US Army Corps
of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Southeast
Regional Implementation Manual
(SERIM)
\
Gfej
% PROl*0
Region 4
Requirements and Procedures for Evaluation of the
Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material in Southeastern U.S.
Atlantic and Gulf Coast Waters
Gulfport Eastern
Gulfport Western
Mobile Pensacola Nearshore
rehead City
LEGEND
O Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites
j EPA Region 4 Boundary
jj^f^j USAGE South Atlantic Division Boundary
Pierce Harbor
ilm Beach Harbor
Port Everglades Harbor
Miami
0
200
August 2008
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
EPA 904-B-08-001
August 2008
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual (SERIM)
Requirements and Procedures for Evaluation of the
Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material in Southeastern U.S.
Atlantic and Gulf Coast Waters
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
Atlanta, Georgia
and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Atlanta, Georgia
With Assistance from:
ANAMAR Environmental Consulting, Inc.
2106 NW 67th Place, Suite 5
Gainesville, FL 32653-1658
EPA Contract No. EP074000027
August 2008
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) published national guidance on procedures to be followed when assessing the
suitability of dredged material for disposal in the ocean. That guidance is entitled: Evaluation of
Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal - Testing Manual(1991 Green Book) (56 Federal
Register 13826, April 4, 1991) and requires the development of Regional Implementation
Agreements for activities regulated under Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 USC 1401 et seq.).
In March of 1993, the U.S. EPA Region 4 and the USAGE South Atlantic Division (SAD) finalized
a Regional Implementation Manual (RIM) that complied with the national guidance in the 1991
Green Book. This revision replaces and supersedes the 1993 RIM and has been approved by
the following officials of EPA Region 4 and USAGE SAD, and goes into effect upon the date of
the last signature below:
Calmer Jr.
Regional Administrator
Region 4
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
jrigaier General Joseph Schroedel
vision Engineer
South Atlantic Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Date
Date
SERIM
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
SERIM August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
This Southeast Regional Implementation Manual (SERIM) for Requirements and Procedures
for Evaluation of the Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material in Southeastern U.S. Atlantic and
Gulf Coast Waters was prepared cooperatively by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -
Region 4 (EPA Region 4) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - South Atlantic Division (SAD),
and with the assistance of ANAMAR Environmental Consulting, Inc. in accordance with federal
authorities per Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)
and the 1991 Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal - Testing Manual
(the 1991 Green Book). This SERIM supersedes previous editions of the USAGE SAD/EPA
Region 4 Regional Implementation Manual.
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance for applicants, permittees, and USAGE SAD
districts and EPA Region 4 staff evaluating ocean disposal of dredged material in southeastern
U.S. coastal waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. Reflected herein are advances
in scientific methodologies and environmental evaluation since publication of the May 1993 RIM.
Important changes include:
• Clarification on permit application and coordination requirements,
• Reference site selection,
• Identification of contaminants of concern,
• Additional guidance on sampling and sample handling,
Advances in chemical testing,
Updated reporting limits,
Species and test conditions for biological testing,
Additional bioaccumulation interpretation guidance,
Guidance on data reporting and statistical analysis, and
Prior approval of SAPs and laboratory Quality Assurance Plans (QAPs) that meet
rigorous quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements.
This document should be cited as:
USEPA/USACE. 2008. Southeast Regional Implementation Manual (SERIM) for Requirements
and Procedures for Evaluation of the Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material in
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coast Waters. EPA 904-B-08-001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South
Atlantic Division, Atlanta, GA.
SERIM i August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
This technical manual provides a compilation of current information and recommendations for collecting,
handling, and manipulating sediment samples for physicochemical characterization and biological testing
that are most likely to yield accurate, representative sediment quality data based on the experience of
many monitoring programs and researchers. EPA and USAGE may update this manual in the future as
better information becomes available.
Mention of trade names, products, laboratories, or services does not convey and should not be
interpreted as conveying, official USEPA or USAGE approval, endorsement, or recommendation for use.
The policies set out in this document are not final agency action, but are intended solely as guidance.
They are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any right or benefit, substantive or
procedural (including without limitation, that of judicial review), enforceable at law or equity against EPA
or USAGE, their officers or employees, or any other person. Nothing in this document is intended to alter
any specific statutory and regulatory authorities or responsibilities assigned to EPA or USAGE. EPA and
USAGE officials may decide to follow the guidance provided in this document, or to act at variance with
the guidance, based on an analysis of specific site circumstances.
Reasonable efforts were made to provide accurate website links in this document. To our knowledge,
these links were accurate as of April 2008.
SERIM ii August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
This document was produced with the assistance and attention to detail of many people
working together. This manual was prepared by a joint EPA Region 4 and USAGE South Atlantic
Division work group consisting of the following members: Christopher McArthur, Doug Johnson,
and Gary Collins, EPA Region 4; Daniel Small, South Atlantic Division; Philip Payonk, Wilmington
District; Robin Socha, Charleston District; Steve Calver, Savannah District; Glenn Schuster,
Jacksonville District; and Susan Rees and Jennifer Jacobson, Mobile District. Their considerable
efforts in identifying and researching the changes that have occurred since the Region 4 -
South Atlantic Division RIM was last produced in 1993 are appreciated.
The following people from the private sector were also contributors to this document: Nadia
Lombardero of ANAMAR Environmental Consulting, Inc. (contractor to EPA) for her dedication
and commitment to the project; Chris Osuch of Weston Solutions, Nancy Kohn of Battelle, and
Wayne McCulloch of EA Engineering for their assistance to ANAMAR in responding to questions
on Appendix L, Test Conditions; Jeff Christian of Columbia Analytical Services and Mark
Coleman from Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. for their assistance to
ANAMAR in responding to questions on Appendix O, Quality Control Summary Tables. We
would also like to thank the countless others who worked diligently on the document.
Much of the guidance in this manual was compiled from various EPA and USAGE regional
publications, such as the various San Francisco Bay Dredged Material Management Office
guidance documents (guidance on sampling and analysis plans and Tier I reviews), the Dredged
Material Evaluation Framework for the Lower Columbia River Management Area (guidance on
sediment sampling and organic tin analysis), and the Regional Implementation Manual for the
Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Disposal in New England Waters (guidance on
quality control). The contributions of the original authors are gratefully acknowledged.
SERIM iii August 2008
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
SERIM iv August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
(To enable the reader to more easily consult this list of acronyms while reviewing a hard copy,
it is repeated as an 11 "x!7"foldout on the last sheet in the document.)
1991 Green Book
APHA
ASTM
CCC
CDD
CDF
CFR
CMC
COC(s)
CWA
DU
EPA (USEPA)
FDA
GC/FPD
HMW
ITM
LDC
LMW
LPC
LRL
MPRSA
N/A
NELAC
NEPA
NOAA
NPDES
O&M
ODMDS
PAH
PCB
QA/QC
QAP
QAPP
RIM
SAD
SAP
SERIM
SMMP
SOW
TBD
TBP
TDL
USAGE
uses
WQC
WQS
Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal - Testing Manual (EPA and
USAGE, 1991)
American Public Health Association
ASTM International (formerly American Society for Testing and Materials)
Criteria Continuous Concentration
Chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin(s)
Chlorinated dibenzofuran(s)
Code of Federal Regulations
Criterion Maximum Concentration
Contaminant(s) of Concern
Clean Water Act
Dredging Unit
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Food and Drug Administration
Gas Chromatograph/Flame Photometric Detection
High Molecular Weight (PAHs)
Inland Testing Manual (EPA, 1998)
London Dumping Convention
Low Molecular Weight (PAHs)
Limiting Permissible Concentration
Laboratory Reporting Limit
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
Not Applicable
National Environmental Laboratory Association Conference
National Environmental Policy Act
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Operation and Maintenance
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Quality Assurance Plan
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Regional Implementation Manual
South Atlantic Division (USAGE)
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Site Management and Monitoring Plan
Scope of Work
To Be Determined
Theoretical Bioaccumulation Potential
Target Detection Limit
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Unified Soil Classification System
Federal Water Quality Criteria
State Water Quality Standards
SERIM
August 2008
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
SERIM vi August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Advance Maintenance: Advance maintenance is dredging to a specified depth and/or width
beyond the authorized channel dimensions in critical and fast-shoaling areas to avoid
frequent re-dredging and ensure the reliability and least overall cost of operating and
maintaining the project authorized dimensions.
Criteria Continuous Concentration (CCC): An estimate of the highest concentration of a
material in surface water to which an aquatic community can be exposed indefinitely without
resulting in an unacceptable effect.
Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC): An estimate of the highest concentration of a
pollutant in saltwater, to which an aquatic community can be exposed briefly without
resulting in an unacceptable effect.
EC50: EC50 is the median effective concentration. The concentration of a substance that causes a
specified effect (generally sublethal rather than acutely lethal) in 50% of the organisms
tested in a laboratory toxicity test of specified duration.
Effects Range-Low (ER-L): Sediment screening values that represent the value at which toxicity
may begin to be observed in sensitive species.
Laboratory Reporting Limit (LRL): Minimum level at which a lab will report analytical chemistry
data with confidence in quantitative accuracy of that data. LRLs are adjusted for sample-
specific parameters such as sample weight, percent solids, or dilution.
LC50: LC50 represents the median lethal concentration. The concentration of a substance that is
lethal to 50% of the organisms tested in a laboratory toxicity of a specified duration.
Method Detection Limit (MDL): The minimum concentration of a substance that can be
measured and reported with a 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater
than zero.
Non-Pay Dredging: Non-pay dredging is dredging outside the paid allowable overdepth that may
and does occur due to such factors as unanticipated variations in the substrate, incidental
removal of submerged obstructions, or wind or wave conditions. In environmental
documentation non-pay dredging is normally recognized as a contingency allowance on
dredging quantities and may and does occur in varying magnitude and locations during the
construction and maintenance of a project.
Paid Allowable Overdepth: Paid allowable overdepth dredging (depth and/or width) is a
construction design method for dredging that occurs outside the required authorized
dimension and advance maintenance (as applicable) prism to compensate for physical
conditions and inaccuracies in the dredging process and allow for efficient dredging
practices. The term "allowable" must be understood in the contracting context of what
dredging quantities are eligible for payment rather than in the regulatory context of what
dredging quantities are reflected in environmental compliance documents or permits.
SERIM vii August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Porewater: Refers to water that fills the interstitial space between sediment grains in sedimentary
deposits. Porewater may be displaced due to the activities of benthic fauna or by physical
processes such as compaction.
Quality Assurance (QA): The total integrated program for assuring the reliability of data. A
system for integrating the quality planning, quality control, quality assessment, and quality
improvement efforts to meet user requirements and defined standards of quality with a
stated level of confidence.
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP): A Quality Assurance Project Plan documents the
planning, implementation, and assessment procedures for a particular project, as well as any
specific quality assurance and quality control activities. It integrates all the technical and
quality aspects of the project in order to provide a "blueprint" for obtaining the type and
quality of environmental data and information needed for a specific decision or use.
Quality Control (QC): The overall system of technical activities for obtaining prescribed standards
of performance in the monitoring and measurement process to meet user requirements.
Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP): A Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) expands upon the
contents provided in the SOW and should include specific information regarding sampling
sites, field sampling requirements, laboratory analyses and final report content.
Scope of Work (SOW): A contract addendum used as a legally binding agreement between the
individual or organization requesting an analysis and the individual, laboratory, or
organization performing the actual tasks.
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): A written document that details an operation, analysis,
or action whose mechanisms are thoroughly prescribed and that is commonly accepted as
the method for performing certain routine or repetitive tasks.
STFATE: Short Term Fate of dredged material disposal in open water models, simulates the
movement of the disposed material as it falls through a water column, spreads over the
bottom and is transported and diffused as suspended sediment by the ambient current.
STORET: Short for STOrage and RETrieval, is a repository for water quality, biological, and
physical data and is used by state environmental agencies, EPA and other federal agencies,
universities, private citizens, and many others.
Threshold Effect Level (TEL): Sediment screening values that represent the concentration below
which adverse effects are expected to occur only rarely.
Target Detection Limit (TDL): TDL is a performance goal set greater than the lowest, technically
feasible detection limit for routine analytical methods and less than the available regulatory
criteria or guidelines for evaluating dredged material
Whole Sediment: The sediment and interstitial waters of the proposed dredged material or
reference sediment that have had minimal manipulation.
SERIM viii August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
OF
PREFACE i
DISCLAIMER ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS in
ACRONYMS v
GLOSSARY vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Overview 1
1.2 Federal Regulations and Guidance 1
1.3 Regional Guidance 2
2.0 EPA REGION 4/USACE SAD OCEAN DISPOSAL PROGRAM COORDINATION 5
2.1 General Principles 5
2.2 Exclusionary Criteria, Need for Testing, and Sampling and Analysis Plan Development 5
2.3 Administrative Permit Requirements 7
2.3.1 EPA Region 4 Concurrence 12
2.3.2 Permit Modification 12
2.4 Administrative Requirements for Federal Civil Works Projects 13
2.4.1 EPA Region 4 Concurrence 13
2.4.2 Project Modification 14
3.0 TIERED TESTING 15
3.1 Tier I 15
3.1.1 Exclusion from Testing 15
3.1.2 Confirmatory Analysis 18
3.1.3 Contaminants of Concern 19
3.2 Tier II 20
3.2.1 Water Column Evaluation 20
3.2.2 Benthic Evaluation 22
3.3 Tier III 22
3.3.1 Water Column Bioassays 22
3.3.2 Whole Sediment Bioassays 23
3.4 Tier IV 25
4.0 SEDIMENT SAMPLING 27
4.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)/Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 27
4.2 Selection of Project Sample Stations 29
4.2.1 Dredging Units 29
4.2.2 Recommended Sampling Requirements 32
4.2.3 Sample Replication for Quality Assurance 32
4.3 Sampling Reference Stations 32
4.4 Sampling Control Site Stations 33
4.5 Sampling of Dredged Material at the Proposed Dredging Site 34
4.6 Water Sampling 35
4.7 Sample Handling 36
5.0 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL TESTING OF DREDGED MATERIAL 37
5.1 Physical Analysis 37
5.2 Chemical Analysis of Sediments 38
5.3 Chemical Analysis of Elutriates 43
6.0 BIOASSAY AND BIOACCUMULATION TESTING OF DREDGED MATERIAL 47
6.1 Water Column Effects: Acute Toxicity Tests 47
SERIM ix August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
6.2 Benthic Effects Evaluation 50
6.2.1 Whole Sediment Toxicity Tests 50
6.2.2 Whole Sediment Bioaccumulation Tests 51
7.0 DATA REPORTING AND STATISTICS 59
7.1 Data Reporting for Field Collection Activities 59
7.2 Data Reporting for Physical Testing 59
7.3 Data Reporting for Chemical Testing 60
7.3.1 Sediment Chemistry Reporting 61
7.3.2 Water and Elutriate Chemistry Reporting 62
7.3.3 Water Quality Criteria Mixing Model (STFATE) 62
7.4 Data Reporting and Statistics for Bioassay and Bioaccumulation Testing 64
7.4.1 Definition and Treatment of Outliers 64
7.4.2 Water Column Bioassay Reporting and Statistics 64
7.4.3 Whole Sediment Bioassay Reporting and Statistics 65
7.4.4 Bioaccumulation Reporting and Statistics 65
7.5 Bioaccumulation Tissue Chemistry Reporting and Statistics 66
7.5.1 Tissue Chemistry Reporting 66
7.5.2 Comparison to FDA Action Levels 67
7.5.3 Statistical Comparison to Reference 67
8.0 QUALITY CONTROL AND ASSURANCE 69
9.0 REFERENCES 71
APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
Appendix G:
Appendix H:
Appendix I:
Appendix J:
Appendix K:
Appendix L:
Appendix M:
Appendix N:
Appendix 0:
Appendix P:
Key Personnel
MPRSA Section 103 Coordination Schedule
MPRSA Ocean Disposal Evaluation Documentation
Sediment Testing Report Format
Online Tier I Data Resources
EPA Water Quality Criteria for Contaminants of Concern in Marine Waters
STFATE Guidance and Standard Input Parameters
Bioaccumulation Reference Table
Sampling and Analysis Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan (SAP/QAPP) Guidance
and Example on Format and Content
Sampling and Analysis Plan and Sediment Testing Report Reviewer's Checklists
Recommended Reference Sites for Region 4 ODMDSs
Test Conditions
Testing Guidance for Dioxin and Other Supplemental Contaminants
Methods to Reduce Ammonia for Whole Sediment Toxicity Tests
Quality Control (QC) Summary Tables
Toxicity Test Experimental Design and Water Quality Form
SERIM
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Permit Application/Evaluation Procedure 9
Figure 4-1 Example of Dredging Units for Maintenance Dredging 31
Figure 7-1 Sediment Grain Size Gradation Graph/Form 60
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Permit Application Items 10
Table 2-2 Public Notice Information Specific to MPRSA Section 103 Public Notices 11
Table 2-3 EPA MPRSA Review Periods 12
Table 3-1 Unified Soil Classification System Clean Sands and Gravel Groups 17
Table 3-2 Tier I Sources of Information 17
Table 4-1 SAP/QAPP Elements 28
Table 4-2 Dredging Unit Ranking Definitions 30
Table 4-3 Recommended Volumes for Dredging Units 32
Table 4-4 General Guidance on Sampling Depth 34
Table 5-1 Parameters Used for the Physical Characterization of Sediments 38
Table 5-2 Sample and Clean-up Procedures Generally Used for Marine Sediments 39
Table 5-3 Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Sediment Samples: Metals 40
Table 5-4 Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Sediment Samples: Pesticides
and Semi-Volatiles 40
Table 5-5 Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Sediment Samples: PAHs 41
Table 5-6 Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Sediment Samples: PCBs 42
Table 5-7 Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Sediment Samples: Organotin 43
Table 5-8 Sample and Clean-up Procedures Generally Used for Marine Waters and Elutriates 44
Table 5-9 Standard Contaminants of Concern to be Analyzed from Elutriate Samples: Metals 44
Table 5-10 Standard Contaminants of Concern to be Analyzed from Elutriate Samples: Nonmetals 44
Table 5-11 Standard Contaminants of Concern to be Analyzed from Elutriate Samples: Pesticides and
Semi-Volatiles 45
Table 6-1 Recommended Test Species for Water Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material 48
Table 6-2 Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for Benthic Effects of
Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material 51
Table 6-3 Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for Bioaccumulation
Testing of Dredged Material 53
Table 6-4 Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Tissue Samples: Metals 54
Table 6-5 Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Tissue Samples: Pesticides
and Semi-Volatiles 54
Table 6-6 Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Tissue Samples: PAHs 55
Table 6-7 Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Tissue Samples: PCBs 56
Table 6-8 Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Tissue Samples: Organotin 57
Table 7-1 Exampling of Initial Mixing Computation Results: 4-Hour Criteria 63
Table 7-2 Example of Initial Mixing Computation Results: Disposal Site Boundary Criteria 63
Table 7-3 Example of Toxicity Initial Mixing Computation Results: 4-Hour Criteria 65
Table 7-4 Example of Toxicity Initial Mixing Computation Results: Disposal Site Boundary Criteria 65
SERIM
XI
August 2008
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
The potential adverse effects from the ocean disposal of dredged material in the marine
environment can range from unmeasurable to significant. These effects may vary depending
on many factors, including the composition of the proposed dredged material and the disposal
site location. As a result, dredging and disposal operations are evaluated on a case-by-case
basis. Federal regulations require such evaluations, with emphasis on potential biological
impacts from the disposal of dredged material in the marine environment. According to Section
103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA), any proposed
disposal of dredged material in the ocean waters of the United States must be evaluated
according to the criteria published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 220-228. The actual evaluation is conducted
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), which is the permitting agency for the
transportation of dredged material to the ocean for the purpose of disposal, subject to EPA
review and concurrence. MPRSA and Part 225 allow a waiver of the criteria, in extreme cases,
if the proposed action is denied by EPA, but dredging is essential and feasible alternatives are
unavailable. Only the Secretary of the Army may request a waiver and only the EPA
Administrator may grant such waivers [40 CFR Part 225.4].
1.2 Federal Regulations and Guidance
The manual entitled Evaluating Environmental Effects of Dredged Material Management
Alternatives - A Technical Framework (EPA and USAGE, 2004) provides a consistent roadmap
for the USAGE and EPA personnel in evaluating the environmental acceptability of dredged
material management alternatives. The major objectives of the document are to provide a
general framework for evaluating dredged material management alternatives, supplement
present implementation and testing manuals, and enhance consistency and coordination in
USAGE/EPA decision-making in accordance with federal environmental statutes regulating
dredged material management. Additional national guidance for the evaluation of dredged
material under the MPRSA Section 103 program is provided in the Evaluation of Dredged
Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal - Testing Manual (EPA and USAGE, 1991). This manual,
more commonly known as the "1991 Green Book," includes a description of the tiered approach
to sediment testing. Included in the manual are methods and procedures for sediment
sampling and testing, general guidance on bioassay and bioaccumulation testing, and an
overview of data analyses and quality control/assurance procedures. The 1991 Green Book
supersedes the 1977 Green Book (EPA and USAGE, 1977).
The 1991 Green Book and ocean dumping regulations stress the use of effects-based-testing
bioassays as evaluative tools necessary to determine suitability of material for ocean dumping.
If the results of the appropriate tests/evaluations show that the proposed dredged material
meets the criteria under 40 CFR 227, disposal of the material at an EPA-designated or USACE-
selected ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) is supported. Per 40 CFR 227.13(c),
evaluation of dredged material focuses on biological effects rather than the concentration of
contaminants. Bioassays are used to predict environmental effects because they are regarded
SERIM 1 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
as the best methods available for integrating the effects of multiple contaminants and for
comparing the relative impacts of different dredged materials. Test organisms integrate and
quantify the effects of chemical and physical constituents of a dredged material. Contaminant-
based effects in the sediment can then be assessed in a holistic manner.
1.3 Regional Guidance
A Regional Implementation Manual (RIM) was developed in 1993 and represented an
agreement between EPA Region 4 and USAGE SAD districts within EPA Region 4 for the use of
the 1991 Green Book. This document updates and supersedes the 1993 RIM. The SERIM
documents testing and reporting guidance for the ocean disposal of dredged materials along
the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the southeastern United States. This agreement is based on
USEPA regulations promulgated to implement Section 103 of the MPRSA of 1972. The guidance
provided in this manual can be applied to all permit applicants and Federal Civil Works Projects
(hereinafter referred to as Civil Works) that are subject to the criteria defined in EPA's Ocean
Dumping Regulations in 40 CFR Parts 225 and 227.
Additional information, beyond that called for in this SERIM, may be required for a proposed
project depending on the nature and location of that project. In most cases, the project will
also need to satisfy state regulatory requirements.
J
USAGE SAD districts will provide a complete package, compiled from all available information, to
EPA Region 4 and other pertinent regulatory agencies for review and comment. This is in
addition to any required Public Notice. This information will serve as the basis for determination
of permit issuance and/or subsequent enforcement, if necessary, under MPRSA Sections 105
and 107.
This SERIM provides EPA Region 4 and USAGE SAD district personnel with guidance in carrying
out their respective roles, and informs state regulatory agencies, permit applicants, and other
interested parties, regarding federal regulatory requirements and coordination procedures for
the ocean disposal of dredged material within the USAGE SAD and EPA Region 4. Information
in this SERIM includes the following:
A. Program Coordination
B. Administrative Requirements
C. Tiered Testing and the 1991 Green Book
D. Sediment Sampling
E. Physical and Chemical Testing
F. Bioassay and Bioaccumulation Testing
G. Statistical Analyses
H. Sediment Testing Report Format
I. Quality Control and Quality Assurance
New information is continually being developed by the Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Program. This information includes new regulations, national program guidance, dredging and
disposal management operations, as well as scientific improvement in sediment testing
procedures. When these new developments warrant changes in procedures, this SERIM will be
SERIM
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
updated. Clarifications and questions pertaining to this manual should be directed to EPA
Region 4 or the appropriate USAGE SAD district office (Appendix A).
Copies of the EPA/USACE 1991 Green Book and Evaluating Environmental Effects of Dredged
Material Management Alternatives - A Technical Framework (EPA and USAGE, 2004) are
available at:
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/oceans/gbook/index.html and
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/dumpdredged/evaluation.html, respectively.
SERIM 3 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
This page intentionally left blank.
SERIM 4 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
2.0 EPA REGION 4/USAGE SAD OCEAN DISPOSAL
PROGRAM COORDINATION
2.1 General Principles
USAGE SAD districts and EPA Region 4 work cooperatively in the management of the Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Program to ensure that each agency's responsibilities are met.
Coordination occurs through formal review processes and informal staff communications. The
process will vary depending on whether the project is a USACE-sponsored Civil Works project or
a project requiring a MPRSA 103 permit. In the case of Civil Works projects, USAGE does not
issue a permit [see MPRSA Section 103(e)]. In lieu of the permit procedure, USAGE has issued
regulations (see 33 CFR Parts 335-338) that require application of the same criteria, other
factors to be evaluated, the same procedures, and the same requirements that apply to the
issuance of permits.
Should concern arise during the process, EPA Region 4 and USAGE SAD districts will resolve
identified problems as early as possible to avoid potential project delays. Consequently,
information critical to determinations regarding the suitability of dredged material for ocean
disposal is required by USAGE SAD districts and EPA Region 4 at the earliest reasonable time.
Appendices C (MPRSA Ocean Disposal Evaluation Documentation), D (Sediment Testing Report
Format) and J (Sampling and Analysis Plan and Testing Report Reviewer's Checklists) describe
this information. All coordination with EPA Region 4 for activities involving ocean disposal of
dredged material is the responsibility of the respective USAGE SAD district office.
The initial step in the process is to determine the need for ocean disposal and evaluate
alternatives to ocean disposal of dredged material (see 40 CFR Section 227.15). Under MPRSA
Section 103, USAGE is required to consider alternatives to ocean disposal. EPA Region 4 and
USAGE SAD districts, as well as any applicants or local sponsor, will work cooperatively to
identify potential alternatives. No single alternative should initially be considered more
desirable than another. Ocean disposal cannot automatically be considered the most desirable
alternative, and each evaluation should be made on a case-by-case basis.
There are two points in the MPRSA Section 103 evaluation process where coordination and
communication are important to project success: (1) the need for testing determinations (i.e.,
exclusionary criteria and test plan development), and (2) the MPRSA Section 103 evaluation
determination. The following sections describe the needed information and timelines for EPA
Region 4 and USAGE SAD districts for these two coordination points. A coordination schedule is
provided in Appendix B.
2.2 Exclusionary Criteria, Need for Testing, and Sampling and
Analysis Plan Development
USAGE SAD districts and EPA Region 4 should evaluate available information early in the review
of proposed dredging projects to determine whether the dredged material needs testing and, if
so, how the testing should be accomplished. Appendix C (Sections 1 and 2) describes the
SERIM 5 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
information that should be used by the USAGE SAD district and EPA Region 4 to make these
decisions and avoid delays in project implementation.
