition, any existing tissue data for the watershed should be considered
in determining whether PCBs may present an unacceptable bioaccumulation risk. These issues are
currently being evaluated in the Bioaccumulation Subcommittee (see Issue Paper #16: Framework
for Assessing Bioaccumulation Under RSET).
Proposal:
1. Sediments would continue to be analyzed for total PCBs. This is the best determinant
of direct toxicity to benthos.
2. Tissue would be analyzed for PCB congeners for assessment of risks to fish and
bioaccumulative risks. Options include laboratory bioaccumulation tests, in situ testing
using caged bivalves/fish, and collection of resident species from the area.
3. Recent research would be used to correlate total PCB values in sediments to an
equivalent total PCB value based on congener results in tissue, should it be necessary to
do so to establish site-specific cleanup levels in sediment based on bioaccumulation
pathways.
Next Steps:
1. Sediment Guideline Subcommittee and Bioaccumulation Subcommittee to develop
appropriate screening levels for total PCBs in sediment and PCB congeners in tissue, as
well as criteria for establishing "reason to believe" that PCBs may pose an unacceptable
bioaccumulation risk.
2. With input from the Bioaccumulation Subcommittee on target tissue levels for PCB
congeners, the Chemical Analyte Subcommittee will recommend an analytical method
which provides an appropriate level of sensitivity (see White Paper #8, PCB Analytical
Methods).
3. Efforts should be made to document existing tissue and sediment data on PCB
concentrations for watersheds in the Northwest. In particular, congener analysis should
be compiled in a database and made easily accessible to parties who may be involved in
dredging or environmental investigations.
4. An outreach effort to the Department of Health should be initiated to determine how
they plan to evaluate PCBs in tissue and the levels they will use to establish fish
advisories.
-------
REFERENCES:
Nedoff J.A., Kennedy LJ, Williams BA. 2004. How Many PCB Congeners are Really Needed to
Estimate Totals? Platform presentation at the Pacific Northwest SETAC Conference, Port
Townsend, Washington. April 14-16,2004. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, San Francisco,
California.
NOAA (National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration). 1989. Standard Analytical Procedures of
the NOAA National Analytical Facility. 2nd ed. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-92, 1985-86.
Contact: National
Status and Trends Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
NOAA N/OMA32, 11400 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE:
Section 8.4.1
ซAdd the following paragraphป
Different analytical methods are required for analysis of PCBs in bulk sediment and tissue
matrices. Bulk sediment will be analyzed for Aroclor composition using EPA Method 8082. If
bioaccumulation testing is required, tissue samples will be analyzed for individual congeners
(or a subset of congeners) using EPA Method [8082 or 1668, to be determined].
Table 8-2.
Revise Table 8-2 to add PCB congener method for tissue analysis and add footnote explaining
different methods will be used for bulk sediment and tissue analysis.
Table 1. PCB Analytical Methods and Costs
Method
EPA 8082
EPA 680
Detector
BCD,
Dual column
for
confirmation
Mass Spec
Detection
limits
~0. 1-0.3 ug/kg
-0.2 ug/kg
Cost
$225-350
$400-600
Analytes
detected**
-62 congeners
with one
injection (dual
column), All
19 Coplanars
Comments
Possible
interference
include
chlorinated
pesticides,
phthalates,
polychlorinated
terphenyls
Some problems
with
identification due
to co-elutions
and presence of
PCTs or other
similar analytes
-------
EPA 1668
Krahn et al,
1994
Hi Res MS ~0.002-0.050 $750-1150
ug/kg
HPLC/ -1-4 ug/kg $425-560
Photodiode
array
All 209 Most
congeners, All comprehensive
19 Coplanars based on
detection
selectivity
16 congeners, Limited
12 Coplanars availability,
77,105,118, Possible
126,128,138, interference by
156, 157, 169, PCTs, and
170, 180, and PCNaphthalenes
189
Typically dependent on the number of congeners requested.
**A11 methods include some co-elutions.
The 19 PCB co-planar congeners are:
Co-planars: Nos. 77, 81, 126, 169,
Mono-ortho coplanars: Nos. 60, 105, 114, 118, 123, 156, 157, 167, 189
Di-ortho co-planars: Nos. 128, 138, 158, 166, 170, 180
PCB Congener co-elution is not a static condition, and will vary between laboratories based on GC operating
conditions, column conditions, etc., while still adhereing to the guidance put forth by the EPA methodology.
Table 2. PCB Congener Lists that Account for 80 Percent and 50 Percent of
Total Congeners in Seven Sample Types* Collected from Portland Harbor
80% List
1
4
1 8/30**
20/28
31
40/41/71
44/47/65
49/69
52
56
61/70/74/76
64
66
83/99
84
85/116/117
86/87/97/1 08/1 1 9/1 25
90/101/113
92
93/95/98/100/102
105
110/115
118
50% List
44/47/65
52
61/70/74/76
66
83/99
86/87/97/108/119/125
90/101/113
93/95/98/100/102
110/115
118
Congener on list
from only one
matrix
crayfish
crayfish
sculpin
sediment
sediment
sediment
NOAAList(18)
18
20
44
52
66
90
105
118
12 Dioxin-
like
(coplanar)
105
118
-------
128/166
129/138/160/163
132
135/151/154
136
141
146
147/149
153/168
156
158
170
171/173
174
177
178
179
180/193
183/185
187
194
196
198/199
83 congeners not including
coplanars not in 80% list
77
81
114
123
126
157
167
169
189
92 including coplanars not in
top 80% list
129/138/160/163
135/151/154
1 47/1 49
1 53/1 68
156
170
174
1 80/1 93
187
45 congeners not including
coplanars not in 50% list
77
81
114
123
126
157
167
169
189
54 including coplanars not
in 50% list
sediment
carp
carp
crayfish
bullhead
carp
bullhead
carp
128
129
153
170
180
187
156
8
77
126
169
18 total
77
81
114
123
126
157
167
169
189
1 2 total
* Seven sample types for which PCS Congener data were available in Round 1:
Sediment, Crayfish, Sculpin, Smallmouth Bass, Black Crappie, Brown Bullhead, and Carp (tissues were whole
body)
** X/X/X Indicates group of coeluting congeners.
Highlighted cells indicate dioxin-like congeners.
Congener counts include coeluting congeners.
Methods:
1. Averaged the detected concentrations of each congener in each sample type
2. Totaled the average concentrations for each sample type (total PCS value)
3. Normalized the concentration against the total for each detected congener (% of total)
-------
4. Ranked the congeners from highest to lowest normalized concentration (%)
5. Determined which congeners accounted for 80% and 50% of total for each sample type
6. Compiled list of all congeners in top 80% and top 50% for each sample type
Notes:
A. If apply 80% list to averaged, normalized list (in step 4), result is 86 - 89% of total for each sample type
Multiply total from 80% list by 1.2 to get total PCBs as congeners
B. If apply 50% list to averaged, normalized list (in step 4), result is 65 - 70% of total for each sample type
Multiply total from 50% list by 1.5 to get total PCBs as congeners
LIST OF PREPARERS: Jennifer Sutter, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and
Teresa Michelsen, Avocet Consulting
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #8 - PCB Analytical Methods
CHEMICAL ANALYTE LIST SUBCOMMITTEE: T Thornburg, Chair
(tthornburg@anchorenv. com): August 15, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: What methods should be used to evaluate polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB) concentrations in sediments and tissues, and should the concentration
determinations include Aroclor and/or Congener concentrations?
DISCUSSION: Although some degree of PCB Aroclor degradation can occur in sediments,
in most instances the Aroclor can be identified based upon its analytical pattern. In tissues,
PCB Aroclors undergo a much more significant degradation due to biological processes,
making identification and quantification of parent Aroclors difficult. It is recommended that
sediments are analyzed for PCB Aroclors, and tissue samples be analyzed for PCB Congeners
to determine the extent of PCB contamination (see paper by Sutler and Michelsen for
additional technical rationale regarding aroclor versus congener analysis). EPA Method 8082
(GC/ECD) will be used to analyze for Aroclors in sediment and may also be used to analyze
congers in tissue. In instances where toxicological evaluation requires lower detection limits,
EPA Method 1668 (Hi Res GC/MS) can be used. The selection of Method 8082 versus
Method 1668 for PCB congener analysis will need to consider detection limits, cost, and
commercial availability. Therefore, a final decision on method selection awaits the
development of target tissue levels for PCB congeners by the Bioaccumulation
Subcommittee.
REFERENCES: None
RECOMMENDATION: Text and table revisions to specify methods of analysis for PCB
congeners in tissue, pending development of target tissue levels for PCB congeners by the
Bioaccumulation Subcommittee.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE:
Method
EPA
8082
EPA 680
Detector
ECD,
Dual column
for
confirmation
Mass Spec
Detection
limits
-0.1-0.3
ug/kg
-0.2 ug/kg
Cost
$225-350
$400-600
Analytes
detected**
-62 congeners
with one
injection (dual
column), All
19 Coplanars
Comments
Possible
interference
include
chlorinated
pesticides,
phthalates,
polychlorinated
terphenyls
Some problems
with
-------
EPA
1668
Krahn et
al, 1994
Hi Res MS
HPLC/
Photodiode
array
-0.002-
0.050 ug/kg
~l-4ug/kg
$750-
1150
$425-560
All 209
congeners, All
19 Coplanars
16 congeners,
12 Coplanars
77, 105, 118,
126, 128, 138,
156, 157, 169,
170, 180, and
189
identification due
to co-elutions
and presence of
PCTs or other
similar analytes
Most
comprehensive
based on
detection
selectivity
Limited
availability,
Possible
interference by
PCTs, and
PCNaphthalenes
*Typically dependent on the number of congeners requested.
**A11 methods include some co-elutions.
The 19 PCB co-planar congeners are:
Co-planars: Nos. 77, 81, 126, 169,
Mono-ortho coplanars: Nos. 60, 105, 114, 118, 123, 156, 157, 167, 189
Di-ortho co-planars: Nos. 128, 138, 158, 166, 170, 180
PCB Congener co-elution is not a static condition, and will vary between laboratories based
on GC operating conditions, column conditions, etc., while still adhereing to the guidance
put forth by the EPA methodology.
LIST OF PREPARERS: Gregory Salata, CAS; Roger McGinnis, Hart Crowser;
Lyndel Johnson, NOAA
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #9 - SQG Cost Effectiveness / Reliability
SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES SUBCOMMITTEE: B.Betts , Chair
(bbet461 @ecy.wa.gov): August 2, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: How has cost-effectiveness and environmental reliability been
evaluated in the development of sediment quality guidelines and a recommended
routine analytes list? Has the most cost-effective and reliable set of guidelines been
recommended?
DISCUSSION: Currently, the RSET Analyte Subcommittee is developing
recommendations for key chemical analytes/groups for routine analysis. These
recommendations will not encompass all chemicals of concern, but rather specific chemicals
or groups of particular concern (e.g., PCBs, PAHs and pesticides).
Regionally, Ecology completed development of freshwater sediment quality guidelines in
September 2003. Ecology's report identifies recommended routine analytes for freshwater
sediment analysis/evaluation based on thorough reliability analyses (i.e., ability of specific
chemical guidelines to accurately predict regional biological effects).
REFERENCES:
Author??. Phase II Report: Development and Recommendation of SQVs for Freshwater
Sediments in Washington State, September 2003, Publication No. 03-09-088.
RECOMMENDATION: The two RSET development efforts will be combined in the
short-term future to evaluate cost-effectiveness and reliability. Cost-effectiveness may be
evaluated using primary and alternative lists of recommended chemicals of concern for
routine analyses. Cost-effectiveness recommendations may be based in-part on
consideration of chemical detection frequency, chemical relationship to regional/national
bio-effects, persistence, bioaccumulation, and other considerations.
Regionally, reliability analyses have been completed for regionally available, synoptic
sediment chemical, and bioassay data. The reliability analyte lists may be independently
evaluated for cost-effectiveness.
Because two lists may soon be available (i.e., recommended analytes and recommended
guidelines), evaluation of cost-effectiveness should address the relationship between these
two lists.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE: None yet available
LIST OF PREPARERS: Brett Betts, Washington Department of Ecology
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #10 - Develop Regional Data Compilation/Database Structure
SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES SUBCOMMITTEE: B.Betts , Chair
(bbet461 @ecy.wa.gov): August 2, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: How should a regional sediment quality data compilation be
stored? What is the recommended sediment quality data structure for regional
sediment data?
DISCUSSION: Three regional sediment data systems currently exist in the Northwest:
DAIS, Query Manager and SEDQUAL. DAIS is a USACE, Seattle District application that
includes dredged material data for Seattle District only. Query Manager is a NOAA data
system that is primarily national in scope and uses a watershed approach to compile and
review data. Sedqual is an Ecology application that has compiled multi-program sediment
data since 1989. Sedqual contains data from multiple west coast states, primarily
Washington and Oregon. Sedqual's relational data structure has remained essentially the
same since 1995. The Sedqual data file, application, and data submittal templates are
publicly available online at Ecology's website Web address???.
REFERENCES:
NEED FULL REFERENCE
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sedqualfirst.htm
RECOMMENDATION: The SQG Subcommittee recommended use of Sedqual to the
RSET Policy Committee in September 2003. Sedqual is still recommended to compile
regional sediment quality data from all regulatory, investigation, status and trend, and
academic sampling efforts. It is the most complete Portland Division sediment compilation.
It also is the primary sediment data system for Ecology and Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE: None yet available
LIST OF PREPARERS: Brett Betts, Washington Department of Ecology
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #11 - Evaluate Ecology's Guideline Development /Reliability
SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES SUBCOMMITTEE: B.Betts , Chair
(bbet461 @ecy.wa.gov): August 2, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: What methods were used by Washington Department of Ecology
to evaluate alternative marine and freshwater sediment quality guidelines and their
respective reliability?
DISCUSSION: Ecology adopted marine sediment quality standards in April 1991.
Development of marine sediment quality criteria dated back to Puget Sound investigations in
1986. Ecology's evaluation and selection of marine sediment quality criteria are based on
several reports available to the public. Significant reports include the 1990 Environmental
Impact and Economic Impact Statements, and the 1988 and 1994 criteria technical
development documents. Reliability analyses are included in the technical reports.
Ecology conducted two significant rounds of freshwater sediment guideline technical
development in 1997 and again in 2003. Technical reports for both efforts are available from
Ecology's website. The 2003 Phase II technical effort re-developed apparent effects threshold
(AET) values from 1997, but also developed guidelines using the floating percentile method.
Ecology does not recommend one set of guidelines in the 2003 report, but instead provides
reliability results for a number of AET and floating percentile guidelines. Ecology plans to
issue separate public guidance recommending a preferred set of freshwater sediment
guidelines and sediment evaluation methods in the near future.
Currently, no other west coast state has issued final reports on development of marine or
freshwater sediment guidelines. The state of Oregon has enough synoptic, chemical, and
biological data to separately evaluate one or more of Washington's freshwater guidelines
using methods from the Phase II report.
REFERENCES: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sed_pubs.htm. Phase II Report:
Development and Recommendation of SQVs for Freshwater Sediments in Washington State,
September 2003, Publication No. 03-09-088.
RECOMMENDATION: Complete Oregon freshwater reliability analyses using methods
and guidelines from the Phase II Ecology report. Evaluate sediment quality data availability
from the state of Idaho for potential reliability analyses. Re-visit development of consensus
agreement on SQG guidelines after the Oregon reliability analyses.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE CHANGES: None yet available
LIST OF PREPARERS: Brett Betts, Washington Department of Ecology
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #16 - Framework For Assessing Bioaccumulation Under RSET
BIO ACCUMULATION SUBCOMMITTEE: D Kendall
(david.r.kendall@usace.artny.mil) and T. Michelsen (teresa@avocetconsulting.com), Co-
Chairs; August 2, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: How should potential toxicity associated with bioaccumulation
be addressed as part of the Pacific Northwest Region Sediment Evaluation
Framework?
DISCUSSION:
Background: The current Dredged Material Evaluation Framework (DMEF) for the Lower
Columbia River Management Area contains guidance for assessing bioaccumulation in
Section 9.4 of the manual (Corps et al. 1998). This manual is in the process of being
updated and consolidated with other dredging manuals in the Pacific Northwest Region, and
will apply to both marine and freshwater areas in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. While
primarily focused on dredging projects, it is also intended to provide a framework consistent
with cleanup and habitat restoration projects in the region. The text included in the existing
DMEF is to be used until the RSET is able to develop a more comprehensive and up-to-date
approach to addressing potential risks associated with bioaccumulation.