Information on the proposed dredging site, sediment grain size, and potential for contamination
is used to determine whether the exclusion criteria are met [40 CFR 227.13 (b)]. Core boring
logs; dredging design specifications; area hydrology; and locations, quantities, history, and
types of pollutants discharged upstream of the proposed dredging are used for this
determination. If the criteria are not met, additional information on previous testing (results
and dates) and dredging (dates and extent of dredging) are used to determine the testing
needs.
Should testing be required, the previously mentioned information should also be used in
development of a sampling and analysis plan (SAP). This plan should include mutually agreed
upon contaminants of concern (COCs), target detection limits, test organisms, number and
location of samples, sampling procedures, and other plan components. Section 4.1 provides
guidance on development of SAPs. Dredging projects are most likely to be approved and
completed successfully with minimal delays when all parties agree beforehand on the scope and
adequacy of necessary sediment technical evaluations, including sampling (i.e., number and
location of stations, including the reference) and testing (i.e., appropriate COCs, test
organisms). Therefore, USAGE SAD districts (and applicants in the case of permitted projects)
should provide draft SAPs, or their equivalent contained within draft testing contract Scope of
Work (SOW), to EPA Region 4 for review. The SAPs should reflect the evaluation and testing
framework contained within the 1991 Green Book or subsequent revisions, this document, and
any current Site Management and Monitoring Plan for the ocean disposal site to be used.
Approval of the SAP is required, as it is in the best interest of the applicant or the USAGE SAD
district in order to avoid requests from EPA Region 4 for additional information after sampling
has been conducted. EPA Region 4 agrees to make every effort to provide comments on all
draft SAPs within 15 to 30 days (2 to 4 weeks). Review time will depend on the level of EPA
Region 4's prior involvement and familiarity with the project.
USAGE SAD districts (and/or applicant) should immediately coordinate with and seek
concurrence from EPA Region 4 (and the USAGE SAD district if applicant) regarding any
problems that arise during sampling and/or testing that may require modification of any
substantive provision of the final SAP. These may include, but are not limited to:
(1) adjustments to sample locations made in the field, (2) proposed changes in chemical
analytical techniques or bioasssay test species, and (3) any proposal to retest if bioassay
responses (including in control or reference exposures) are felt to be abnormal. Any such
deviations from the final SAP must be fully documented in the project evaluation report(s)
containing the results of the testing program carried out under the SAP.
The time frame to complete an assessment of the need for testing, developing a test plan,
collecting and analyzing samples, running biotoxicity and bioaccumulation tests, performing
appropriate statistical analyses, and preparing the sampling and testing report could take
8 months or longer (see Appendix B-Section 103 Coordination Schedule). To complete required
evaluations, the process should be started at least 10 months prior to the intended dredging. If
the project is likely to be more complex, additional time should be allowed.
SERIM 6 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
2.3
MPRSA Section 103 permits for the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of
disposal at an approved ODMDS are issued by USAGE SAD district offices. MPRSA Section 103
applications should be consistent with USAGE permitting regulations in 33 CFR Parts 320 to 330.
All information submitted as part of the MPRSA application process should also comply with EPA
Ocean Dumping Regulations in 40 CFR Parts 220 to 228.
USAGE SAD districts will coordinate all sediment testing plans with EPA Region 4. Pre-
application conferences to prepare appropriate sampling plans are encouraged for all MPRSA
Section 103 permit applicants. Upon receiving all necessary information from the applicant,
USAGE SAD districts will provide for EPA Region 4 review the complete documentation of the
project evaluation conducted under the SAP in the form of a Section 103 evaluation. This
information can be provided prior to, with, or after the Public Notice. The evaluation reports
will be consistent with the information provided in Appendix C and will be accompanied by a
Section 103 Sediment Testing Report (Appendix D) and draft permit conditions necessary for
implementation of the ODMDS Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP).
USAGE SAD districts are responsible for coordination of all federal actions, including EPA
Region 4 concurrences, pertaining to MPRSA Section 103 applications. The applicant may also
need to coordinate activities with the appropriate state regulatory agencies for compliance with
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the State Coastal Management Program [Coastal Zone
Management Act Section 307(c)]. A schedule for coordination is provided in Appendix B.
The permit process is outlined in Figure 2-1 and consists of 10 main steps:
1. Pre-application Consultation: Includes discussion of the need for the dredging project
and a discussion of alternatives and the qualitative and quantitative information required
by the District Engineer for use in evaluating the proposed dredged material.
2. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal: Includes
development, approval, and implementation of the SAP. This step should include close
coordination between EPA Region 4, USAGE SAD districts, and the applicant (see
Section 2.2).
3. Permit Application: According to 33 CFR 325.1, a permit application must include the
items listed in Table 2-1.
4. Review of Application for Completeness:
a. Additional information is requested if the application is incomplete.
b. Applicant is given the opportunity to respond according to each district's review
schedule.
5. Public Notice: If the application is complete, USAGE issues a Public Notice per 33 CFR
325.3. The notice must include all of the information required in 33 CFR 325.3(a),
including the information required by 40 CFR 225.2(a) (see Table 2-2). A supplemental
revised or corrected Public Notice will be issued if the District Engineer believes the new
information affects the review of the proposal.
SERIM 7 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
6. USAGE Section 103 Evaluation: Either before, with, or after issuance of the Public
Notice, USAGE'S District Engineer will submit to EPA Region 4 its determination of
compliance with criteria (40 CFR 227 and 228) and the basis for that determination in the
form of a Section 103 evaluation (see Appendix B). If the District Engineer or EPA
Region 4 does not find the material to be in compliance, the project is modified or the
waiver process is initiated (40 CFR 225.3 and 225.4):
a. Economically feasible alternatives are reviewed. If an adequate alternative is
identified, the decision to deny a permit is discussed in either a Statement of Findings
or Record of Decision.
b. If no alternatives are available, a request for waiver from the Chief of Engineers is
applied for.
c. The EPA Administrator reviews the waiver request and either denies or grants the
waiver.
7. EPA MPRSA Review: Independent review of the information will be performed to
determine whether the disposal activity complies with the criteria found in 40 CFR 227 and
228. This includes a review of all necessary physical, chemical, and biological tests. Refer
to Table 2-3 for detailed explanations of EPA MPRSA review periods.
8. USAGE Public Interest Review: USAGE must consider all comments, suggestions, and
concerns provided by all commenters and incorporate their comments into the
administrative record of the application. If the permit is determined to be contrary to the
public interest, the decision to deny a permit is discussed in either a Statement of Findings
or a Record of Decision.
9. Other Permits: If the permit is not contrary to the public interest, review of other
required permits needs to be addressed. If applicable, other application permits from
federal and state agencies need to be obtained.
10. Permit Issued: A decision to issue a permit is discussed in either a Statement of
Findings or a Record of Decision, and a Permit Public Notice with a list of permit decisions
is published by USAGE.
SERIM 8 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Need for Disposal \
4b- Does
Applicant
Respond?
Withdraw Perm it
Application
\ Material at OOMDS
2- Evaluation of
Dredged Material
Proposed for
Ocean Disposal
4-If
Application
Complete?
4a- Raquait
Information
from Applicant
1- Pre-application
5- USAGE Public
6-Ones DE Find
DM in
Compliance wfth
Criteria?
7a-Is
Information
Adequate for
EPA Review/?
6a- Is there an
Economical
Alternative?
7e- Diitrkt
Engineer Completei
Evaluation
7 b - EPA
Evaluation of
Dredged Material
fie- Does EPA
Administrator
Grant Waiver?
ODMDS: Offshore Dredged
Material Disposal Station
USAGE: United Statej Army
Corps of Engiieen
EPA: Environmental
Protection Agency
DE: District Engineer
DM: Dredged Material
RA; Regional Administrator
—: Alternate Path
10- It*u<> Permit \
and Perm it Pubic }•<
Notice J
9b- Obtain
Other Required
Permits
Figure 2-1. Permit Application/Evaluation Procedure
SERIM
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Table 2-1. Permit Application Items [33 CFR 325.1]
a.
A complete description of the proposed activity, including necessary drawings, sketches,
or plans.
b.
The location, purpose, and need for the proposed activity; scheduling of the activity;
names and addresses of adjoining property owners; location and dimension of adjacent
structures.
c.
A list of authorizations required by other federal, interstate, state, or local agencies for
the work, including all approvals received or denials already made.
d.
The source of the material; the purpose of the disposal and a description of the type,
composition, and quantity of the material (this ideally includes information necessary to
determine if the material is in compliance with the criteria); the method of transportation
and disposal of the material; and the location of the disposal site.
e.
The application should include: (1) an evaluation of dredged material disposal
alternatives, including an examination of potential beneficial uses of the proposed
dredged material and a consideration of alternative disposal options before selecting the
ocean disposal option (40 CFR Sections 227.14 to 227.16), and (2) documentation of the
criteria used as the basis upon which selections or rejections were made. If prior
evaluations are current, reference to them is encouraged.
Include written documentation of the site dredging history, including all results from
previous sediment testing (both abiotic and biotic) and a general survey of other prior or
current dredging activities at or near the site. If prior evaluations are current, reference
to them is encouraged.
g-
If the ocean disposal application for re-certification of the proposed maintenance
dredged material is currently covered or was previously covered under a MPRSA Section
103 disposal permit, the permit number (or Public Notice and date) should be provided.
If more than 3 years have passed since the last evaluation was conducted for the dredge
site, or if data are considered to be inadequate, the USAGE SAD district, in consultation
with EPA Region 4, will assess the need for additional evaluation.
h.
Give detailed information along with written documentation on known or suspected site
contamination including oil, chemical, or waste spills and any other discharges that may
cause contamination of the proposed dredging site. The local U.S. Coast Guard and Port
Authority offices shall be consulted to obtain additional information on spills or suspected
contamination. Results of the consultation shall be documented as part of the
application. Any chemicals known to contaminate or suspected of contaminating the
proposed dredging site must be added to the list of possible COCs (see Section 5.0 of
this manual).
SERIM 10 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Table 2-2. Public Notice Information* Specific to MPRSA Section 103 Public Notices
[33 CFR 325.3(a)(17) and 40 CFR 225.2(a)]
Regulatory Requirement
Examples/Guidance
1.
The location of the proposed disposal site and
its physical boundaries
Include the disposal site corner coordinates and center
coordinates (latitude and longitude). Include distance from
shore and water depth. Include disposal zone if applicable.
2.
A statement about whether the disposal site
has been designated pursuant to MPRSA
Section 102(c)
Include date of designation and/or CFR citation.
3.
If the proposed disposal site has not been
designated by the Administrator, a statement
of the basis for the proposed determination
of why no previously designated site is
feasible and a description of the
characteristics of the proposed disposal site
necessary for its designation pursuant to
40 CFR Part 228
Include a statement as to why an EPA-designated ODMDS is
not feasible. Address the 5 general (40CFR228.5) and 11
specific criteria (40CFR228.6) for the proposed site. Detailed
information is typically provided in a supplemental document
such as an Environmental Assessment.
4.
The known historical uses of the proposed
disposal site
Provide year site was first used. Provide volume of material
disposed at site (see Ocean Disposal Database:
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/odd/). Include details regarding
most recent disposal project (volume, dates, physical
characteristics, disposal zone if applicable).
5.
Existence and documented effects of other
authorized disposals that have been made in
the disposal area (e.g., heavy metal
background reading and organic carbon
content)
Provide summary of monitoring (bathymetry, physical,
chemical, biological) that has been conducted at the ODMDS
and the conclusions of the monitoring. [For example: there
has/has not been mounding at the site; there has been a
change in the grain size to a siltier/sandier bottom; there
has/has not been a significant change in the
taxa/diversity/biomass of macro invertebrates at the site.]
6.
An estimate of the length of time during
which disposal would continue at the
proposed site
Provide the anticipated date for initiation of disposal activities
and the expected duration of disposal activities.
7.
Information on the characteristics and
composition of the dredged material
At a minimum, provide results of physical tests. Also provide
results of chemical and biological tests on the dredged
material if available. If EPA Region 4 has concurred on the
suitability of the material for ocean disposal, this should be
mentioned here. If additional tests will be conducted, this
should be explained as well as how the results will be made
available to the public.
A statement concerning a preliminary
determination of the need for and/or
availability of an Environmental Impact
Statement
* Information provided for the Public Notice and other pertinent information will be used by USAGE as an aid in
determining the suitability of the proposed dredged material for ocean disposal under the criteria defined in 40 CFR
Part 227 (see Appendix C for Section 103 Evaluation Report). If the data submitted by the applicant are
insufficient to evaluate the proposed dredged material and prepare the Section 103 Evaluation Report
(Appendix C), USAGE SAD district, with the cooperation of EPA Region 4, will request additional information.
SERIM
11
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Table 2-3. EPA MPRSA Review Periods
30-Day Information Adequacy Review
45- to 90-Day Dredged Material Review
The date on which the complete project
description and evaluation documentation
are transmitted to EPA starts the 30-day
EPA review period for adequacy as
described in MPRSA Section 103(c)(l). If
EPA advises USAGE in writing that the
information is not complete, EPA will state
the specific information that is needed and
why it is necessary for decision-making.
The subsequent 45- to 90-day evaluation
period will not commence until EPA has
received the requested additional
information and notified USAGE that it is
complete. If EPA fails to advise USAGE
within 30 days of any such submittal
whether more information is needed, USAGE
will assume the sediment evaluation
documentation it provided to EPA is
adequate.
The 45-day EPA evaluation period [MPRSA
Section 103(c)(2)] begins as soon as EPA
has received from USAGE all information
necessary to evaluate the material. EPA will
make every effort to complete its evaluation
of the project information and sediment
testing data and provide written
concurrence, concurrence with conditions,
or non-concurrence within 45 days of
transmission of the complete project
information. However, in accordance with
MPRSA Section 103(c)(2), EPA may request
and USAGE shall grant one 45-day
extension, to a total of 90 calendar days.
4
EPA agrees to provide a letter of concurrence in accordance with the timeframes outlined in
Table 2-3. Except in cases of presumed concurrence pursuant to MPRSA Section 103(c)(4) due
to lack of timely EPA Region 4 response, USAGE SAD districts will not issue any MPRSA Section
103 ocean disposal permits without prior written concurrence from EPA Region 4. Even if EPA
Region 4 provides full concurrence (or presumed concurrence) without additional special
conditions, all relevant specifications of the disposal site's SMMP still apply and will be included
directly as permit conditions. USAGE SAD districts agree to provide a copy of relevant portions
of the draft permit conditions to EPA at least 15 working days prior to issuance of the permit to
confirm that all EPA Region 4 requirements (including SMMP requirements) are fully and
accurately reflected therein. EPA agrees to submit in writing to the District any objections and
justifications for such objection, including withdrawal of concurrence if necessary, within 10
working days from the date of receipt of such documents. Conditional concurrence is
synonymous with non-concurrence if any of the conditions required by EPA Region 4 are not
included in the permit. In the case of non-concurrence for ocean disposal of dredged material
from a project or any portion thereof, USAGE SAD districts will not permit any ocean disposal
activity for that project except pursuant to the waiver provisions of MPRSA Section 103(d)..
Should a project be modified following permit issuance or subsequent to EPA Region 4's
concurrence on the Section 103 evaluation, the USAGE SAD district agrees to consult with EPA
Region 4 prior to modifying the permit. Modification could include, but is not limited to, the
SERIM
12
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
following: increase in the volume of material; a change in characteristics of the material; recent
contamination of the material due to spills or discharges of pollutants; change in project limits,
either in the dredging depth or width; or the addition of areas to be dredged. Consultation shall
be in writing and shall include a detailed description of the modification, an addendum to the
Section 103 evaluation (if needed), and a determination as to whether the modified project
complies with the criteria. EPA Region 4 will follow the procedures and timeline outlined above
and provide a letter of concurrence or non-concurrence with respect to the modification. If
more information is needed, such as additional testing, EPA Region 4 will provide such
notification within 30 days of receipt of the written description of the modification. As
modifications typically occur during a project, and delays can result in substantial costs, EPA
Region 4 should be consulted as early as possible. EPA Region 4 will make every effort to
accelerate reviews of modifications.
2.4 Administrative Requirements for Federal Civil Works Projects
USAGE does not issue permits for federal Civil Works projects. However, USAGE regulation
(33 CFR Part 335) and MPRSA Section 103(e) encourage that similar substantive requirements
and procedures should apply to federal projects as are applied to non-federal projects for which
a permit is issued. For new work Civil Works projects, EPA has two opportunities for formal
coordination with USAGE: the review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
the review of the project Public Notice. The formal coordination under NEPA includes EPA's
review of the draft, final, and supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and
Feasibility Report. The project Public Notice should contain the information defined by
33 CFR337.1(a), including results of dredged material testing and evaluation. For Operation
and Maintenance (O&M) projects, there are limited coordination opportunities under NEPA.
Certain activities are excluded from NEPA, and Public Notices are normally issued for an
indefinite period and are not reissued unless there are significant changes in the O&M activities
of a project. O&M activities should be re-evaluated once every 3 years and this evaluation
coordinated formally between the appropriate USAGE SAD district and EPA Region 4's Water
Management Division.
For Civil Works projects and O&M activities, USAGE SAD districts will provide for EPA Region 4
review the complete documentation of the project evaluation conducted under the SAP in the
form of a Section 103 Evaluation Report. This information can be provided with the Public
Notice if applicable. The evaluation reports will be consistent with those provided in Appendix C
and will be accompanied by a Sediment Testing Report (Appendix D). Refer to Table 2-3 for
detailed explanations of EPA MPRSA review periods. The majority of the main steps involved in
the process are similar to those in Section 2.3 of this report.
2.4.1 EPA Region 4 Concurrence
EPA agrees to provide a letter of concurrence in accordance with the timeframes outlined in
Table 2-3. Except in cases of presumed concurrence pursuant to MPRSA Section 103(c)(4) due
to lack of timely EPA Region 4 response, USAGE SAD districts will not commence or authorize
commencement of any ocean disposal activity without prior written concurrence from EPA
Region 4. Even if EPA Region 4 provides full concurrence (or presumed concurrence) without
additional special conditions, all relevant specifications of the disposal site's SMMP still apply
and will be included directly as conditions to the USAGE SAD district contracts and/or
SERIM 13 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
authorizations. USAGE SAD districts agree to provide a copy of relevant portions of the draft
authorizations and/or contract specifications to EPA at least 15 working days before advertising
for bids to confirm that all EPA Region 4 requirements (including SMMP requirements) are fully
and accurately reflected therein. EPA agrees to submit in writing to the District any objections
and justifications for such objection, including withdrawal of concurrence if necessary, within 10
working days from the date of receipt of such documents. Conditional concurrence is
synonymous with non-concurrence if any of the conditions required by EPA Region 4 are not
included in the project's authorization and/or contracts. In the case of non-concurrence for
ocean disposal of dredged material from a project or any portion thereof, USAGE SAD districts
will not commence or authorize to be commenced any ocean disposal activity for that project
except pursuant to the waiver provisions of MPRSA Section 103(d).
Should a project be modified subsequent to EPA Region 4's concurrence on the Section 103
evaluation, USAGE SAD districts agree to consult with EPA Region 4 prior to authorizing the
commencement of the ocean disposal activity related to the modification. Modification could
include, but is not limited to, the following: increase in the volume of material; a change in
characteristics of the material; recent contamination of the material due to spills or discharges
of pollutants; change in project limits, either in the dredging depth or width; or the addition of
areas to be dredged. Consultation shall be in writing and shall include a detailed description of
the modification, an addendum to the Section 103 evaluation (if needed), and a determination
as to whether the modified project complies with the criteria. EPA Region 4 will follow the
procedures and timeline outlined above and provide a letter of concurrence or non-concurrence
with respect to the modification. If more information is needed, such as additional testing, EPA
Region 4 will provide such notification within 30 days of receipt of the written description of the
modification. As modifications typically occur during a project, and delays can result in
substantial costs, EPA Region 4 should be consulted as early as possible. EPA Region 4 will
make every effort to accelerate reviews of modifications.
SERIM 14 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
3.0 TIERED TESTING
Under 40 CFR 227.27 of the ocean dumping regulations, the impact of the liquid, suspended-
particulate, and solid phases of a material proposed for ocean disposal are evaluated. For most
projects, the impact of the solid phase on the benthic environment deserves the most rigorous
evaluation. Dredged material deposited on the seafloor usually has greater potential to cause
impact to a smaller area for a longer period than the fraction of dredged material released to
the water column. EPA and USAGE have developed a tiered testing approach to evaluate the
suitability of dredged material for ocean disposal. This approach is defined in detail in Chapters
1-4 of the 1991 Green Book. The initial tier uses readily available information or newly
collected information that may be sufficient for evaluation (for those cases where this
information shows that the proposed dredged material has not changed since previous testing
and evaluation at Tier II and Tier III levels). Tier I also includes an assessment of when the
regulatory exclusions from testing are applicable. Evaluation at successive tiers is based on
more extensive and specific information that may be more time-consuming and expensive to
generate, but that allows more comprehensive evaluations of the potential for environmental
effects. Note that compliance with the ocean dumping regulations requires compliance with
water quality criteria (WQC) (Tier II) and bioassays to assess (1) toxicity in the water column
(both liquid phase and suspended phase) and sediment and (2) bioaccumulation in the
sediment (Tier III). Therefore, a new project must proceed through Tiers I, II, and III in order
for the dredged material to be determined suitable for ocean dumping (unless it meets the
exclusionary criteria in Tier I).
3.1 Tier I
A Tier I decision based on Tier I testing is a recommendation on the suitability of dredged
material for ocean disposal. This recommendation is based on review and analysis of existing
data, although confirmatory physical and chemical analyses may be required to verify that site
conditions have not changed since previous evaluations. If the information provided for the
Tier I decision results in a determination that further testing is needed, this information will be
used to supplement subsequent analyses. The information may be particularly useful in the
identification of COCs during preparation of the SAP.
3.1.1 Exclusion from Testing
Tier I evaluations begin with a comparison of existing physical information on the proposed
dredged material with the three exclusion criteria of 40 CFR Section 227.13(b). If the dredged
material meets at least one of these criteria, additional testing is not required. The three
exclusion criteria are indicated in the box below.
SERIM 15 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
(1) The dredged material is composed predominately of sand, gravel, rock, or any
other naturally occurring bottom material with particle sizes larger than silt, and
the material is found in areas of high current or wave energy such as streams
with large bed loads or coastal areas with shifting bars and channels; or
(2) The dredged material is for beach nourishment or restoration and is composed
predominately of sand, gravel, or shell with particle sizes compatible with
material on the receiving beach; or
(3) When:
a. The material proposed for disposal is substantially the same as the substrate
at the proposed dump site; and
b. The site from which the material proposed for disposal is to be taken is far
removed from known sources of pollution so as to provide a reasonable
assurance that such material has not been contaminated by such pollution.
As beach nourishment or restoration activities do not require a MPRSA Section 103 permit or
authorization, criteria number 2 above is seldom, if ever, applicable. Conclusive written
documentation should be provided showing that the proposed material meets one of the
exclusion criteria. Physical data should be no more than 10 years old. The predominance of
sand, gravel, or rock will be determined based on grain size analysis using the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS), which has been adopted by USAGE. Predominately sand, gravel,
or rock is generally interpreted to include the Clean Sands and Clean Gravel groups, including
borderline (dual symbol) classifications (see Table 3-1). Areas of high current/wave energy
should be documented with data from tide gauges or current meters. In general, high currents
are considered to be in excess of 30 centimeters per second (EPA, 1989). To determine if
material is substantially the same as the substrate at the proposed dump site, the physical
properties (grain size distribution) need to be compared to the physical properties of samples
collected at the proposed disposal site. Material will be considered substantially the same when
the dredged material and the substrate at the proposed site fall within the same sediment
group as defined by the USCS. To determine if the proposed dredging site is far removed from
known sources of pollution, the sources in Table 3-2 should be considered. At a minimum,
EPA's Envirofacts website (www.epa.gov/enviro/index.htmn and the U.S. Coast Guard's National
Response Center website (www.nrc.uscg.mil/index.htm) should be consulted.
SERIM
16
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Table 3-1. Unified Soil Classification System Clean Sands and Gravel Groups
USCS Group
Symbol
GW
GP
SW
SP
Borderline
(Dual Symbol)
Description
Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures.
Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures.
Well-graded sands, gravelly sands.
Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands.
Coarse-grained materials containing between 5% and 12%
fines (e.g. GW-GM, SP-SC).
Percent
Fines1
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
5-12%
No. 200 (75-|jm) sieve
Table 3-2. Tier I Sources of Information
Results from prior physical, chemical, and biological tests of the proposed material to be
disposed or similar material from similar areas in the vicinity of the proposed dredging site.
Results of prior field monitoring studies of the material proposed to be dumped or similar
material from similar areas in the vicinity of the proposed dredging site.
Existing data contained in other EPA Region 4 or USAGE SAD district files or otherwise
available from public or private sources. Examples include the following:
a. Selected Chemical Spill Listing (EPA)
b. Pesticide Spill Reporting System (EPA)
c. Pollution Incident Reporting System-National Response Center (U.S. Coast Guard)
d. Identification of In-Place Pollutants and Priorities for Removal (EPA)
e. Hazardous waste sites and management facilities reports (EPA)
f. USAGE studies of sediment pollution and sediments
g. STORET(STOrage and RETrieval) database (EPA)
h. Water and sediment data on major tributaries (Geological Survey)
i. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit records
j. CWA 404(b)(l) evaluations
k. Pertinent and applicable research reports
I. MPRSA 103 evaluations
m. Port authorities
n. Colleges/universities
o. State environmental agencies
p. Published scientific literature
q. On-line sources, e.g., Envirofacts at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/index.html (see
Appendix E)
SERIM
17
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
If no exclusionary criteria can be met, the limiting permissible concentration (LPC) is evaluated
based on the collected information. This information must include data analyses of the toxicity
and bioaccumulation potential of the dredged material as compared to the reference sediments.
The information must also be sufficient to determine if the WQC, or 1% of the LC5o/EC5o, will be
exceeded in the water column following the initial mixing period. In other words, the
information should relate back to previous Tier II and III analyses at the same site. The
information should also show that no new pollution sources have been introduced into the area
since the previous Tier II and III testing was conducted, and that the material is essentially the
same as it was when last sampled. If adequate information is not available for a Tier I LPC
evaluation, the evaluation process moves to higher tiers.
Confirmatory physical or chemical tests will sometimes be required in order to finalize a Tier I
decision. For instance, confirmatory testing may be required if information suggests that events
such as oil or fuel spills have occurred that may have impacted the proposed dredging area.
Confirmatory analyses would be used in this case to document that the event did not impact or
change the proposed dredged material from when it was previously tested. In addition,
confirmatory analyses may be required in cases when existing data are marginal (e.g., results
were equivocal or borderline), or when data are relatively old (greater than 5 years) or
incomplete. For maintenance projects, confirmatory analyses can be used to demonstrate that
the characteristics of dredged material are relatively consistent from dredging cycle to dredging
cycle, thereby validating the use of previous Tier II and III results. Confirmatory analyses can
also be used to append relatively small additions to previously approved projects by showing
that the new material is substantially the same as that already evaluated. In order to utilize
confirmatory analyses to document compliance with the LPC, the following additional
information is needed:
1. A regional map that clearly shows the project area in relation to other land and aquatic
uses. Poor copies or illegible copies are not acceptable. Point out nearby land use,
aquatic use, and development and present other pertinent information.
2. A site-specific map that indicates the areal extent of the proposed dredging project.
This map should also show the locations of pertinent uses, such as fuel docks, storm
drains, ship repair facilities, and other activities with the potential to affect the quality
of the dredged material. At least one map should include the most recent available
bathymetric information. Clearly indicate the approximate boundaries of the project
area. If the project involves more than a single proposed depth, the limits of the
different proposed depths should be clearly indicated on the project map.
3. A site history narrative, including all information pertinent to the request for a Tier I
decision. This information should seek to identify any potential sources of
contamination and pathways of contaminant transport (e.g., storm drains, agricultural
runoff, industrial and municipal discharges)
4. A history of dredging at or near the site, including dates, areas, volumes, and depths
previously dredged.
SERIM 18 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
5. A table or description of the proposed dredging depths, permitted depths, and
overdredge depth all expressed relative to Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), and the
associated volumes to be dredged.
6. A summary table of past physical and chemical tests. This table would include the
date sampled, location, result of each chemical measurement, detection limits, units,
and any information on the precision and accuracy of the values. An acceptable
option would be to include properly identified tables and figures from past test results.
7. A table of past bioassay results. This table should include the date sampled, species
tested, mean control survival, mean reference survival, and mean survival values in
the dredged material.
8. Maps showing all past sampling stations for which results are included, with the
currently proposed dredging area superimposed.
9. A narrative description of past suitability determinations for the project area. Provide
specific information in the case of ambiguous data, negative decisions, or conditioned
decisions. Note any unusual circumstances (e.g., poor control or reference sediment
survival) in previous test results.
10. A description of any events that have occurred since the last sampling or dredging
event that might influence sediment chemistry or bioassay results (e.g., oil or fuel
spills). This shall include the query results from the U.S. Coast Guard Pollution
Incident Reporting System or a certification that it was reviewed. Provide any other
pertinent data and correspondence (or state that there were none).
11. Provide a Draft Sampling and Analysis Plan if additional confirmatory analyses are
proposed for the project.
Confirmatory analyses cannot be used to document compliance with the LPC for new work
projects where previous Tier II and Tier III studies do not exist. It also cannot be used for
maintenance projects where Tier II and III results are more than 10 years old.
of
In the Tier I decision sequence, one possible outcome is that more information is required to
determine compliance with the regulations. A critical prerequisite to generating this information
is deciding, on a case-by-case basis, which contaminants are of concern in the particular
dredged material being evaluated. In identifying possible COCs, those chemicals necessary to
determine compliance with the requirements of Part 227.6 of the regulations must be included.
Other possible contaminants that should be included are those that might be expected to cause
unacceptable adverse impacts. The COCs in the dredged material should be identified based
on:
• Presence in the dredged material
• Toxicological importance
• Propensity to bioaccumulate from sediments
Sources of potential information for determining the COCs are provided in Table 3-2. Some
contaminants are always of interest because of the provisions of the Convention on the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter [London Dumping
SERIM 19 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Convention (LDC)] and the incorporation of these contaminants into the MPRSA and Sections
227.5 and 227.6 of the regulations. Chapters 6 and 7 of this SERIM provide a list of routine
COCs for the southeastern U.S. that incorporates those contaminants required by the MPRSA
and the regulations. This list should be reduced only when there is site-specific information
indicating that the contaminants are not present in the project vicinity sediments (e.g., past or
current sediment testing efforts). In addition, the list must be expanded when there are
contaminant-specific industry or other pollution sources within a project watershed (e.g., pulp
and paper mills).
3.2 Tier II
3.2.1 Water Column Evaluation
In Tier II, marine WQC compliance is determined using a numerical mixing model (e.g.,
STFATE). Mixing models are available at http://el.erdc.usace.armv.mil/products.cfm?
Topic=model&Type=drgmat. This determination provides a reliable, rapid screen for assessing
potential impact and thereby reduces or eliminates the need for further testing under
subsequent tiers if the dredged material is found to be out of compliance with WQC. If the
dredged material is in compliance with marine WQC, it still must be assessed for toxicity and
bioaccumulation under Tier III. Note that Tier III testing of water column toxicity cannot take
the place of Tier II WQC compliance determinations. Detailed guidance for conducting Tier II
evaluations is contained in Sections 5 and 10 of the 1991 Green Book.
In order to demonstrate compliance with the LPC, the ocean disposal of dredged material
cannot exceed applicable EPA WQC or state water quality standards (WQS), if applicable,
outside the disposal site boundaries at any time or within the disposal site boundaries 4 hours
after initial mixing. WQS apply if a portion of the ODMDS is in state waters. For EPA's WQC,
the acute concentrations [Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC)] are used. EPA WQC are
listed in Appendix F; updates are at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqcriteria.html.
State standards can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/.
3.2.1.1 Screen to Determine WQC Compliance
A screening method utilizing sediment chemistry can be used to determine compliance. The
screen assumes that all of the contaminants in the dredged material are released into the water
column during the disposal operation (see Section 10.1.1 of the 1991 Green Book). If the
numerical model predicts that the concentration of all COCs released into the water column are
less than the applicable WQC, the marine WQC LPC is satisfied.
The model needs to be run only for the COC that requires the greatest dilution. If the
contaminant requiring the greatest dilution is shown to meet the LPC, all of the other
contaminants that require less dilution will also meet the LPC. The contaminant that would
require the greatest dilution is determined by calculating the dilution that would be required to
meet the applicable marine WQC. To determine the required dilution (Dr), the following
equation is solved for each COC:
SERIM 20 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
where
Dr = (Cs-Cwq) / (Cwq - Cds)
[Eq. 3-1]
Cs = concentration of the contaminant in the dredged material elutriate, expressed as
micrograms per liter (ug/L) as determined by either equation 3-1 below or by
elutriate chemical analytical results discussed in Section 3.2.1.2.
Cwq = applicable marine WQC (EPA WQC or state WQS), in (ug/L)
Cds = background concentration of the constituent at the disposal site water column, in
ug/L
NOTE: Dilution is defined as the volume of ambient water in the sample divided by the
volume of elutriate water in the sample.
Note that most contaminant results are reported in micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg) dry
weight. To convert the contaminant concentration reported on a dry-weight basis to the
contaminant concentration in the dredged material, the dry-weight concentration must
be multiplied by the mass of dredged-material solids per liter of dredged material:
Cs = Cdw X
ns x G
[Eq. 3-2]
where
Cdw =
ns =
G =
contaminant concentration in dredged material, reported on a dry-weight basis
(ug/kg)
percent solids as a decimal
specific gravity of the solids. Use 2.65 if site-specific data are not available.
A table showing each contaminant and the dilution required to meet the WQC should be
provided with the analysis. Alternatively, a module in the STFATE model can be used. The
module requires the solids concentration (g/L), which is the term in brackets in Equation 3-2
above multiplied by 1000.
The concentration of the contaminant that would require the greatest dilution is then modeled
using a numerical mixing model. Model input parameters are specific to each proposed
dredging project and each ocean disposal site. Standard STFATE input parameters for each
disposal site are being developed with each ODMDS-specific SMMP. They are included in
Appendix G along with additional guidance on model usage. The key parameters derived from
the dispersion model are the maximum concentration of the contaminant in the water column
outside the boundary of the disposal site during the 4-hour initial-mixing period or anywhere in
the marine environment after the 4-hour initial-mixing period. If both of these concentrations
are below the applicable marine WQC, the WQC LPC is met and no additional testing is required
to determine compliance with the WQC. If either of these concentrations exceeds the WQC,
additional testing is necessary to determine compliance with the WQC, as described in the next
section.
3,2,1,2 to
If the numerical mixing model applied above shows that the WQC cannot be met if all of the
contaminants in the dredged material dissolve into the water column during disposal, an
SERIM
21
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
elutriate-chemical analysis is conducted. Following an elutriate procedure with the dredged
material and the subsequent chemical analysis (see Section 10.1.2 of the 1991 Green Book),
the model is run again with the elutriate-chemical analysis results. Elutriates are prepared
using water from the proposed dredging site (see Section 5.5). A table should be provided
showing each contaminant's elutriate concentration and the dilution required to meet the WQC
using equation 3-1. This second model run predicts whether the COC that requires the greatest
amount of dilution will meet or exceed the LPC for WQC. If the LPC is not met, disposal
operations may be modified so the LPC is met (e.g., decrease barge size, change disposal
method, limit disposal to certain oceanographic conditions).
3.2.2 Benthic Evaluation
Tier II tests for benthic-impact evaluation should be used only to screen out sediments that are
not likely to meet the LPC or to assist in selecting a compositing or testing scheme under
Tier III. Tier II tests cannot be used to pass the benthic evaluation. The only Tier II benthic-
impact evaluation is the bioaccumulation analysis for non-polar organic compounds. The
analysis uses a calculation for determining the theoretical bioaccumulation potential (TBP) in
test organisms. The TBP calculation factors the concentration of the non-polar organic
contaminant in the sediment, the total organic carbon (TOC) in the sediment, and the percent
lipid concentration (%L) in the organism. The calculation is run for both the proposed dredged
material and the reference material. Guidance for calculating the TBP of nonpolar organic
chemicals is provided in Section 10.2 of the 1991 Green Book and Section 10.2 of Evaluation of
Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. —Testing Manual [Inland Testing
Manual (ITM)] (EPA, 1998). When the results indicate high levels of contamination of non-polar
organics in the dredged material, the applicant may choose not to continue on to Tier III but
rather to seek other disposal options. In addition, dredging units with similar TBP can be
composited for evaluation under Tier III, or dredging units with high TBP can be used as worst-
case surrogates for the entire project in Tier III.
Unlike Tier II determination of compliance with WQC, the Tier II TBP calculation does not have
to be performed in order to determine suitability for ocean dumping. Tier III bioassays are the
decisive tests for making this determination.
3.3 Tier III
Tier III tests include (1) determination of water column toxicity and (2) assessment of
contaminant toxicity and bioaccumulation from the material to be dredged. The evaluations in
this tier are based on the output from Tiers I and II and comprise standardized bioassays.
Detailed guidance for conducting Tier III evaluations is contained in Sections 6, 11, and 12 of
the 1991 Green Book.
3.3.1 Water Column Bioassays
The Tier III water column evaluation considers the effects, after allowance for initial mixing, of
dissolved contaminants plus those associated with suspended particulates on water column
organisms. According to paragraph 227.13(c)(2)(ii) of the regulations, water column bioassays
must be used when there are not applicable marine WQC for all the COCs or when there is
SERIM 22 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
reason to suspect the synergistic effects of certain contaminants. The LPC is defined in
paragraph 227.27(a)(2) as
That concentration of waste or dredged material in the receiving water which,
after allowance for initial mixing, as specified in §227.29, will not exceed a
toxicity threshold defined as 0.01 of a concentration shown to be acutely toxic to
appropriate sensitive marine organisms in a bioassay carried out in accordance
with approved EPA procedures.
Appropriate sensitive marine organisms are defined in paragraph 227.27(c) as
Appropriate sensitive marine organisms means at least one species each
representative of phytoplankton or zooplankton, crustacean or mollusk, and fish
species chosen from among the most sensitive species documented in the
scientific literature or accepted by EPA as being reliable test organisms to
determine the anticipated impact of the wastes on the ecosystem at the disposal
site.
Recommended species are presented in Chapter 7. A concentration shown to be acutely toxic
is generally accepted to be equivalent to the LC50 for tests with mortality as the endpoint and
the EC50 for development as the endpoint.
In evaluating the test results, the 100% dredged-material elutriate treatment is evaluated to
determine if it is statistically significantly more toxic than either the control or the dilution water.
If not, there is no indication of adverse effects attributable to the dredged material and further
evaluation is not warranted. If the 100% dredged-material elutriate treatment is statistically
significantly more toxic than either the control or dilution water, 0.01 of the LC50 (or EC50) is
used in the mixing model (e.g., STFATE) to determine compliance with the LPC; i.e., the
concentration of the dredged material must be less than 0.01 x LC50 (or EC50) at all times
outside the disposal site and after 4 hours within the disposal site. If less than 50% mortality
occurs in any of the elutriate treatments, it is not possible to calculate an LC50- In such cases,
the LC50 used in the model to determine compliance should be the 100% elutriate treatment. If
the conditions are highly toxic, such that the 10% elutriate treatment has greater than 50%
mortality, further dilution must be made (new treatments of less than 10% dredged-material
elutriate) to attain a survival of greater than 50% and determine the LC50 by interpolation.
Statistical procedures recommended for analyzing the test data are described in detail in
Sections 13.2.1 and 13.2.2 of the 1991 Green Book. If the mixing model shows that the LPC is
not met, disposal operations may be modified so the LPC is met (e.g., decrease barge size,
change disposal method, limit disposal to certain oceanographic conditions). Additional model
runs are then conducted to demonstrate that the modified disposal operations bring the project
into compliance with the LPC.
Evaluation of benthic bioassays in Tier III is based on data generated according to the guidance
in Section 11.2 in both the 1991 Green Book and the 1998 ITM. For benthic-effects evaluation,
the LPC of the solid phase of dredged material is applicable and is defined in paragraph
227.27(b) as ... that concentration which will not cause unreasonable acute or chronic toxicity
or sublethal adverse effects based on bioassay results using . . . appropriate sensitive benthic
SERIM 23 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
marine organisms. . . Appropriate sensitive benthic marine organisms are defined in paragraph
227.27(d) as ... two or more species that together represent filter-feed ing, deposit feeding,
and burrowing characteristics. Lists of appropriately sensitive marine species for the
southeastern U.S. are provided in Chapter 7 of this SERIM.
3.3.2.1 Whole Sediment Toxicity Tests
Whole sediment bioassays (toxicity tests) evaluate the effects of the proposed dredged material
disposal on benthic organisms. The bioassays use mortality data from the whole sediment
treatments. A dilution series similar to the suspended phase tests is not used. Proposed
dredged material does not meet the ocean dumping criteria for the whole sediment bioassay
when mortality:
1. Is statistically significantly higher in the dredged material tests than the reference
sediment tests (statistically significant is defined as statistical evidence that there is a
difference between values or groups of values and does not necessarily indicate the
difference is large, important, or significant in the common meaning of the word); and
2. Exceeds the reference sediment mortality by at least 10%; or
3. Exceeds the reference sediment mortality by at least 20% for the 10-day amphipod
whole sediment bioassay test (1991 Green Book, Section 6-2).
3.3.2.2 Sublethal Effects and Bioaccumulation Tests
Bioaccumulation tests evaluate the bioavailability of contaminants in the proposed dredged
material. Guidance on bioaccumulation testing is provided in Chapter 12 of the 1991 Green
Book or Chapter 12 of the ITM. Bioaccumulation tests are conducted for 28 days. Guidance on
determining which contaminants to analyze for in the tissues is provided in Section 6.2 of this
SERIM. Tissue contaminant concentrations should be multiplied by the appropriate steady-state
factor. Contaminants requiring application of steady-state factors and the appropriate factors
are provided in Appendix H.
The steady-state adjusted contaminant concentrations in the tissues of the test species are
compared with:
• The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published list of Action Levels for Poisonous or
Deleterious Substances in Fish and Shellfish for Human Food (see Appendix H or the
U.S. FDA Seafood Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point website at
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/haccpsea.html for updates).
• Contaminant tissue concentrations that do not exceed the FDA action limits are also
statistically compared to tissue concentrations from test species exposed to reference
sediments. If the concentrations of the contaminant(s) statistically exceed those in the
reference sediments, evaluations of LPC compliance for the proposed dredged material will
require further analysis.
When bioaccumulation of contaminants in the proposed dredged material statistically exceeds
those in the reference sediments, the 1991 Green Book (Section 6.3) recommends eight factors
to be considered to evaluate LPC compliance. Based on these factors, EPA Region 4 has
SERIM 24 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
developed bioaccumulation screening levels (see Appendix H), below which LPC compliance is
demonstrated. Tissue contaminant concentrations in excess of these values do not necessarily
indicate LPC non-compliance but warrant further case-specific analysis utilizing the eight
factors. The eighth factor is a consideration of background concentration in similar organisms.
Appendix H provides background tissue levels specified by EPA Region 4. Additional guidance
and reference material for further analysis are available at:
• Bioaccumulation Testing and Interpretation for the Purpose of Sediment Quality
Assessment Status and Needs (EPA-823-R-00-001) February 2000.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/biotesting/
• USACE/USEPA Environmental Residue-Effects Database (ERED).
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/ered/
• USGS Contaminant Hazard Review, http://www.pwrc.usqs.gov/infobase/eisler/
• National Sediment Bioaccumulation Conference Proceedings, February 1998.
(EPA 823-R-98-002) http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/conftoc.html
• NOAA Chemical Contaminants in Oysters and Mussels (1998). NOAA's State of the Coast
Report, http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/websites/retiredsites/sotc pdf/CCOM.PDF
• TrophicTrace: A Tool for Assessing Risks from Trophic Transfer of Sediment-Associated
Contaminants. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/products.cfm?Topic=model&Type=other
3.4 Tier IV
When a compliance determination cannot be made after completion of the first three tiers,
further testing in Tier IV may be appropriate. However, Tier IV testing is intended for
exceptional circumstances only and should not be routinely applied. Presently, Tier IV consists
of bioassay and bioaccumulation tests to evaluate the long-term benthic impact of dredged
material (no methods for Tier IV water column tests have yet been developed). Tests at this
level should be selected to address specific project issues for a specific dredging operation that
cannot be fully evaluated in the earlier tiers. Because these tests are case-specific and require
significant time and money to complete, criteria for determining compliance with 40 CFR 227
should be agreed on in advance between EPA Region 4 and USAGE SAD district staff.
Conducting Tier IV benthic testing is possible with current methods. However, because the
evaluation consumes significant resources of the dredging applicant and of the regulatory
authority, and a final noncompliance determination is still possible, all parties should weigh the
options and decide whether to perform Tier IV testing or consider an alternative that does not
involve ocean dumping, such as upland disposal.
Tier IV will likely be applied only to those few large projects in which non-ocean disposal
options are unavailable or prohibitively expensive, and the project (or abandonment of the
project) has significant economic or national defense implications.
SERIM 25 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
This page intentionally left blank.
SERIM 26 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
4.0 SEDIMENT SAMPLING
Accurate assessment of proposed dredged material for ocean disposal depends in large part on
the accuracy and representativeness of sediment collection and analysis. Detailed information
concerning appropriate sampling design, field and laboratory facilities needed, safety, sampling
equipment, sample storage and transport procedures, and sample manipulation issues common
to chemical or toxicological analyses is provided in the EPA technical manual Methods for
Collection, Storage, and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical and Toxicological Analyses
(EPA, 2001b) [available from the EPA Office of Science and Technology's web site at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/collectionmanual.pdf] as well as the 1991 Green Book and
the ITM. The following sections provide regional guidance on sediment sampling that should be
used in addition to the guidance provided in the documents referenced above.
4.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)/Quality Assurance Project
Plan (QAPP)
The SAP is the main source of information about the proposed dredging project's sampling
design/approach and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) measures associated with
sample collection and dredged material analysis. The SAP is equivalent to the Draft QAPP and
will be used in the development of the testing contract Scope of Work (SOW). The Draft QAPP
or (SAP) should be coordinated with EPA prior to initiation of the SOW. It is EPA's policy that all
environmental data used in decision-making be supported by a QAPP (EPA, 2000). Therefore, a
final QAPP should also be coordinated with EPA prior to initiation of sampling. Sampling and
testing should be coordinated far enough in advance of dredging to allow time for testing and
data review (see Section 2.2). The following documents provide guidance on Draft QAPP (SAP)
and final QAPP development:
• Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (G-5) (PDF 401KB) - December 2002,
EPA/240/R-02/009. Guidance on developing Quality Assurance Project Plans that meet EPA
specifications. Note: This document replaces EPA/600/R-98/018 issued in February 1998.
http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g5-final.pdf (EPA, 2002).
• EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (QA/R-5) (PDF 120KB) - March 2001,
EPA/240/B-01/003. Defines specifications for Quality Assurance Project Plans prepared for
activities conducted by or funded by EPA. These specifications are equivalent to Chapter 5
of EPA Manual 5360. http://www.epa.gov/quality/qapps.html
• Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal (Ocean Testing Manual or
Green Book), Chapter 8. EPA 503/8-91/001, February 1991.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/gbook/gbook.pdf
• Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. - Testing
Manual (Inland Testing Manual), Chapter 8. EPA-823-B-98-004, February 1998.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/itm/ITM/
• QA/QC Guidance for Sampling and Analysis of Sediments, Water, and Tissues for Dredged
Material Evaluations - Chemical Evaluations. EPA-823-B-95-001, April 1995.
http://www.epa.aov/waterscience/cs/librarv/evaluationauide.pdf
SERIM 27 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
• Methods for Collection, Storage and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical and
Toxicological Analyses: Technical Manual. EPA -823-B-01-002, October 2001.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/collectionmanual.pdf
The SAP should be composed of standardized, recognizable elements covering the entire
dredging project testing scheme from planning, through implementation, to assessment. The
SAP elements and their intents are summarized as follows:
• Project Management - This group of SAP elements covers the basic area of dredging project
management, including the project history and objectives, and roles and responsibilities of
the participants. These elements ensure that the dredging project sediment testing
program has a defined goal and that the participants understand the goal and approach to
be used.
• Measurement/Data Acquisition - This group of SAP elements covers all aspects of
measurement system design and implementation, ensuring that appropriate methods for
sampling, analysis, data handling, and QC are employed and properly documented.
• Assessment/Oversight - This group of SAP elements addresses the activities for assessing
the effectiveness of the implementation of the dredging project and associated QA and QC.
The purpose of assessment is to ensure that the SAP is implemented as prescribed.
• Data Validation and Usability - This group of SAP elements covers QA activities that occur
after the data collection phase of the dredging project is completed. Implementation of
these elements ensures that data conform to the specified criteria, thus ensuring that the
resulting data are adequate for agency decision-makers.
Table 4-1 contains the elements that should appear in the SAP. These elements are derived
from the EPA QA documents listed above. Additional format and content for the elements are
provided in Appendix I. Appendix J has a checklist for review of SAPs.
Table 4-1. SAP/QAPP Elements
1998
Al
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
1998
Bl
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
BIO
2002
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.1.7
2.1.8
2.1.9
2001
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5
2.2.6
2.2.7
2.2.8
2.2.9
2.2.10
Group A: Project Management Elements
Title and Approval Sheet
Table of Contents
Distribution List
Project/Task Organization
Problem Definition/Background
Project/Task Description
Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data
Special Training Requirements/Certification
Documentation and Records
Group B: Measurement/ Data Acquisition Elements
Sampling Process Design
Sampling Methods Requirements
Sample Handling and Custody Requirements
Analytical Methods Requirements
Quality Control Requirements
Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance Requirements
Instrument Calibration and Frequency
Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Consumables
Data Acquisition Requirements (non-direct measurements)
Data Management
SERIM
28
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
1998
Cl
C2
1998
Dl
D2
D3
2001
2.3.1
2.3.2
2001
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
Group C: Assessment/Oversight Elements
Assessments and Response Action
Reports to Management
Group D: Data Validation and Usability
Data Review, Validation, and Verification Reguirements
Validation and Verification Methods
Reconciliation with User Reguirements
4.2 Selection of Project Sample Stations
The selection of sampling stations at the proposed dredging site is a critical step in designing an
acceptable sediment sampling plan. Selection involves both the location (horizontal and
vertical) and the number of samples for a proposed project.
4.2.1 Dredging Units
Sediment characteristics are likely to vary within the limits of the area to be dredged as a result
of geographic and hydrological features as well as proximity to direct contaminant input. The
1991 Green Book (Section 8.2.3) recommends that proposed areas to be dredged be subdivided
into project segments or dredging units (DU) for sampling. Each DU is expected to have
relatively consistent characteristics. In addition, dredged material from each DU, if warranted,
could be managed in different manners during dredging and disposal to limit environmental
impact. DUs can be selected based on historical data, sediment characteristics, geographic
configuration, depth of cut, equipment limitations, known or suspected contaminant
concentrations, etc. They can be defined by both horizontal and vertical limits, i.e., surface
sediments might be considered separate from subsurface sediments at the same location. The
1991 Green Book (Section 8.2.3) recommends limiting vertical subdivisions to no smaller than
2 to 3 feet due to dredging equipment limitations. Typically, a DU can be characterized by a
single sediment analysis. Thus, a separate decision can be made for a DU that can be
characterized and dredged separately from other sediments in a project area.
For the purposes of this document, four possible rankings have been developed for dredging
units: exclusionary, low, moderate, or high. In that order, these ranks represent a scale of
increasing potential for significant concentrations of COCs and/or adverse biological effects.
Table 4-2 identifies the parameters that better define these rankings.
The ranking system is based on 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; and
2. The number, kinds, and proximity of chemical sources (existing and historical) known to
occur in or near a particular reach or site.
DUs and their respective rankings should be developed as part of the SAP and approved by the
USAGE SAD district and EPA Region 4 prior to sampling. An example of a maintenance project
divided into DUs is provided in Figure 4-1.
SERIM 29 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Table 4-2. Dredging Unit Ranking Definitions
Ranking
Parameters
Exclusionary
Material that has been shown to meet the exclusionary criteria in 40 CFR
§227.13(b) are summarized below:
1. The material is predominately sand (see Section 3.1.1) and is
found in areas of high current or wave energy, or
2. The material is substantially the same as the substrate at the
ODMDS and the dredging site is far removed from known
existing and historical sources of pollution.
Low
Available data indicate low concentrations of COCs and/or no
significant response in biological tests;.
Locations with higher percentages 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.
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;
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.
SERIM
30
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
LU
03
Q
LU
CL
Q
LLJ
U
T3 »
in C
1 =
.i o
i
< £
^ 3 g 5 £ 5 5
< •<
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
4.2.2 Recommended Sampling Requirements
As discussed above, each DU can be characterized by a single analysis. Therefore, the size of
the DU will determine the number of analyses for a proposed project. Recommended volumes
for the DU are provided in Table 4-3. These are recommended values and can be modified
based on site-specific concerns. The presence of heterogeneous or discreet layers in the
dredge cut may warrant further sub-sampling or assignment of a smaller DU. For example, if
25% of the sample volume is visually different from the rest of the sediment profile, and can be
sampled and dredged separately, then an additional DU may be warranted.
Table 4-3. Recommended Volumes for Dredging Units
Ranking
Exclusionary
Low
Moderate
High
Volume (cubic yards)
300,000
200,000
100,000
50,000
The single sediment analysis for a DU will typically consist of a number of samples composited.