In the DMEF manual, bioaccumulation testing is a Tier III requirement when there is reason
to believe that specific chemicals of concern may be accumulating in target tissues at levels
of concern. Reason to believe is established by comparing sediment concentrations to
bioaccumulation triggers (BTs) listed in Appendix C. However, most of these
bioaccumulation trigger values are based on the Screening Levels (SLs) and Maximum
Levels (MLs), which are themselves derived from sediment toxicity tests rather than
bioaccumulation tests or bioaccumulation-based risk assessments. Therefore, there has been
a recognized need to update the bioaccumulation triggers to be directly reflective of toxicity
through the bioaccumulation pathway.
In the existing process, once the bioaccumulation tests are triggered, the results are first
compared to tissue concentrations from the reference samples. If concentrations are not
statistically greater than in the reference tissues, the DMEF manual states that sediments are
assumed to be associated with no adverse effects (which may or may not be the case). If
test sample concentrations exceed reference sample concentrations, they are compared to
human health and ecological levels of concern.
Human health comparisons are currently based on Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
action levels, above which tissue concentrations would be considered to be of concern. For
chemical concentrations lower than or without FDA action levels, risk assessment
techniques are to be used. For ecological effects, a simple exceedance of reference
conditions is enough to trigger a determination of unsuitability. However, the text also
-------
references the Environmental Residue Effects Database (ERED) as information that could
be used in assessing potential ecological risks. These tissue levels need to be updated and
expanded to be more reflective of actual risks to humans and wildlife associated with
bioaccumulation.
In addition, the SEF is attempting to expand its scope to include not only dredged material
management projects, but also sediment cleanup projects. A more holistic approach to
bioaccumulation issues is needed that allows both types of projects to be integrated on a
water shed-wide scale to meet common risk-based goals, and which also incorporates
regional monitoring. Ideally, a cost-effective approach could be developed to assess and
integrate tissue concentrations, sediment concentrations, and effects endpoints.
Discussion: The Bioaccumulation Subcommittee identified a number of areas where the
bioaccumulation approach needs to be clarified and/or updated:
Methods for establishing "reason to believe" that bioaccumulation is a concern
for a particular project
Identification of bioaccumulative chemicals of concern for freshwater and
marine areas
Determining what type of tiered approach is appropriate for assessing
bioaccumulation and whether there are differences between dredging and
cleanup projects in this respect
Methods for establishing sediment and/or tissue guidelines based on risks
associated with bioaccumulative chemicals
Bioaccumulation testing protocols, especially for freshwater
Identification of appropriate freshwater reference areas (this issue is being
addressed by the SQG subcommittee)
Of these issues, one of the most difficult is establishing a link between tissue concentrations,
which have the most direct association with risks from bioaccumulative chemicals, and
sediments. This consideration led to spirited discussion of the use of a "top-down"
approach - i.e., assessing bioaccumulative risks on a watershed-wide basis in tissues and
only then moving to sources in sediments - vs. a "bottom-up" approach more traditional in
dredging programs, with chemical triggers in sediments and bioaccumulation testing in a
subsequent tier. The most significant obstacle in pursuing the traditional dredging program
approach is establishing sediment bioaccumulation triggers that are scientifically defensible.
Nevertheless, the committee recognizes this as a clear goal of the dredging program, to
simplify the decision process for applicants and reduce the cost of testing. The
recommended framework outlined below blends the two approaches.
Regardless of which approach is pursued, it was agreed that the first step is to establish
scientifically defensible tissue triggers based on protection of human health, fish and aquatic
ESA species, and higher trophic levels such as birds and mammals. Each of these three
receptor groups will be addressed more specifically in a follow-up paper to this overall
bioaccumulation framework issue paper. Before any of this work can be done,
bioaccumulative chemicals of concern need to be identified. Recommendations for this
-------
process are also discussed in more detail in a forthcoming paper.
REFERENCES:
USACE-PNW, EPA Region 10, WDOE, ODEQ, WDNR. 1998. Dredged Material
Evaluation Framework Lower Columbia River Management Area. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Pacific Northwest Division, Portland, OR.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Identify Bioaccumulative Contaminants of Concern (BCOCs). The committee has
reviewed the approach established by the previous BCOC committee under the Dredged
Material Management Program (DMMP), and most likely will adopt it after further
discussion. The approach relies on a review of the occurrence of contaminants in sediments
and tissue, chemical properties of contaminants such as Kow, known toxicity of the
contaminants to human and ecological receptors, and comparison of tissue levels to
available action levels. Contaminants are placed on one of several lists depending on the
amount of information available and the weight-of-evidence indicating their potential to be
bioaccumulative chemicals of concern.
Upon adoption of this approach (with or without modifications as determined necessary),
the committee will then review whether it can adopt the DMMP BCOC list without
modification, either as an interim or a permanent list. If most of the data that went into
developing that list are marine data, then the committee may adopt that list as a marine list
and work on developing a separate freshwater list. To that end, the committee is currently
compiling a database of existing freshwater tissue data in the region.
2. More Clearly Define "Reason to Believe." Because of the cost of bioaccumulation
testing and the potential lack of defensible sediment triggers for some time to come, the
committee believes it is important to have a strong "reason to believe" prior to requiring
bioaccumulation testing. This reason to believe may include both "top-down" and "bottom-
up" types of information.
As soon as reasonably possible following the establishment of a regional BCOC list, tissue
data should be reviewed by watershed to identify a subset of BCOC chemicals of concern in
tissues for each watershed. This will only be possible in areas where sufficient tissue data
have been collected; however, this may include the most contaminated areas where tissue
assessments are currently or have previously been conducted. In this manner, the BCOC list
can be narrowed down for each area to include only those chemicals that are currently
detected in tissues (assuming that detection limits are appropriate). Once tissue triggers are
available, the list can be narrowed further to those chemicals that exceed tissue triggers.
Chemical testing conducted in Tier 1 can be used to identify whether any chemicals on the
watershed BCOC list are present in project or site sediments. In the absence of
scientifically defensible sediment triggers, if such chemicals are present, then laboratory
bioaccumulation testing, in situ bioaccumulation testing, and/or tissue collection from the
site or dredging area would need to be conducted in Tier 2, along with any bioassays being
-------
completed. Such testing could be limited to the BCOCs present to save analytical costs.
The Bioaccumulation committee strongly recommends consideration of tests that combine
measures of effects and exposure with tissue concentrations.
It is not recommended that the SEF continue to use the existing BTs to establish reason to
believe, particularly those based on the SLs and MLs, as these are not likely to be protective
for all BCOCs and are not defensible based on the best available science. Clearly it will be
important to move ahead with all possible speed to establish tissue and sediment triggers,
and there are some interim steps that can be taken (see below).
3. Establish Tissue Triggers. Tissue triggers are expected to be used by both dredging and
cleanup programs to identify target levels that may be applied region-wide. Developing
tissue triggers is the first step toward establishing sediment triggers and/or a watershed-wide
approach to source reduction, and would also serve as the criteria to which the results of
bioaccumulation testing would be compared. The subcommittee identified several groups
of receptors for which tissue triggers need to be established:
Human consumption offish and shellfish
Wildlife consumption offish and invertebrates
Fish
ESA species (fish, mussels, snails, birds, etc.)
Tissue levels for the first two sets of receptors would be based on back-calculation using
established risk assessment techniques and receptors common in the Pacific Northwest.
Tissue levels for protection offish would be based on tissue-residue-effects data contained
in databases such as ERED. Three companion papers discuss each of these methods in
greater detail. Member agencies involved in RSET are currently discussing whether
separate levels need to be established to protect ESA species.
Note that this approach will not protect fish against contaminants that do not appreciably
bioaccumulate in tissues, or which are rapidly transformed to other compounds, such as
PAHs. SQGs for such contaminants will need to be developed separately by the SQG
subcommittee or the Bioaccumulation subcommittee, and this will be a follow-up task for
one of the two committees.
Since each of these receptor groups is protected under all of the regulatory programs
addressing sediments, it is assumed that generally, the lowest of the applicable levels will be
used as the target tissue level. However, the approaches and input values used to derive
each of the levels must be transparent and readily available for review, as some aspects may
vary on a site-specific basis. For example, consumption rates may vary by region, disposal
site, or watershed, as may the wildlife and ESA receptors present. Cleanup site managers,
and to some degree dredging agencies, should be provided the opportunity to modify the
values based on good science and site-specific factors, as long as the modifications are
recorded in an appropriate document such as a suitability determination or record of
decision.
-------
4. Establish Bioaccumulation Triggers for Sediments. Experience to date in the
scientific and regulatory community is that it is difficult to back-calculate generally
applicable sediment triggers from tissue levels using literature-derived BSAFs or other
modeling approaches, due to significant uncertainties in BSAFs for the same chemical
derived from different data sets. This may be due to differences in study design, sediment
geochemistry, bioavailability of contaminants, and food webs from one data set to the next.
However, BSAFs can be developed on a site-specific or watershed basis using tissue data
paired with sediment data from the home range of the species being evaluated. Please see
Attachment A for further discussion of methods for deriving sediment BTs from tissue BTs.
For the purposes of the dredging program, the most relevant BSAF would be that at the
disposal site. It may be possible to use past monitoring data to develop disposal site-
specific BSAFs that can be applied to derive BTs for each disposal site (or for a set of
disposal sites that are similar in nature and receptors, such as ocean disposal sites along the
coast of Oregon or those in Puget Sound). In deriving and applying such BSAFs, it will be
important to consider whether sediment characteristics affecting bioavailability are similar
at the disposal site and in the dredged material being disposed there.
Similarly, BSAFs may be developed for certain chemicals and watersheds as part of large
Superfund sites currently in progress, and under source control (e.g., TMDL) and NRDA
processes. In these cases, it may be more productive to use a GIS-based approach to
determine which areas of sediment in the site or watershed need to be cleaned up to reduce
overall loading to a level that would, in turn, reduce tissue concentrations to acceptable
levels. This may be accomplished by identifying the factor by which tissue concentrations
need to be reduced (e.g., to 50% of current levels), and then using GIS tools to identify
areas that if cleaned up, would reduce the area-weighted average sediment concentration
within that organism's home range to 50% or less of its previous value.
Because of both environmental and programmatic differences, it is not necessary or even
possible to use the same approach or have the same criteria for bioaccumulation in
sediments. What is important is that the programs and agencies are all using consistent
target tissue criteria and are working toward meeting those criteria in whichever way best
meets their project needs.
5. Collection of Missing Data. For areas where not enough data exist to establish
watershed BCOCs, determine reason to believe, or develop BSAFs, it is recommended that
the agencies and the regulated community share the burden of data collection. For example,
the agencies should have the primary responsibility for collecting data to determine tissue
concentrations and BSAFs at the disposal sites. The agencies should also establish a
priority list of chemicals and areas to be monitored to fill key data gaps, and develop a plan
for incorporating this monitoring into their budgets and programs. As part of this plan, it
should be determined specifically how much and what types of data are enough for the
purposes of the program needs. When projects and sites come up that involve lower-
priority chemicals or which wish to proceed on a faster track than the agency monitoring
programs can accommodate, the project proponent should then bear the cost of providing
the necessary data, as an alternative to proceeding to the next tier of testing.
-------
Similar to the process recently completed in the SQG subcommittee, the Bioaccumulation
subcommittee identified a need to develop data management and review procedures.
Specifically, a single database needs to be identified to maintain bioaccumulation data, and
an agency needs to be identified to manage the database. For consistency with the sediment
data management system, SEDQUAL was selected since it has the capability of maintaining
tissue as well as sediment data. In addition, some areas of bioaccumulation science are
rapidly evolving, such as wildlife toxicity and the availability of tissue residue effects data.
These areas need to reviewed and updated frequently, and a mechanism needs to be
established within RSET to accomplish this.
6. Testing Procedures. Although this topic is somewhat outside the scope of this paper,
laboratory and in situ bioaccumulation testing procedures, particularly for freshwater
organisms, need to be reviewed and updated. The committee especially recommends that
the agencies evaluate the use of procedures that allow bioassay and bioaccumulation testing
to be conducted simultaneously, as well as new analytical methods developed by the
Waterways Experiment Station that can reduce the tissue volume required for chemical
analysis. Both of these areas of research may substantially reduce the cost burden of
bioaccumulation testing, as well as allowing us to more directly link observed effects with
tissue concentrations. Two companion papers have been developed reviewing emerging
laboratory and in-situ testing procedures for freshwater.
7. Revise SEF. Once the framework outlined in this paper has been fully reviewed and
approved by RSET, the Bioaccumulation subcommittee will develop specific language to
replace the current Section 9.4 of the DMEF manual and several appendices to provide
further information on topics such as testing procedures, methods for calculating BSAFs,
and derivation of tissue and sediment BTs.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE: None yet available
LIST OF PREPARERS: Teresa Michelsen, Avocet Consulting
-------
Attachment A. Converting Target Tissue Levels to Sediment Quality Guidelines
Jim Meador, NOAA Fisheries, National Fisheries Science Center
Once a protective tissue residue has been selected, a protective sediment concentration
may also be generated from the target tissue level (TTL). Sediment guidelines may be
generated for benthic and epibenthic fish (but not for pelagic fish) if reliable site-specific
BSAFs can be determined or a distribution of BSAFs can be generated that would be
used to determine a range in sediment concentrations that would lead to the selected TTL.
There are two ways to convert the TTL to a SQG using bioaccumulation factors. One
uses the bioconcentration factor coupled with the sediment water partition coefficient.
The other uses the BSAF to convert a TTL to an equivalent SQG. For each method, the
best approach is to consider the distribution of all bioaccumulation factors, which can be
used to generate a probability distribution of SQGs.
Bioconcentration approach
The first step is to compile all available bioconcentration factors. The organic-carbon
normalized sediment-water partition coefficient (Koc) for a compound needs to be
obtained from empirical measurements or modeled.
Water-sediment partition coefficients for many neutral hydrophobic compounds can be
predicted with the octanol -water partition coefficient (Kow), a good predictor of Koc.
Several authors have developed equations that predict Koc values from the Kow for
various hydrophobic compounds (Karickhoff et al. 1979, Means et al. 1980, Karickhoff
1981, Di Toro et al. 1991). These studies show the Koc to range from 0.4*KOW to
1.0*KOW.
For each TTL, the following equation would be used to generate the SQG:
TTT
BCF
BSAF approach
The BSAF approach has some advantages over the BCF approach because BSAFs
generally exhibits much less variability than do BCFs. Because tissue concentrations are
normalized to lipid and sediment concentrations are normalized to organic carbon,
BSAFs for organic compounds will achieve a theoretical maximum value between 1 and
4, based on equilibrium partitioning between all phases (Di Toro, Boese, xxx).
Metabolism or transformation of the toxicant, insufficient time to steady state for
partitioning between phases will lead to BSAF values less than the theoretical maximum.
For many compounds, a cumulative distribution function is the best way to select the
highest BSAF for determining an SQG. If no BSAF data are available and the organic
compound is known to behave according to equilibrium partitioning (EqP), the default
value of 4 can be selected to represent the worst case bioaccumulation.
-------
Ideally, representative bioaccumulation values from several species should be obtained to
generate a cumulative density function. From this CDF, a percentile value, such as the
95th, can be selected to ensure that the most sensitive species are protected. Because the
bioaccumulation factor is controlled by the uptake and elimination kinetics and these are
variable among species and conditions, a high percentile value is desirable to account for
this variability and to be protective of most species.
The sediment quality guideline can be determined by:
[TTL]
[SQGOC] =
BSAF*flip
For those organic compounds and metals that do not behave according to EqP, a standard
bioaccumulation factor that is selected from a high percentile (e.g., 95th) of all BAF
values should be used to convert the TTL to a SQG:
BAF
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #17 - Tissue Bioaccumulation Triggers and Proposed Methods
of Protection of Fish/ESA Species
BIOACCUMULATION SUBCOMMITTEE: D Kendall
(david.r.kendall@usace.army.mil) and T. Michelsen (teresa@avocetconsulting.com), Co-
Chairs; September 19, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: How should tissue bioaccumulation triggers (BTs) be developed to
protect fish and Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species from exposure to
contaminants that bioaccumulate?
DISCUSSION:
Background: Bioaccumulation studies are an element of Tier 3 evaluations of dredged
material under existing regional and national dredging evaluation guidance. Unfortunately,
there are no generally applicable tissue residue guidelines currently available that can be
used to interpret the ecological implications of bioaccumulation study results with aquatic
species. The Regional Sediment Evaluation Team (RSET) has identified development of
tissue residue guidelines, termed tissue BTs in this paper, for protection offish species as a
high priority during its development of a regional sediment evaluation framework. The
toxicity of bioaccumulated chemicals to aquatic biota can be evaluated with a tissue residue
approach (TRA) toxicity assessment. The results of this assessment can be used to generate
tissue BTs. This issue paper addresses the following questions:
Is it feasible to develop tissue BTs for protection of aquatic life?