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 DU-by-DU basis. The number of samples and the
compositing scheme will vary depending upon such factors as: (1) a reason to believe that
contamination may exist, (2) the heterogeneity of the sediments, (3) the areal extent of the
DU, and (4) the proposed depth of dredging. In general, sampling intensity increases with
suspected contamination, higher ranking, greater areal extent, increasing depth, or the
occurrence of stratification. In homogenous sediments, the requirement is a minimum of two
samples, and in heterogeneous sediments, a minimum of three samples composited for one
analysis is recommended to characterize a single DU.
4.2.3 Sample Replication for Quality Assurance
The number of sample replicates for quality assurance purposes should be determined in
accordance with Section 8.0. Sample replicates should consist of a subsample of a well
homogenized composite sample. Sediment testing should then be conducted on the replicate
samples.
4.3 Sampling Reference Stations
For dredged material evaluations for ocean disposal, the test results from proposed dredging
site samples are compared to test results from appropriate reference site sediments. Reference
sediment is defined as; "A sediment, substantially free of contaminants, that is as similar to the
grain size of the dredged material and the sediment at the disposal site as practical, and reflects
conditions that would exist in the vicinity of the disposal site had no dredged-material disposal
ever occurred, but had all other influences on sediment condition taken place. "(1991 Green
Book, Section 3.1.2). Reference sediment sampling stations are selected to simulate conditions
at the proposed disposal site in the absence of past dredged material disposal. Reference
SERIM 32 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
sediments must be collected for each evaluation. Results from previous evaluations are not
acceptable. Test organisms should be selected to minimize sensitivity to possible sediment
grain size differences among the reference site, the control site, and the proposed dredging
site.
Using historical reference sites and EPA Region 4 studies of reference areas, EPA Region 4 has
identified preferred reference sites for each ODMDS for various grain size distributions. These
sites are identified in Appendix K. One or more of these sites may be used and should be
selected based on the grain size of the proposed dredged material. These reference areas shall
be utilized. Alternative reference sites will be approved on a case-by-case basis. Reference
sediments may be collected from: (1) a single reference-sediment sampling location; or
(2) from a number of approved locations. Reference samples may be composited and tested
according to guidance provided in Chapter 8 of the 1991 Green Book.
Replicate sediment samples should be collected at the reference site(s) using an appropriate
collection device [see Table 5 for the EPA QA/QC Guidance (EPA, 1995)]. In most cases, a grab
sample is adequate for reference sediment stations. Replicates may be composited into a single
sample [see Chapter 8 of the 1991 Green Book or Chapter 4 of EPA (2001b) for guidance]. The
collected sediment should be of sufficient quantity to conduct all required testing. A minimum
of three replicate sediment samples from the reference site(s) should be collected for all testing
[i.e., three grabs at one site or one grab at three sites or any other combination for a minimum
of three grabs].
Control sediment should be used in all bioassay and bioaccumulation tests. Control sediment is
distinguished from the reference sediment because it is selected to provide optimum conditions
for the organisms. Control samples are used to determine the general health of the test
organisms during the bioassay and bioaccumulation tests, and to evaluate test protocols as part
of the laboratory QA/QC program. The coordinates of the control site or source of the control
sediment should be documented in the SAP and approved by the appropriate USAGE SAD
district and EPA Region 4 prior to collection.
• Control sediment shall be defined as: "A natural sediment essentially free of contaminants
and compatible with the biological needs of the test organisms such that the sediment has
no discernible influences on responses being measured in the tests" (1991 Green Book,
Section 1).
• Control sediment is used in the whole-sediment bioassay tests to assess the overall health
of the test species. The average control test species mortality should not exceed 10%
[30% for the zooplankton in the elutriate toxicity tests (see Appendix L)]. In the event
these levels are exceeded, testing may need to be repeated.
• The control sediment tests are not usually compared to the proposed dredged material as
part of the analysis to determine whether sediments are suitable for ocean disposal.
SERIM 33 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
4.5 of at the
Sediment sampling at the selected stations in the proposed dredging site should be designed to
ensure that the proposed dredged material will be adequately characterized. This sampling
should include consideration of project design and survey/measurement considerations, the
dredging history of the area (i.e., new vs. maintenance work), physical conditions,
characteristics of the material being dredged (sedimentation rates), type of dredging
equipment, and any previous sampling. It should also include a consideration of the actual
potential dredging depth, which includes required project depth (authorized project depth and,
if applicable, advanced maintenance), any paid allowable overdepth dredging, and non-pay
overdepth dredging due to inaccuracies in the dredging technique and disturbances from the
dredge. Guidance to assure that environmental compliance activities and environmental
documentation associated with new and maintenance dredging adequately considers overdepth
dredging has been prepared by USAGE (2006). ER 1130-2-520 (USAGE, 1996) provides that
USAGE may dredge a maximum of 2 feet of allowable overdepth in coastal regions and in inland
navigation channels. This allowable overdepth is also referred to as paid allowable overdepth
dredging. All material likely to be dredged, including material in the paid allowable overdepth
and non-pay dredging areas, must be characterized and evaluated.
Table 4-4 provides general guidance on sampling depth based on dredging technique.
Additional guidance can be found in "Overdepth Dredging and Characterization Depth
Recommendations" (Tavolaro et al., 2007) and in the Memorandum for Commanders (USAGE,
2006). The estimated dredging quantities, and therefore sampling depths, must be adequate to
ensure achievement of the full dimensions of the project. They need to include estimates of the
quantity that may be excavated due to the inherent imprecision of the dredging process while
limiting dredging quantities in the interest of environmental protection and preservation of the
disposal capacity. These estimates must be developed in a collaborative process that involves
the USAGE SAD district, EPA Region 4, and the applicant. The project's final sampling depth,
including paid and non-pay dredging/disturbance depths, should be specified in the SAP.
Table 4-4. General Guidance on Sampling Depth
Dredging
Technique
Cutterhead
Hopper
Mechanical
General Paid
Allowable
Overdepth
Dredging
2 feet
2 feet
2 feet
Recommended Sampling
Depth below Paid
Allowable Overdepth
Dredging
3 feet
Ifoot
2 feet
Recommended
Sampling Depth below
Project Required Depth
with No Paid Allowable
Overdepth
5 feet
1-2 feet
4 feet
Sample collection methods (e.g., grab, coring, etc.) can have an effect on sediment integrity.
Therefore, it is important to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each sampling
device for the type of testing that is to be done (ASTM, 2003; EPA, 2001b). Generally, coring
should be used for new work material where the dredge depth exceeds the penetration of a
grab sampler. Grab samplers can be used on maintenance material when the material has
been documented to be homogeneous with depth. Explanations of appropriate sampling
SERIM
34
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
devices are provided in Table 5 of the EPA QA/QC Guidance (EPA, 1995). Appropriate core
liners shall be used [Lexan®, cellulose acetate butyrate, or Teflon® (see also EPA, 2001b)].
Sediment sampling documentation should include:
• A description of the amount and extent of the proposed dredging as well as other factors
previously described in Section 4.1. Sample location positioning should utilize Differential
GPS or equivalent and be precise to ±3 meters (or DGPS equivalent precision);
• The amount of sediment to be collected to perform all physical, chemical, bioassay, and
bioaccumulation sediment testing. Consideration of sample volume requirements for all
analyses, acceptable storage, and holding times should be given depending on the tests to
be conducted [EPA QA/QC Guidance Table 5 (EPA, 1995)]; and
• Sample log requirements that will document sediment sample handling procedures. Sample
logs must specifically include:
(a) sample date;
(b) sample location (latitude and longitude);
(c) sample identification code for chain-of-custody documentation, description of
sediment odor and physical appearance;
(d) sample depth and water depth;
(e) sampling method (including sampling gear);
(f) sample penetration depth;
(g) number of samples taken; and
(h) any problems encountered.
It is strongly recommended that samples be retained under proper storage conditions until
acceptability of the data has been determined.
4.6 Water Sampling
Water samples are required for preparation of the elutriate sample and dilution water. In
accordance with Sections 10.1.2 and 11.1.4 of the 1991 Green Book, elutriate samples are
prepared using unfiltered water from the dredging site. The sample(s) should be collected
within 1 meter of the bottom, but entrainment of material to be dredged should be avoided.
The water sample should be collected with equipment and materials suitable for the type of
analytical parameters that are being tested for (i.e., peristaltic pump, Van Dorn, etc). The
location(s) of the elutriate sample water should be included in the SAP and approved by the
USAGE SAD district and EPA Region 4. In accordance with Section 11.1.4 of the 1991 Green
Book, disposal-site water, clean seawater, or artificial sea/salt mixtures should be used as
dilution water for the tests. If disposal site water is to be used, the sample should be collected
from at least one meter below surface and within the disposal site boundaries.
SERIM
35
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Guidance on sample handling can be found in Section 8.2.6.1 of the 1991 Green Book and
Chapters 4 and 5 of Methods for Collection, Storage and Manipulation of Sediments for
Chemical and Toxicological Analyses: Technical Manual(EPA, 2001b). Sediment samples for
biological testing should have all living organisms removed from the sediment prior to handling.
This can best be accomplished by press-sieving the sediments through a 1-mm-mesh screen.
Other matter retained on the screen with the organisms, such as shell fragments, gravel, and
debris, should be recorded and discarded. Sediments for physical and chemical analysis should
not undergo such treatment. All sediments should be thoroughly homogenized.
SERIM 36 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
5.0 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL TESTING OF
DREDGED MATERIAL
Testing is frequently required to characterize the physical and chemical properties of sediments
proposed for dredging and disposal. The following information supplements Section 9.0 of the
1991 Green Book and Section 2.8.1 of the QA/QC Manual (EPA, 1995). Strict adherence to
established testing protocols and detection limits while conducting all analyses will aid in
expediting review and concurrence for projects. Any deviation from these protocols should be
approved by the USAGE SAD district and EPA Region 4 prior to analysis. Such deviation should
be clearly defined in the SAP (see Sections 2.2 and 4.1). Established QA/QC procedures must
be followed (see Section 8.0).
5.1 Physical Analysis
Sediment proposed for dredging and disposal and reference sediments should be analyzed for
grain size distribution, TOC, and total solids/percent moisture (Table 5-1). In addition, specific
gravity, bulk density, and Atterberg limits may be required on a case-by-case basis. Atterberg
limits should be determined when clumping of dredged material is expected during disposal
(e.g., new work projects in cohesive clays). The grain size analysis should be conducted
according to the methods described in Plumb (1981) or ASTM (2002) and reported as
percentages retained by weight in the following size classes, at a minimum:
• Gravel
• Coarse Sand
• Medium Sand
• Fine Sand
• Silt/Clay (expressed as "Fines")
Gravel and sand fractions should be separated using the standard sieve sizes indicated in
Table 5-1 and reported as cumulative frequency percentages (Section 7.1). The USCS should
be utilized and each sample assigned the appropriate two-letter group (see ASTM, 2006).
There may be cases where silt and clay fractions will need to be distinguished. USAGE SAD
districts and EPA Region 4 will provide guidance on a case-by-case basis on whether it is
needed. Silt and clay fractions should be quantified by hydrometer (ASTM, 2002), pipette, or
Coulter Counter (Plumb, 1981). Use of a laser diffraction grain size analyzer is also acceptable
(Loizeau et al., 1994). Total solids and percent moisture should be measured as described by
Plumb (1981) or APHA (1995).
It should be noted that the results of the above physical analyses may be used to support
compliance with one or more of the three exclusionary criteria in 40 CFR 227.13(b) for ocean
disposal (see Section 3.1.1).
SERIM 37 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Table 5-1. Parameters Used for the Physical Characterization of Sediments
Parameter
Grain Size Distribution
Gravel (>4.75mm)
Coarse Sand (2.0-
4.75mm)
Medium Sand (0.425-
2.0mm)
Fine Sand (0.075-
0.425mm)
Silt (0.005-0.075mm)
Clay (<0.005mm)
Total (percent) Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Specific Gravity
Atterberg Limits*
Method
Plumb, 1981;
ASTM, 2002
Plumb, 1981
9060 (SW846)
Plumb, 1981
ASTM 4318D
Measure/Quantitation Limit
Retained on No. 4 sieve
Passing through No. 4 sieve and retained on
No. 10 sieve
Passing through No. 10 sieve and retained on
No. 40 sieve
Passing through No. 40 sieve and retained on
No. 200 sieve
As determined by hydrometer, pipette or
Coulter counter/laser particle size analyzer
As determined by hydrometer, pipette or
Coulter counter/laser particle size analyzer
Value based on mass. 1.0%
0.1%
*Not needed in all cases. Consult your USAGE district and EPA prior to analysis.
5.2 Chemical Analysis of Sediments
As discussed in Section 3.2.1.1, chemical analysis of
sediments can be used to document compliance with
applicable EPA WQC or state WQS. However, it cannot be
used for determination of water column toxicity or the
assessment of contaminant toxicity and bioaccumulation
from the material to be dredged. As discussed in Section
3.2.2, sediment chemistry can be used to screen out
sediments that are not likely to meet the LPC or to assist in
selecting a compositing or testing scheme under Tier III.
It can also be used in Tier I as part of confirmatory
analysis (see Section 3.1.2). It should be noted that
chemical analysis of sediments is not required to document
compliance with the ocean dumping criteria, but can be a
beneficial tool in evaluating current and future projects.
There are three reasons for
analyzing the sediments - none
required under ocean dumping
criteria:
(1) Elutriate screen (Appendix F
and Table 5-1),
(2) Establish contaminants,
(3) Determine chemical dredging
characterization of dredge
material to establish future
confirmatory analyses.
The COCs that should be analyzed on a routine basis are listed in Tables 5-3 through 5-7. The
routine metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
and pesticides listed in these tables were chosen based on the requirements of 40 CFR 227.6,
their toxicity, their persistence in the environment, their ability to bioaccumulate, and their
widespread and consistence occurrence in the estuarine, marine, and freshwater sediments and
organisms of the southeastern United States. These lists can be reduced or expanded based on
SERIM
38
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
site-specific knowledge of pollution sources or historical testing showing the presence or lack of
presence of specific contaminants. Table 3-2 provides a list of resources for determining COCs.
It should be explicitly stated in the SAP when listed contaminants will not be analyzed. One of
the primary sources of dioxin-like compounds [chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs),
chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs), and certain PCBs] in surface water is bleached pulp and
paper mills (EPA, 2001c). Dioxin-like compounds will be added to the analyte list when pulp
and paper mills are or were present upstream in the watershed of the proposed dredging area
unless it has been previously documented that these compounds are not present within the
sediments in the vicinity of the project. Other major sources of dioxin-like substances to the air
and land that could deposit in sediments include solid and medical waste incineration,
secondary copper smelting, and cement kilns (EPA, 2001c). If any of these activities are
present in the project vicinity, dioxin-like compounds should be considered. Appropriate
methods and target detection limits for the dioxin-like compounds and any other supplemental
COCs can be found in Appendix M of this document, the EPA QA/QC Guidance (EPA, 1995), the
Inland Testing Manual, or the 1991 Green Book. If sediment chemistry is to be used in the
screening method (Section 3.2.1.1) to document compliance with the WQC, analyses must be
performed for all analytes listed in Appendix F.
The target detection limits (TDLs) listed in the tables are performance goals (EPA, 1995).
Laboratory reporting limits (LRL) for each project should be at or below these values (Jones and
Clarke, 2005). LRLs are the minimum levels at which a lab will report analytical chemistry data
with confidence in the quantitative accuracy of that data. LRLs are adjusted for sample-specific
parameters such as sample weight, percent solids, or dilution. As routine data acceptance
criteria, the LRLs for each analyte should be below the listed TDL, with the caveat that some
sediments with higher percent moisture content may have LRLs above the TDLs. It is the
applicant's (USAGE SAD district for Civil Works projects) responsibility to meet the TDLs. Some
laboratories have had difficulties in the past meeting the required TDLs because of
inappropriate sample preparation and clean-up procedures to remove interfering substances
typically found in marine sediments (e.g., elemental sulfur). If the TDLs cannot be attained, a
detailed explanation should accompany the data providing the reasons for not attaining the
required TDLs. Re-analysis may be necessary or the contaminant may have to be assumed to
be present at the reported LRL. Appropriate sample preparation, clean-up, and analytical
methods have been developed for estuarine/marine sediments by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (1993) and the EPA research laboratory at Narragansett, RI
(EPA, 1993a). Established sample and clean-up procedures are presented in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2. Sample and Clean-up Procedures Generally Used for Marine Sediments
Parameter
Pesticides
PCBs
PAHs
Methods
EPA
EPA
EPA
3640
3640
3640
(GPC),
(GPC),
(GPC),
3660
3660
3630
(Sulfur),
(Sulfur),
3620
3620
(Florisil)
(Florisil),
3665 (Sulfuric Acid)
(Silica Gel)
SERIM 39 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Table 5-3. Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Sediment
Samples: Metals
Metal
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Analytical Method1
6020
6020
6020
6020
6020
7471
6020
6020
6020
6020
Target Detection Limit2
1
0.1
1
1
0.5
0.05
1
1
0.2
1
1 The specified methods are recommendations only. Any method that can achieve these TDLs is acceptable,
provided the appropriate documentation of the method performance is generated for the project and the method
is adequately identified and described in the SAP/QAPP.
2 Dry weight: mg/kg or ppm
Table 5-4. Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Sediment
Samples: Pesticides and Semi-Volatiles
Contaminant of Concern
Pesticides
Aldrin
Chlordane & Derivatives
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4-DDT
Endosulfan & Derivatives
Endrin & Derivatives
Heptachlor & Derivatives
Hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane) & Derivatives
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
Semi-Volatiles
Pentachlorophenol
Analytical
Method1
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8151 Modified or
8270C SIM
Target Detection
Limit2
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
100
1 The specified methods are recommendations only. Any method that can achieve these TDLs is acceptable,
provided the appropriate documentation of the method performance is generated for the project and the method
is adequately identified and described in the SAP/QAPP.
2 Dry weight: ug/kg or ppb
SERIM
40
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Table 5-5. Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Sediment
Samples: PAHs
PAH
Acenaphthene*
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene*
Benzo(a)Anthracene**
Benzo(a)Pyrene**
Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene
Chrysene**
Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene**
Fluoranthene**
Fluorene*
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)Pyrene
1- & 2-Methylnaphthalene*
Naphthalene*
Phenanthrene*
Pyrene**
Analytical Method1
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
Target Detection
Limit2
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
The specified methods are recommendations only. Any method that can achieve these TDLs is acceptable,
provided the appropriate documentation of the method performance is generated for the project and the method
is adequately identified and described in the SAP/QAPP.
Dry weight: ug/kg or ppb
Low molecular weight (LMW) PAHs (NOAA, 1989)
High molecular weight (HMW) PAHs (NOAA, 1989)
SERIM
41
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Table 5-6. Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Sediment
Samples: PCBs
PCB Congener
2,4' diCB
2,2', 5 triCB
2,4,4' triCB
2,2',3,5' tetraCB
2,2',4,5' tetraCB
2,2'5,5' tetraCB
2,3',4,4' tetraCB
3,3',4,4' tetraCB
2,2',3,4,5' pentaCB
2,2',4,5,5' pentaCB
2,3,3'4,4' pentaCB
2,3',4,4',5 pentaCB
3,3',4,4',5 pentaCB
2,2',3,3',4,4' hexaCB
2,2',3,4,4',5' hexaCB
2,2',4,4',5,5' hexaCB
2,3,3',4,4',5 hexaCB
3,3',4,4',5,5' hexaCB
2,2',3,3',4,4'5 heptaCB
2,2',3,4,4',5,5' heptaCB
2,2',3,4,4',5',6 heptaCB
2,2',3,4,4',6,6' heptaCB
2,2',3,4',5,5',6 heptaCB
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6 octaCB
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6 nonaCB
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6,6' decaCB
Congener
Number
8*
18*
28*
44*
49
52*
66*
77
87
101*
105*
118*
126
128*
138*
153*
156
169
170*
180*
183
184
187*
195*
206*
209*
Analytical
Method1
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
Target Detection
Limit2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
The specified methods are recommendations only. Any method that can achieve these TDLs is acceptable,
provided the appropriate documentation of the method performance is generated for the project and the method
is adequately identified and described in the SAP/QAPP.
Dry weight: ug/kg or ppb
PCB congeners to be used in summation for comparison to NOAA data (see Section 7.3)
SERIM
42
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Table 5-7. Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Sediment
Samples: Organotin
Compound
Monobutyltin
Dibutyltin
Tributyltin
Analytical Method1
Krone et al., 1989*
Krone et al., 1989*
Krone et al., 1989*
Target Detection Limit2
10
10
10
1 The specified methods are recommendations only. Any method that can achieve these TDLs is acceptable,
provided the appropriate documentation of the method performance is generated for the project and the method
is adequately identified and described in the SAP/QAPP.
2 Dry weight: ug/kg or ppb
* Grignard reaction and gas chromatograph/flame photometric detection (GC/FPD)
5.3 Chemical Analysis of Elutriates
Elutriates must be analyzed if the screening method (Section 3.2.1.1) does not demonstrate
compliance with the WQC (Appendix F). The dredged-material elutriate preparation is
conducted according to the methods presented in the 1991 Green Book, Section 10.1.2.1. The
elutriate must be prepared using water from the dredging site (see Section 4.6). Samples for
the elutriate and the water column toxicity test can be prepared from the same sediment-water
mixture. To evaluate water quality criteria in the liquid phase, the elutriate water must be
centrifuged to remove particulates in accordance with the guidelines in Section 10.1.2.1 of the
1991 Green Book. (Note: The sample is not centrifuged in the case of water column toxicity
test).
The recommended methods and required TDLs for each COC are listed in Tables 5-9 through
5-11. If the disposal site or a portion of the disposal site lies within state waters, additional
analytes may need to be added to document compliance with state WQCs. At a minimum,
chemical analyses must be conducted on all analytes in Tables 5-9 through 5-11 unless the
screening method (Section 3.2.1.1) has already demonstrated compliance. Disposal site water
should also be evaluated for these analytes for use in the mixing model unless existing data are
available.
Additional information, beyond that called for in this SERIM, may be required for a proposed
project depending on the nature and location of that project. In most cases, the project will
also need to satisfy state regulatory requirements.
Some laboratories have had difficulties in the past meeting the required TDLs because of
inappropriate sample preparation and clean-up procedures to remove interfering substances
typically found in marine water and elutriates derived from marine sediments (e.g., sodium
chloride). Appropriate sample preparation and clean-up procedures for applicable chemical
parameters are presented in Table 5-8.
SERIM
43
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Table 5-8. Sample and Clean-up Procedures Generally Used for Marine Waters and
Elutriates
Parameter
Metals
PCBs
Methods
EPA 1640 (reductive precipitation chemical
elements: As, Cd, Cu, Pb, Ni, Ag, Zn)
separation for some
EPA 3665 (sulfuric acid)
Table 5-9. Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Elutriate
Samples: Metals
Contaminant of Concern
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, Total 2
Chromium, Hexavalent (Cr+6)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Method1
200.8 or 6020
200.8 or 6020
200.8 or 6020
7196A
200.8 or 6020
200.8 or 6020
245.1 or 7470
200.8 or 6020
270.2, 270.3, 7740, 7741, or 7742
200.8 or 6020
200.8 or 6020
Target Detection
Limit (ug/L)
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.2
1
2
1
1
1 The specified methods are recommendations only. Any method that can achieve these TDLs is acceptable,
provided the appropriate documentation of the method performance is generated for the project and the method
is adequately identified and described in the SAP/QAPP.
2 If hexavalent chromium (Cr+6) cannot be run within holding time, total chromium could be run in its place; if the
resulting data meet the hexavalent chromium criteria, the sample will pass.
Table 5-10. Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Elutriate
Samples: Nonmetals
Contaminant of Concern
Ammonia
Cyanide
Tributyltin (TBT)
Method1
350.1
335.2
Krone et al. 1989*
Target Detection Limit
(ug/L)
30
10
0.01
1 The specified methods are recommendations only. Any method that can achieve these TDLs is acceptable,
provided the appropriate documentation of the method performance is generated for the project and the method
is adequately identified and described in the SAP/QAPP.
* Grignard reaction and GC/FPD
SERIM
44
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Table 5-11. Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Elutriate
Samples: Pesticides and Semi-Volatiles
Contaminant of Concern
Method1
Target Detection Limit
(M9/L)
Pesticides
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Dieldrin
alpha - Endosulfan
beta - Endosulfan
Endrin
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Toxaphene
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
0.5
0.05
0.1
0.5
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.2
Semi Volatiles
Pentachlorophenol
8151 Modified or 8270C SIM
10
1 The specified methods are recommendations only. Any method that can achieve these TDLs is acceptable,
provided the appropriate documentation of the method performance is generated for the project and the method
is adequately identified and described in the SAP/QAPP.
SERIM
45
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
This page intentionally left blank.
SERIM 46 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
6.0 BIOASSAY AND BIOACCUMULATION TESTING
OF DREDGED MATERIAL
Bioassay tests (in Tier III) must be conducted on all proposed dredging, reference, and control
site samples according to the protocol outlined in the 1991 Green Book. Strict adherence to the
1991 Green Book bioassay procedures including nationally approved and recognized updates,
will aid in expediting review and concurrence for projects. Any deviations from the procedures
should be approved by the appropriate USAGE SAD district and EPA Region 4 prior to testing.
Bioassay and bioaccumulation testing will be conducted according to test conditions listed in
Appendix L. It is recommended that the table format presented in Appendix L be used to
report each testing parameter. Additionally, a section including any deviations from these
testing conditions should be included in the sediment report.
6.1 Water Column Effects: Acute Toxicity Tests
The water column evaluation considers the effects, after allowance for initial mixing, of
dissolved contaminants plus those associated with suspended particulates on water column
organisms (see Section 3.3.1). Technical guidance on performing water column bioassays is
provided in the Section 11.1 of the 1991 Green Book (or Section 11.1 of the ITM). Paragraph
227.27(c) of the regulations defines appropriate sensitive water column marine organism to
mean at least one species each representative of phytoplankton or zooplankton, crustacean or
mollusk, and fish. Therefore, a minimum of three series of tests using three species is required
for each dredged material sample, a control, and the dilution water. It is recommended that
the test organisms be fish, crustaceans, and zooplankton. Table 6-1 lists recommended tests
species for the southeastern United States.
Test duration is 96 hours except for planktonic larvae. The procedure for preparing the water
column test samples is given in Section 11.4.1 of the 1991 Green Book. Note that, contrary to
the elutriate preparation method for chemical analysis, the sample is not filtered or centrifuged
unless necessary to observe test organisms in the chamber. Also note that the control and
dilution water may be one and the same. A minimum of five replicates per treatment is
required. A minimum of 10 organisms per replicate is required except for larvae, which are
measured by concentration of egg suspension (ASTM, 2004). Refer to Appendix L for specific
species information. The measured endpoint is mortality (LC50) or development (EC50) in the
case of larval test. At least three concentrations of the dredged-material elutriate should be
tested (100%, 50%, and 10% of the dredged-material elutriate.). If the conditions are highly
toxic, such that the 10% elutriate treatment has greater than 50% mortality/abnormality,
further dilution must be made (new treatments of less than 10% dredged-material elutriate) to
attain a survival of greater than 50% and determine the LC50 by interpolation. If mortality is
greater than 10% (30% mortality/abnormality for zooplankton tests) in the control treatment or
in the dilution-water treatment for a particular test species, the test should be rejected and the
bioassay repeated.
SERIM 47 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Table 6-1. Recommended Test Species for Water Column Toxicity Testing of
Dredged Material
Group
Phytoplankton
or
Zooplankton
Endpoint
Measured
Abnormal
development
Abnormal
development
Abnormal
development
Abnormal
development
Test
Duration
46-72 hrs
46-72 hrs
46-72 hrs
46-72 hrs
Recommended
Organism
Oyster Larvae
Mussel Larvae
Clam Larvae*
Sea Urchin Larvae
Scientific Name
(Common Names)
Crassostrea virgin ica
(eastern oyster)
Mytilus edulis
(common bay mussel,
blue mussel)
Mercenaria mercenaria
(hard clam, quahog,
cherrystone)
Arbacia punctulata
Strongylocentrotus sp .
(purple-spined sea
urchin)
Ly tech in us p ictus
(white sea urchin)
Picture of Organism
c
1
ourtesy of: William Card ner,
NewFields Northwest
Courtesy of: William Card ner,
NewFields Northwest
I
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
••
™
Table 6-1. Recommended Test Species
Dredged Material
SERIM
49
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
6.2 Benthic Effects Evaluation
The benthic effects evaluation involves whole sediment toxicity and bioaccumulation testing.
The general procedures for Tier III toxicity tests are described in Section 11 of the 1991 Green
Book. Tier III bioaccumulation procedures are described in Section 12 of the 1991 Green Book.
6.2.1 Whole Sediment Toxicity Tests
The purpose of sediment toxicity tests is to determine whether the sum of the sediment
contaminants in combination with the physical characteristics will elicit a toxic response to
exposed organisms after the material is deposited into the marine environment. The
regulations require that benthic bioassays be conducted with species that together represent
filter-feeding, deposit-feeding, and burrowing characteristics [40 CFR 227.27(d)]. For ocean
disposal, two test species (an amphipod being one of the required organisms) that represent
the three categories of organisms specified in the regulations are required (see Table 6-2).
Species-specific test conditions are provided in Appendix L. The duration of the toxicity tests is
10 days. General guidance for the collection, handling, and storage of sediments for biological
testing may be found in Section 8 of the 1991 Green Book.
As a general rule, approval from EPA and USAGE (in the case of applicants) on project-
specific procedures is required for any sediments requiring treatment for ammonia.
Ammonia is not a contaminant of concern for benthic assessments as it is typically stripped
from the dredged material during disposal. However, amphipods and shrimp are generally
sensitive to sediment ammonia and excessive ammonia concentrations may cause mortalities
in these species, resulting in false positives confounding the mortality endpoint of interest
(more persistent toxics).
To account for this potential false positive, EPA and USAGE have devised methods to reduce
ammonia toxicity before any test begins (see Section 11.2.2 of the Inland Testing Manual
and/or Appendix N of this document). To avoid toxicity from ammonia, the sediment porewater
total ammonia and un-ionized ammonia concentrations must be below the values shown in
Table 6-2 before any test organism is added to a test chamber. If porewater concentrations
exceed these values, the procedures in Appendix N should be followed.
As indicated in the 1991 Green Book, all control survivorship must be at least 90% for the test
to be valid. Tests with less than 90% survival in the control will have to be rerun. Mean
survivorship in the reference should be greater than the reference survival criteria stated in
Table 6-2. When the mean reference survival is less than the minimum reference survival
criteria from Table 6-2 the following options are available:
1. The test results for dredged material should be compared to the control instead of the
reference; or
2. Data should be reviewed for possible outliers (see Section 7.4.1); or
3. The test should be repeated
SERIM
50
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Table 6-2. Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for Benthic
Effects Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
Group
Amphipod
Shrimp
Polychaetes
Scientific Name
Ampelisca abdita
Leptocheirus
plumulosus
America mysis
bahia*
Neanthes
arenaceodentata
Minimum
Reference
Survival
Criteria3
73%
73%
82%
TBD
Grain Size (°/o
silt/clay)
>101
full range
full range
full range
Ammonia
Unionized
(mg/L)
<0.41
(porewater @
pH=7.7)
<0.81
(porewater @
pH=7.7)
<0.62 (Overlying
water @ pH=7.9)
<0.32 (Overlying
water @ pH=7.5)
N/A
Ammonia
Total
(mg/L)
OO1
(porewater @
pH=7.7)
<601
(porewater @
pH=7.7)
not available
N/A
Picture of
Organism
J9
Jr '
Courtesy of:
Alan Kennedy, ERDC
'
Courtesy of:
Alan Kennedy, ERDC
Courtesy of:
Alan Kennedy, ERDC
Courtesy of:
Alan Kennedy, ERDC
1 EPA, 1993b
2 EPA, 1994
3 These numbers were generated from past reference performance in EPA Region 4 and represent the 95% lower
confidence limit for mean survival.
* Formerly called Mysidopsis bahia
TBD = to be determined; N/A = not applicable
6.2.2 Whole Sediment Bioaccumulation Tests
Bioaccumulation refers to the accumulation of contaminants in the tissues of organisms through
any route, including respiration, ingestion, or direct contact with contaminated sediment or
water. The regulations require that bioaccumulation be considered as part of the environmental
evaluation of dredged material proposed for ocean dumping [40 CFR 227.6(c)(3)].
Bioaccumulation tests must be conducted with appropriate benthic marine organisms.
Paragraph 227.27(d) of the regulations defines this to mean species that together represent
filter-feeding, deposit-feeding, and burrowing characteristics must be submitted to tests that
evaluate the bioaccumulation potential of contaminants in the proposed dredged material.
These categories of species are broad and overlapping. The present recommendation is that a
burrowing polychaete and a deposit-feeding bivalve mollusk be tested. These two organisms
SERIM
51
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
satisfy the requirements specified in paragraph 227.27(6} and are relevant to evaluating
contaminant bioavailability at disposal sites. Acceptable species are listed in Table 6-3.
Mercenaria mercenaria is not an acceptable bioaccumulation organism because it feeds from
the water column and not the sediment.
To clarify recommendations in the 1991 Green Book (Section 12.1), the 28-day exposure test is
required for organic COCs as well as for metals instead of 28 days for organics and 10 days for
metals. At least 20 specimens of each species are recommended in each test replicate,
although more may be necessary to conduct the prescribed tissue analyses at the end of the
test exposure. It is the applicant's (USAGE SAD districts for federal projects) responsibility to
ensure that the laboratory provides enough tissue to run subsequent chemical analyses which
may include analysis for both metals and organic COCs. Animals used as the test control
organisms should be archived at the end of bioaccumulation tests in case the tissues require
testing for comparison to the test organisms from the study tanks.
All test organisms should be depurated at the end of the study according to Section 12.1.2 of
the 1991 Green Book. Additionally, it is highly recommended that a sufficient amount of "pre-
exposure" sample organisms (to analyze for the same COC list as the rest of the test organisms
and compare pre-exposure tissue results to post-exposure results if necessary) be depurated
and frozen at the beginning of the study.
Animals used as the test control organisms should be archived at the end of bioaccumulation
tests in case the tissues require testing for comparison to the test organisms from the study
tanks.
Five replicates are required for the reference and treatment samples in order to conduct
statistical comparisons. Five (minimum of three) replicates are also recommended for the
control. Those constituents that are recommended to be analyzed for in the tissue on a routine
basis are listed in Tables 6-4 to 6-8, but may include other contaminants as determined by the
Tier I review and/or chemical testing of the sediments. The routine metals, PCBs, PAHs, and
pesticides listed in these tables were chosen based on the requirements of 40 CFR 227.6, their
toxicity, their persistence in the environment, their ability to bioaccumulate, and their
widespread and consistence occurrence in the estuarine, marine, and freshwater sediments and
organisms of the southeastern United States. These lists will be reduced or expanded based on
site-specific knowledge of pollution sources or historical testing showing the presence or lack of
presence of specific contaminants.
SERIM
52
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Table 6-3. Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for
Bioaccumulation Testing of Dredged Material
Group
Bivalve
Polychaetes
Scientific Name
Macoma nasuta
(preferred)
Yoldia limatula
/Varies virens
(preferred)
Arenicola sp.
Picture of
Organism
^^^^^^H
^^^^^^1
[_ ^ \
Courtesy of:
Alan Kennedy, ERDC
***
Courtesy of:
vwvwJakshells.org
Joel Wooster
ET]
Courtesy of:
Alan Kennedy, ERDC
••
Copyrighted photo,
obtained from BIOPIX com
When sediment chemistry is used to determine COCs, those contaminants listed in 40 CFR
227.6 shall be included when present. Contaminants in concentrations above the LRL in
sediments will be considered present and should be tested for in tissues. The final decision on
which project-specific contaminants are required to be tested for in the tissue is made by the
USAGE SAD district in consultation with EPA Region 4 after the physical and sediment chemistry
data (if available) are reviewed. The applicant (USAGE SAD district for federal projects) must
ensure that the contracted laboratory can reasonably achieve the required TDLs listed in Tables
6-4 to 6-8. A discussion of LRLs and TDLs can be found in Section 5.2 of this document.
Dioxins, phenols, and phthalate esters tests are to be conducted on a project-specific basis
(refer to Appendix M, QA/QC Manual, ITM, or 1991 Green Book for methods and TDLs).
SERIM
53
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Table 6-4. Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Tissue Samples:
Metals
Metal
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Analytical Method1
200.8
200.8
6010
200.8
200.8
7471
200.8
200.8
200.8
Target Detection Limit2
0.2
0.1
1
1
0.2
0.02
1
0.2
1
1 The specified methods are recommendations only. Any method that can achieve these TDLs is acceptable,
provided that the appropriate documentation of the method performance is generated for the project and the
method is adequately identified and described in the SAP/QAPP.
2 Wet weight: mg/kg or ppm
Table 6-5. Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Tissue Samples:
Pesticides and Semi-Volatiles
Contaminant of Concern
Pesticides
Aldrin
Chlordane & Derivatives
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4-DDT
Endosulfan & Derivatives
Endrin & Derivatives
Heptachlor & Derivatives
Hexachlorocyclohexane CLindane) & Derivatives
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
Semi-Volatiles
Pentachlorophenol
Analytical
Method1
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8081
8151 Modified or
8270C SIM
Target
Detection Limit2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
50
100
-
The specified methods are recommendations only. Any method that can achieve these TDLs is acceptable,
provided that the appropriate documentation of the method performance is generated for the project and the
method is adequately identified and described in the SAP/QAPP.
Wet weight: ug/kg or ppb
SERIM
54
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Table 6-6. Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Tissue Samples:
PAHs
PAH
Acenaphthene*
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene*
Benzo(a)Anthracene**
Benzo(a,e)Pyrene**
Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene
Chrysene**
Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene**
Fluoranthene**
Fluorene*
Indeno(l,2,3,4,-c,-d) pyrene
1- & 2-Methylnaphthalene*
Naphthalene*
Phenanthrene*
Pyrene**
Analytical Method1
8270C SIM
8270C SIM
8270C SIM
8270C SIM
8270C SIM
8270C SIM
8270C SIM
8270C SIM
8270C SIM
8270C SIM
8270C SIM
8270C SIM
8270C SIM
8270C SIM
8270C SIM
8270C SIM
8270C SIM
Target Detection
Limit2
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
1 The specified methods are recommendations only. Any method that can achieve these TDLs is acceptable,
provided that the appropriate documentation of the method performance is generated for the project and the
method is adequately identified and described in the SAP/QAPP.
2 Wet weight: ug/kg or ppb
* LMW PAH (NOAA, 1989)
** HMW PAH (NOAA, 1989)
SERIM
55
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Table 6-7. Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Tissue Samples:
PCBs
PCB Congener
2,4' diCB
2,2', 5 triCB
2,4,4' triCB
2,2',3,5' tetraCB
2,2',4,5' tetraCB
2,2'5,5' tetraCB
2,3',4,4' tetraCB
3,3',4,4' tetraCB
2,2',3,4,5' pentaCB
2,2',4,5,5' pentaCB
2,3,3'4,4' pentaCB
2,3',4,4',5 pentaCB
3,3',4,4',5 pentaCB
2, 2',3,3',4,4' hexaCB
2,2',3,4,4',5' hexaCB
2,2',4,4',5,5' hexaCB
3,3',4,4',5,5' hexaCB
2,2',3,3',4,4'5 heptaCB
2,2',3,4,4',5,5' heptaCB
2,2',3,4,4',5',6 heptaCB
2,2',3,4,4',6,6' heptaCB
2,2',3,4',5,5',6 heptaCB
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6 octaCB
2,2I,3,3',4,4I,5,5',6 nonaCB
2,2',3,3',4,4I,5,5I,6,6I decaCB
Congener
Number
8*
18*
28*
44*
49
52*
66*
77
87
101*
105*
118*
126
128*
138*
153*
169
170*
180*
183
184
187*
195*
206*
209*
Analytical
Method1
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
Target
Detection Limit2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
The specified methods are recommendations only. Any method that can achieve these TDLs is acceptable,
provided that the appropriate documentation of the method performance is generated for the project and the
method is adequately identified and described in the SAP/QAPP.
Wet weight: ug/kg or ppb
PCB congeners to be used in summation for comparison to NOAA data (see Section 7.3)
SERIM
56
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Table 6-8. Standard Contaminants of Concern to Be Analyzed from Tissue Samples:
Organotin
Compound
Monobutyltin
Dibutyltin
Tributyltin
Analytical Method1
Krone et al., 1989*
Krone et al., 1989*
Krone et al., 1989*
Target Detection Limit2
10
10
10
1 The specified methods are recommendations only. Any method that can achieve these TDLs is acceptable,
provided that the appropriate documentation of the method performance is generated for the project and the
method is adequately identified and described in the SAP/QAPP.
2 Wet weight: ug/kg or ppb
* Grignard reaction and GC/FPD
SERIM
57
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
This page intentionally left blank.
SERIM 58 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
7.0 DATA REPORTING AND STATISTICS
Following sampling and testing, data reporting and statistical analysis of the results are
necessary to determine the suitability of the proposed dredged material for ocean disposal.
Coordination with the USAGE SAD district and EPA Region 4 while analyzing the samples and
reviewing the test data is recommended. Complete documentation of all laboratory data and
statistical analyses must be supplied to the USAGE SAD district. The following information
supplements Section 13.0 of the 1991 Green Book.
7.1 Data Reporting for Field Collection Activities
General sample collection techniques for sediment and water collection must be documented.
The report should include descriptions of positioning equipment, decontamination procedures,
in situ measurements, sample processing procedures, compositing schemes, and any problems
encountered during field collection activities. Dredged material management units should be
provided on a map along with all sediment and water sampling locations. All original field
sheets and core logs (if applicable) must be included as an appendix. Photographic
documentation of sediment samples is recommended.
A table summarizing all sample collection information should be provided with the following
information: sample ID, sampling date and time, coordinates (NAD 83), water depth, depth of
water sample(s) collected, core depth (if used), identification of any compositing of samples, in
situ measurements, sample description, general observations, tide cycle, and analyses to be
conducted.
7.2 Data Reporting for Physical Testing
All physical data should be summarized and presented in tabular format with the following
column headings, at a minimum, for each analyzed sample: soil description, % grain size
information, % solids, soil classification, and specific gravity.
For physical data, the percentages of each size class (Table 5-1) should be reported as well as
the USCS classification. In addition to reporting the percentages of each size class, the
applicant must graph the cumulative frequency percentages using the USAGE Engineering
(ENG) Form 2087 or a similar form (Figure 7-1). These forms should be included in the report
or as a report appendix.
SERIM 59 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Particle Size Distribution Report
1 * * ? f ! s I x 1 8 S I 1 1 f f
PERCENT FINER
oSSSSSSSSSl
200 100
% COBBLES
0
SIEVE
inches
Etzo
^x^
Deo o
030 o
DIO
^X^
cc
Cu
10
% GRAVEL
%SAND
81.
V
S
t
\
\
\
\
\
\
Ej,
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% SILT
%CLAY
1S.9
PERCENT FINER
0
GRAIN SIZE
.236
.164
COEFFICIENTS
SIEVE
nuratMr
stta
#4
#10
1420
N40
#60
#100
#200
#230
O Source: NM
PERCENT FINER
0
100.0
99.7
97.5
85.0
54.3
24.4
18.9
18.0
uses
sc
0.01 0.001
AASHTO
A-2-70)
PL
27
LL
52
SOIL DESCRIPTION
OS
I
I
AND. mostly fine sand size quartz, little clay.
ttlc medium sand sirc quartz & shell
rRgmenls, gray
REMARKS:
0 D«lc Tested: 8/I6.TO ; Specific Gravity: 2.596 ;
Moisture Conltm: 56.8% ; Toul Solids: 63.8*4
Sample No.: UMMA04
Figure 7-1. Sediment Grain Size Gradation Graph/Form
7.3 Data Reporting for Chemical Testing
All chemical data should be summarized and presented in tabular format. Additionally, all
laboratory data should be provided in the Testing Report (see Appendix D) and in electronic
tabular format (e.g., spreadsheet, delineated text file). Analytical data reported by the
laboratories [with National Environmental Laboratory Association Conference (NELAC) standard
qualifiers] must be included in the appendix section of the report.
PCB congeners should be reported as individual congeners as well as total PCBs. Total PCBs
should be reported as EPA Region 4 PCBs and as NOAA PCBs. EPA Region 4 PCBs represents
the sum of all the PCBs listed in Table 5-6. NOAA PCBs represents the sum of the PCB
congeners identified by an asterisk in Table 5-6 and are calculated by the following equation:
SERIM
60
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
[Total_NOAA_PCBs] = 2* £ (l ^congeners) (NOAA, 1989)
[Eq. 7-1]
In addition to the individual PAHs, total PAHs should also be provided as total low molecular
weight (LMW) PAHs and total high molecular weight (HMW) PAHs, as described in Table 5-5.
Organotin must be reported as the individual compounds and total organotin. Total organotin
should be reported on a tin basis as follows:
[Total_Organotin_as_Sn\=
TBT DBT MET
2.44 + 1.96 + 1.48
[Eq. 7-2]
Refer to Section 5.2 for information on reporting data to the TDLs and LRLs. All data should be
certified to be accurate by the analytical laboratory or by a third-party data validator.
7.3.1 Sediment Chemistry Reporting
All sediment chemical data reported should be summarized and presented in tabular format
and, at a minimum, include the following information for each analyzed sample: type of test
performed, sample ID, units, qualifiers with description, and source of data (analysis performed
by).
Sediment chemistry data should be reported on a dry weight basis and reported as mg/kg
for metals, ug/kg for organics, and ng/kg for dioxins/furans and dioxin-like PCBs. Percent
solids, used to calculate dry weight concentrations, also must be reported. If analyte
concentrations are below the LRL, they should be reported in the summary tables as
<###.##, where ###.## is the LRL. Additionally, all NELAC-flagged data reported by the
laboratories should be included in the aooendix section.
When performing the calculations for PCB congeners and total organotins (Eq. 7-1 and Eq. 7-2),
if an analyte concentration is below the LRL, one-half of the LRL should be used in the
calculation. If the LRL exceeds the TDL, the LRL should be used (no half substitutions allowed).
When using sediment chemistry data in the WQC compliance screen (Eq. 3-2), the data should
also be provided in tabular format with the following column headings for each analyzed
sample: sediment concentration, percent solids, estimated elutriate concentration (Cs, ug/L),
federal WQC and/or state WQS, background concentration, and dilution necessary to meet the
WQC or WQS. If an analyte concentration is below the LRL, one-half of the LRL should be used
in the calculation. If the LRL exceeds the TDL, the LRL should be used (no half substitutions
allowed). When the disposal site is in federal jurisdiction, the WQC is used for comparison. If
the site overlaps with both state and federal waters, the data should be compared to the lowest
number from either the WQC or the WQS. When comparing results to WQC, the Criterion
Maximum Concentration (CMC) and not the Criteria Continuous Concentration (CCC) should be
used (EPA, 2006).
SERIM
61
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
It should be noted that, although comparison to sediment quality guidelines (USAGE, 1998a;
USAGE, 1998b) may be a beneficial guideline for determining sediment quality, it is not required
or used for documenting compliance with the ocean dumping criteria.
7.3.2 Water and Elutriate Chemistry Reporting
All chemical data should be summarized and presented in tabular format with the following
column headings, at a minimum, for each analyzed sample: type of test performed, sample ID,
units, qualifiers with description, and source of data (analysis performed by).
Water and elutriate chemistry data should be reported as ug/L If analyte concentrations are
below the LRL, they should be reported in the summary tables and flagged according to
NELAC standards.
To determine WQC compliance, the following information should be included in the summary
tables: federal WQC and/or state WQS, and dilution necessary to meet the WQC or WQS.
When the disposal site is in Federal jurisdiction, the WQC is used for comparison. If the site
overlaps with both State and Federal waters, the data should be compared to the lowest
number from either the WQC or the WQS. When comparing results to WQC, the CMC and not
the CCC should be used (EPA, 2002b).
In the WQC and WQS calculations (total PCBs, total PAHs, water quality screen, elutriate
chemistry comparison to WQC criteria), if an analyte concentration is below the LRL, one-half of
the LRL or the estimated (J-flagged) value (whichever is greater) should be used in the
calculation. In some cases, the MDL can be used if it has been adequately verified through the
analysis of the appropriate MDL check samples and has been sample-corrected. USAGE SAD
districts and EPA Region 4 should be consulted before substituting the MDL. For the above
calculations, if the LRL exceeds the TDL, then the LRL should be used (no half substitutions
allowed).
7.3.3 Water Quality Criteria Mixing Model (STFATE)
Running the Water Quality Criteria Mixing Model (STFATE) for documenting compliance with the
ocean dumping criteria is based on comparison of WQC compliance screen values or elutriate
concentrations to the CMC (i.e., if any analytical results are above the CMC, the mixing model
should be run for that particular parameter). Mixing model results should be summarized as
the minimum dilution (and corresponding concentration) achieved outside the site boundaries
and within the site boundaries after 4 hours. Examples of the summary results obtained for
initial mixing computation of water quality are presented in Tables 7-1 and 7-2.
SERIM
62
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Table 7-1. Example of WQC Initial Mixing Computation Results: 4-Hour Criteria
Time
(hours)*
4.0
4.0
4.0
Depth
(feet)*1
X (1st Depth)
Y (2nd Depth)
Z (3rd Depth)
Maximum Contaminant Concentration
(Cmax) on Grid*
0.0350
0.0351
0.0135
Dilution on Grid
(Da.wq)2
25
25
66
* Information obtained from computer output
1 Depths should correspond to the depths for which initial mixing computation results are provided by the model.
2 Da.wq= (Cs-Cmax)/(Cmax-Cds); where Cs and CDS are defined in Eq 3-1
NOTE: In the above calculations, a Cs of 0.90 and a Cds of 0.0 were used for demonstration.
Table 7-2. Example of WQC Initial Mixing Computation Results: Disposal Site
Boundary Criteria
Depth
(feet)*1
X (1st Depth)
Y (2nd Depth)
Z (3rd Depth)
Time Corresponding to Cmax
Outside Disposal Site (hours)*
3.5
3.67
3.83
Maximum Contaminant
Concentration (Cmax)
Outside Disposal Site *
0.0188
0.0094
0.00721
Dilution
Outside
Disposal Site
(Da.wq)2
47
95
124
* Information obtained from computer output
1 Depths should correspond to the depths for which initial mixing computation results are provided by the model.
2 Da.wq=(Cs-Cmax)/(Cmax-Cds); where Cs and CDS are defined in Eq 3-1
NOTE: In the above calculations, a Cs of 0.90 and a Cds of 0.0 were used for demonstration.
The dredged material characteristics (% solids, % sand, % clay, % silt, percent solids, water
density) and operational parameters (barge characteristics, disposal method, etc.) used for the
model runs should be provided. If non-standard input parameters (Appendix G - STFATE Input
Parameters or ODMDS SMMP) are used, they should be summarized and a rationale for their
use provided. EPA Region 4 and USAGE SAD districts should be consulted prior to using non-
standard input parameters. Model output files (*.DUO) should be provided with the 103
evaluation or the sediment testing report. Additionally, an electronic copy *.DUI file should be
provided to expedite data review.
SERIM
63
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
7.4 Data Reporting and Statistics for Bioassay and
Bioaccumulation Testing
7.4.1 Definition and Treatment of Outliers
In most biological testing, some data points will be either much smaller or much larger then
would be reasonably expected. Intuitively, outliers can be thought of as individual observations
that are "far away" from the rest of the data. Outliers can be the result of faulty data,
erroneous procedures, or invalid assumptions regarding the underlying distribution of all the
data points that could potentially be sampled. In practice, a small number of outliers can be
expected from a large number of samples including those that follow a normal distribution.
Several techniques are available for outlier detection. Tests that involve hypothesis testing on
data assumed to be normally distributed include Grubb's test, Rosner's test, and Dixon's test.
The main advantage of using one of these formal statistical procedures is the ability to limit the
risk of falsely flagging a valid data point as an "outlier".
When suspecting that a data point might be an outlier during the statistical analysis of bioassay
and bioaccumulation data, the analysis should be performed twice, once with the suspected
outlier and again without it. Both results should be reported and an explanation of why the
outlier is believed to deserve exclusion or inclusion with the analysis should be presented. Such
an explanation should not rely solely on the fact that some statistical test detected the outlier.
In general, the more environmentally conservative approach should be utilized.
7.4.2 Water Column Bioassay Reporting and Statistics
Water column toxicity test results should be reported and statistically analyzed in accordance
with Sections 11.1.6 and 13.2.3 of the 1991 Green Book. Data summaries should show the
statistical comparison of dredged material treatments to the control and dilution waters.
LC5o/EC5o calculations (when required) shall be provided and summarized in a table.
7.4.2.1 Water Column Toxicity Mixing Models (STFATE)
Section 3.3.1 discusses when the mixing model must be run to determine compliance with the
toxicity LPC. Mixing model results are compared to 1% (0.01) of the LC50 (or EC50), whichever
applies. Mixing model results should be summarized as the minimum dilution (and
corresponding concentration) achieved outside the site boundaries and within the site
boundaries after 4 hours. Examples of summary results obtained for initial mixing computation
of water column toxicity are presented in Tables 7-3 and 7-4.
SERIM 64 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Table 7-3. Example of Toxicity Initial Mixing Computation Results: 4-Hour Criteria
Time
(hours)*
4.0
4.0
4.0
Depth
(feet)*1
X (1st Depth)
Y (2nd Depth)
Z (3rd Depth)
Maximum Concentration Above
Background (Qox) on Grid*
(percent)
0.0242
0.0400
0.0243
Dilution on Grid
(Da-tox)2
4,130
2,500
4,114
* Information obtained from computer output
1 Depths should correspond to the depths for which initial mixing computation results are provided by the model.
2 Da.tox=(100- Ctox)/ Ctox;
NOTE: In the above calculations, a Cs of 0.90 and a Cds of 0.0 were used for demonstration.