For what chemicals can tissue BTs be developed?
What are the appropriate toxicological endpoints to evaluate during tissue BT
development?
How can tissue BTs be developed?
Are separate tissue BTs required for ESA-listed species?
Summary of Issue Paper Conclusions
The conclusions of this issue paper are:
Yes, it is feasible to develop tissue BTs. Identified technical concerns and issues that
will have to be resolved before tissue BTs can be developed include limited residue-
effects data availability, the computational methodology to be used to derive tissue BTs,
the data quality required of information used to derive BTs, the quantity of data needed
before BTs can be developed for individual chemicals, and the toxicological endpoints
to be incorporated into the BTs
Tissue BTs can be developed for most chemicals. Exceptions exist for compounds that
do not appreciably bioaccumulate in tissues but are nevertheless toxic; whose mode of
action do not require bioaccumulation to elicit toxicity, such as contact herbicides; and
-------
compounds rapidly metabolized to other chemicals that are either substantially more or
less toxic than the parent compound, such as many polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
(PAH) compounds.
At a minimum, tissue BTs should be generally applicable to all fish species, and
protective from adverse effects on survival, reproduction and growth. Other sublethal
endpoints that may be considered during tissue BT development include contaminant
effects on populations, behavior, immunosuppression, physiology, morphology and
biochemistry. Additionally, the same BTs derived for fish will generally be applicable
to all aquatic invertebrate species as well.
Two primary methods exist for developing tissue BTs: Species sensitivity distributions
and bioaccumulation modeling, with several variations and computational
methodologies available for each of the two primary methods. While using measured
residue-effects literature to develop tissue BTs is preferred, it must be recognized that
sufficient literature to develop species sensitive distributions (SSDs) is available for
only a limited number of chemicals. For chemicals without sufficient residue-effects
literature, tissue BT development will have to be accomplished using bioaccumulation
models.
Available data to date indicate that separate tissue BTs are not required for ESA-listed
species, because as a group, ESA-listed species appear to be neither more nor less
sensitive to contaminants than non-ESA-listed species. Exceptions undoubtedly exist
for some species-chemical combinations
Introduction
A fundamental principle of toxicology is the dose-response relationship: the proportionality
of the chemical concentration in tissue at the site of toxic action (the dose) to the toxic
response. The chemical concentrations in exposure media (water, sediment, diet)
commonly used as surrogates for the actual dose of toxic chemical have many limitations
when used during toxicity assessments with aquatic biota, some of which are listed below.
The bioavailable and lexicologically active fraction of the total exposure media
chemical concentration may not be known.
It does not consider multiple uptake routes of chemicals.
Intermittent, pulsed or variable exposures cannot be readily assessed.
Chemical mixture toxicity cannot be easily assessed.
Exposure duration (i.e. bioaccumulation kinetics) effects on toxicity may not be well
defined.
Metabolic transformations, which reduce or enhance parent compound toxicity, are
not considered.
Animal behavior such as seasonal migration or toxicant avoidance is not considered.
Acclimation to toxicants can yield differential sensitivity to exposure media
concentrations under different exposure regimes.
Analytical chemistry limitations (e.g., non-detectable concentrations in water) mean
that the exposure concentration is often unknown.
By associating the toxic response of aquatic biota with the tissue concentration of the
-------
chemical causing the effect, the above complicating factors can largely be eliminated.
Toxic effects can then be directly expressed as a function of tissue residues. Elimination or
minimization of the above confounding factors is the great advantage of using tissue
residues to evaluate toxicity of environmental contaminants compared to evaluating toxicity
using chemical concentrations in water, sediment or diet.
The main precept of the TRA is that it generates critical body residues (CBRs), such as
LR50s, LRioS, or lowest observed effect residues (LOERs) for a given toxicant that exhibit
relatively low variability among species. The advantages of a CBR statistic used as a tissue
BT to interpret bioaccumulation test results are obvious, but worth explanation. First and
foremost, the reduced variability in the biological response compared to exposure media
concentrations associated with toxicity (e.g. LC50) is highly desirable for generating tissue
BTs that are protective of all species. Additionally, CBRs are based on causal relationships
between the whole body tissue concentrations and the biological response, which allows the
approach to be highly technically defensible. Other advantages of a TRA approach in
deriving tissue BTs are given in the bulleted list presented in the introduction to this issue
paper.
In many cases the BT value developed for fish will also be applicable to aquatic
invertebrates. For many contaminants, the CBRs will be the same for fish and invertebrates
and data from a number of taxa will be used to generate the BTs. Not all CBRs will have
broad taxonomic application and exceptions will occur (e.g., dioxins). Each compound or
class of compounds will be evaluated for its ability to represent toxicity for a wide range of
species.
Protocols for the Development of Tissue Bioaccumulation Triggers (BTs)
At least two methods by which tissue BTs can be developed have been identified.
1. SSDs of existing tissue residue - effects literature
2. Bioaccumulation modeling using existing water quality criteria as an input into the
model
Tissue BTs can be developed for some chemicals using existing residue-effects information
in the technical literature. For chemicals without sufficient residue-effects information in
the literature, a bioaccumulation model would need to be used to develop tissue BTs, with a
higher level of uncertainty of the usefulness of the guidelines. However, there are data
quality, data availability, and computational issues that need to be addressed before a
decision can be made regarding how to go forward with the development of tissue BTs.
One issue of concern that applies to both the bioaccumulation modeling and SSD generation
approaches is selection of the toxicological endpoints to incorporate into BT derivation.
Consistency with EPA's current methodology for deriving ambient water quality criteria
(Stephan et al. 1985) would dictate consideration of only contaminant effects on survival,
reproduction, and growth. The RSET may wish to consider other endpoints when
developing tissue BTs. Possible examples of additional endpoints to consider include
-------
contaminant effects on behavior, physiology, morphology, and biochemistry. Evaluation of
these non-traditional endpoints in BT development may be of particular importance for fish
species such as salmonids, where contaminant impacts on swimming behavior or olfactory
ability may have significant adverse effects on the ability of the fish to return to their natal
streams to spawn.
The strengths and limitations of each of the two primary tissue BT development methods
are described below, as are some of the available options within the two approaches.
Species Sensitivity Distribution Approach
The species sensitivity distribution approach uses existing toxicological literature in a
manner that is very similar to the existing EPA methodology (Stephan et al. 1985) used to
develop ambient water quality criteria. It is the approach used in Europe to derive water
quality criteria, and has also been used to derive sediment quality criteria such as the Long
and Morgan (1991) effects range-low (ER-L) values and Washington's sediment
management standards. As used in water quality criteria development, the SSD is generated
from laboratory toxicity data. The Environmental Residue Effects Database (ERED)
(Bridges and Lutz 1999) and Jarvinen and Ankley (1999) are the two primary sources of
residue-effects information that could be used to develop SSDs. Given its consistency with
other criteria development methodologies, use of the SSD approach during tissue BT
development is preferred if the toxicological data are available.
The toxicity datasets used to develop water quality criteria generally employ a statistically
derived description of the concentration-response curve, such as an LCso or ฃ20. By
contrast, much of the available tissue residue literature contains no description of the
magnitude of the observed effect, or of the proportion of species responding to a given
tissue residue. These endpoints, termed the lowest unquantified effect dose (LUED) may be
of limited utility in the derivation of tissue BTs. If it is assumed that LUED values are
analogous to lowest observed effect residues (LOERs), a species sensitivity distribution
could be generated with both tissue-based LUED and LOER data, providing a sizable
increase in the amount of literature available for use in developing SSDs. It is unlikely that
enough statistically reduced residue-effect concentrations are available in the literature to
permit development of more than a few tissue BTs using only statistically reduced data to
generate the SSD.
If an SSD is to be used to derive tissue BTs, the RSET would have to decide at what level of
effect (or the proportion of species to be protected) the tissue BT should be set. Consistency
with EPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) derivation methodology would call
for using the 5th percentile of the adverse effects data for survival, reproduction and growth
as the selected BT. This is not the only possible level of protection or combination of
toxicological endpoints available. A tissue BT could be set at any percentile agreed upon by
the RSET. Examples of endpoints historically used with SSDs include the highest no effect
concentration, the lowest adverse effect concentration, the 10th, 20th' or 50th percentile of the
adverse effects concentration, or the concentration above which adverse effects are always
observed (apparent effects thresholds approach).
-------
Another potential difficulty with using measured residue - effects data to derive tissue BTs
is data availability. There is simply less information available in the literature on tissue
residues associated with toxicity than there is on water column or sediment concentrations
associated with toxicity. The EPA aquatic toxicity information retrieval (AQUIRE)
database, the repository of toxicity data for chemicals in water contains over 180,000
records. In contrast, the ERED database contains approximately 4,000 records. This does
not preclude the use of literature data to derive tissue BTs, but the limited available
information for many chemicals could in turn limit both the number and reliability of tissue
BTs derived from the literature.
Bioaccumulation Modeling Approach
At its simplest, a tissue BT could be derived from the product of a water quality criterion
and a bioconcentration factor (or bioaccumulation factor). As many water quality criteria
and bioconcentration factors are already available, this approach could be used to quickly
generate tissue BTs for a number of chemicals. The simpler bioaccumulation models are
not data intensive, a potentially large advantage during the development of tissue BTs.
Through a review of the existing residue-effects literature, Shephard (2004) demonstrated
that the product of existing EPA water quality criteria and a standardized set of
bioconcentration factors resulted in tissue screening concentrations for aquatic life were
lower than 94.5 percent of measured tissue residues associated with adverse effects on
survival, reproduction and growth. This is excellent agreement with the intended 95 percent
level of protection for aquatic genera that is the goal of the EPA water quality criteria
(Stephan et al. 1985).
Another observation made by Shephard (2004) was that no statistically significant
differences exist in tissue residues associated with toxicity in marine and freshwater biota.
This leads to the possibility that generally applicable tissue BTs can be generated from
bioaccumulation models, eliminating the need to derive separate sets of tissue BTs for
marine and freshwater biota.
Tissue BTs derived from a bioaccumulation model have many uncertainties. These
uncertainties include the accuracy of water quality criteria used as an input to the model,
and the appropriateness of using a single bioconcentration factor (BCF) or bioaccumulation
Attenuation Factor (BAF)to derive generally applicable tissue BTs. Addressing these
uncertainties during tissue BT development may result in BTs with large safety factors
relative to the safety factors of tissue BTs derived from SSDs.
Measured contaminant residues in field collected fish tissues that exceeded tissue guidelines
generated by both a bioaccumulation model and a SSD were found to be statistically
significantly correlated with fish community health in a statewide survey offish in Ohio
(Dyer et al. 2000). The Dyer et al. (2000) study is one of the few available that has
-------
simultaneously evaluated the predictive utility of tissue guidelines developed from both
bioaccumulation models and species sensitivity distributions.
Mixture Toxicity
One of the strong advantages of using the TRA for toxicity assessment is the ability to
address mixtures of contaminants. In general, the tissue residue approach is an excellent
way to examine the toxicity of contaminants bioaccumulated by organisms in the field.
Mixture toxicity studies based on tissue residues are less complicated than those with
exposure concentrations because the variability observed among compounds in
bioaccumulation and metabolic conversion is greatly reduced. Also, mixture toxicity from
exposure concentrations can be confounded by differences in time to steady state from the
various compounds in the mixture, whereas CBRs are generally time independent. The
utility of mixture toxicity is supported by several studies demonstrating that multiple
contaminants will produce toxicity at a small fraction of their individual effect
concentration. Therefore, to generate the best available BT that will be protective of aquatic
organisms, the combined effects from a complex mixture of compounds must be considered.
Chemicals for Which Tissue Quality Guidelines Can Be Derived
In theory, tissue BTs can be derived for any chemical or compound that is bioaccumulated
into aquatic biota tissues. In practice, tissue residues associated with toxicity have seldom
been measured for organic chemicals that are freely water soluble, or at least have a high
water solubility. As shown by McCarty et al. (1991), for organic chemicals with a log K0w
< 1.5, the chemical concentration in the water phase of the organism dominates toxicity, and
total body residues associated with toxicity should be similar to the respective threshold
LCso in water.
Tissue BTs should not be derived for chemicals that fall into three rather broad categories:
1. Chemicals that do not appreciably bioaccumulate but which nevertheless are toxic.
2. External toxicants such as contact herbicides.
3. Chemicals that are rapidly biotransformed into more (or less) toxic metabolites relative
to toxicity of the parent compound.
Some chemicals are quite toxic without appreciable bioaccumulation. Cyanide is one
example of a highly toxic chemical with a low bioaccumulation potential. This should not
be confused with implying that a chemical can cause toxicity without bioaccumulating at
all. Most chemicals in this group have high water solubilities and may not preferentially
partition from water to tissues, resulting in low tissue residues associated with toxicity.
These chemicals are unlikely to be on lists of bioaccumulative chemicals, reducing the need
for tissue BTs for this group.
External toxicants do not need to enter the body of an organism to elicit toxicity. In
addition to contact herbicides that act by destroying the cell wall of the plant, a few other
chemicals can act as external toxicants under some circumstances. Iron and aluminum are
two chemicals which, under certain conditions of water quality, form flocculent materials
-------
that coat the gills of aquatic species, causing death by suffocation without entering the body
of the organism.
The toxicity of some compounds is enhanced by biotransformation (biological, chemical, or
physical) after they have been bioaccumulated. Under these conditions, the concentration of
the parent compound in tissue may have little or no relationship to the toxicity of the
transformation product. The largest group of chemicals to which this applies are PAH
compounds. Some PAH compounds are metabolically transformed into more toxic PAH
epoxides, the chemical form often responsible for the carcinogenic effects of some PAHs.
Other PAHs are photochemically activated, which enhances the toxicity of bioaccumulated
parent PAH compounds. Available tissue residue-effects literature for PAHs shows
substantial variations among body residues associated with the same toxic endpoint. These
variations cut across taxonomic classes (e.g., some benthic invertebrate species rapidly
transform PAHs, resulting in low body burdens associated with toxicity, whereas some fish
species do not rapidly transform PAHs, and are substantially more tolerant of elevated body
burdens. This variability makes it difficult to develop a single PAH tissue BT that is
protective of all species.
Existing data do not currently permit development of generally applicable tissue guidelines
for either individual PAH compounds or mixtures of PAHs. We recommend that the RSET
not attempt to develop tissue BTs for either individual PAH compounds or PAH mixtures at
this time. For PAHs, it may be possible to use bioindicators of exposure, such as
fluorescent aromatic compounds (FACs) in bile to assess bioaccumulation. Ongoing work
at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center has found a high correlation between bile FACs
and dietary intake of PAHs in salmon. PAH toxicity to aquatic species can also be
evaluated by comparing their concentration in water or sediment to existing environmental
guidelines, standards, or criteria.
Sensitivity of Endangered Species to Chemicals
Not surprisingly, relatively few toxicity studies have been performed with endangered
species, or at least with the specific ESAlisted stocks, strains or subspecies of species that
are more common elsewhere in their range. EPA, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have combined to fund several studies of the
contaminant tolerance of several ESA-listed aquatic species, primarily fish, in recent years
(Besser et al. 2001, Dwyer et al. 1999). The findings of these studies have provided support
for the belief that most water quality criteria are protective of ESA-listed aquatic species.
On a body residue basis, additional support for this belief is available from studies with the
ESA-listed bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Studies with cadmium (Hansen et al. 2002)
and copper have found that while whole body residues associated with toxicity are low, they
are not as low as residues associated with toxicity in other aquatic species. It is highly
recommended, however, that residue-effects data for an appropriate surrogate species for an
ESA-listed species (e.g., rainbow trout for listed salmonids) be considered during any tissue
BT development.
-------
Summary
Tissue BTs are a promising approach for evaluating the effects of contaminants in aquatic
systems. At least two methods are available for developing tissue BTs, both of which have
a demonstrated relationship with adverse effects observed in field populations of aquatic
species. Use of species sensitivity distributions of toxicity data from the literature to derive
tissue BTs would be computationally very similar to approaches currently used to derive
ambient water quality criteria, and is the preferred method for chemicals where sufficient
data are available to permit development of SSDs. The amount of data available and its
quality are limiting factors for deriving tissue BTs. It should be recognized that useable
tissue BTs should not be developed for some chemicals such as PAH compounds.
However, with recognition of the limitations of the TRA, development of tissue BTs is a
feasible approach for evaluating the toxicity of chemicals bioaccumulated in both laboratory
exposed and field collected aquatic biota.