Table 7-4. Example of Toxicity Initial Mixing Computation Results: Disposal Site
Boundary Criteria
Depth
(feet)*1
X (1st Depth)
Y (2nd Depth)
Z (3rd Depth)
Time Corresponding to Qox
Outside Disposal Site (hours)*
2.75
3.00
3.25
Maximum
Concentration Above
Background (Qox)
Outside Disposal Site *
(percent)
0.0085
0.0141
0.00856
Dilution
Outside
Disposal Site
(Da.tox)2
11,764
7,091
11,681
* Information obtained from computer output
1 Depths should correspond to the depths for which initial mixing computation results are provided by the model.
Da.tox=(100-
ox
The model input parameters discussed in Section 7.3.3 above should also be provided if not
previously done so.
7.4.3 Whole Sediment Bioassay Reporting and Statistics
Whole sediment toxicity test results should be reported and statistically analyzed in accordance
with Sections 11.2.3 and 13.2.3 of the 1991 Green Book. Data summaries should show the
number of surviving organisms for each replicate for each treatment as well as the average
percent survival for each treatment (inclusive of reference and control). In addition, a statistical
comparison of each dredged material treatment to the reference and control should be
provided.
7.4.4 Bioaccumulation Reporting and Statistics
For bioaccumulation tests, data summaries should show the number of surviving organisms for
each replicate for each treatment as well as the average percent survival for each treatment
(inclusive of reference and control). Guidelines to report and analyze bioaccumulation data are
presented in Sections 12.2 and 13.3 of the 1991 Green Book.
SERIM
65
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
7.5 Bioaccumulation Tissue Chemistry Reporting and Statistics
Results for tissue bioaccumulation data should be presented in tables containing the tissue
chemistry results for all replicates within each treatment (site), replicate averages, comparison
to FDA levels, and statistical comparisons to the replicates obtained from the reference site.
7.5.1 Tissue Chemistry Reporting
Tissue chemistry data should be reported as dry and wet weights and reported as: mg/kg
for metals, ug/kg for organics, and ng/kg for dioxins/furans and dioxin-like PCBs. If analyte
concentrations are below the LRL, they should be reported in the summary tables and
flagged according to NELAC standards.
PCB congeners should be reported as individual congeners as well as total PCBs. Total PCBs
should be reported as EPA Region 4 PCBs and NOAA PCBs. "EPA Region 4 PCBs" represents the
sum of all the PCBs in Table 6-6. "NOAA PCBs" represents the sum of the PCB congeners
identified by an asterisk in Table 6-6 and is calculated using Equation 7-1. A comparison of
individual PCBs or NOAA PCBs is not needed. NOAA PCBs should only be compared to data
collected by NOAA under the Mussel Watch and Status and Trends Programs.
In addition to the individual PAHs, total PAHs should be provided as total LMW PAH and total
HMW PAH, as described in Table 6-5.
Organotin should be reported as the individual compounds and total organotin. Total organotin
should be reported on a tin basis as described in Section 7.0 (Eq. 7-2). FDA Action Level and
statistical comparisons of each dredged material treatments to the reference and control should
be provided forTBT and total organotin.
All analytical data reported by the laboratories according to NELAC standards should be included
in the appendix section of the report.
In the above calculations (total PCBs, total PAHs, total organic tin) and the statistical
comparisons discussed below, if an analyte concentration is below the LRL, one-half of the LRL
or estimated (J-flagged) value (whichever is greater) should be used in the calculation. In
some cases, the MDL can be used if it has been adequately verified through the analysis of the
appropriate MDL check samples and sample-corrected. USAGE SAD districts and EPA Region 4
should be consulted before substituting the MDL. In conducting statistical comparisons, the
1991 Green Book, the Inland Testing Manual, or Jones et al. (2005) should be consulted. In
general, if two or less of the treatment replicates are below the LRL, then the LRL should be
substituted. If three of the replicates are below the LRL, one-half of the LRL or estimated
(J-flagged) value (whichever is greater) should be substituted, and if more than three replicates
are below the LRL, no comparison should be made. Reference replicates below the LRL should
always be substituted with one-half of the LRL or the estimated value (whichever is less). For
the above calculations, if the LRL exceeds the TDL, the LRL should be used (no half
substitutions allowed) except for the reference.
SERIM
66
August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
7.5.2 Comparison to FDA Action Levels
A data summary table shall be included that compares the tissue concentrations to the FDA
action levels (Appendix H and USFDA, 2001). The bioaccumulation tissue results for the sample
station average concentration should be presented in the table. If the sample tissue results are
statistically greater than the FDA action level (meaning that the 95% upper confidence limit is
above the FDA action level), it should be somehow identified (e.g., in bold, with an asterisk,
underlined). Statistical comparisons should be done using wet weight values. A comparison of
total EPA Region 4 PCBs corrected for steady state, and not individual PCBs or NOAA PCBs, is
needed.
7.5.3 Statistical Comparison to Reference
A data summary table should be included that compiles all chemistry data by a statistical
comparison of tissue concentration of the test analyte from the sample stations relative to the
field reference tissue concentrations using ANOVA and Dunnett's multiple comparisons
procedures. Data should first be checked for normality and homogeneity of variance. If either
of these assumptions is not met and a suitable transformation is not found, the data should be
analyzed using Steel's Many One Rank Test. Because the objective of this analysis is to
determine if organisms exposed to the dredge materials have a greater bioaccumulation of
analytes than organisms exposed to the reference sediments, it is appropriate to use a
"one-sided" test distribution. In other words, the analysis is testing for significant differences
among samples only for tissue concentrations greater than, not less than, the reference tissue
concentration. The sample station average concentration should also be presented in the table.
If the sample is statistically greater than the reference, it should be somehow identified (e.g., in
bold, with an asterisk, underlined). If the statistical difference is due to concentrations less
than the LRL in the reference exposed tissues, it should be somehow identified (e.g., in bold,
with an asterisk, underlined). Statistical comparisons should be done using wet weight values.
SERIM 67 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
This page intentionally left blank.
SERIM 68 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
8.0 QUALITY CONTROL AND ASSURANCE
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) planning is necessary to ensure that the physical,
chemical, and biological data generated during dredged material evaluations meet overall
program and specific project needs. Establishing QA/QC procedures is fundamental to meeting
project data quality criteria and to providing a basis for good decision-making.
QA activities provide a formalized system for evaluating the technical adequacy of sample
collection and laboratory analysis activities. These QA activities begin before samples are
collected and continue after laboratory analyses are completed.
For a better understanding of the QA/QC process as it relates to sediment sampling and
analysis, refer to the QA/QC Guidance for Sampling and Analysis of Sediments, Water, and
Tissues for DredgedMaterialEvaluations'manual (EPA, 1995).
A NELAC-accredited laboratory should be used to perform the physical and chemical analyses of
tissues, sediments, waters, and elutriates. The national accreditation program ensures that
standardized procedures and training of personnel are being used across laboratories.
Laboratories are required under NELAC to develop Quality Manuals and Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) that can become addendums or be referred to in the project SAP/QAPP.
Due to the wide-ranging nature of sediment bioassay and bioaccumulation testing, it is highly
recommended that the laboratory prepare and provide to EPA Region 4 and the USAGE district
a Sediment Bioassay and Bioaccumulation Quality Assurance Manual (R4-SBBQAM) to be
approved and kept on file. Preparation and approval of this manual prior to project involvement
will help expedite revisions and approvals of the project SAP/QAPP.
As part of Quality Assurance, all activities should be monitored throughout the duration of the
project and any deviations from the SAP/QAPP, methods, analytical anomalies, etc., should be
communicated to the USAGE district office and EPA Region 4 as soon as possible.
As part of Quality Control, the applicant must submit documentation of all QC measures
performed during analysis of the samples using the Quality Control Summary Tables in
Appendix O. These tables contain the acceptance criteria for analytical physical, chemical, and
bioassay/bioaccumulation tests. These tables should be included as an appendix to the
Sediment Testing Report. The experimental design and water quality measurements for
bioassay and bioaccumulation tests should be reported in the format presented in Appendix P.
SERIM 69 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
This page intentionally left blank.
SERIM 70 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
9.0 REFERENCES
American Public Health Association (APHA). 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association, American Water Works
Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation. 19th edition, Washington, D.C.
ASTM. 2002. Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils. ASTM International.
ASTM Standards Vol. 4.08. D422-63(2002)el. Philadelphia, PA.
ASTM. 2003. Standard Guide for Collection, Storage, Characterization, and Manipulation of
Sediments for Toxicological Testing and for Selection of Samplers Used to Collect
Benthic Invertebrates. E1391-03 (supersedes the 1990 version).
http://webstore.ansi.org/recorddetail.aspx?sku=ASTM+E1391-03
ASTM. 2004. Standard Guide for Conducting Static Acute Toxicity Tests with Echinoid
Embryos. ASTM International. ASTM Standards E1563-98 (Reapproved 2004).
W. Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. 2006. Standard Classification of'Soils for Engineering Purposes(Unified Soil
Classification System). ASTM International. ASTM Standards Vol. 4.08: ASTM
D2487-06. Philadelphia, PA.
Buchman, M.F. 1999. NOAA Screening Quick Reference Tables, NOAA HAZMAT Report 99-1,
Seattle, WA. Coastal Protection and Restoration Division, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. 12 pp..
EPA. 1989. Characteristics and Effects of Dredged Material Disposal in the Marine
Environment. Office of Planning and Evaluation. September 1989.
EPA. 1993a. Recommended Analytical Techniques and Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Guidelines for the Measurement of Organic and Inorganic Analytes in Marine Sediments
and Tissue Samples. Draft, Prepared by USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory,
Narragansett, RI. 83 pp.
EPA. 1993b. Memorandum: Technical Panel Recommendations Concerning Use of Acute
Amphipod Tests in Evaluation of Dredged Material. From: Tutor Davies (EPA/OST),
David Davis (EPA/OWOW) and John Elmore (COE). To: EPA Ocean Dumping
Coordinators, EPA Wetland Coordinators, and COE Regulatory and Civil Works Elements.
December 21, 1993.
EPA. 1994. Memorandum: Recommendations for Conducting Sediment Toxicity Tests with
Mysidopsis bahia When Ammonia May Be Present at Toxic Levels. From: El iza beth
Southerland (EPA/OST) to Mario Del Vicario (EPA/R2). June 14, 1994.
EPA. 1995. QA/QC Guidance for Sampling and Analysis of Sediments, Water, and Tissues for
Dredged Material Evaluations - Chemical Evaluations. EPA-823-B-95-001, April 1995.
EPA. 1998. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. -
Testing Manual (Inland Testing Manual). EPA-823-B-98-004, February 1998.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/itm/ITM/
SERIM 71 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
EPA. 2000. EPA Quality Manual for Environmental Programs. Publ. #5360 Al. USEPA Office
of Environmental Information, Quality Staff, Washington, D.C. May 2000.
http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/5360.pdf
EPA. 2001a. EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Projed Plans (QNR-5)Q>Dt 120KB)-
March 2001, EPA/240/B-0 1/003. These specifications are equivalent to Chapter 5 of
EPA Manual 5360. http://www.epa.gov/quality/qapps.html
EPA. 2001b. Methods for Collection, Storage, and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical and
Toxicological Analyses. Technical Manual. EPA 823-B-01-002. EPA Office of Water,
Washington, D.C. http : //www. epa . gov/waterscience/cs/col lection . htm I
EPA. 200 Ic. User's Manual for the Database of Sources of Environmental Releases of
Dioxin-Like Compounds in the United States: Reference Years 1987 and 1995.
EPA/600/C-01/012. http://cfpub.epa. aov/si/osD sciencediSDlav.cfm?dirEntrvID=55405
EPA. 2002. Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (G-5) (PDF 401KB) - December 2002,
EPA/240/R-02/009. (Note: This document replaces EPA/600/R-98/018 issued in
February 1998.)
EPA. 2006. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria - 2002. November.
EPA-822-R-02-047.
EPA and USAGE. 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). 1977 Green Book.
EPA and USAGE. 1991 . Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal - Testing
Manua/(Green Book). EPA-503/8-91-001. February 1991.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/gbook/gbook.pdf
EPA and USAGE. 2004. Evaluating Environmental Effects of Dredged Material Management
Alternatives - A Technical Framework. EPA842-B-92-008, Revised May 2004.
Washington, D.C.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/dumpdredged/evaluation.html
Jones, R.P., and Clarke, J.U. 2005. Analytical Chemistry Detection Limits and the Evaluation of
Dredged Sediment. ERDC/TN EEDP-04-36, January 2005, U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/eedp04-36.pdf
Loizeau, J.L., D. Arbouille, S. Santiago and J.P. Vernet. 1994. Evaluation of a Wide Range
Laser Diffraction Grain Size Analyzer for Use with Sediments. In Sedimentology.
Vol. 41, pp. 353-361.
NOAA. 1989. A Summary of Data on Tissue Contamination from the First Three Years (1986-
1988) of the Mussel Watch Project. NOAA Tech. Mem. NOS OMA 49. Rockville, MD.
August 1989.
SERIM 72 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
NOAA. 1993. Standard Analytical Procedures of the NOAA National Analytical Facility. NOAA
Tech. Mem. NMFS F/NWC-92, 1986-89. National Status and Trends Program, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA N/OMA32, 11400 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD 20852. 3rd ed.
Plumb, R.H., Jr. 1981. Procedure for Handling and Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Water
Samples. Tech. Rep. EPA/CE-81-1. Prepared by Great Lakes Laboratory, State
University College at Buffalo, NY, for the Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Technical Committee on Criteria for Dredged and Fill Material. U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Tavolaro, J.F., J.R. Wilson, T.L. Welp, J.E. Clausner, and A.Y. Premo. 2007. Overdepth
Dredging and Characterization Depth Recommendations. Technical note, ERDC/TN
EEDP-04-37, Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/eedp04-37.pdf
USAGE. 1996. Project Operations - Navigation and Dredging Operations and Maintenance
Policies. CECW-OD. November 29, 1996. http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-
reas/erll30-2-520/toc.htm
USAGE. 1998a. Use of Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs) in Dredged Material Management.
Dredging Research Technical Note EEDP-04-29. Long-Term Effects of Dredging
Operations (LEDO) Program. May.
USAGE. 1998b. Use of Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs) in Dredged Material Management
Decision-Making. Memorandum for Commanders, Major Subordinate Commands from
Russell L. Fuhrman, Major General, USA, Director of Civil Works. Washington, D.C.
October.
USAGE. 2006. Assuring the Adequacy of Environmental Documentation for Construction and
Maintenance Dredging of Federal Navigation Projects. CECW-P/CECW-0. Memorandum
for Commanders, Major Subordinate Commands. Washington, D.C. January 17, 2006.
http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/overdepthfinal.pdf
USFDA. 2001. Fish and Fisheries Products Hazards and Control Guidance. Chapter 9,
Environmental Chemical Contaminants & Pesticides (A Chemical Hazard). Third Edition,
June 2001. U.S. Food & Drug Administration Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition.
(http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/haccp4i.htmn
Van den Berg, Martin et al. 1998. Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs
for Humans and Wildlife. In EnvironmentalHealth Perspectives. Vol.106. No. 12.
pp. 775-792. http://www.cerc.usqs.gov/pubs/center/pdfDocs/90970.PDF
SERIM 73 August 2008
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Credits for Photos Used in Section 6 Tables
Group
Phytoplankton
or
Zooplankton
Amphipod
Shrimp
Bivalve
Polychaete
Scientific Name
Crassostrea virginica
Mytilus edulis
Mercenaria mercenaria
Arbacia punctulata
Strongylocentrotus sp.
Ly tech in us p ictus
Americamysis sp .
Menidia beryllina
Menidia peninsulae
Cyprinodon variegatus
Ampelisca abdita
Leptocheirus
plumulosus
Americamysis bahia
Macoma nasuta
Yoldia limatula
Nereis virens
Neanthes
arenaceodentata
Arenicola sp.
Courtesy of
William Gardiner
William Gardiner
Randy Newman
Randy Newman
William Gardiner
Owen Lloyd
Alan Kennedy
Jason Weeks
George Burgess
George Burgess
Alan Kennedy
Alan Kennedy
Alan Kennedy
Alan Kennedy
Joel Wooster
Alan Kennedy
Alan Kennedy
Association
New/Fields Northwest
New/Fields Northwest
Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO)
North Carolina Division of Parks
and Recreation
NewFields Northwest
http://www.owenlloyd.com/scuba/
pictures/index.asp?species_id=43
US Army Engineer R&D Center
CEERD-EP-R
MBL Aquaculture
Florida Museum of Natural History
Florida Museum of Natural History
US Army Engineer R&D Center
CEERD-EP-R
US Army Engineer R&D Center
CEERD-EP-R
US Army Engineer R&D Center
CEERD-EP-R
US Army Engineer R&D Center
CEERD-EP-R
www.jaxshells.org
US Army Engineer R&D Center
CEERD-EP-R
US Army Engineer R&D Center
CEERD-EP-R
Copyrighted photo, obtained from
http://www.biopix.com/
Location
Port Gamble, WA
Port Gamble, WA
www.fao.org
Raleigh, NC
Port Gamble, WA
Vicksburg, MS
Sarasota, FL
Gainesville, FL
Gainesville, FL
Vicksburg, MS
Vicksburg, MS
Vicksburg, MS
Vicksburg, MS
Jacksonville, FL
Vicksburg, MS
Vicksburg, MS
SERIM
74
August 2008
-------
Appendix A
KEY PERSONNEL
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix A
KEY PERSONNEL
(* denotes primary contact for interagency coordination within that office)
US EPA
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4 - WMD/WCNPS/Coastal
61 Forsyth St, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Collins, Gary W. rCollins.GarvW@eDa.aov') (404) 562-9395
Tom Welborn fWel born Tom @epa. covl (404) 562-9354
Johnson, Doug K. rJohnson.Doua@epa.aov') (404) 562-9386
*McArthur, Christopher J. rMcArthur.Christopher@epa.aov') (404) 562-9391
USAGE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
61 Forsyth St, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Barnett, Dennis W. rDennis.W.Barnett@usace.armv.min (404) 562-5225
Premo, Angie Y. (Angela.Y.Premo@usace.army.min (404) 562-5130
Middleton, Arthur L. rArthur.LMiddleton@usace.armv.min (404) 562-5130
*Small, Daniel L. rDaniel.LSmall@usace.armv.min (404) 562-5224
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charleston District
69A Hagood Avenue
Charleston, South Carolina 29403-5107
Phil Wolf fPhiliD.M.Wolf@usace.armv.min (843) 329-8069
*Alan Shirey rAlan.D.Shirev@usace.armv.min (843) 329-8166
Debra King rDebra.Kina@usace.armv.min (843) 329-8039
Robin Socha fRobin.C.Socha@usace.armv.min (843) 329-8167
SERIM Appendix A A-l August 2008
-------
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jacksonville District
P.O. Box 4970
Jacksonville, Florida 32232-0019
Bates, Phil fPhilliD.C.BatBS@usace.armv.min (904) 232-1196
Brooker, Steve f Stephen.Brooker@usace.army.min (321) 504-3771 x 17
Karch, Paul f Paul. J.Karch@usace.armv. mill (904) 232-2168
Lawrence, Beverlee fBeverlee.A.Lawrence@usace.army.min (904) 232-2517
*Schuster, Glenn fGlenn.R.Schuster@usace.armv.min (904) 232-3691
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mobile District
P.O. Box 2288
Mobile, Alabama 36628-0001
Bradley, Kenneth fKenneth.P.Bradlev@usace.armv.min (251) 694-4101
*Jacobson, Jennifer fJennifer.LJacobson@usace.army.min (251) 690-2724
Lang, Matt fMatthewJ.Lana@usace.annv.min (251)694-3837
Litteken, Craig fCraiQj.Litteken@usace.armv.min (251) 690-2658
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Savannah District
P.O. Box
Savannah, Georgia
*Calver, Steve fJames.S.Calver@usace.army.mil) (912) 652-5797
Morgan, Richard fRichard.W.Morgan@usace.army.mil) (912) 652-5159
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Harris, Keith fKeith.A.Harris@usace.armv.min (910) 251-4631
*Payonk, Phil fPhiliD.M.Pavonk@usace.armv.min (910) 251-4589
SERIM Appendix A A-2 August 2008
-------
ODMDS Contacts
ODMDS
Morehead City
New Wilmington
Wilmington
Georgetown Harbor
Charleston
Port Royal
Savannah
Brunswick Harbor
Fernandina Beach
Jacksonville
Canaveral Harbor
Fort Pierce Harbor
Palm Beach Harbor
Port Everglades Harbor
Miami
Tampa
Pensacola Nearshore
Pensacola Offshore
Mobile
Pascagoula
Gulfport East
Gulfport West
EPA Contact
Gary Collins
Gary Collins
Gary Collins
Gary Collins
Gary Collins
Gary Collins
Doug Johnson
Doug Johnson
Chris McArthur
Chris McArthur
Chris McArthur
Chris McArthur
Chris McArthur
Chris McArthur
Chris McArthur
Gary Collins
Gary Collins
Gary Collins
Doug Johnson
Doug Johnson
Doug Johnson
Doug Johnson
USACE Contact
Phil Payonk
Phil Payonk
Phil Payonk
Phil Wolf
Phil Wolf
Phil Wolf
Steve Calver
Steve Calver
Glenn Schuster
Glenn Schuster
Glenn Schuster
Glenn Schuster
Glenn Schuster
Glenn Schuster
Glenn Schuster
Glenn Schuster
Jennifer Jacobson
Jennifer Jacobson
Jennifer Jacobson
Jennifer Jacobson
Jennifer Jacobson
Jennifer Jacobson
SERIM Appendix A
A-3
August 2008
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix B
MPRSA SECTION 103
COORDINATION SCHEDULE
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix B
MPRSA SECTION 103 COORDINATION SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY
Action Required
Notify EPA of Proposed Action
Pre-project/Pre-application Meeting1
Sampling and Analysis Plan2
Review and Approval of SAP4
Analysis Period5
(Contractor/ Applicant to notify USAGE
of any problems as they occur. USAGE
will then notify EPA)
Preliminary Data Review
Application Complete
Public Notice Issued6
103 Evaluation/Request for
Concurrence Letter to EPA8'9'10
Public Review Complete (30 days)
EPA Concurrence (45-90 days)
Notify EPA of Permit Issuance or
Contract Award for Federal Project
Notify EPA When Dredging Initiated
Notify EPA When Dredging Completed
(disposal report)
RESPONSIBLE PARTY
USAGE
USACE/EPA
USAGE
EPA/USACE
USAGE
USACE/EPA
USAGE
USAGE
USAGE
USAGE
EPA
USAGE
USACE/applicant
USACE/applicant
TIME FRAME
Day 0
Day 1-2
Day?
Day 373
Day 51
2-8 months
14 days
(during analysis period)
AP7 + Day 0
AP + 15 days
AP + 15 days
AP + 45 days
AP + 60 days
15 days from permit issuance or
contract award
15 days before dredging
initiated
45 days after dredging
completed
Notes:
1. Meeting by teleconference is acceptable. Topics of discussion to include project specifics, need for
ocean disposal, evaluation requirements, sampling and analysis plan submittal.
2. Sampling and analysis plan to include contaminants of concern, area to be dredged, dredging unit
delineation, sample locations, depth of samples and sampling devices, types of analysis, species
requirements, QA/QC procedure, following format and example outlined in the Regional
Implementation Manual.
3. Date for submittal of sampling and analysis plan may change. If so, the appropriate number of days
will be added or subtracted from the schedule.
4. Review and approval of sampling and analysis plan will be jointly made by EPA and USAGE in the
case of permit applicants, and by EPA in the case of federal projects. Failure to obtain EPA approval
on sampling and analysis plans may result in delays in review and concurrence by EPA, and possible
requests for additional sampling and testing.
5. USAGE will notify EPA when sampling begins.
SERIM Appendix B
B-l
August 2008
-------
6. A Public Notice (PN) will sometimes be issued prior to the availability of test results. The PN should
indicate what testing will done and how the public can obtain the results. In such cases, a
supplemental PN will be issued at this point in the process.
7. The date that the application is considered complete by USAGE will begin a subsequent schedule,
referred to as Analysis Period (AP) + Day 0, which includes all the time to completion of the analysis
period.
8. For "Permitted Projects," the USAGE point of contact will be the Regulatory Branch/Division and all
official correspondence, transmittal of documents, and requests for concurrence to EPA will be the
responsibility of the Regulatory Branch/Division.
9. For "Federal Projects," the USAGE point of contact will be the Planning Division and all official
correspondence, transmittal of documents, and requests for concurrence to EPA will be the
responsibility of the Planning Division.
10. The Request for Concurrence letter will include the following items:
a. Section 103 Evaluation in the required format (see RIM Appendix C).
b. Sediment Report prepared according to the RIM outline and including all the required elements
described in the RIM.
c. QA/QC package including lab data sheets and exception narratives (usually an appendix to the
sediment report).
d. ADDAMS STFATE Model Report (if required) including input data. Input data are available for
most ODMDSs in the Site Management and Monitoring Plan or in Appendix G of the RIM.
SERIM Appendix B B-2 August 2008
-------
Appendix C
MPRSA OCEAN DISPOSAL EVALUATION
DOCUMENTATION
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix C
MPRSA OCEAN DISPOSAL EVALUATION DOCUMENTATION
The following information is required for completion of the MPRSA Section 103 evaluation.
Information should not be repeated, but referenced where material is needed for more than
one part of the evaluation documentation.
1. Dredging and Disposal Project Information
a. A map showing dredging locations/boundaries and delineating dredging units. Shall
include range stations to adequately delineate project limits
b. Core boring logs (if available) and other historical and current sampling stations keyed
to the map
c. Volume of material to be dredged by dredging unit
d. Percentage of fine-, medium-, and coarse-grained material by dredging unit
e. Bathymetric information for the channel to be dredged with the project dredging depth
contour highlighted
f. Design depth (including overdredge depth or advance maintenance) and width for each
dredging unit or project reach
g. Expected method(s) of dredging, transport, and disposal of material
h. Expected start, duration and end of dredging, transport, and disposal of material
i. Proposed disposal location (or zone) within the ODMDS
j. Historical compliance with ODMDS site designation and SMMP conditions
2. Exclusionary Criteria - 40CFR §227.13(b) [Tier I]
a. Rationale for meeting the exclusionary criteria (choose one):
i. The dredged material is composed predominately of sand, gravel, rock, or any other
naturally occurring bottom material with particle sizes larger than silt, and the
material is found in areas of high current or wave energy
(1) Grain sizes of the dredged material (from Id above)
(2) Current data from current meters or tide gauges (if available)
ii. The material is substantially the same as the substrate at the disposal site and the
dredging site is far removed from sources of pollution so as to provide a reasonable
assurance that such material has not been contaminated by such pollution.
(1) Grain sizes of the dredged material (from Id above)
(2) Grain sizes of the material at the disposal site
(3) Locations (keyed to map), quantities, and types of pollutants discharged
upstream of the dredging area (see Section 3.1.1 of the RIM for data sources)
(4) Results of previous testing in the area demonstrating lack of contamination
b. If one of the exclusionary criteria is met, items 3 through 6 below need not be
addressed.
SERIM Appendix C C-l August 2008
-------
3. Need for Testing (Tier I)
a. Site history narrative including potential sources of contamination
b. Locations (keyed to map), quantities, and types of pollutants discharged upstream of
the dredging area (see Section 3.1.1 of the RIM for data sources)
c. History of dredging in area
d. Summary of the past physical, chemical, and biological tests including a narrative
description of past suitability determinations
e. Maps showing all past sampling stations (from Ib above)
f. Description of any events that have occurred since the last sampling or dredging event
that might influence sediment chemistry or bioassay results
4. Water Column Determinations - 40CFR §227.6(c)(l) and 227.27(a) and Suspended
Paniculate Phase Determination - 40 CFR §227.6(c)(2) and 227.27(b) [Tiers II-III]
a. Evaluation of the Liquid Phase - Water Quality Criteria
Choose one of the following:
i. Sediment Chemistry Screen
(1) Table showing for each station and analyte: sediment chemistry value,
estimated elutriate concentration, background concentration, applicable marine
water quality criteria or standard, and the required dilution to achieve the
criteria/standard
(2) ADDAMS STFATE result (if required) for the contaminate requiring the most
dilution
(3) Sediment testing report
(or)
ii. Elutriate Analysis
(1) Table showing for each station and analyte: elutriate concentration, background
concentration, applicable marine water quality criteria or standard, and the
required dilution to achieve the criteria/standard
(2) ADDAMS STFATE result (if required) for the contaminate requiring the most
dilution. Include any special disposal practices (e.g., minimum distances from
site boundaries, tidal state, current magnitude/direction) that must be instituted
to assure compliance.
(3) Elutriate chemistry testing report
b. Liquid and Suspended Phase Bioassays
i. Comparison of 100% dredged material elutriate control and dilution water (if not
significantly more toxic, items ii and iii below are not required)
ii. LC50/EC50 for each station where 100% elutriate is toxic
iii. ADDAMS STFATE results for station with lowest LC50/EC50. Include any special
disposal practices (e.g., minimum distances from site boundaries, tidal state, current
magnitude/direction) that must be instituted to assure compliance
iv. Elutriate bioassay testing report
SERIM Appendix C C-2 August 2008
-------
5. Benthic Screen (optional) [Tier II]
a. Tier II tests for benthic impact evaluation should be used only to screen out sediments
that are not likely to meet the criteria or to assist in selecting a compositing or testing
scheme under Tier III.
i. Theoretical Bioaccumulation Potential (TBP) calculation
ii. Sediment testing report
6. Benthic Determinations - 40 CFR§227.6(c)(3) and 227.27(b) [Tier III]
a. Benthic Toxicity Evaluation
b. Benthic Bioavailability Evaluation
i. 28-day bioaccumulation exposure
ii. Tissue chemical analysis
iii. Comparison with FDA Action Levels and tissues exposed to the reference and risk-
based analysis as required
iv. Sediment testing report
7. Non-Testing Related Regulatory Issues: Subparts B,C,D and E of 40CFR§227
a. Subpart B - Environmental Impact
i. §227A Criteria for Evaluating Environmental Impact
ii. §227.5 Prohibited Materials
iii. §227.7 Limits established for specific wastes or waste constituents
- address presence of pathogens, biological pests, non-indigenous species
iv. §227.8 Limitations on the Disposal Rates of Toxic Wastes; §227.11 Containerized
Wastes; and §227.12 Insoluble Wastes
v. §227.9 Limitations on Quantities of Waste Materials
- include project volumes
- provide site capacity if determined
vi. §227.10 Hazards to Fishing, Navigation, Shorelines, or Beaches
- reference appropriate section(s) of the site designation EIS/EA if necessary
b. Subpart C - Need for Ocean Dumping
i. For federal projects, provide authorization and reference Feasibility Study or other
NEPA document providing assessment of disposal alternatives.
ii. For non-federal projects, the alternative disposal alternatives should be summarized
and assessed. The final determination is made in the USAGE Statement of Findings
on whether or not to grant the permit.
c. Subpart D - Impact of the Proposed Dumping on Aesthetic, Recreational, and Economic
Values
i. Reference appropriate section(s) of the site designation EIS/EA to address potential
impacts of disposal at the site on recreational fisheries, commercial fisheries, shore
recreation, and cultural resources with regard to disposal of dredged material at the
site.
SERIM Appendix C C-3 August 2008
-------
ii. Address visible characteristics.
iii. Address presence of toxics and bioaccumulative chemicals (reference 6 above).
iv. Address pathogens (reference 7.a.iii above).
d. Subpart E - Impact of the Proposed Dumping on other Uses of the Ocean
- reference appropriate section(s) of the site designation EIS/EA
8. MPRSA Section 103 Conditions
a. Requirements (management options) to meet the Ocean Disposal Criteria
i. Disposal zones or minimum distances from the disposal site boundaries
ii. Ambient disposal conditions (e.g., current or tidal conditions)
iii. Limits on disposal vessel size or discharge rates
b. Requirements necessary to meet site designation conditions
i. Grain size limitations
ii. See 40CFR Section 228.15(h)
c. Requirements necessary to meet the requirements of the disposal site SMMP.
i. Disposal zones
ii. Limits on oceanographic conditions for disposal
iii. Disposal monitoring requirements
iv. Reporting requirements
d. All conditions must be implemented through permit conditions or contract specifications
for federal projects. The draft permit conditions/contract specification must be included
as part of the MPRSA Ocean Disposal Evaluation Documentation. These are typically
available from the SMMP.
SERIM Appendix C C-4 August 2008
-------
Appendix D
SEDIMENT TESTING REPORT FORMAT
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix D
SEDIMENT TESTING REPORT FORMAT
The preferred format for the sediment testing report, including physical, chemical, bioassay,
and bioaccumulation data, is provided below.
1. Introduction
a. Project Description - The project description should include the following information:
i) A general location map showing the proposed dredging location and disposal site.
ii) A plan view map showing the project dredging limits. The map should identify
project depth (including advance maintenance and any allowable overdepth) and
indicate the extent of side-slopes.
iii) Dredged material quantities proposed for ocean disposal. Quantities for other
disposal alternatives should also be provided if known.
b. Description of the Testing Approach - The objective of the testing should be provided
(e.g., ocean disposal, inland disposal, upland disposal) and include a summary of the
experimental design and tests conducted. The rationale for performing specific types of
tests (e.g., chemical analysis of elutriate samples for comparison to water quality
criteria) should be presented in writing. All contractors involved in the sampling and
analysis should be identified.
2. Materials and Methods
a. Sample Collection Techniques - Field sediment and water collection methods and
locations should be described, including but not limited to:
i) Positioning equipment,
ii) Decontamination procedures,
iii) In situ measurements,
iv) Sample processing procedures,
v) Compositing schemes,
vi) Types of analyses to be conducted for each station,
vii) Sediment sampling equipment (grab sampler, vibracore, split spoon, etc.),
viii) Water sampling equipment (Van Dorn, peristaltic pump, etc.),
ix) Dredged material management units should be provided on a map along with all
sediment and water sampling locations.
b. Physical and Chemical Analytical Procedures - References for laboratory protocols for
physical and chemical analysis should be included. Tables summarizing analytical
methods (EPA method number or other EPA-approved method) and target detection
limits should be provided.
c. Bioaccumulation and Toxicology Procedures - The following information should be
provided for each test:
i) Test species used and the supplier or collection site for the test species,
SERIM Appendix D D-l August 2008
-------
ii) Source of control sediment samples,
iii) Source of water used,
iv) Test experimental design and endpoint,
v) Any deviations from test protocol,
vi) Statistical analysis procedures,
vii) Summary of QA/QC information on maintaining the test species. Details should be
provided in the appendix.
3. Results and Discussion
a. Field Data and In Situ Measurements - The following should be summarized in a table
for each sample:
i) Sample I.D.,
ii) Actual sample location (Lat/Long or State Plane coordinates in NAD83),
iii) Sample date and time,
iv) Tide cycle and tide height at sample collection,
v) Water depth at sample location,
vi) Depth at which any water samples were collected,
vii) Required and actual core depth (if coring is used); any problems in collecting
sediment from the required depth should be discussed,
viii) Weather,
ix) Sample description.
b. Physical Testing Data - The following should be summarized in a table for each sample:
i) Description,
ii) Percent gravel, sand and silt/clay,
iii) Percent solids,
iv) USCS classification,
v) Total organic carbon.
c. Sediment Chemistry (if conducted)
i) Chemical results should be summarized in a table. Comparison to published
screening values (e.g., TEL, ERL) and previous results can be made where
appropriate. When conducting confirmatory analysis, results statistically
significantly higher than previous results should be identified in the summary table
(e.g., in bold or italics).
ii) Estimated elutriate concentrations should be presented in a summary table along
with the applicable marine water quality criteria or state water quality standards,
background concentration, and required dilution (if performing water quality
compliance screen).
d. Elutriate Chemistry (if conducted) - Elutriate concentrations should be presented in a
summary table along with the applicable marine water quality criteria or state water
quality standards, background concentration, and required dilution.
e. Suspended Particulate and Elutriate Phase Bioassay Data
SERIM Appendix D D-2 August 2008
-------
i) Results should be summarized in a table. Results for each concentration and
replicate should be included.
ii) Statistical comparisons of results for the 100% elutriate to the reference and control
should be presented.
iii) LC5o/EC5o results should be presented.
Liquid Phase Limiting Permissible Concentration (although required as part of a dredged
material evaluation, this may or may not be included in the sediment testing report) -
STFATE dilution modeling results for both the sample requiring the most dilution to meet
the WQC and the sample with the lowest LC5o/EC5o should be summarized with the
following information:
i) Disposal site input parameters (if these have been previously developed and
published by EPA Region 4, they can be referenced);
Dredged material specific input parameters (e.g., grain size, percent solids);
Greatest concentration and corresponding dilution within the disposal site after
4 hours (include depth at which this occurs);
iv) Greatest concentration and corresponding dilution outside of the disposal site during
the simulation (include depth at which this occurs).
g. Solid Phase Bioassay Data
i) Results should be summarized in tabular form. Survival in each replicate should be
presented.
ii) Results of statistical comparisons should be provided and samples with statistically
significant differences from the reference identified.
h. Bioaccumulation Data
Mean survival should be summarized in a table for each organism.
Tissue chemistry results should be summarized in tabular format. Average
concentrations for each sample should be presented in the summary. Results
should be presented in wet and dry weights. The table(s) should also include a
comparison to the reference sample results. The concentration as a percent of
reference should be provided. Where the concentration is greater or equal to
100%, samples that were statistically higher than the reference should be identified
in the table (e.g., in bold or italics).
4. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) - A comprehensive review of all laboratory,
toxicological, and field data should be provided. Any deviations from the Sampling and
Analysis Plan should be identified. The following should be available as appendices:
a. Field paperwork including field sheets, calibration and temperature logs, daily QC
reports, and chain-of-custody records;
b. Particle size distribution report (graphs);
c. Raw chemistry data and MDL studies;
d. Data validation, reduction, and reporting, including any necessary case narratives;
e. Internal QC checks (refer to Section 8.0);
f. Calculation of data quality indicators;
g. Corrective actions;
SERIM Appendix D D-3 August 2008
-------
h. STFATE model output (if included, see paragraph 3f above);
i. Sampling and Analysis Plan;
j. Quality Assurance Plan;
k. Applicable correspondence.
5. References - This list should include all references used in the field sampling program,
laboratory and statistical data analyses, and historical data used to compare the dredging to
the reference site.
SERIM Appendix D D-4 August 2008
-------
Appendix E
ON-LINE TIER I DATA RESOURCES
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix E
ON-LINE TIER I DATA RESOURCES
Tier I Data Search
Existing data may be contained in any number of USEPA, USAGE, state, or other government
files. Below is a list of Web sites that may be used to obtain information on the potential
contaminants of concern in the proposed dredged material. This is only a partial list of internet
sites; further searches will locate other sources of information such as colleges and universities,
published scientific literature, and studies of sediment pollution and sediments.
Reasonable efforts were made to provide accurate website links. To our knowledge, these links
were accurate as of April 2008.
EPA WebSites
USEPA, Office of Science and Technology,
Contaminated Sediments
USEPA, Emergency Response Notification System
www .epa . gov/waterscience/cs/
Further information on specific spills may be obtained by contacting the USEPA, Region 4, Emergency
and Removal Branch (404/562-8705). National Response Center tracking number is recommended to
any requests.
Superfund Sites includes information about Superfund
sites, which are uncontrolled or abandoned places
where hazardous waste is located, possibly affecting
local ecosystems or people.
RCRA Corrective Action
A single point of access to select USEPA environmental
data, including: Toxic Release Inventory, Hazardous
Waste (RCRA information), Superfund, Enviromapper,
Chemicals.
STORET. Currently STORET combines the functions of
the original STORET with that of the Biological
Information System (BIOS) and the Ocean Data
Evaluation System (ODES).
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)
Response
expedite
www.adem.state.al.us
www.eDa.aov/eDaoswer/hazwaste/ca/facilitv.htm
www.epa.gov/enviro/index 1ava.html
www.epa.gov/storet/
cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/
Coast Guard Web Sites
National Response Center: Maintains the national
database for spills (including hazardous waste,
petroleum, pesticides)
www.nrc.usca.mil/index.htm
NOAA Web Sites
Office of Response and Restoration, Toxic Chemicals
response.restoration.noaa.gov/cpr/cpr.html
Coastal Zone Management Program
www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/czm/welcome.html
SERIM Appendix E
E-l
August 2008
-------
Port Authorities
U.S. SOUTH ATLANTIC PORTS
Canaveral Port Authority
Georgia Ports Authority
Jacksonville Port Authority
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Port Everglades
Port of Miami
Port of Palm Beach District
South Carolina State Ports Authority
U.S. GULF PORTS
Alabama State Port Authority
Jackson County Port Authority - Port of Pascagoula
Mississippi State Port Authority At Gulfport
Panama City Port Authority
Port Manatee/Tampa Bay
Port of Pensacola
Port of St. Petersburg
Tampa Port Authority
www.portcanaveral.org
www.gaports.com
www.jaxport.com
www.ncports.com
www.broward.org/port
www.miamidade.gov/portofmiami/
www.portofpalmbeach.com
www . port-of-charleston . com
www.asdd.com
www . portof pascagou la . com
www.shipmspa.com
www . portpanamacityusa . com
www.portmanatee.com
www . portof pensacola .com
www.stpete.org/port/index.htm
www.tampaport.com/
State Environmental Agencies
Alabama Department of Environmental
Management
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection
Georgia Environmental Protection Division,
Department of Natural Resources
Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality
Mississippi Department of Marine Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR)
NC DENR, Division of Coastal Management
South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
www.adem.state.al.us
www.dep.state.fl.us/default.htm
www.ganet.org/dnr/naturalresources.aspx
www.deq.state.ms.us
www.dmr.state.ms.us
www.enr.state.nc.us
dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/
dnr.sc.gov
www.scdhec.net
SERIM Appendix E
E-2
August 2008
-------
USAGE Web Sites
USAGE Center for Contaminated Sediments
Dredging Operations and Environmental
Research, USAGE
USAGE, Jacksonville District, Clean Water Act
404(b)(l) evaluations
USAGE, Jacksonville District, Nationwide
Permits Information
USAGE, Memphis District
USAGE HQ, Regulatory Branch
USAGE, Engineer Development and Research
Center, Contaminated Sediments
www.wes.army.mil/el/dots/ccs/
www.wes.army.mil/el/dots/doer/doer.html
www.saj.usace.army.mil/regulatory/what/rpe/regs-policy-
eforcment.htm
www.saj.usace.army.mil/regulatory/permitting/nwp/nwp.htm
www.mvm.usace.army.mil/regulatory/memphis.htm
www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/index.html
el.ersdc. usace.army.mil/dots/ccs
US Geological Survey (USGS)
Sediment Effects Concentrations and
Contaminated Sediments
USGS, National Streamflow Information
Program
USGS, Water Resources
USGS, Toxic Substances Hydrology Program
USGS, Coastal and Marine Geology Program
www.cerc.usgs.gov/pubs/sedtox/sediment.htm
water.usgs.gov/nsip/
Water.usgs.gov
Toxics.usgs.gov
Marine.usgs.gov
SERIM Appendix E
E-3
August 2008
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix F
EPA WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
FOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
IN MARINE WATERS
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix F
EPA WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
FOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN MARINE WATERS
This table summary has been provided as an example of the 2006 WQC values. The latest EPA
WQC should always be used for compliance comparison.
EPA Water Quality Criteria1 (WQC) for Chemicals of Concern in Marine Waters
Chemicals of Concern
Acute Concentration Levels (ug/l)2
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
69
40
1100
4.8
210
1.8
74
290
1.9
90
Nonmetals
Ammonia
Cyanide
Tributyltin (TBT)
pH- and temperature-dependent
1
0.42
Pesticides
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Dieldrin
alpha - Endosulfan
beta - Endosulfan
Endrin
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Toxaphene
Pentachlorophenol
1.3
0.09
0.13
0.71
0.034
0.034
0.037
0.16
0.053
0.053
0.21
13
1 Reference: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality Criteria: 2006.
EPA-822-R-02-047. http:www.eDa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nrwac-2006.Ddf
2 Concentrations in ug/l unless otherwise stated.
SERIM Appendix F
F-l
August 2008
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix G
STFATE GUIDANCE AND
STANDARD INPUT PARAMETERS
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix G
STFATE GUIDANCE AND
STANDARD INPUT PARAMETERS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Content Page
STFATE GENERAL GUIDANCE 1
STFATE INPUT PARAMETERS 2
JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT 2
Fernandina Beach ODMDS 2
Jacksonville ODMDS 5
Canaveral ODMDS 9
Fort Pierce ODMDS 12
Palm Beach Harbor ODMDS 14
Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS 16
Miami ODMDS 18
Tampa ODMDS 19
MOBILE DISTRICT 22
Pensacola ODMDS 22
Pascagoula ODMDS 24
Pascagoula ODMDS Zone A 25
Pascagoula ODMDS Zone B 28
Pascagoula ODMDS Zone C 31
Mobile ODMDS 34
Gulfport East ODMDS 35
Gulfport West ODMDS 38
New Wilmington ODMDS 41
Morehead City ODMDS 44
SAVANNAH DISTRICT 46
Brunswick Harbor ODMDS 46
Savannah Harbor ODMDS 47
CHARLESTON DISTRICT 48
Port Royal ODMDS 48
Charleston ODMDS 50
Georgetown ODMDS 52
SERIM Appendix G G-i August 2008
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
STFATE GENERAL GUIDANCE
Guidance on the use of the STFATE can be found in Appendix C of the Inland Testing Manual.
Some additional "hints" on model input are provided below:
1) Volume Concentrations: The volume concentrations for sand, clay, silt etc. are of the total
dredged material, not just the solids portion. For example, if the solids are 64% sand, but
dredged material is only 43% solids, then the volume fraction for sand is .64*0.43 = 0.28.
If you look at the Water Quality Analysis Data in the output, and it shows the volume
fraction of water as being zero, this is obviously incorrect. It should be the same as your
percent moisture number.
2) Type of Analysis: Select "Section 103 Regulatory Analysis for Ocean Waters"
3) Determining Contaminant of Concern from Whole Sediment Chemistry Screen
a. Requires concentration of the contaminant in the dredged material expressed as ug/L,
Cs
b. To convert the contaminant concentration reported on a dry-weight basis to the
contaminant concentration in the dredged material, the dry-weight concentration must
be multiplied by the mass of dredged-material solids per liter of dredged material:
Cs = C
where:
Cdw = contaminant concentration in dredged material, reported on a dry-weight basis
(ug/kg)
ns = percent solids as a decimal
G = specific gravity of the solids. Use 2.65 if site-specific data are not available.
4) Velocity Profile Type: If "single depth average profile" option is selected, be sure that the
depth at location is equal to the water depth of the disposal site. If not, the velocity will be
adjusted for the water depth at the disposal site in accordance with the continuity principle
(VixDi)=(V2xD2), where Vi and DI are the velocity and depth, respectively, specified in the
input and V2 and D2 are the velocity and depth, respectively, at the disposal site.
5) STFATE Input Parameters: The following input parameters are current as of the date of this
appendix. ODMDS SMMPs should be consulted for updates.
SERIM Appendix G G-l August 2008
-------
STFATE INPUT PARAMETERS
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
SITE DESCRIPTION
Parameter
Number of Grid Points (left to right)
Number of Grid Points (top to bottom)
Spacing Between Grid Points (left to right)
Spacing Between Grid Points (top to bottom)
Constant Water Depth
Roughness Height at Bottom of Disposal Site
Slope of Bottom in X-Direction
Slope of Bottom in Z-Direction
Number of Points in Ambient Density Profile Point
Ambient Density at Depth = 0 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 50 ft
Value
45
45
350
350
50
.0051
0
0
2
1.0190
1.0250
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
deg.
deg.
g/cc
g/cc
AMBIENT VELOCITY DATA
Parameter
Profile
X-Direction Velocity (depth=8.2 feet)
Z-Direction Velocity (depth=8.2 feet)
X-Direction Velocity (depth=42.3 feet)
Z-Direction Velocity (depth=42.3 feet)
Value
Units
2-Point at constant depth
-0.503
-0.203
-0.323
-0.133
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
DISPOSAL OPERATION DATA
Parameter
Location of Disposal Point from Top of Grid
Location of Disposal Point from Left Edge of Grid
Dumping Over Depression
Value
7,875
7,875
0
Units
ft
ft
SERIM Appendix G
G-2
August 2008
-------
INPUT, EXECUTION AND OUTPUT
Parameter
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Duration of Simulation
Long Term Time Step
Value
1,800
1,800
13,950
13,950
14,400
600
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
sec
sec
COEFFICIENTS
Parameter
Settling Coefficient
Apparent Mass Coefficient
Drag Coefficient
Form Drag for Collapsing Cloud
Skin Friction for Collapsing Cloud
Drag for an Ellipsoidal Wedge
Drag for a Plate
Friction Between Cloud and Bottom
4/3 Law Horizontal Diffusion Dissipation Factor
Unstratified Water Vertical Diffusion Coefficient
Cloud/Ambient Density Gradient Ratio
Turbulent Thermal Entrainment
Entrainment in Collapse
Stripping Factor
Keyword
BETA
CM
CD
CDRAG
CFRIC
CDS
CD4
FRICTN
ALAMDA
AKYO
GAMA
ALPHAO
ALPHAC
CSTRIP
Value
o.ooo1
l.OOO1
0.5001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.1001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.02252
Pritchard Expression
0.2501
0.2351
0.1001
0.0031
1 Model default value
2 Calculated from NOAA field work at Fort Pierce, FL (1994)
SERIM Appendix G
G-3
August 2008
-------
Fernandina Beach ODMDS STFATE
Input Parameters
Fernandina Beach ODMDS
X=l, 800ft
Z= 1,800ft
Disposal Location
X=7,875ft
Z=7,875ft
surface current
\ i Vx=-0.50fps
\ ! Vz=-0.20fps
\ bottom current
\ Vx=-0.32fps
Vz=-0.13fps
X
vel=0.54fps
vel=0.34fps
X=l 3,950ft
Z=l 3,950ft
Model Grid
45X45
@ 350 ft/grid
Z+-
SERIM Appendix G
G-4
August 2008
-------
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
SITE DESCRIPTION
Parameter
Number of Grid Points (left to right)
Number of Grid Points (top to bottom)
Spacing Between Grid Points (left to right)
Spacing Between Grid Points (top to bottom)
Constant Water Depth
Roughness Height at Bottom of Disposal Site
Slope of Bottom in X-Direction
Slope of Bottom in Z-Direction
Number of Points in Ambient Density Profile Point
Ambient Density at Depth = 0 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 46 ft
Value
45
45
350
350
46
.0051
0
0
2
1.02212
1.02362
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
deg.
deg.
g/cc
g/cc
AMBIENT VELOCITY DATA
Parameter
Profile
X-Direction Velocity (depth=8.2 feet)
Z-Direction Velocity (depth=8.2 feet)
X-Direction Velocity (depth=40.0 feet)
Z-Direction Velocity (depth=40.0 feet)
Value
Units
2-Point at constant depth
0.523
0.213
0.313
0.123
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
DISPOSAL OPERATION DATA
Parameter
Location of Disposal Point from Top of Grid
Location of Disposal Point from Left Edge of Grid
Dumping Over Depression
Value
5,700
7,700
0
Units
ft
ft
SERIM Appendix G
G-5
August 2008
-------
INPUT, EXECUTION AND OUTPUT
Parameter
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Duration of Simulation
Long Term Time Step
Value
2,660
4,660
8,740
10,740
14,400
600
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
sec
sec
COEFFICIENTS
Parameter
Settling Coefficient
Apparent Mass Coefficient
Drag Coefficient
Form Drag for Collapsing Cloud
Skin Friction for Collapsing Cloud
Drag for an Ellipsoidal Wedge
Drag for a Plate
Friction Between Cloud and Bottom
4/3 Law Horizontal Diffusion Dissipation Factor
Unstratified Water Vertical Diffusion Coefficient
Cloud/Ambient Density Gradient Ratio
Turbulent Thermal Entrainment
Entrainment in Collapse
Stripping Factor
Keyword
BETA
CM
CD
CDRAG
CFRIC
CDS
CD4
FRICTN
ALAMDA
AKYO
GAMA
ALPHAO
ALPHAC
CSTRIP
Value
o.ooo1
l.OOO1
0.5001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.1001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.001
Pritchard Expression
0.2501
0.2351
0.1001
0.0031
1 Model default value
2 From surveys in July 1995 and July 1998 (EPA)
3 From EPA current measurements, August 2006-September
2008
Dilution Rates for Generic Material (4,000cy):
Minimum dilution outside disposal site: 350 to 1; Minimum dilution after 4 hours: 1000 to 1
SERIM Appendix G
G-6
August 2008
-------
Jacksonville ODMDS Background Water Concentration
Contaminants of Concern
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Ammonia
Cyanide
Tributyltin (TBT)
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Dieldrin
alpha - Endosulfan
beta - Endosulfan
Endrin
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Toxaphene
Pa rath ion
Pentachlorophenol
Background Concentration Levels (ug/L)
1.36 1
0.008 1
0.025 2'3'4
0.341
0.5 3'4
0.1 2'3'4
0.57 2
No Data
0.0091
2.331
25 5
l.O3'4
0.01 3'4
0.01 2'4
0.015 2'3'4
0.01 2'4
0.01 2'4
0.01 2'4
0.01 2'4
0.01 2'4
0.01 2'4
0.01 2'4
0.01 2'4
.015 2'4
No Data
No Data
1 2007 EPA Status and Trends Survey at the Canaveral ODMDS
2 Reference station water from the 2004 Jacksonville Harbor 103 Evaluation
3 Reference station water from the 2006 Mayport Harbor 103 Evaluation
4 Analyte not detected. Value based on one half the reporting limit.
SERIM Appendix G
G-7
August 2008
-------
Jacksonville ODMDS
STFATE Input Parameters
Jacksonville ODMDS
X=2,660ft
Z=4,660ft
X
X=8,740ft
Z= 10,740ft
Disposal Location
X=5,700ft
Z=7,700ft
. ». surface current vel = 0.56fps
Vx=0.52fps
Vz=0.21fps
bottom current vel = 0.33fps
Vx=0.31fps
Vz=0.12fps
N
Model Grid
45X45
@ 35 Oft/grid
SERIM Appendix G
G-8
August 2008
-------
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
SITE DESCRIPTION
Parameter
Number of Grid Points (left to right)
Number of Grid Points (top to bottom)
Spacing Between Grid Points (left to right)
Spacing Between Grid Points (top to bottom)
Constant Water Depth
Roughness Height at Bottom of Disposal Site
Slope of Bottom in X-Direction
Slope of Bottom in Z-Direction
Number of Points in Ambient Density Profile Point
Ambient Density at Depth = 0 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 45 ft
Value
45
45
350
350
45
.0051
0
0
2
1.0237
1.0240
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
deg.