REFERENCES:
Besser, J.M., FJ. Dwyer, C.G. Ingersoll, and N. Wang. 2001. Early Life-Stage Toxicity of
Copper to Endangered and Surrogate Fish Species. EPA/600/R-01/051, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
11 pp. plus appendix.
Bridges, T.S. and C.H. Lutz. 1999. InterpretingBioaccumulation Data with the
Environmental Residue-Effects Database. Dredging Research Technical Note EEDP-04-30,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA.
Dwyer, F.J., O.K. Hardesty, C.E. Henke, C.G. Ingersoll, D.W. Whites, D.R. Mount, and
C.M. Bridges. 1999. Assessing Contaminant Sensitivity of Endangered and Threatened
Species: Toxicant Classes. EPA/600/R-99/098, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, FL. 15 pp.
Dyer, S.D., C.E. White-Hull, andB.K. Shephard. 2000. Assessment of chemical mixtures
via toxicity reference values overpredict hazard to Ohio fish communities. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 34:2518-2524.
Hansen, J.A., P.G. Welsh, J. Lipton, and MJ. Suedkamp. 2002. The effects of long-term
cadmium exposure on the growth and survival of juvenile bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus). Aquat. Toxicol. 58:165-174.
Jarvinen, A.W. 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. SET AC Press, Pensacola, FL, USA.
Long, E.R. and L.G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects ofSediment-
Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. Technical
Memorandum NOS OMA 52, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle,
WA, USA.
-------
McCarty. L.S., D. Mackay, A.D. Smith, G.W. Ozburn, and D.G. Dixon. 1991. Interpreting
aquatic toxicity QSARs: The significance of toxicant body residues at the pharmacological
endpoint. Sci. Total Environ. 109/110:515-525.
Shephard, B.K. 2004. An Evaluation of Uncertainties Associated with Tissue Screening
Concentrations Used to Assess Ecological Risks from Bioaccumulated Chemicals in
Aquatic Biota. Invited Platform Presentation, 13th Annual Meeting, Pacific Northwest
Chapter, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Port Townsend, WA, April
15- 17,2004.
Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, DJ. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, G.A. Chapman, and W.A. Brungs.
1985. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. EPA 822-R85-100, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, D.C.
RECOMMENDATION: None
PROPOSED LANGUAGE: None yet available
LIST OF PREPARERS: Burt Shephard, U.S. EPA; James Meador, NOAA Fisheries;
Lyndal Johnson, NOAA Fisheries
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #18 - Development of Tissue Trigger Levels for Aquatic-
Dependent Wildlife
BIO ACCUMULATION SUBCOMMITTEE: D Kendall
(david.r.kendall@usace.artny.mil) and T. Michelsen (teresa@avocetconsulting.com), Co-
Chairs; September 19, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: How should tissue levels be developed to protect higher trophic
level wildlife from exposure to contaminants that bioaccumulate?
DISCUSSION:
Background: Aquatic organisms in both freshwater and marine environments can be
exposed to bioaccumulative contaminants as a result of dredging or disposal of dredged
materials. During the dredging or disposal process, sediment is re-suspended into the water
column and resettles in or downstream from the dredge cut or disposal site. At the site of
the dredge cut, a new sediment surface layer is exposed and new materials can slough into
the dredge cut area during side-slope adjustment. If sediment at these sites contains
bioaccumulative contaminants at any concentration, aquatic organisms can be exposed to
the contaminants through contact with re-suspended materials during dredging or disposal,
re-colonization of areas where contaminated sediment has been exposed in the dredge cut,
or through resettlement of contaminated suspended materials on surface areas in or near the
dredge or disposal site. The degree of contaminant exposure in aquatic organisms would be
determined by the duration of time an organism is exposed to contaminated materials, the
bioavailability of the contaminant to specific organisms, and the ability of organisms to
metabolize, eliminate, and accumulate a contaminant. These variables make quantifying an
organism's exposure during the relatively short dredging timeframe difficult, and
insufficient data exists to support a relationship between concentrations of bioaccumulative
contaminants in sediment and their absolute bioavailability to aquatic organisms (i.e., it is
difficult to predict if bioaccumulation will occur based on sediment concentrations alone).
Because aquatic organisms such as sediment-dwelling invertebrates and fish can be exposed
to bioaccumulative contaminants during dredging and disposal operations, it is important to
understand how the accumulation of contaminants into the tissues of these organisms can
adversely affect higher trophic animals, such as birds and mammals, when consumed. In
this paper, we describe a process to use "tissue trigger levels" in wildlife prey items as a
first step in developing sediment cleanup levels that are protective of higher trophic species
exposed to bioaccumulative contaminants at sediment dredge and disposal sites. These
tissue trigger levels are appropriate for both freshwater and marine dredge and disposal
sites.
-------
This paper provides a general set of concepts that should be considered in developing tissue
trigger levels for contaminants that bioaccumulate1 and biomagnify2 in food chains. A
tissue trigger level is defined as the concentration or target level of a bioaccumulative
contaminant in a prey item that is considered protective of aquatic-dependent wildlife (birds
and mammals that prey on aquatic species). Thus, contaminants present in prey items at or
below the trigger level will not harm the most sensitive life stage of bird or mammal
predators. Because it can be difficult and costly to directly measure tissue concentrations in
higher order receptors, we consider prey items as sentinels, which can be monitored on a
site-specific basis to determine if action is warranted to protect aquatic-dependent wildlife
from bioaccumulative chemicals in a watershed. Though sediment ingestion is another
pathway by which chemicals can enter aquatic dependant wildlife, the dietary pathway
tends to be the dominant source for bioaccumulative chemicals (Bridges et al. 1996).
It is important to note that tissue trigger levels are not toxicity reference values (TRVs) and
therefore may not be protective of the prey species themselves. Rather, tissue trigger levels
are derived based on TRVs previously established and reported for the protection of
sensitive life stages of higher trophic level species. Therefore, TRVs for the receptors
identified in a watershed must be available prior to identifying a trigger level. Although
contaminants can bioaccumulate and harm species lower in the food chain such as
invertebrates and fish, the focus of this paper is solely on protecting avian and mammalian
species. Companion papers from other RSET subcommittees will address the protection of
lower trophic level aquatic species such as fish and invertebrates.
The tissue trigger levels outlined in this paper can be used with chemical-specific biota-
sediment accumulation factors (BSAFs) to develop Sediment Quality Values (SQVs)
protective of higher trophic level dietary exposure pathways. The process and conditions
that may warrant development of sediment-based protective values is addressed in other
companion RSET papers.
Chemicals of Concern to Aquatic-dependent Wildlife:
Organic and inorganic chemicals commonly taken up in aquatic food chains can be
accumulated or magnified over time to concentrations that are potentially harmful to higher
trophic level species even when these concentrations may not be harmful to their prey
organisms (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 1998). Researchers have a
reasonably good handle on the types of chemicals that are typically of concern to aquatic
dependant wildlife through dietary bioaccumulation (Bridges et al. 1996, Froese et al. 1998,
EPA 2003). The first step in understanding the potential risk to aquatic-dependent wildlife
1 Bioaccumulation is a process reflecting the net accumulation of a chemical by an organism as a result of uptake from all environmental sources.
A bioaccumulative chemical accumulates in an organism faster that can be eliminated, resulting in higher concentrations in the organism
compared to the organism's surroundings.
Biomagnification is the process by which a chemical is transferred through the foodchain (i.e., trophic transfer) and concentrates in higher order
receptors at levels that are many times higher than in receptors at lower trophic levels. The concentrations that reside in predators such as fish-
eating birds and mammals can be high enough to affect reproduction or result in other chronic toxic effects, even though the concentrations in
their prey items at lower trophic levels may be below threshold effect levels.
-------
from trophic transfer is to conduct a site-specific review of the chemicals occurring in the
sediment and/or tissue in the watershed of interest, or refer to companion RSET papers
identifying bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCoCs). If no BCoCs occur in site
sediment (or tissue) based on a review of sufficient data with adequate detection limits, then
a further evaluation of the potential for trophic transfer (bioaccumulation into wildlife)
would not be required.
Defining Aquatic-dependent Wildlife Receptors
Recognizing the difficulties on developing tissue trigger levels on a site-specific basis,
guidance is provided in this paper to developing tissue trigger levels in wildlife prey items
that are more broadly applicable to a wide range of sites. If the wildlife sentinel species
discussed herein are for some reason less appropriate for a particular site, then the same
general approach may be used to develop other tissue trigger concentrations in the prey
items of additional wildlife species. However, it is likely that the concepts presented in this
paper will be applicable to most if not all sites where BCoCs are present that could impact
higher trophic wildlife.
Certain avian and mammalian receptors are frequently considered as "representative" or
sentinel wildlife receptors as shown in Table 1. These include the great blue heron, belted
kingfisher, osprey and bald eagle, which consume large amounts offish in their diets. Most
of these receptors are found in both freshwater and marine environments. Depending on the
type of water body under consideration, shorebirds (such as the stilt, avocet, or sandpiper)
may also serve as representative receptors since these birds typically consume aquatic
invertebrates including insects and crustaceans, which may bioaccumulate metals/metalloids
to a higher degree than fish consumed by predominantly fish-eating birds. Mammals that
commonly feed on crustaceans and fish in watersheds include river otter, sea otter and mink.
-------
The following sentinel wildlife species are representative for wildlife occurring in many
freshwater and marine environments.
Table 1. Common Aquatic-dependent Wildlife Receptors in Freshwater and Marine
Systems
Candidate
Wildlife Receptors
Birds
Great Blue Heron
Belted Kingfisher
Black-Necked Stilt
American Avocet
Spotted Sandpiper
or Western
Sandpiper
Bald Eagle
Osprey
Mammals
North American
River Otter**
Northern Sea
Otter*
American Mink**
Scientific Name
Ardea herodias
Ceryle alcyon
Himantopus
mexicanus
Recurvirostra
Americana
Actitis macularia or
Calidris mauri
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Pondion haliaetus
Lutra canadensis
Enhydra lutris lutris
Mustela vision
* Predominantly a marine species
** Predominantly a freshwater species
Development of Tissue Trigger Levels
Present in
RSET Region?
Yes
Yes
Yes (summer)
Yes (summer)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dominant Food
Items
Fish, crustaceans,
small mammals
Fish and crayfish
Aquatic (including
emergent) insects,
small fish
Mostly crustaceans
and insects (including
emergent)
Aquatic insects,
mollusks, worms,
crustaceans
Fish, fish-eating and
non-fish eating birds,
some mammals
Fish
Fish predominantly.
Also crustaceans
(crayfish)
Marine fish, shellfish
and invertebrates
Crustaceans
(crayfish), fish
Tissue trigger values should be derived after selecting the receptor species used to represent
a site and identifying TRVs from the literature that are protective of the receptors. The
TRVs selected from the literature should address information about the likelihood of
biological effects to aquatic-dependent wildlife (for example, reduced survival, growth, and
reproduction) and address what level of bioaccumulation constitutes an "unacceptable
adverse effect." Once the TRY is selected, empirical data collected from the watershed or
data from literature reviews can be used to derive a tissue trigger. Key parameters identified
-------
for use in modeling should come from the literature and be based on studies specific to the
receptor. Additional site-specific parameters can be added at any time to fine-tune the
model and potentially adjust the tissue trigger level in an area if warranted.
TRVs from the scientific literature or other noted data sources will be the primary focus
when developing the generic prey tissue trigger levels for RSET. Tissue trigger levels are
developed based on toxicity studies for wildlife species as closely related to the species of
interest at a site as possible. Two types of TRY studies are of greatest relevance to setting
wildlife prey item tissue trigger levels: dietary TRV and egg-based TRV studies. The
approach for establishing tissue trigger levels using each type of TRV study is presented
below.
Establishing Prey Tissue Trigger Levels Using Dietary TRV Studies
The most straightforward way to determine if concentrations of BCoCs are of concern in
wildlife prey items is to compare concentrations measured in these organisms at a site to the
dietary test concentrations from a well-conducted TRV study for the wildlife species of
interest. The TRV ideally should represent a no-observed-adverse effect level (NOAEL).
Where a NOAEL is not available, a low-observed-adverse effect level (LOAEL) can be
considered, although LOAELs may not be protective of listed species and safety factors
may need to be incorporated in the assessment. The use of dietary studies for establishing
TRVs makes the implicit assumption that the dietary exposure pathway is of greater
importance than other exposure pathways such as incidental sediment ingestion. This is
generally the case for most receptors, although the sediment ingestion pathway can be of
high importance for receptors such as shorebirds.
TRV studies should be based on sensitive toxicity endpoints such as reproduction as a
matter of priority. Also, the dietary TRV selected should be protective of the most sensitive
life stage of a receptor for a particular test chemical (i.e., if a test chemical exerts toxicity at
lower concentrations to developing embryos or juveniles compared to adults, then a TRV
protecting these more sensitive life stages should be used in the assessment). TRV studies
with toxicity endpoints relative to impacts on growth and survival may also be considered
when more sensitive reproductive endpoint TRV studies are not available. The studies
should be dietary to have maximum relevance to establishing tissue trigger levels for use at
dredging and disposal sites. For the dietary approach, injection or other non-dietary based
studies have less relevance in establishing tissue trigger levels since the goal in establishing
tissue trigger levels is to determine what levels in wildlife food could cause them harm and
be easily monitored3. Fortunately, many dietary studies are available for BCoCs in the
scientific literature and can be used for establishing tissue trigger levels for wildlife
protection.
3 Gavage studies can be considered if well-conducted dietary studies are not available for a BCoC. Gavage
represents forced oral administration to the stomach using oil, water or capsule. Resulting tissue trigger levels
established from this type of study should be interpreted with greater caution. As a matter of priority well-
conducted dietary studies are always the preferred type of TRV study.
-------
Commonly used databases containing wildlife TRV studies include EPA's Soil Screening
Levels (EPA 2003), Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL), EPA's ECOTOX database
(ECOTOX 2003), and the Environmental Residue-Effects Database (ERED) 2003. The
scientific literature should be consulted in cases where TRV studies are not available from
these sources.
The tissue trigger level is established using the NOAEL (or LOAEL with adjustment)
dietary test concentration from a well-conducted TRV study. As an example, the selenium
NOAEL for mallards is 4 mg/kg in the diet (Heinz et al. 1989). Therefore, if selenium
concentrations greater than 4 mg/kg in aquatic invertebrates or fish at a given site are
measured it could be concluded that there is a potential risk to aquatic-dependent birds
feeding on these organisms. Ideally, an adjustment for the difference in food ingestion rate
to bodyweight ratios between the test wildlife species in the TRV study and the species of
interest at the site should be made. This adjustment is made as follows:
T*TR KW
Tissue Trigger Level =Ctissue
Where:
Tis. Trig. Level = Allowable prey concentration for wildlife (mg/kg)
Qjssue = Chemical concentration in TRV test diet (food item)
FIRtest = Food ingestion rate of TRV test species (kg/day)
BWtest = Body weight of TRV test species (kg)
BWslte = Body weight of site species (kg)
FIRslte = Food ingestion rate of site species (kg/day)
Food ingestion rates and bodyweights of site-specific wildlife species of interest can be
determined from many literature sources including EPA's Wildlife Exposure Factor
Handbook (EPA 1993). Site-specific species with a higher food ingestion rate to body
weight ratio than that of the test species would have a lower tissue-based guideline and vice
versa.
Establishing Prey Tissue Trigger Levels Using Egg-Based TRV Studies
The dietary model above can be used for establishing tissue trigger concentrations
protective of wildlife for many organic and inorganic compounds. However, some types of
chemicals such as DDE, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), "dioxin-like4" compounds (EPA
2003) and selenium (Fairbrother et al. 1999, Adams et al. 2003) have demonstrated effects
on avian development at the level of the egg. In these cases, developing tissue trigger levels
based on eggs is more appropriate than the dietary pathway because the reproductive effects
and corresponding TRVs are based on concentrations in bird eggs rather than in the diet, as
the dietary pathway model above may not result in tissue levels that are sufficiently
protective.
Estimated egg-based TRVs (NOAELs or LOAELs) are available for fish-eating birds for
PCBs (calculated as total PCBs) and DDE (Custer et al. 1999, Elliott et al. 1994, Wiemeyer
' Compounds that demonstrate "dioxin-like" effects include dioxins, furans and some PCB congeners (EPA 2003).
-------
et. al 1984, 1988, 1994; Yamashita et. al 1993), and an egg-based approach would be the
preferred method for assessing these particular chemicals. Examples and explanations of
using the egg-based approach can be found in EPA (2003) and other references (Giesy et al
1995, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1994).
A simple egg-based model for developing tissue trigger levels follows below.
Tissue Trigger Level = TRVegg / BMFegg
Where:
Tissue Trigger Level (mg/kg) = Tissue concentration in prey protective of avian predators
TRVegg = Egg-based Toxicity Reference Value (mg/kg)
BMFegg = Biomagnification factor from prey to egg (unitless)
The BMFegg value can be derived from site-specific data (if available) or from the literature.
Examples of site-specific derivation of BMFs can be found in Henny et al. (2003), USFWS
(2004), and Braune and Norstrom (1989). Other methods to estimate BMFs can be found in
USFWS (1994).
Conclusion
Trigger levels can be useful to screen measured fish and invertebrate tissue data for their
potential to result in bioaccumulative effects in upper trophic avian and mammalian wildlife
or used to establish general sediment quality values to guide cleanup (i.e., at sites where
sediment contamination is understood to be the dominant contaminant source for uptake
into biological tissue). Trigger levels should be developed based on data specific to a
watershed, or based on literature values when site-specific data is unavailable. Exceedance
of tissue trigger levels would not automatically constitute a requirement for cleanup but
would indicate a need for further evaluation of the bioaccumulation pathway for fish- and
invertebrate eating birds at a given location, or require actions to minimize exposure of
aquatic-dependent wildlife to contaminants at the site. Minimizing exposure could include
such actions as installing silt fences to minimize re-suspended sediment from leaving the
site during dredging and disposal, and using close-lipped clamshell bucket to reduce
disturbance of sediment while dredging.
REFERENCES:
Adams W.J., K.V. Brix, M. Edwards, L.M. Tear, D.K.DeForest, and A. Fairbrother. 2003.
Analysis of field and laboratory data to derive selenium toxicity thresholds for birds.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Vol. 22 (9): 2020-2029.
Braune, B.M. and RJ. Norstrom. 1989. Dynamics of organochlorine compounds in herring
gulls. 3. Tissue distribution and bioaccumulation in Lake Ontario gulls. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry Vol 8(10): 957-968.
Bridges, T.S., D.W. Moore, V. McFarland, T.D. Wright, J.R. Wilson, and R.M. Engler.
-------
1996. Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Notes: Proposed new guidance for
interpreting the consequences of bioaccumulation from dredged material. US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Environmental Laboratory. EEDP-01-41.
August.
Custer, T.W., C.M. Custer, R.K. Hines, S. Gutreuter, K.L. Stromborg, P.O. Allen, andM.J.
Melancon. 1999. Organochlorine contaminants and reproductive success of double-
crested cormorants from Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry Vol 18(6):1209-1217.
ECOTOX. 2003. Ecotoxicological database. Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/
Elliott, I.E., RJ. Norstrom, and G.E. Smith. 1996. Patterns, trends, and toxicological
significance of chlorinated hydrocarbon and mercury contaminants in bald eagle eggs
from the Pacific coast of Canada, 1990-1994. Archives Environmental Contamination
Toxicology 31(3): 354-67.
ERED. 2003. The environmental residue-effects database (ERED). U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Web site:
http://www.wes.army.mil/el/ered/
Fairbrother, A., K.V. Brix, I.E. Toll, S. McKay, and WJ. Adams. 1999. Egg selenium
concentrations as predictors of avian toxicity. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment
Vol 5: 1229-1253.
Froese, K.L., D.A. Verbrugge, G.T. Ankley, GJ. Niemi, C.P. Larsen, and J.P. Giesy. 1998.
Bioaccumulation of poly chlorinated biphenyls from sediments to aquatic insects and tree
swallow eggs and nestlings in Saginaw Bay, Michigan, USA. Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry Vol. 17 (3): 484-492.
Giesy, J.P., W.W. Bowerman, M.A. Mora, D.A. Verbrugge, R.A. Othoudt, J.L. Newsted,
C.L. Summer, RJ. Aulerich, SJ. Bursian, J.P. Ludwig, G.A. Dawson, TJ. Kubiak, D.A.
Best, and D.E. Tillitt. 1995. Contaminants of fishes from Great Lakes-influenced
sections and above dams of three Michigan rivers. III. Implications for health of bald
eagles. Archives Environmental Contamination Toxicology Vol 29(3): 309-321.
Heinz, G.H., DJ. Hoffman, and L.G. Gold. 1989. Impaired reproduction of mallards fed an
organic form of selenium. J. Wildl. Manage. Vol 53(2): 418-428.
Henny, C.J., J.L. Kaiser, R.A. Grove, V.R. Bentley, and J.E. Elliott. 2003.
Biomagnification factors (fish to osprey eggs from Willamette River, Oregon, U.S.A.)
for PCDDs, PCDFs, PCBs and OC pesticides. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 84(3):275-315.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Wildlife exposure factor handbook.
Volumes I-II. Office of Research and Development, Washington D.C. EPA/600/R-
93/187a
EPA. 1998. Proceedings: National sediment bioaccumulation conference. Office of
-------
Water. EPA 823-R-98-002. February 1998.
EPA. 2003. Analyses of laboratory and field studies of reproductive toxicity in birds
exposed to dioxin-like compounds for use in ecological risk assessment. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/R-03/114F. 51 p.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994. Biological opinion on the effects of
concentrations of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-/>-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD), to be attained
through implementation of a total maximum daily load, on bald eagles along the
Columbia River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 28 p. Available as .pdf
from
http: //oregonfwo. fws. gov/EnvContam/EnvC ontam_Fiel d/D ocuments/B al d%20Eagl e/BE
DIOX.BO.PDF
USFWS. 2004. Environmental contaminants in aquatic resources from the Columbia
River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, OR.
112 p. Available as .pdf from
http: //oregonfwo. fws. gov/EnvContam/EnvC ontam_Fi el d/foocchain. htm
Wiemeyer, S.N., T.G. Lament, C.M. Bunck, C.R. Sindelar, FJ. Gramlich, J.D. Fraser, and
M.A. Byrd. 1984. Organochlorine pesticide, polychlorobiphenyl, and mercury residues
in bald eagle eggs~1969-79~and their relationships to shell thinning and reproduction.
Archives Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Vol 13(5): 529-549.
Wiemeyer, S.N., C.M. Bunck, and CJ. Stafford. 1993. Environmental contaminants in
bald eagle eggs~1980-84~and further interpretations of relationships to productivity
and shell thickness. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Vol
24(2): 213-227.
Wiemeyer, S.N., C.M. Bunck, and AJ. Krynitsky. 1988. Organochlorine pesticides,
polychlorinated-biphenyls, and mercury in osprey eggs 1970-79 and their relationships
to shell thinning and productivity. Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology Vol 17(6):767-787.
Yamashita, N., S. Tanabe, J.P. Ludwig, H. Kurita, M.E. Ludwig, and R. Tatsukawa. 1993.
Embryonic abnormalities and Organochlorine contamination in double-crested
cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) and Caspian terns (Hydroprogne caspid) from the
upper Great Lakes in 1988. Environmental Pollution Vol 79(2): 163-173.
RECOMMENDATION: None
PROPOSED LANGUAGE: None yet available
LIST OF PREPARERS: Sue Robinson, Parametrix, Inc., Jeremy Buck, U.S, Fish and
Wildlife Service
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #19 - Testing Protocols Available For Laboratory Based
Freshwater Bioaccumulation Testing Under RSET
BIOACCUMULATION SUBCOMMITTEE: D Kendall
(david.r.kendall@usace.artny.mil) and T. Michelsen (teresa@avocetconsulting.com), Co-
Chairs; September 19, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: What are the available laboratory-based freshwater
bioaccumulation testing protocols available and what are the known advantages and
disadvantages of these protocols?
DISCUSSION:
Background: The current Dredged Material Evaluation Framework (DMEF) for the Lower
Columbia River Management Area (EPA/Corps 1998a) contains guidance for laboratory
based freshwater bioaccumulation testing in section 9.4 of the manual. Bioaccumulation
testing is currently a Tier III requirement when there is reason to believe that specific
chemicals of concern (CoCs) may be accumulating in target tissues at levels of concern.
The DMEF and the Inland Testing Manual (EPA/Corps 1998b), recommends a 28-day
laboratory bioaccumulation tests for assessing the potential for constituents to
bioaccumulate. The Inland Testing Manual recommends the use of two bioaccumulation
test species where possible representing two different trophic niches such as a suspension-
feeding/filter-feeding and a burrowing deposit feeding organism. For marine/estuarine
systems, the DMEF has established a set of two species to be tested; an adult bivalve
(Macoma nasuta) and an adult polychaete (Nereis virens, Nepthys, orArenicola marina).
For freshwater systems, the DMEF recommends the use of the oligochaete Lumbriculus
variegatus but does not specifically recommend a second freshwater bioaccumulation test
species. The Inland Testing Manual (Table 12-1) presents a list of candidate laboratory
bioaccumulation test species, however, there are only three listed as appropriate for
freshwater sediments; Lumbriculus variegatus, the mayfly Hexagenia limbata, and the
amphipod Diporeia sp. Of these three, only Lumbriculus variegatus, is commonly used for
28-day solid phase bioaccumulation testing for freshwater sediments. Ingersoll et. al. (EPA
1998) has stated that one of the disadvantages for the use of mayflies and the amphipod
Diporeia sp. as a laboratory test species is the difficulty in culturing these organisms. It
should be noted that the recently published "Regional Implementation Manual for the
evaluation of dredged Material Proposed for Disposal in New England Waters" (EPA/Corps
2004) states that only one freshwater bioaccumulation test species is required for dredge
material testing.
Discussion: The Bioaccumulation Subcommittee identified the need to summarize the
current status of freshwater bioaccumulation testing protocols and also discuss the need and
options available for the development of new freshwater test protocols and species.
-------
Lumbriculus variegatus is the standard freshwater bioaccumulation testing organism
recommended by the DMEF and Inland Testing manual but has limited tissue biomass
available for analytical chemistry testing of tissues, which limits the types of chemical
analysis that can be conducted on tissues at the conclusion of the standard 28-day laboratory
bioaccumulation test.
In general, using existing EPA/ASTM protocols, the mean wet weight mass of tissue that
can be collected from the replicate exposure chambers is approximately 8 to 9 grams.
Depending on the nature and chemicals of interest in the test sediment, this tissue mass may
be insufficient to be able to run complete analytical chemistry testing on more than one or
two classes of compounds. For example, testing for PCBs/Pesticides, or semivolatile
compounds, or metals each requires about four to six grams wet weight of tissue to provide
an adequate amount of mass for chemical analyses. By reducing the available amount of
tissue for chemical testing, the consequence can be that not all required analytes can be
tested for, detection limits may become elevated due to insufficient tissue mass, and no
extra tissue is available for secondary extraction and analysis if any )quality
assurance/quality control QA/QC) problems arise during the initial analysis.
There have been efforts to develop analytical methods that do not require as much tissue for
analysis, but at this point in time, these methods are not provided by commercial analytical
laboratories and it is unclear whether all the appropriate method development activities have
been completed.
One alternative that has been explored in the freshwater systems of the Pacific Northwest
(and in other areas) is the use of the bivalve Corbicula fluminea as a second laboratory
bioassay species. The bivalve Corbicula fluminea is also a recommended species by this
subcommittee for in-situ bioaccumulation testing (Salazar 2004). The advantage for the use
of this species is that the available tissue mass at the end of the laboratory exposure is much
greater than that for Lumbriculus, about thirty to forty grams wet weight per replicate.
Corbicula fluminea is a bivalve found throughout the freshwater systems in the Pacific
Northwest (as well as the united states in general), therefore, there is an ecological relevance
to its use in bioaccumulation testing. Hart Crowser (2002) conducted side-by-side testing of
these two species in 28-day bioaccumulation tests from potential reference sediments
collected in the Willamette River in Oregon (Hart Crowser 2002).
While this study focused on sediments that contained very limited concentrations of
bioaccumulative compounds, the study did come to the conclusion that Corbicula is a
promising candidate for use as a second freshwater laboratory bioassay species and survived
and were healthy after 28-days of exposure using standard EPA/ASTM protocols in fine-
grained and medium-grained sediment. Corps (2001) provides a list of publications that
have also evaluated the use of Corbicula as a bioaccumulation test species under a variety
of test protocols.
One of the concerns that has been expressed with the use of Corbicula fluminea is whether
the uptake kinetics of this species is similar to Lumbriculus variegatus. Bivalves are able to
conduct avoidance behavior in unsuitable habitats/situations by reducing their respiration
-------
and filter feeding which would consequently reduce exposure to sediment-associated
contaminants. It has yet to be determined whether this is a real phenomenon and if it is,
whether this difference would have any significance in regulatory decision-making.
REFERENCES:
EPA/Corps (U.S.Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1998a.
Dredged Material Evaluation Framework; Lower Columbia River Management Area.
November, 1998.
EPA/Corps, 1998b. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of
the U.S. - Testing manual. EPA-823-B-89-004, Washington, D.C.
EPA/Corps, 2004. Regional Implementation Manual for the evaluation of dredged Material
Proposed for Disposal in New England Waters. April, 2004.
EPA (U.S.Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. National Sediment Bioaccumulation
Conference; Proceedings. EPA 823-R-98-002. Office of Water. February 1998.
Hart Crowser. 2002. Lower Willamette River Reference Area Study. Prepared for the U.S.
Army Corps of engineers. April 2002.
https://www.nwp.usace.armv.mil/ec/h/hr/ReportsAVillamette/willametteref 02.pdf
Salazar, M. 2004. RSET Bioaccumulation Subcommittee Issue Paper; Testing Protocols
for In-Situ Freshwater Bioaccumulation Testing.
Corps. 2001. Annotated Bibliography and Guide to Products of the LEDO
Bioaccumulation and Adverse Effects Work Unit. ERDC/TN EEDP-01-47. May 2001.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Compile and Evaluate Existing Data on Bioaccumulation of Various Classes of
Bioaccumulative Compounds by Corbicula flununea and Compare with Results from
Lumbriculus variegatus tests. This evaluation will be helpful to determine any differences
in bioaccumulation kinetics between the oligochaete and the bivalve and the magnitude of
the difference if such a difference exists. This information can be used as the basis for
determining whether any discovered differences between these two test species are
significant or not for regulatory decision-making.
2. Conduct Additional Bioaccumulation Testing Using Corbicula as Projects Allow. By
increasing the amount of data available on these two species, we should be able to have
greater certainty to any decision RSET makes as to recommendations for their use.
3. Follow-up on Methods Development for Analytical Techniques that Utilize Reduced
Tissue Volumes. This exercise will help RSET determine the advantages and trade-offs
present with the current methods available to conduct tissue analysis using low tissue
volumes.
-------
4. Coordinate with Other Researchers that are Exploring Related Issues. Scientist at
the Corps Waterways Experiment Station and other research institutions have completed
studies using Corbicula as a test bioaccumulation species. Speaking and coordinating with
these researchers may provide additional insight on the appropriate use of Corbicula in
freshwater bioaccumulation testing.
5. Recommend that Two Species be Used for Freshwater Bioaccumulation Testing.
Once sufficient method development has taken place for Corbicula fluminea, it is
recommended, where possible, that two species be used for bioaccumulation testing. This is
consistent with the Inland Testing Manual recommendations (EPA/Corps 1998b) that two
species be tested to cover the range of accumulation rates amongst test species and to be
environmentally protective.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE: None yet available
LIST OF PREPARERS: Taku Fuji, Ph.D., Kennedy/Jenks Consultants and Jim
Meador, NOAA Fisheries
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #20 - Testing Protocols For In-Situ Freshwater
Bioaccumulation Testing
BIO ACCUMULATION SUBCOMMITTEE: D Kendall
(david.r.kendall@usace.artny.mil) and T. Michelsen (teresa@avocetconsulting.com), Co-
Chairs; September 19, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: What are the available in-situ freshwater bioaccumulation
testing protocols and what are the known advantages and disadvantages of these
protocols?
DISCUSSION:
Background: Consensus-based American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) protocols
have been developed for in-situ caged bivalves that can be used to assess bioaccumulation potential
and associated biological effects from contaminated sediments in marine, estuarine and freshwater
species (ASTM 2001). Over 30 freshwater studies have been conducted in freshwater environments
using these methods and 7 different species. These studies include five Superfund sites; three
marine and two freshwater. The main advantage of this approach is the ability to characterize
exposure and effects over space and time and under environmentally realistic test conditions. The
main disadvantage is the cost, although costs do not increase incrementally with time as in
laboratory toxicity or bioaccumulation tests because daily maintenance is not required. Other
advantages and disadvantages are summarized in Table 1 (Salazar & Salazar 1998).
Protocols have also been developed for freshwater toxicity tests using species other than bivalves
that may be adaptable for in-situ bioaccumulation testing (Burton 2002). The most promising
candidate among those protocols is the oligochaete Lumbriculus variegatus, although questions have
been raised regarding the small tissue mass and this species was not reported in a recent survey of
the Lower Columbia River (Waldeck et al. 2003). The main advantage of Lumbriculus is that
methods exist for in-situ testing and it has been used routinely in the laboratory for toxicity testing
across the country for many years. The analogous disadvantage in the marine environment would be
the polychaete worms Neanthes arenaceodentata and Armandia brevis. While they too have been
used extensively for toxicity testing, they have been used less for bioaccumulation testing because of
their relatively small tissue mass. Nevertheless, these species have been used effectively for both
toxicity and bioaccumulation testing.
In-situ testing is needed as part of RSET to bridge the gap between traditional laboratory testing and
field monitoring and help establish links between bioaccumulation data collected using those
methods. Because effects endpoints such as survival, growth, and reproduction have been
developed for some bioaccumulation test species, in-situ testing can also help integrate toxicity and
bioaccumulation testing. Other advantages include validation of results from laboratory
bioaccumulation testing and integration of results from field monitoring, assessment of long-term
exposures and associated effects, and the ability to characterize benthic exposure pathways under
environmentally realistic conditions. While there are no perfect monitoring tools, bivalves satisfy
many of the criteria identified for being a practical in-situ testing organism for bioaccumulation
potential and associated biological effects.
-------
Discussion: The Bioaccumulation Subcommittee identified the need to summarize the current state
of in-situ freshwater bioaccumulation protocols and options available for the development of new
freshwater test protocols and species. The need for using two species for assessing bioaccumulation
potential was also discussed. A list of criteria for selecting appropriate species for in-situ
bioaccumulation tests was compared with a list of species found in the Lower Columbia River in a
recent survey to help develop a candidate list of indicator organisms. In the context of RSET,
criteria used for selecting organisms to assess bioaccumulation potential and protect higher trophic
level wildlife should be similar to those used for selecting toxicity test organisms. Criteria for
selecting candidate freshwater species for testing should be similar to those used for selecting
marine species. The selection of a suitable organism is one of the first steps in the preparing a
monitoring strategy once the decision to conduct bioaccumulation testing has been made. The
importance of this step cannot be overemphasized. Several attributes of both the organism and the
study area must be considered. Furthermore, no one organism is best suited for all aquatic
ecosystems (Burton 2002, Phillips 1980). This is another reason for using two bioaccumulation test
species instead of only one.
Species Selection Criteria
The following criteria for selecting candidate species for in-situ bioaccumulation testing were
synthesized from several different sources which included different perspectives (Burton 2002,
Phillips 1980, Widdows & Donkin 1992). A test organism should:
a) Accumulate chemicals at concentrations in test sediment without being killed,
b) Be sedentary, to represent the study area and minimize caging effects,
c) Be abundant, with stable populations in the area for ecological relevance,
d) Be sufficiently long-lived to allow the sampling of more than 1-year class,
e) Be of reasonable size, giving adequate tissue for analysis,
f) Be easy to sample and robust enough to survive in the laboratory,
g) Be easy to collect, cage, and make bioaccumulation measurements on,
h) Have a large toxicological database for pairing exposure and effects endpoints,
I) Be easily identified,
j) Have standardized protocols available,
k) Allow integration of laboratory testing, field monitoring, and in-situ experiments, and
1) Have a relatively low ability to metabolize accumulated chemicals.
Candidate Test Species
Based on the criteria identified above, three groups of organisms were selected as satisfying the
criteria and being in the Lower Columbia River. In order of preference these were 1) bivalves; 2)
gastropods; and 3) decapods (crayfish).
Bivalves
Fourteen to 15 species of freshwater bivalves are found in the Lower Columbia River. These
include the invasive species Corbicula fluminea and four native unionids in the genus Anodonta.
Although Anodonta satisfy many of the criteria and may be more sensitive than Corbicula, they are
not recommended for large-scale monitoring and testing because of their declining numbers and
uncertain taxonomy. The dichotomy is that while native unionids need to be studied to preserve
them, their numbers may be too small to collect in large numbers to support extensive monitoring
and assessment. Many more studies have been conducted on Corbicula throughout the world,
including laboratory bioaccumulation and toxicity tests, field monitoring, and transplant
-------
experiments, and they have been found in almost every previous survey conducted on the Lower
Columbia River. In addition, a laboratory bioaccumulation test is being proposed for this species as
partofRSET.
Corbicula fluminea is an introduced freshwater bivalve found throughout freshwater environments
in the Pacific Northwest in large numbers and therefore is ecologically relevant. Side-by-side
bioaccumulation tests have been conducted using Corbicula fluminea and Lumbriculus variegatus
using 28-day laboratory exposures to candidate reference sediments collected in the Willamette
River in Oregon (Hart Crowser 2002). While one of the concerns regarding the use of Corbicula
fluminea has been the uptake kinetics of this species relative to Lumbriculus variegatus and valve
closure to avoid exposure in a short-term 28-d exposure, this is not an issue in standard in-situ
testing protocols that suggest an exposure period of 60 to 90 days for most species and most
chemicals. Bivalves are able to close their valves to avoid exposure in short-term tests and reduce
their respiration and filtration rates, which would consequently reduce exposure to sediment-
associated contaminants. However, in longer term tests, effects would be manifested in reduced
survival and growth rates. This is another reason for pairing exposure and effects endpoints in
toxicity and bioaccumulation tests.
Also included in this list are seven species of fingernail clams. The main advantage of fingernail
clams is their small size. This makes them very suitable for laboratory and field testing but their
small size is also a disadvantage for bioaccumulation potential for the same reason that Lumbriculus
has a disadvantage. Nevertheless, they should be considered for bioaccumulation and toxicity
testing. Fingernail clams have been shown to be extremely sensitive to ammonia, among other
chemicals, and have been used in a number of in-situ toxicity tests. While ammonia is not easily
measured in bivalve tissues, fingernail clams should be placed in the category of candidate species
for in-situ bioaccumulation testing and laboratory toxicity testing.
Gastropods
Gastropods also have a good potential for freshwater monitoring because they also satisfy many of
the criteria for selecting candidate test species. Many species related to those found on the Lower
Columbia River have been used in laboratory bioaccumulation and toxicity tests, field monitoring
and even transplant experiments. However, they have not been used as extensively as bivalves.
Although 35 different species have been reported in the literature, only 14 of those were found in the
most recent surveys. Perhaps more importantly, these gastropods are classified as deposit feeders
and potentially in more direct contact with sediment. In a weight-of-evidence approach with
multiple species they would be a good second choice for laboratory testing, field monitoring, and
transplant experiments.
Crayfish
Only one species of freshwater crayfish has been reported in the LCR and it was also found in the
most recent Lower Columbia River surveys. Pacifastacus leniusculus leniusculus has the potential
to be an important species for laboratory testing, field monitoring and transplant experiments.
However, since only one species was found and it has been used far less than either bivalves or
gastropods we ranked it third in terms of recommended species but as with the gastropods, remains
potentially useful, particularly in a weight of evidence approach. Additionally, it represents a
different pathway of exposure in that the dietary exposure pathway should dominate, particularly for
hydrophobic organic chemicals.
-------
REFERENCES:
Aravindakshan, J., V. Paquet, M. Gregory, J. Dufresne, M. Fournier, D. J. Marcogliese, and D. G. I.
P. Cyr. In Press. Consequences of xenoestrogen exposure on male reproductive function in spottail
shiners (Notropis hudsonius). Toxicol. Sci.
Blaise, C., F. Gagne, J. Pellerin, and P.-D. Hansen. 1999. Determination of vitellogenin-like
properties inMya arenaria hemolymph (Saguenay Fjord, Canada): a potential biomarker for
endocrine disruption. Environ. Toxicol. 14(5):455-465.
Blaise, C., S. Trottier, F. Gagne, C. Lallement, and P. D. Hansen. 2002. Evaluation of
immunocompetence in hemocytes of bivalves with a miniaturized phagocytosis assay. Environ.
Toxicol. 17(3): 160-169.
Blaise, C., F. Gagne, M. Salazar, S. Salazar, S. Trottier, and P. D. Hansen. 2003. Experimentally-
induced feminisation of freshwater mussels after long-term exposure to a municipal effluent.
Fresen. Environ. Bull. 12(8):865-870.
Burton, G.A. 2002. Draft Standard Guide for Assessing Freshwater Ecosystem Impairment Using
Caged Fish or Invertebrates. ASTM Subcommittee E47.03 on Sediment Assessment & Toxicology.
EPA/Corps (U.S.Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1998a.
Dredged Material Evaluation Framework; Lower Columbia River Management Area. November,
1998.
EPA/Corps, 1998b. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. -
Testing manual. EPA-823-B-89-004, Washington, D.C.
Gagne, F., C. Blaise, I. Aoyama, R. Luo, C. Gagnon, Y. Couillard, and M. Salazar. 2002.
Biomarker study of a municipal effluent dispersion plume in two species of freshwater mussels.
Environ. Toxicol. 17:149-159.
Gagne, F., C. Blaise, B. Lachance, G. I. Sunahara, and H. Sabik. 200la. Evidence of coprostanol
estrogenicity to the freshwater mussel Elliptic complanata. Environ. Pollut. 15:97-106.
Gagne, F., C. Blaise, M. Salazar, S. Salazar, and P. D. Hansen. 200Ib. Evaluation of estrogenic
effects of municipal effluents to the freshwater mussel Elliptic complanata. Comp. Biochem.
Physiol. C 128:213-225.
Gagne, F., D. J. Marcogliese, C. Blaise, and A. D. Gendron. 2001c. Occurrence of compounds
estrogenic to freshwater mussels in surface waters in an urban area. Environ. Toxicol. 16(3)260-
268.
Hart Crowser, 2002. Lower Willamette River Reference Area Study. Prepared for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. April 2002.
https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/ec/h/hr/ReportsAVillamette/willamette_ref_02.pdf
Kernaghan, N. J., D. S. Ruessler, S. E. Holm, and T. S. Gross. An evaluation of the potential effects
of paper mill effluents on freshwater mussels in Rice Creek, Florida. This Volume.
-------
Phillips, D. J. H. 1980. Quantitative Aquatic Biological Indicators - Their Use to Monitor Trace
Metal and Organochlorine Pollution. London, Applied Science Publishers Ltd.
Salazar, M. H. and S. M. Salazar. 1998. Using caged bivalves as part of an exposure-dose-response
triad to support an integrated risk assessment strategy. In: A. de Peyster and K. Day (Eds.),
Proceedings, Ecological Risk Assessment: A Meeting of Policy and Science. Pensacola, FL.,
SETAC Press., pp. 167-192.
Salazar, M. H., S. M. Salazar, F. Gagne, C. Blaise, and S. Trottier. 2002. Developing abenthic
cage for long-term in-situ tests with freshwater and marine bivalves. In: Proceedings of the 29th
Annual Aquatic Toxicity Workshop. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
2438. Whistler, British Columbia. 62. pp. 34-42.
Salazar, M. H., S. M. Salazar, F. Gagne, C. Blaise, and S. Trottier. 2003. An in-situ benthic cage to
characterize long-term organochlorine exposure and estrogenic effects. Organohalogen Compounds
62:440-443.
Waldeck , R.D., Chapman, J., Cordell, J., and Sytsma, J. 2003. Interim Report. Lower Columbia
River, Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Survey 2001-2003. Appendices.
http://www.clr .pdx.edu/projects/cr_survey/cr-docs/LCRANSInterimReport.pdf.
Widdows, J. and P. Donkin. 1992. Mussels and environmental contaminants: bioaccumulation and
physiological aspects. In: E. Gosling (Ed.), The Mussel Mytilus: Ecology, Physiology, Genetics
and Culture. Amsterdam. Elsevier Science Publishers, pp. 383-424.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Bioaccumulation Subcommittee recommends Corbicula fluminea as the first choice for in-situ
assessments of bioaccumulation potential because it has been used extensively in laboratory testing,
field monitoring, and in-situ assessments of both toxicity and bioaccumulation potential. The
Bioaccumulation Subcommittee recommends the following tasks to be completed:
1. Compile and evaluate existing data on bioaccumulation by Corbicula fluminea and another
species to be selected.
2. Conduct additional bioaccumulation testing in the lab and the field using Corbicula as projects
allow.
3. Conduct additional bioaccumulation testing for other candidate species.
4. Conduct synoptic bioaccumulation tests in the laboratory and in-situ using Corbicula and the
second candidate test species.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE: None yet available
LIST OF PREPARERS: Mike Salazaar, Applied Biomonitoring
-------
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of the in-situ field bioassay by category: transplants, bivalves, bioaccumulation, and growth.
Transplants
Bivalves
Bioaccumulation
Growth Whole Animal/Tissue
(A
0)
o
ra
4-1
ra
TJ
Experimental control
Environmental realism
Defined exposure period
Infinite sampling matrix
Repetitive, non-destructive
sampling
Monitoring individuals
Field validation
Exposure system
Captive biochemical
sampling
Hypothesis testing
Low maintenance
Integrate bioavailable
contaminants
Bioconcentrate contaminants
Easy to collect, cage,
measure
Large database from field
monitoring and lab bioassays
Survive sub-optimal conditions
Any biochemical
measurements possible
Sedentary
No feeding required
Standardized protocols
Concentrations above ambient
Integration of contaminants,
natural factors, man-made non-
toxics
Assessments for sediment,
overlying water, or porewater
Link between exposure and
response
Link between lab and field
Link between bioassays and
community structure
Long-term exposures ~1 yr
Integration of internal biological
processes
Environmentally significant response
Link to population effects
Quantifiable dose-response
Related to environmental exposures
Repetitive, non-destructive
measurements
Easy for the public to understand
No special equipment
No specialized training
More sensitive than survival
Long-term exposures ~1 yr
(A
0)
O)
ra
4-1
ra
TJ
ra
(A
Q
Effects of transplanting
Loss of cages from acts of
nature, inadvertent capture
by moving vessels,
vandalism
Cost of collection, sorting,
deployment
Possible caging effects
Not found in all areas
May not be representative of
assessment area
May not be the most sensitive
species
May not directly assess
community effects
May close to avoid exposure in
short-term tests
Affected by chemical and natural
factors
Not all contaminants are
accumulated equally
Some contaminants may be
purged
May not always accurately
represent effective dose
Affected by chemical and natural
factors
May not be the most sensitive
bioeffect
Tissue and shell growth occur at
different rates and are affected by
different factors
May not directly assess community
effects
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #21 - Framework for Deriving Tissue Concentrations to be
Protective of People Consuming Fish and Shellfish
BIO ACCUMULATION SUBCOMMITTEE: D Kendall
(david.r.kendall@usace.artny.mil) and T. Michelsen (teresa@avocetconsulting.com), Co-
Chairs; September 19, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: How should target tissue concentrations (TTCs) be derived to
protect people who consume fish and shellfish?
DISCUSSION:
Background: The RSET bioaccumulation subcommittee was organized to propose
methods to derive trigger concentrations for chemicals in sediments based on
bioaccumulation into tissues. Current sediment guidelines and criteria are based on toxicity
testing and do not directly address the potential for bioaccumulation into fish and shellfish
and the resulting potential for risks to wildlife and human consumers, and to fish and
shellfish themselves as receptors (Cite Teresa's Framework Paper here). This technical
memorandum provides a proposed approach to deriving bioaccumulation trigger levels in
tissues that would be protective of human health, which is a necessary step prior to
developing bioaccumulation trigger levels in sediments. A separate paper discusses
approaches for the back-calculation of sediment trigger levels from fish or shellfish tissue
trigger levels. For the purposes of this assessment, only human health risks associated with
consumption of bioaccumulative chemicals in fish or shellfish are considered. At some
sediment sites, it may be necessary to also consider other potential pathways (e.g., direct
human contact with sediments). However, where fish and shellfish consumption is one of
the potential exposure pathways, the food-related pathway typically is a more substantial
contributor to site risks than direct contact with sediments. Thus, initial focus on fish and
shellfish consumption is appropriate.
The TTCs are intended to be tissue concentrations that would be applicable at all sites. The
TTCs will be used to derive bioaccumulation trigger levels for sediments, which will be
used in decision-making for: 1) screening at potential sediment cleanup sites; and 2)
evaluating whether open-water disposal is acceptable for dredged material. In site
screening, site-specific sediment data can be compared with bioaccumulation trigger levels
or, if tissue data are available, tissue concentrations can be compared with TTCs. Because
the intended uses for the sediment bioaccumulation trigger levels involve a wide variety of
site-specific conditions, some flexibility is desirable in applying the TTCs to derive
sediment bioaccumulation trigger levels. Specifically, the size and nature of the sediment
source (i.e., the degree of contamination, the area and distribution of contamination) and the
relative presence and abundance offish and shellfish resources in the area with affected
sediments may also be considered as part of regulatory risk management decision-making.
In deriving the bioaccumulation trigger levels for sediments from the TTCs, it may be
reasonable to apply a reduction factor to account for the degree to which sediments at a
-------
specific site could contribute to fish and shellfish concentrations as considered in the TTC.
The first section of this paper provides an overview of the background and applicability of
this methodology. Following this is a general algorithm for calculation of tissue levels to be
protective of human health risks and a discussion of considerations in deriving such levels.
Proposed methodology for calculating target tissue concentrations to be protective of
people consuming fish and shellfish: As described in the framework document, the initial
list of bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCoCs) will be developed through
consideration of numerous lines of evidence, including the potential for bioaccumulation
and the presence of the chemical at concentrations greater than reference (or background)
concentrations in sediments. It is proposed here that TTCs for fish and shellfish should not
be lower than tissue concentrations observed at reference (or background) locations. This
will serve to limit the amount of resources spent on addressing chemicals with widespread
anthropogenic (or in some cases naturally occurring) sources where exposure within a
relatively small area of contaminated sediments may have little or no influence on resulting
tissue concentrations.
In order to accomplish this objective, it is proposed that TTCs first be calculated for all
BCoCs and then compared with appropriate reference or background concentrations, taking
into account the need to balance the objective of reducing overall environmental
concentrations with the potentially limited benefit associated with reducing concentrations
below those in adjacent sediments, particularly where ongoing sources are present. For
example, in evaluating a cleanup site within an urban area, TTCs might best be compared
with urban reference concentrations so that TTCs in these areas would not be set lower than
urban reference conditions. In contrast, evaluation of TTCs for relatively pristine open-
water dredged material disposal sites should not be set lower than background
concentrations. This comparison will be most relevant for metals, particularly arsenic and
mercury, but may also be relevant for ubiquitous organic compounds such as DDT, PCBs
and PCDD/Fs. Identification of appropriate background (e.g., relatively pristine) and
reference (e.g., urban sites with no known sources) is presently not well defined and will be
a task to be addressed by the RSET bioaccumulation subcommittee through consideration of
available regional data on tissue concentrations.
Toxicity values: TTCs will need to address both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects
of BCoCs through application of a carcinogenic slope factor (CSF) for carcinogenic effects
and a reference dose (RfD) for non-carcinogenic effects. EPA-approved toxicity values are
described on the EPA Integrated Risk Information System web site1 and EPA's Provisional
Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Superfund (PPRTV)2. Additional interim toxicity values
1 http://www.epa.gov/iris/search.htm
2 http://hhpprtv.ornl.gov/..
-------
can be obtained by contacting EPA Region 10 or the EPA's National Center for
Environmental Assessment (NCEA)3.
Algorithm for calculating TTCs for carcinogenic effects of BCoCs: TTCs for carcinogenic
effects of BCoCs can be calculated using the following general algorithm:
TTr, /7 | TRxATcxBW
TTC (mg/kg) =
EFxEDxFIxCLxIRxO.OO\kg/gxCSF
TTC = target tissue concentration in fish or shellfish tissue (mg/kg wet
weight)
TR = target risk of 10~6 proposed for individual carcinogens
ATC = averaging time (25,550 days)
BW = body weight (kg adult or child; varies with receptor population)
0.001 = conversion of grams fish to kg
EF = exposure frequency (365 days/year)
ED = exposure duration (years; varies with receptor population)
FI = fraction of intake assumed from site(variable up to 100 percent; see
text)
CL = cooking loss (none assumed; see text)
IR = ingestion rate for fish or shellfish (g/day; see text)
CSF = carcinogenic slope factor (mg/kg-day)"1
Algorithm for calculating TTCs for non-carcinogenic effects of BCoCs: For non-
carcinogenic effects, the following algorithm can be used to derive TTCs for fish and
shellfish tissue:
EFxEDxFIxCLxIRxO.OOlkg/g
TTC = target tissue concentration in fish or shellfish tissue (mg/kg wet
weight)
THQ = target hazard quotient (0.1)
ATn = averaging time (exposure duration (years) x 365 days/year)
BW = body weight (kg adult or child; varies with receptor population)
0.001 = conversion of grams to kg
EF = exposure frequency (365 days/year)
ED = exposure duration (years; varies with receptor population)
FI = fraction of intake assumed from site (variable, up to 100 percent; see
text)
CL = cooking loss (none assumed; see text)
IR = ingestion rate for fish or shellfish (see text)
RfD = reference dose for non-cancer effects (mg/kg-day)
1 http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/aboutncea.cfm? ActType=AboutNCEA
-------
Selection of a target risk and hazard index: For carcinogenic effects of BCoCs, a total
cumulative target risk level of 10"5 (upper-end) is proposed, which is consistent with
regulatory requirements set out by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. This
risk level represents the middle of the risk range (10"4 to 10"6) typically identified as
acceptable by EPA and allows for exposure to multiple carcinogenic BCoCs. In order to
achieve this risk level, TTCs for individual BCoCs will be set at risk levels of 10"6. Site
managers may determine appropriate adjustments where fewer than 10 BCoCs are present at
a site.
In deriving TTCs for non-cancer endpoints, a cumulative hazard index of 1 is proposed. In
order to not exceed this cumulative level, initial TTCs for individual BCoCs will be derived
through application of a hazard index of 0.1 for screening. Where multiple BCoCs are
present at concentrations greater than the non-cancer TTC, site managers may consider
additional evaluation to determine whether the BCoCs identified at the site could affect the
same target organs at the concentrations present. If this is not the case, it may be
appropriate to adjust the resulting sediment bioaccumulation target levels to result in a
cumulative hazard index of 1.0.
Selection of receptor population and endpoint: It is desirable to have a single TTC to
address all human health considerations. However, the TTC will need to be protective of
both adults and children consuming fish and shellfish and protective of both the
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects of BCoCs. Where EPA has both a CSF and an
RfD available for a BCoC, the carcinogenic effect will typically provide the lowest risk-
based concentration for various reasons, including the assumption that there is no threshold
for carcinogenic effects. However, in some contexts, there may be some BCoCs for which
the TTC calculated based on non-cancer endpoints is lower (more health-protective) than
that derived based on the CSF. In addition, depending on the consumption rates assumed
for adults and children, the TTC for non-carcinogenic effects may be lower for children
consuming fish than for adults, particularly at the 10"5 cancer risk level. Thus, once the
target risk level and the consumption rates are selected for use in deriving TTCs, these
considerations will need to be evaluated to derive a TTC protective of all receptors and
endpoints.
Exposure assumptions - fish consumption, fractional intake, and cooking loss: As
described above, the TTCs will be derived to be protective of all populations and endpoints.
To meet this objective, fish consumption rates for various populations present in the region
will need to be reviewed to determine the most representative rates for adults and children.
Because consumption rates are highly variable among various populations, it may be
beneficial to derive more than one set of rates (e.g., a recreational and a high-end or tribal
rate) depending on the specific situation. Where site-specific consumption rate studies have
been conducted, risk managers may determine whether they should be applied on a case-by-
case basis.
Although studies of tribal consumption rates have estimated fish and shellfish consumption
rates for children, most studies of recreational fish and shellfish consumption have focused
on adults only, and therefore some rates may need to be developed based on adults, with
-------
some consideration of their likely applicability to children. Because recreational rates are
much lower than those identified for subsistence populations and because not all sites are
locations for subsistence fishing, it may be appropriate to calculate separate TTCs for
recreational and subsistence populations and determine on a site-by-site basis which is most
appropriate as the basis for a TTC. An additional consideration is the fraction that the
affected area represents of the overall subsistence or recreational fishing and gathering area
(i.e. FI, or the fractional intake from the site). It is proposed that the TTCs be developed
based on a default fractional intake of 100 percent, but then allow for consideration of site-
specific characteristics as appropriate (e.g., limited resources within the site, small site size)
in linking the TTCs to a given sediment evaluation.
Cooking reduces the concentrations of some organic BCoCs in fish and shellfish. However,
given the variability in cooking methods applied by various populations in the region,
cooking loss factors are not proposed for the generic TTCs. It may be appropriate to
consider this factor on a case-by-case basis in more detailed evaluations at sites where
warranted.
REFERENCES: None
RECOMMENDATION: None
PROPOSED LANGUAGE: None yet available
LIST OF PREPARERS: Lisa Yost, Exponent Environmental Group
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #25 - Integrating Range of Disposal Options into SEF
POLICY SUBCOMMITTEE: S Stirling, Chair
(Stephanie.K.Stirling@NWS02.usace.army.mil); February 17, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: Integrating Range of Disposal Options into SEF.
DISCUSSION: Currently the Dredged Material Evaluation Framework (DMEF) provides
a process for evaluating whether dredge material is suitable for open water placement.
RSET consensus is that the Sediment Evaluations Framework (SEF) should be expanded to
include procedures, or references to existing guidelines, for evaluating the suitability of
dredge material for other disposal/management options. The SEF will also identify, or
reference appropriate guidelines for, any associated long-term monitoring/management
requirements associated with particular disposal options and indicate the appropriate
regulatory authority for overseeing these requirements. It would also be helpful if the SEF
included discussion of how unconfmed or confined aquatic disposal sites are established or
how suitable upland disposal sites are identified.
REFERENCES: None
RECOMMENDATION: Specific text and table revision to appropriate sections of DMEF.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE CHANGES: Chapter 1 - Introduction
Revise introduction to reflect that manual will address all five basic dredge material
disposal options: unconfmed aquatic, unconfmed upland, confined aquatic, confined
nearshore, and confined upland.
Expand discussion of unconfmed aquatic disposal to describe types of available sites
(e.g., flow-lane, near shore,??) and indicate that particular locations may have site-
specific criteria for determining suitability.
Include general discussion of how sampling requirements may differ for different
disposal options and what efficiencies may be gained by considering these sampling
needs during the initial characterization of the material to be dredged.
Reference appendix that lists and includes location maps for unconfmed aquatic
disposal sites.
Chapter 2 - Dredged Material Management Regulation
Revise discussion of federal regulations to include an overview of Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as it pertains to upland disposal. Careful
with this one. The HW folks just promulgated HWIR, which exempts sediment
from a consideration as an HW.
Revise discussion of state regulations to include an overview of pertinent state
authority/requirements for management of solid waste (only pertinent to Oregon?).
If we can get Washington to talk too, we might all learn something...
-------
Chapter 4 - Overview of Regulatory Processes
Expand flow charts and discussion to include approval and, as necessary, permitting
by state solid waste program where upland disposal at a non-permitted site is
proposed.
Indicate that disposal at a permitted landfill will require approval by the landfill
owner/operator.
Expand flow charts and discussion to include approval by appropriate authority
(likely state agency) where CAD or CDF disposal or disposal in a particular
unconfmed disposal site is proposed. Reference appendix with list of particular
available facilities, identified contacts, and maps with disposal site locations.
Chapter 5 - Tiered Evaluation Process and Tier I
Include discussion that material meeting exclusion ranking under Tier I or Ha is
generally suitable for unconfmed or confined aquatic disposal. Potential issue: need
for additional evaluation at specific disposal sites - may be resolved with
establishment of new protocols regarding application of exclusion ranking.
Add note that material meeting exclusion ranking under Tier I or Ha may still be
considered solid waste in Oregon if placed upland and may require associated solid
waste permitting. Suggested changes based on some work I am doing with DSL to
clarify this issue.
Expand Tiered testing flow chart and discussion of transition to subsequent tiers to
more specifically identify other dredge material management options and associated
evaluation frameworks - refer to appendix.
Chapter 6 - Sampling and Analysis Plan
Identify aspects of the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) that may differ depending
on the disposal option. This could include sampling intensity, analytes, and
analytical techniques.
Include example of a SAP for upland disposal in appendix.
Chapter 7 - Sampling Protocols
Include sampling approach that would assess other disposal options concurrent with
the assessment of unconfmed aquatic disposal.
Include discussion of additional sample collection/handling procedures and criteria
pertinent to confined disposal options or upland disposal options (e.g., leachate
tests).
Chapter 8 - Tier II Physical and Chemical Testing
At some point, may want to include screening levels for unconfmed upland disposal.
At this time, in Oregon, upland disposal may still require a SW determination.
Screening levels in Washington and Idaho may be available.
At some point, may want to include screening levels or dredge material
characteristics that would make the material unsuitable for confined in-water
disposal (CAD, CDF).
At some point, may want to include screening levels or testing protocols that would
-------
indicate the material is hazardous waste.
Chapter 9 - Tier III Biological Testing
May want to add a note that this testing does not apply to disposal other than
unconfmed in-water (or beach nourishment?).
Chapter 9.5? - Tier III Testing for Disposal Options Other than Unconfmed In-Water
One option - to have a focused section on the testing protocols for upland or
confined in-water disposal options - primarily would reference other guidance but
an overview of likely evaluation might be nice.
Chapter 10 - Tier IV Evaluations
Expand to include discussion of the scenarios where this might be warranted for
upland or confined in-water disposal options and the likely testing and evaluations
that would be conducted.
Chapter 11 - Submittal of Sampling and Testing Data
Include requirement that proposed disposal site be described.
Chapter 12 - Disposal Site Identification
Add a chapter that describes the process for establishing a dredge material disposal
site.
Include sections on flow lane disposal, ocean disposal, confined aquatic, upland
sites, and beach nourishment sites.
For confined disposal, sites would include identifying appropriate cap characteristics
and long-term management and monitoring protocols. Agencies in each state with
regulatory authority for these sites would be identified.
Reference appendix that identifies existing sites and shows locations on map.
LIST OF PREPARERS: Jennifer Sutter, Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #26 - Grain Size, Analysis, and Exclusion Criteria
POLICY COMMITTEE: S Stirling, Chair
(Stephanie.K.Stirling@NWS02.usace.army.mil); February 17, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: Grain Size, Analysis and Exclusion Criteria.
Question #1: To what degree are organochlorine compounds only associated with the
fine-grained sediments, and is the grain size rule of 80 percent sufficient to represent
contaminant associations in the lower Columbia River (LCR)? Should other techniques be
used to evaluate the potential for larger grain sized materials to also contain contaminants?
Question #2: Should organic carbon content of bed sediment be characterized or evaluated
differently? For a single whole bed sediment sample, should only the fine-grained fractions
from bed sediment for contaminants be analyzed to minimize the "dilution" effect of
including larger-grained components from bed sediment?
DISCUSSION: The Dredged Material Evaluation Framework (DMEF) states that if the
results of grain size analysis are at least 80 percent sand, total volatile solids is less than 5
percent, and no active sources of contamination are determined to be present, then the
proposed dredged material qualifies for unconfined aquatic disposal (without further
chemical characterization) (DMEF 1998).
During evaluation of sediment proposed for dredging, the volume of dredged material partly
determines the minimum number of sediment samples and analyses required for full
characterization of a dredging project. The majority of sediments dredged in the LCR are
considered homogenous, as described in the DMEF. Table 6-1 determines the size of a
dredged material management unit (DMMU) based on the ranking of sediment as
Exclusionary, Low-Low-Moderate, Moderate, and High. A low ranking DMMU containing
up to 100,000 cubic yards (cy ) of homogenous material can be characterized by a minimum
of one sample. Small projects can be excluded from testing based on volume and ranking
(Table 6-2). For example, no samples are required for a low ranking project when less than
10,000 cy are proposed for dredging.
REFERENCES: Included in attachment (see below)
RECOMMENDATION: Specific text and table revision to appropriate sections of
DMEF.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE CHANGES: None yet
LIST OF PREPARERS: Jeremy Buck, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
-------
Technical/Policy Problem Statements
Jeremy Buck
April 18,2002
Draft Issue Paper
Topic: Grain size, analysis and exclusion criteria
Background:
Few studies have specifically evaluated sediment contaminant concentrations in the lower Columbia
River (LCR); most sediment samples from the area have been collected to specifically evaluate sediment
quality for proposed dredging projects. Sediment collected to evaluate material for dredging in the LCR
is often excluded from further chemical analysis because the grain size evaluations show the sediment to
be primarily sandy materials, and most contaminants of concern are associated with the organic carbon
fractions within finer-grained materials (e.g., silts and clays). Sediment from the LCR navigation channel
is sandy with generally less than 1% fine materials, and therefore considered very unlikely to contain
contaminants. Even in depositional and backwater areas where finer-grained materials are encountered,
organic contaminants such as DDT and PCBs are infrequently found or are below the Dredged Material
Evaluation Framework (DMEF) screening values (Tetra Tech 1993, 1994). However, nearly all samples
of fish and other wildlife within in the LCR contain contaminants such as DDT and PCBs (Tetra Tech
1993, 1994; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). Therefore, a source for organochlorine contaminants
exists, and other studies have suggested that bed sediment is a primary source for uptake of hydrophobic
contaminants in biota (Zaranko et al. 1997, Maruya and Lee 1998). However, it remains unclear as to
whether LCR bed sediment serves as a source for this contaminant pathway, or whether the number of
samples collected to characterize a dredged material management unit (DMMU) as identified in the
DMEF sufficiently addresses site specific conditions and contaminant associations in the LCR.
The lower Columbia River system is also characterized as carbon limited. It has been proposed that
whatever carbon is available moves quickly into tissue along with any associated contaminants, and
therefore even small concentrations of contaminants would be readily available and incorporated into
tissue (Tetra Tech 1993,1994; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). Given the site specific conditions in
the lower Colombia River system, a key question is whether or not the thresholds currently used in the
DMEF for excluding sediment for further chemical analysis based on grain size characteristics is a good
representation of the contaminant content of the material, or if changes in the threshold levels should be
made.
How is this issue currently addressed:
The DMEF states that if the results of grain size analysis are at least 80% sand, total volatile solids is less
than 5%, and no active sources of contamination are determined to be present, then the proposed dredged
material qualifies for unconfined aquatic disposal (without further chemical characterization) (DMEF
1998).
During evaluation of sediment proposed for dredging, the volume of dredged material partly determines
the minimum number of sediment samples and analyses required for full characterization of a dredging
project. The majority of sediments dredged in the LCR are considered homogenous, as described in the
DMEF. Table 6-1 determines the size of a dredged material management unit (DMMU) based on the
ranking of sediment as Exclusionary, Low-Low-Moderate, Moderate, and High. A low ranking DMMU
containing up to 100,000 cyds of homogenous material can be characterized by a minimum of one
sample. Small projects can be excluded from testing based on volume and ranking (Table 6-2). For
example, no samples are required for a low ranking project when less than 10,000 cyds are proposed for
-------
dredging.
What are the issues/questions? Any examples, case studies?
Questions:
To what degree are organochlorine compounds only associated with the fine-grained sediments, and is
the grain size rule of 80% sufficient to represent contaminant associations in the LCR? Should other
techniques be used to evaluate the potential for larger grain sized materials to also contain contaminants?
Case study/examples: Total PCBs were detected in the LCR at Bradford Island, apparently within sandy
sediments. High river flows often limit the amount of fines in this area, yet high concentrations were
observed in sediments and extremely high concentrations were observed in crayfish. Presumably, the
PCB oils may have coated the sands and even the crayfish due to the proximity of leaking PCB-
containing materials in the area, and this type of contamination may be site specific. However, in a
carbon-limited system, it may not take much of a concentration of an organic contaminant to be readily
available, especially if the contaminant is associated with sandy material and not more firmly attached to
the organic materials within fine particulates.
Question: Should organic carbon content of bed sediment be characterized or evaluated differently? For
a single whole bed sediment sample, should only the fine-grained fractions from bed sediment for
contaminants be analyzed to minimize the "dilution" effect of including larger-grained components from
bed sediment?
Concern/example: The results of Tetra Tech (1993) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2002) indicated
that further characterization of contaminant concentrations and the organic carbon content, specifically
within various grain-sized fractions of depositional sediment in the LCR, would be worthwhile to help
determine the true availability of sediment-borne contaminants to organisms, and the degree to which bed
sediment acts as a source of organochlorine compounds.
Information Need/Discussion Points - brainstorming, what information is needed? What do we
know now?
Additional background information supporting the 80% rule would be helpful. For the site specific
conditions in the LCR described in the background section above, does the 80% rule still hold? What
about samples that are 14% fine materials (silts or clays), would these samples be suspect? The DMEF
states that: "The adoption of exclusion category is based upon numerous studies and sampling efforts
done on the LCR verifying that coarser-grained sediments are characterized by very low to negligible
levels of chemical contamination" Having access to these studies or having these studies available for
review or discussion would be helpful.
Would it be helpful to further characterize sediment for organic carbon, fine materials, or contaminants?
For instance, rather than sampling whole sediment, it may be helpful to sieve and sample only the fine
materials for organic carbon and contaminants in some locations, thereby obtaining a larger sample size
of only fines and minimizing the "dilution" affect that could arise when analyzing whole samples with
lots of sand. These methods have been used and recommended by USGS in past studies.
What is the value of elutriate studies to determine sediment quality? What data is available on the LCR
for sediment elutriate samples? What are the benefits and problems associated with elutriate sample
interpretation?
-------
Is there as similar concern for metal or PAH concentrations as there is for organochlorine compounds?
other ideas??
Timeframe/Budget
1) Gather and review existing data on site specific studies that support the exclusion criteria for the LCR.
Estimated time: 3-4 weeks, depending on availability of data??
2) Evaluate any existing studies regarding total organic carbon, fine particulates, and contaminant
relations within the LCR (or even similar areas if available). Estimated time: 3-4 weeks.
3) Identify bed sediment samples collected outside the main navigation channel which were collected for
the purpose of dredge evaluation and for nondredge-related reasons and review results for patterns in
contaminant/particulate associations. Estimated time: 8 weeks.
4) Explore the need to gather additional bed sediment samples in the LCR to further investigate
contaminant and grain size relationships specific to the LCR. Estimated time: 4 weeks to 1 year.
REFERENCES
DMEF. 1998. Dredged Material Evaluation Framework-Lower Columbia River Management Area. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division
(Portland and Seattle District), Washington State Department of Ecology, Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, and Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
Maruya, K.A. and R.F. Lee. 1998. Biota-sediment accumulation and trophic transfer factors for
extremely hydrophobic polychlorinated biphenyls. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17:2463-2469.
Tetra Tech. 1994. Lower Columbia River backwater reconnaissance survey. Reconnaissance report.
Volume 1: Reconnaissance report. Final report (TC 9497-06) prepared for Lower Columbia River Bi-
State Committee, May 26. Tetra Tech, Inc., Redmond, Washington. 422 pp.
Tetra Tech. 1993a. Reconnaissance survey of the lower Columbia River. Task 6: Reconnaissance report.
Volume 1: Reconnaissance report. Final report (TC 8526-06) prepared for Lower Columbia River Bi-
State Committee, May 17. Tetra Tech, Inc., Redmond, Washington. 454 pp. + glossary.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Environmental contaminants in aquatic resources from the
Columbia River. Final draft report, U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Oregon State Office, Portland.
Zuranko, D.T., R.W. Griffiths, and N.K. Kaushik. 1997. Biomagnification of polychlorinated biphenyls
through a riverine food wed. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 16:1463-1471.
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #27 - Disposal Site Issues
POLICY SUBCOMMITTEE: S Stirling, Chair
(Stephanie.K.Stirling@NWS02.usace.army.mil); February 17, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: Disposal Site Issues. How do sampling requirements differ for
different disposal options? Are there efficiencies to be gained by identifying additional
sampling that might be conducted in conjunction with the sampling for evaluating
unconfined disposal to assess these other options concurrently? How do parties
needing to dredge identify likely disposal sites? What are the currently available
unconfined sites, confined sites?
DISCUSSION: If dredged material does not meet the criteria for unconfined aquatic
disposal, the procedures for assessing other disposal options are not currently specified in
the Dredged Material Evaluation Framework (DMEF). It is unclear how unconfined or
confined aquatic disposal sites are established or how suitable upland disposal sites are
identified.
The DMEF provides a process for evaluating if dredge material can be disposed of in an
unconfined aquatic disposal site. It does not describe how unconfined aquatic disposal sites
are identified. It does not provide sampling requirements for determining if other disposal
options are appropriate or what engineering and institutional controls may be warranted for
these other options.
REFERENCES: DMEF 1998, Upland Testing manual.
RECOMMENDATION: Specific text and table revision to appropriate sections of DMEF.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE CHANGES: None yet
LIST OF PREPARERS: Jennifer Sutter, Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #28 - Programmatic Consultation on SEF
POLICY SUBCOMMITTEE, Stephanie Stirling, Chair.
(stephanie.k.stirling@nws02.usace.army.mil); March 5, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: Programmatic Consultation on SEF. 1 Is a programmatic
consultation appropriate for all or part of the revised Dredged Material Evaluation
Framework (DMEF) manual? 2. Are the action agencies the whole of the Regional
Dredging Team (RDT) (i.e., all Federal agencies) or just the Corps and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) as leads? 3. If a programmatic consultation is to be done, how
does it fit into the existing timeline for the Sediment Evaluations Framework (SEF) and any
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) action that needs to occur? 4. What happens
regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation and essential fish habitat
consultations if a programmatic consultation is not pursued?
DISCUSSION: A programmatic consultation under (ESA) allows the action agency to
receive coverage for incidental take of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead for routine actions
with predictable effects. The use of a programmatic consultation can save time and
resources because the expectations regarding what the action is required to do to meet ESA
requirements are identified well in advance of future actions. Action and activities to be
included as part of a programmatic consultation must clearly be non-jeopardy in nature.
The biological opinion for a programmatic consultation includes an incidental take
statement, re-initiation requirements, non-discretionary terms and conditions, and may
include discretionary conservation recommendations.
REFERENCES: None
RECOMMENDATION: Review consultation procedures for EPA and the Corps, review
SEF timeline, pursue programmatic approach, and integrate with NEPA process.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE CHANGES: None
LIST OF PREPARERS: Cathy Tortorici, NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Region and
John Malek, EPA Region 10
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #29 - Frequency of Dredging Guideline
POLICY SUBCOMMITTEE, S Stirling, Chair
(Stephanie.K.Stirling@NWS02.usace.army.mil); February 23, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: Frequency of Dredging Guideline. Is exclusion of routine,
annual dredging projects from sediment sampling and testing still an acceptable
practice? If modifications should be made, what are they? How frequently are site
rankings evaluated and can revisions of projects rankings be made. Should our efforts
at gathering information and evaluating sediment quality be placed on those projects
most likely to impact the environment?
DISCUSSION: Dredging projects that occur on an annual basis (or at most every 2 to 3
years) may be eligible for multiple dredgings between testing events. These projects
generally occur in areas of rapid shoaling with relatively homogeneous sediments. The
quality of the sediment on these projects tends to remain the same, barring any significant
change upstream or up-current of the site.
In order to be considered under the frequency of dredging guideline, a project must undergo
two full sediment characterizations. The sediment must be found suitable for unconfmed
aquatic disposal in both sediment characterizations. Once a dredging project has met this
standard, it can be considered for multiple dredgings between testing under the frequency
guideline. This consideration is time-limited, and additional testing will be required at the
end of the designated time period (based on project ranking - see below).
REFERENCES: DMEF 1998, Section 5.3.4
RECOMMENDATION: Specific text and table revision to appropriate sections of SEP.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE CHANGES: Insert the following table in the SEF to clarify
the frequency guideline.
Project Ranking
High
Moderate
Low-moderate
Low
Frequency Guideline (Number of years
between testing events)
2 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
LIST OF PREPARERS: Stephanie Stirling, USAGE, NWS
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #30 - Effect Level Question
POLICY COMMITTEE: S Stirling, Chair
(Stephanie.K.Stirling@NWS02.usace.army.mil); February 17, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: Request for RSET Policy Committee Review and Response:
submitted by RSET Sediment Quality Guidelines Subcommittee.
1. Shall the RSET Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQG) Subcommittee assume Site
Condition 2 Minor Adverse Effects as the "standard site management condition" for
development and recommendation of SL/ML chemical guidelines?
2. If the answer to question 1 is no, should the SQG Subcommittee begin a deliberative
process for defining the recommended site biological condition for Lower Columbia
unconfined in-water dredged material management?
DISCUSSION: The SQG Subcommittee provided a presentation and recommendations to
the RSET at the last meeting, September 24, 2003. The SQG Subcommittee presented
initial recommendations to revise the Lower Columbia (LC) Dredged Material Evaluation
Framework (DMEF) screening levels (SLs) and maximum levels (MLs) based on recent
freshwater sediment quality guideline work completed by the Washington Department of
Ecology. Prior to ruling on the adoption of the SQG Subcommittee specific SL and ML
recommendations, the RSET asked the SQG Subcommittee for submittal of key "policy"
questions related to the definition of the SL and ML for the LC DMEF. The questions
below represent the SQG Subcommittee's response to this RSET request.
The LC DMEF SL/MLs are conceptually based on the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal
Analysis (PSDDA) Evaluation Procedures Technical Appendix (EPTA) (EPTA1988). The
EPTA provides a substantial discussion in chapter 2 on 5 alternative site management
conditions for unconfined, in-water disposal. Importantly, paired biological and chemical
guidelines are proposed for three alternative site management conditions from which Site
Condition 2 was selected. The identified PSDDA SL/MLs are based on selection of Site
Condition 2, Minor Adverse Effects on Biological Resources Due to Sediment Chemicals.
The November 1998 LC DMEF specifically defines the SL and ML (see pages 8-9 and 9-5
and Table 8-1) and explains how these are used in a DMEF. In short, the SL and ML are
used to avoid "unacceptable adverse effects due to toxicity measured by sediment
bioassays." However, the LC DMEF does not define unacceptable adverse effects in the
context of an overall disposal site biological management condition. Unlike EPTA, no
discussion of alternative site management conditions for unconfined, in-water disposal
of dredged material is provided.
REFERENCES: EPTA, 1988, DMEF 1998.
RECOMMENDATION: Specific text and table revision to appropriate sections of DMEF.
-------
PROPOSED LANGUAGE CHANGES: None yet
LIST OF PREPARERS: Brett Betts, Ecology (Chair)
Lyndal Johnson, NOAA Fisheries
Teresa Michelsen, Avocet Consulting
Taku Fuji, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Russ Heaton, Corps Walla Walla
Donna Ebner Corps Portland District
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #31 - New Surface Material (NSM) Exposed by Dredging
POLICY COMMITTEE: S Stirling, Chair
(Stephanie.K.Stirling@NWS02.usace.army.mil); February 17, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: New Surface Material (NSM) Exposed by Dredging, Section
6.6.5. What is the policy towards NSM evaluation when in-water biological testing is
inappropriate for the material being removed?
Discussion: Present Dredged Material Evaluation Frameworks (DMEF) requires testing of
NSM if "sediment immediately above the NSM has concentrations of chemicals-of-concern
exceeding screening levels and fails the applicable biological tests..." The DMEF tests are
for unconfined in-water disposal. What is to be done if the material is not slated for in-
water disposal and therefore no applicable biological tests are conducted on the material to
be removed? These biological tests are also discussed in the last sentence of second
paragraph and bullet one.
REFERENCES: DMEF 1998, Upland Testing manual, Section 6.6.5.
RECOMMENDATION: Edit text to include appropriate evaluation of the exposed
surface or provide a management option such as capping.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE CHANGES: Change in paragraph 2 "levels and fails" to
"levels and/or fails;" delete last sentence in the second paragraph; add to last sentence in
bullet 1 ".. .of the exposed new surface material." Also review second bullet language.
LIST OF PREPARERS: Mark Siipola, Portland District Corps
-------
RSET ISSUE PAPER #32 - Minor Text Changes and Clarifications
POLICY COMMITTEE: S Stirling, Chair
(Stephanie.K.Stirling@NWS02.usace.army.mil); February 17, 2004
QUESTION/ISSUE: Minor text changes and clarifications.
DISCUSSION:
Acronyms; Review and edit, add OTM, UTM, MDL, MRL, PQL,...?
Section 7 Sampling Approach; Add "physical" to "chemical...biological analysis"
Section 8.3 Tier IIA Testing; Change "... are greater than 20 percent..." to "... are less than
20 percent..."
Table 8-1; Add units to all bold headings such as Phthalates, Phenol, etc.
Table 8-1: Add SEDQUAL chemical codes to table.
Section 8.5.3 The Role of Detection Limits in Interpretation; Edit to discuss how total DDT,
PCBs, etc. for non-detects are to be handled. Table 8-2 list DDT MDLs as 2.3, 3.3, and 6.7
which adds up to 12.3 which is > the 6.9 SL.
Section 11.1; Update to include SEDQUAL format for data submission for physical,
chemical, and biological data.
Policy Questions:
REFERENCES: DMEF 1998.
RECOMMENDATION: Edit text to include appropriate changes and updates. For Total
DDT adopt PSDDA protocols for non-detect. Non-detects are not summed, individual non-
detects must be below 6.9 SL but not their sum.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE CHANGES: See above
LIST OF PREPARERS: Mark Siipola
-------
------- |