deg.
g/cc
g/cc
AMBIENT VELOCITY DATA
Parameter
Water Depth
Profile
Vertically Averaged X-Direction Velocity
Vertically Averaged Z-Direction Velocity
Value
45
Logarithmic
0.0
0.33
Units
ft
ft/sec
ft/sec
DISPOSAL OPERATION DATA
Parameter
Location of Disposal Point from Top of Grid
Location of Disposal Point from Left Edge of Grid
Dumping Over Depression
Value
7,875
7,875
0
Units
ft
ft
SERIM Appendix G
G-9
August 2008
-------
INPUT, EXECUTION AND OUTPUT
Parameter
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Duration of Simulation
Long Term Time Step
Value
1,800
1,800
13,950
13,950
14,400
600
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
sec
sec
COEFFICIENTS
Parameter
Settling Coefficient
Apparent Mass Coefficient
Drag Coefficient
Form Drag for Collapsing Cloud
Skin Friction for Collapsing Cloud
Drag for an Ellipsoidal Wedge
Drag for a Plate
Friction Between Cloud and Bottom
4/3 Law Horizontal Diffusion Dissipation Factor
Unstratified Water Vertical Diffusion Coefficient
Cloud/Ambient Density Gradient Ratio
Turbulent Thermal Entrainment
Entrainment in Collapse
Stripping Factor
Keyword
BETA
CM
CD
CDRAG
CFRIC
CDS
CD4
FRICTN
ALAMDA
AKYO
GAMA
ALPHAO
ALPHAC
CSTRIP
Value
o.ooo1
l.OOO1
0.5001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.1001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.02252
Pritchard Expression
0.2501
0.2351
0.1001
0.0031
1 Model default value
2 Calculated from NOAA field work at Fort Pierce (1994)
SERIM Appendix G
G-10
August 2008
-------
Canaveral ODMDS STFATE Input Parameters
Canaveral ODMDS
X= 1,8 00ft
Z=l,800ft
^x
Disposal Location ^
X=7,875ft \'/
Z=7,875ft ^/
X= 13, 95 Oft
Z= 13, 95 Oft
Model Grid
45X45
@ 350 ft/grid
SERIM Appendix G
G-ll
August 2008
-------
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
SITE DESCRIPTION
Parameter
Number of Grid Points (left to right)
Number of Grid Points (top to bottom)
Spacing Between Grid Points (left to right)
Spacing Between Grid Points (top to bottom)
Constant Water Depth
Roughness Height at Bottom of Disposal Site
Slope of Bottom in X-Direction
Slope of Bottom in Z-Direction
Number of Points in Ambient Density Profile Point
Ambient Density at Depth = 0 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 45 ft
Value
32
32
250
250
45
.0051
0
0
2
1.0256
1.0257
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
deg.
deg.
g/cc
g/cc
AMBIENT VELOCITY DATA
Parameter
Water Depth
Profile
Vertically Averaged X-Direction Velocity
Vertically Averaged Z-Direction Velocity
Value
45
Logarithmic
-0.10
0.0
Units
ft
ft/sec
ft/sec
INPUT, EXECUTION AND OUTPUT
Parameter
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Duration of Simulation
Long Term Time Step
Value
1,000
1,000
7,000
7,000
14,400
600
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
sec
sec
SERIM Appendix G
G-12
August 2008
-------
DISPOSAL OPERATION DATA - RESTRICTED AREA
Parameter
Location of Disposal Point from Top of Grid
Location of Disposal Point from Left Edge of Grid
Dumping Over Depression
Value
4,000
4,000
0
Units
ft
ft
DISPOSAL OPERATION DATA - FINE GRAINED MATERIAL AREA
Parameter
Location of Disposal Point from Top of Grid
Location of Disposal Point from Left Edge of Grid
Dumping Over Depression
Value
5,000
4,000
0
Units
ft
ft
COEFFICIENTS
Parameter
Settling Coefficient
Apparent Mass Coefficient
Drag Coefficient
Form Drag for Collapsing Cloud
Skin Friction for Collapsing Cloud
Drag for an Ellipsoidal Wedge
Drag for a Plate
Friction Between Cloud and Bottom
4/3 Law Horizontal Diffusion Dissipation Factor
Unstratified Water Vertical Diffusion Coefficient
Cloud/Ambient Density Gradient Ratio
Turbulent Thermal Entrainment
Entrainment in Collapse
Stripping Factor
Keyword
BETA
CM
CD
CDRAG
CFRIC
CDS
CD4
FRICTN
ALAMDA
AKYO
GAMA
ALPHAO
ALPHAC
CSTRIP
Value
o.ooo1
l.OOO1
0.5001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.1001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.02252
Pritchard Expression
0.2501
0.2351
0.1001
0.0031
1 Model default value
2 Calculated from NOAA field work (1994)
SERIM Appendix G
G-13
August 2008
-------
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
SITE DESCRIPTION
Parameter
Number of Grid Points (left to right)
Number of Grid Points (top to bottom)
Spacing Between Grid Points (left to right)
Spacing Between Grid Points (top to bottom)
Constant Water Depth
Roughness Height at Bottom of Disposal Site
Slope of Bottom in X-Direction
Slope of Bottom in Z-Direction
Number of Points in Ambient Density Profile2 Point
Ambient Density at Depth = 0 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 82 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 164 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 558 ft
Value
40
40
500
500
558
.0051
0
1
4
1.0247
1.0249
1.0259
1.0279
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
deg.
deg.
g/cc
g/cc
g/cc
g/cc
AMBIENT VELOCITY DATAS
Parameter
Profile
X-Direction Velocity at Depth
Z-Direction Velocity at Depth
X-Direction Velocity at Depth
Z-Direction Velocity at Depth
= 33 feet
= 33 feet
= 197 feet
= 197 feet
Value
Units
2-Point at constant depth
-2.7
+1.1
-2.2
+0.9
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
DISPOSAL OPERATION DATA
Parameter
Location of Disposal Point from Top of Grid
Location of Disposal Point from Left Edge of Grid
Dumping Over Depression
Value
14,000
10,000
0
Units
ft
ft
SERIM Appendix G
G-14
August 2008
-------
INPUT, EXECUTION AND OUTPUT
Parameter
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Duration of Simulation
Long Term Time Step
Value
11,000
7,000
17,000
13,000
14,400
600
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
sec
sec
COEFFICIENTS
Parameter
Settling Coefficient
Apparent Mass Coefficient
Drag Coefficient
Form Drag for Collapsing Cloud
Skin Friction for Collapsing Cloud
Drag for an Ellipsoidal Wedge
Drag for a Plate
Friction Between Cloud and Bottom
4/3 Law Horizontal Diffusion Dissipation Factor
Unstratified Water Vertical Diffusion Coefficient
Cloud/Ambient Density Gradient Ratio
Turbulent Thermal Entrainment
Entrainment in Collapse
Stripping Factor
Keyword
BETA
CM
CD
CDRAG
CFRIC
CDS
CD4
FRICTN
ALAMDA
AKYO
GAMA
ALPHAO
ALPHAC
CSTRIP
Value
o.ooo1
l.OOO1
0.5001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.1001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.0011
Pritchard Expression
0.2501
0.3904
0.1001
0.0031
1 Model default value
2 Profiles from EPA 1998 measurements
3 Velocity data represents average conditions. Determined from WES 1998 analysis of ADCP data
offshore Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
4 Calculated from NOAA field work at Miami (1991)
Dilution Rates for Generic Material:
Minimum dilution outside disposal site: 15,000 to 1; minimum dilution after 4 hours: 36,000 to 1
SERIM Appendix G
G-15
August 2008
-------
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
SITE DESCRIPTION
Parameter
Number of Grid Points (left to right)
Number of Grid Points (top to bottom)
Spacing Between Grid Points (left to right)
Spacing Between Grid Points (top to bottom)
Constant Water Depth
Roughness Height at Bottom of Disposal Site
Slope of Bottom in X-Direction
Slope of Bottom in Z-Direction
Number of Points in Ambient Density Profile2 Point
Ambient Density at Depth = 0 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 65 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 328 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 492 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 645 ft
Value
40
40
500
500
645
.0051
0.0
1.0
5
1.0246
1.0248
1.0272
1.0280
1.0282
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
deg.
deg.
g/cc
g/cc
g/cc
g/cc
g/cc
AMBIENT VELOCITY DATAS
Parameter
Profile
X-Direction Velocity at Depth
Z-Direction Velocity at Depth
X-Direction Velocity at Depth
Z-Direction Velocity at Depth
= 33 feet
= 33 feet
= 197 feet
= 197 feet
Value
Units
2-Point at constant depth
-2.7
+1.1
-2.2
+0.9
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
DISPOSAL OPERATION DATA
Parameter
Location of Disposal Point from Top of Grid
Location of Disposal Point from Left Edge of Grid
Dumping Over Depression
Value
14,000
10,000
0
Units
ft
ft
SERIM Appendix G
G-16
August 2008
-------
INPUT, EXECUTION AND OUTPUT
Parameter
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Duration of Simulation
Long Term Time Step
Value
11,000
7,000
17,000
13,000
14,400
600
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
sec
sec
COEFFICIENTS
Parameter
Settling Coefficient
Apparent Mass Coefficient
Drag Coefficient
Form Drag for Collapsing Cloud
Skin Friction for Collapsing Cloud
Drag for an Ellipsoidal Wedge
Drag for a Plate
Friction Between Cloud and Bottom
4/3 Law Horizontal Diffusion Dissipation Factor
Unstratified Water Vertical Diffusion Coefficient
Cloud/Ambient Density Gradient Ratio
Turbulent Thermal Entrainment
Entrainment in Collapse
Stripping Factor
Keyword
BETA
CM
CD
CDRAG
CFRIC
CDS
CD4
FRICTN
ALAMDA
AKYO
GAMA
ALPHAO
ALPHAC
CSTRIP
Value
o.ooo1
l.OOO1
0.5001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.1001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.0011
Pritchard Expression
0.2501
0.394
0.1001
0.0031
1 Model default value
2 Profiles from EPA 1998 measurements
3 Velocity data represents average conditions. Determined from WES 1998 analysis of ADCP data
offshore Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
4 Calculated from NOAA field work at Miami (1991)
Dilution Rates for Generic Material:
Minimum dilution outside disposal site: 6,600 to 1; minimum dilution after 4 hours: 15,700 to 1
SERIM Appendix G
G-17
August 2008
-------
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
[In Development]
SERIM Appendix G G-18 August 2008
-------
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
SITE DESCRIPTION
Parameter
Number of Grid Points (left to right)
Number of Grid Points (top to bottom)
Spacing Between Grid Points (left to right)
Spacing Between Grid Points (top to bottom)
Constant Water Depth
Roughness Height at Bottom of Disposal Site
Slope of Bottom in X-Direction
Slope of Bottom in Z-Direction
Number of Points in Ambient Density Profile Point
Ambient Density at Depth = 0 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 70 ft
Value
45
60
350
350
70
.0051
0
0
2
1.0222
1.0241
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
deg.
deg.
g/cc
g/cc
AMBIENT VELOCITY DATA
Parameter
Profile
X-Direction Velocity at Depth
Z-Direction Velocity at Depth
X-Direction Velocity at Depth
Z-Direction Velocity at Depth
= 0ft
= 0ft
= 60 ft
= 60 ft
Value
Units
2-Point at constant depth
0.46
0.46
0.35
0.35
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
DISPOSAL OPERATION DATA
Parameter
Location of Disposal Point from Top of Grid
Location of Disposal Point from Left Edge of Grid
Dumping Over Depression
Value
Zone A=4,000
Zone B=TBD
Zone C= 12,400
7,875
0
Units
ft
ft
SERIM Appendix G
G-19
August 2008
-------
INPUT, EXECUTION AND OUTPUT
Parameter
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Duration of Simulation
Long Term Time Step
Value
1,800
1,800
13,950
13,950
14,400
600
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
sec
sec
COEFFICIENTS
Parameter
Settling Coefficient
Apparent Mass Coefficient
Drag Coefficient
Form Drag for Collapsing Cloud
Skin Friction for Collapsing Cloud
Drag for an Ellipsoidal Wedge
Drag for a Plate
Friction Between Cloud and Bottom
4/3 Law Horizontal Diffusion Dissipation Factor
Unstratified Water Vertical Diffusion Coefficient
Cloud/Ambient Density Gradient Ratio
Turbulent Thermal Entrainment
Entrainment in Collapse
Stripping Factor
Keyword
BETA
CM
CD
CDRAG
CFRIC
CDS
CD4
FRICTN
ALAMDA
AKYO
GAMA
ALPHAO
ALPHAC
CSTRIP
Value
o.ooo1
l.OOO1
0.5001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.1001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.0225
Pritchard Expression
0.2501
0.2351
0.1001
0.0031
default value
TYPICAL DILUTION RATES
Zone
A
C
Dilution at 4 Hours
1,435:1
TBD
Minimum Dilution Outside of
ODMDS at All Times
> 100,000:1
N/A
SERIM Appendix G
G-20
August 2008
-------
Tampa ODMDS STFATE Input Parameters
N
Tampa ODMDS
X= 1,8 00ft
Z=l,800ft
Disposal Location
X=7,875ft • ZoneA
Z=4,000ft
ZoneB
Disposal Location
X=TBD •
Z=TBD
Zone C
Disposal Location
X=7,875ft ^
Z=l 2,400ft
X=13,950ft
Z= 13, 95 Oft
Model Grid
45X60
@ 350 ft/grid
SERIM Appendix G
G-21
August 2008
-------
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
SITE DESCRIPTION
Parameter
Number of Grid Points (left to right)
Number of Grid Points (top to bottom)
Spacing Between Grid Points (left to right)
Spacing Between Grid Points (top to bottom)
Constant Water Depth
Roughness Height at Bottom of Disposal Site
Slope of Bottom in X-Direction
Slope of Bottom in Z-Direction
Number of Points in Ambient Density Profile Point
Ambient Density at Depth = 1 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 36 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 75 ft
Value
45
45
500
500
75
.0051
0
0
3
1.0248
1.0267
1.0271
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
deg.
deg.
g/cc
g/cc
g/cc
AMBIENT VELOCITY DATA
Parameter
Profile
X-Direction Velocity at Depth
Z-Direction Velocity at Depth
X-Direction Velocity at Depth
Z-Direction Velocity at Depth
= 30 ft
= 30 ft
= 56ft
= 56ft
Value
Units
2-Point at constant depth
0.0
-0.750
0.0
-0.530
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
DISPOSAL OPERATION DATA
Parameter
Location of Disposal Point from Top of Grid
Location of Disposal Point from Left Edge of Grid
Dumping Over Depression
Value
11,2502
16,8752
0
Units
ft
ft
SERIM Appendix G
G-22
August 2008
-------
INPUT, EXECUTION AND OUTPUT
Parameter
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Duration of Simulation
Long Term Time Step
Value
6,000
4,000
16,500
19,500
14,400
600
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
sec
sec
COEFFICIENTS
Parameter
Settling Coefficient
Apparent Mass Coefficient
Drag Coefficient
Form Drag for Collapsing Cloud
Skin Friction for Collapsing Cloud
Drag for an Ellipsoidal Wedge
Drag for a Plate
Friction Between Cloud and Bottom
4/3 Law Horizontal Diffusion Dissipation Factor
Unstratified Water Vertical Diffusion Coefficient
Cloud/Ambient Density Gradient Ratio
Turbulent Thermal Entrainment
Entrainment in Collapse
Stripping Factor
Keyword
BETA
CM
CD
CDRAG
CFRIC
CDS
CD4
FRICTN
ALAMDA
AKYO
GAMA
ALPHAO
ALPHAC
CSTRIP
Value
o.ooo1
l.OOO1
0.5001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.1001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.0011
Pritchard Expression
0.2501
0.2351
0.1001
0.0031
1 Model default value
2 Represents center of disposal site. Dredged material requiring disposal in another location in order to
meet the dilution criteria must be brought to the attention of EPA and USACE.
Typical dilution achieved after 4 hours = 2,415:1
Typical dilution achieved at all times outside disposal site = 1.5xl06:l
SERIM Appendix G
G-23
August 2008
-------
Pascagoula ODMDS
Pascagoula ODMDS
STFATE Modeling Zones
\
\
\
\
\ Zone C
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
ZoneB
/
/
/
/
Zone A /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
\ i/
SERIM Appendix G
G-24
August 2008
-------
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
SITE DESCRIPTION
Parameter
Number of Grid Points (left to right)
Number of Grid Points (top to bottom)
Spacing Between Grid Points (left to right)
Spacing Between Grid Points (top to bottom)
Constant Water Depth
Roughness Height at Bottom of Disposal Site
Slope of Bottom in X-Direction
Slope of Bottom in Z-Direction
Number of Points in Ambient Density Profile Point
Ambient Density at Depth = 5 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 44 ft
Value
45
45
500
500
44
.0051
0
0
2
1.0174
1.0230
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
deg.
deg.
g/cc
g/cc
AMBIENT VELOCITY DATA
Parameter
Profile
X-Direction Velocity at Depth = 10 ft
Z-Direction Velocity at Depth = 10 ft
X-Direction Velocity at Depth = 40 ft
Z-Direction Velocity at Depth = 40 ft
Value
Units
2-Point at constant depth
-0.232
-0.232
-0.116
+0.116
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
DISPOSAL OPERATION DATA
Parameter
Location of Disposal Point from Top of Grid
Location of Disposal Point from Left Edge of Grid
Dumping Over Depression
Value
8,5002
8,2002
0
Units
ft
ft
SERIM Appendix G
G-25
August 2008
-------
INPUT, EXECUTION AND OUTPUT
Parameter
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Duration of Simulation
Long Term Time Step
Value
2,000
2,000
21,500
20,500
14,400
600
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
sec
sec
COEFFICIENTS
Parameter
Settling Coefficient
Apparent Mass Coefficient
Drag Coefficient
Form Drag for Collapsing Cloud
Skin Friction for Collapsing Cloud
Drag for an Ellipsoidal Wedge
Drag for a Plate
Friction Between Cloud and Bottom
4/3 Law Horizontal Diffusion Dissipation Factor
Unstratified Water Vertical Diffusion Coefficient
Cloud/Ambient Density Gradient Ratio
Turbulent Thermal Entrainment
Entrainment in Collapse
Stripping Factor
Keyword
BETA
CM
CD
CDRAG
CFRIC
CDS
CD4
FRICTN
ALAMDA
AKYO
GAMA
ALPHAO
ALPHAC
CSTRIP
Value
o.ooo1
l.OOO1
0.5001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.1001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.0011
Pritchard Expression
0.2501
0.2351
0.1001
0.0031
1 Model default value
2 Represents center of zone A. Dredged material requiring disposal in another location in order to meet
the dilution criteria must be brought to the attention of EPA and USACE.
Typical dilution achieved after 4 hours = 500:1
Plume does not reach site boundaries within 4 hours
SERIM Appendix G
G-26
August 2008
-------
X=2,000 ft
Z=2,000 ft
Ofl
o
o
o
03
o
• i-H
+J
O
Pascagoula ODMDS
Zone A
Disposal Location
(x=8£00ftz=8,200)
Z - Direction: Grid Spacing = 500ft 45 grids X=21,500
Z=20,500
surface
bottom
Current Velocity:
0.328fps@ surface
0.164fps@bottom
model site boundary
actual ODMDS boundary
SERIM Appendix G
G-27
August 2008
-------
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
B
SITE DESCRIPTION
Parameter
Number of Grid Points (left to right)
Number of Grid Points (top to bottom)
Spacing Between Grid Points (left to right)
Spacing Between Grid Points (top to bottom)
Constant Water Depth
Roughness Height at Bottom of Disposal Site
Slope of Bottom in X-Direction
Slope of Bottom in Z-Direction
Number of Points in Ambient Density Profile Point
Ambient Density at Depth = 5 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 46 ft
Value
45
45
600
600
46
.0051
0
0
2
1.0174
1.0230
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
deg.
deg.
g/cc
g/cc
AMBIENT VELOCITY DATA
Parameter
Profile
X-Direction Velocity at Depth = 10 ft
Z-Direction Velocity at Depth = 10 ft
X-Direction Velocity at Depth = 40 ft
Z-Direction Velocity at Depth = 40 ft
Value
Units
2-Point at constant depth
-0.232
-0.232
-0.116
+0.116
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
DISPOSAL OPERATION DATA
Parameter
Location of Disposal Point from Top of Grid
Location of Disposal Point from Left Edge of Grid
Dumping Over Depression
Value
13,5002
14,5002
0
Units
ft
ft
SERIM Appendix G
G-28
August 2008
-------
INPUT, EXECUTION AND OUTPUT
Parameter
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Duration of Simulation
Long Term Time Step
Value
2,000
2,000
25,000
27,000
14,400
600
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
sec
sec
COEFFICIENTS
Parameter
Settling Coefficient
Apparent Mass Coefficient
Drag Coefficient
Form Drag for Collapsing Cloud
Skin Friction for Collapsing Cloud
Drag for an Ellipsoidal Wedge
Drag for a Plate
Friction Between Cloud and Bottom
4/3 Law Horizontal Diffusion Dissipation Factor
Unstratified Water Vertical Diffusion Coefficient
Cloud/Ambient Density Gradient Ratio
Turbulent Thermal Entrainment
Entrainment in Collapse
Stripping Factor
Keyword
BETA
CM
CD
CDRAG
CFRIC
CDS
CD4
FRICTN
ALAMDA
AKYO
GAMA
ALPHAO
ALPHAC
CSTRIP
Value
o.ooo1
l.OOO1
0.5001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.1001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.0011
Pritchard Expression
0.2501
0.2351
0.1001
0.0031
1 Model default value
2 Represents center of zone A. Dredged material requiring disposal in another location in order to meet
the dilution criteria must be brought to the attention of EPA and USACE.
Typical dilution achieved after 4 hours = 500:1
Plume does not reach site boundaries within 4 hours
SERIM Appendix G
G-29
August 2008
-------
X=2,000 ft
Z=2,000 ft
V3
-a
o
o
Ofl
O
03
O
I
"5
•—
5
i
x
surface
Pascagoula ODMDS
ZoneB
Disposal Location
(x=13£00ft:z=14,500)
Z - Direction: Grid Spacing = 600ft 45 grids X-25,000
Z=27,000
bottom
Current Velocity:
0.328fps@ 5ft
0.164fps@ 40ft
model site boundary
actual ODMDS boundary
SERIM Appendix G
G-30
August 2008
-------
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
C
SITE DESCRIPTION
Parameter
Number of Grid Points (left to right)
Number of Grid Points (top to bottom)
Spacing Between Grid Points (left to right)
Spacing Between Grid Points (top to bottom)
Constant Water Depth
Roughness Height at Bottom of Disposal Site
Slope of Bottom in X-Direction
Slope of Bottom in Z-Direction
Number of Points in Ambient Density Profile Point
Ambient Density at Depth = 5 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 47 ft
Value
45
45
400
600
47
.0051
0
0
2
1.0174
1.0230
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
deg.
deg.
g/cc
g/cc
AMBIENT VELOCITY DATA
Parameter
Profile
X-Direction Velocity at Depth = 10 ft
Z-Direction Velocity at Depth = 10 ft
X-Direction Velocity at Depth = 40 ft
Z-Direction Velocity at Depth = 40 ft
Value
Units
2-Point at constant depth
-0.232
-0.232
-0.116
+0.116
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
DISPOSAL OPERATION DATA
Parameter
Location of Disposal Point from Top of Grid
Location of Disposal Point from Left Edge of Grid
Dumping Over Depression
Value
9,6602
11,2002
0
Units
ft
ft
SERIM Appendix G
G-31
August 2008
-------
INPUT, EXECUTION AND OUTPUT
Parameter
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Duration of Simulation
Long Term Time Step
Value
2,000
2,000
25,000
15,800
14,400
600
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
sec
sec
COEFFICIENTS
Parameter
Settling Coefficient
Apparent Mass Coefficient
Drag Coefficient
Form Drag for Collapsing Cloud
Skin Friction for Collapsing Cloud
Drag for an Ellipsoidal Wedge
Drag for a Plate
Friction Between Cloud and Bottom
4/3 Law Horizontal Diffusion Dissipation Factor
Unstratified Water Vertical Diffusion Coefficient
Cloud/Ambient Density Gradient Ratio
Turbulent Thermal Entrainment
Entrainment in Collapse
Stripping Factor
Keyword
BETA
CM
CD
CDRAG
CFRIC
CDS
CD4
FRICTN
ALAMDA
AKYO
GAMA
ALPHAO
ALPHAC
CSTRIP
Value
o.ooo1
l.OOO1
0.5001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.1001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.0011
Pritchard Expression
0.2501
0.2351
0.1001
0.0031
1 Model default value
2 Represents center of zone A. Dredged material requiring disposal in another location in order to meet
the dilution criteria must be brought to the attention of EPA and USACE.
Typical dilution achieved after 4 hours = 500:1
Plume does not reach site boundaries within 4 hours
SERIM Appendix G
G-32
August 2008
-------
X=2,000 ft
Z=2,000 ft
o
o
60
C/2
• i-
O
o
• i-H
S— »
O
surface
Pascagoula ODMDS
ZoneC
Disposal Location
(x=9^60ftz=l 1,200)
Z - Direction: Grid Spacing = 400ft 45 grids X-25,000
Z=15,800
bottom
Current Velocity:
0.328fps@ 5ft
0.164fps@ 40ft
model site boundary
actual ODMDS boundary
SERIM Appendix G
G-33
August 2008
-------
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
[In Development]
SERIM Appendix G
G-34
August 2008
-------
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
East
SITE DESCRIPTION
Parameter
Number of Grid Points (left to right)
Number of Grid Points (top to bottom)
Spacing Between Grid Points (left to right)
Spacing Between Grid Points (top to bottom)
Constant Water Depth
Roughness Height at Bottom of Disposal Site
Slope of Bottom in X-Direction
Slope of Bottom in Z-Direction
Number of Points in Ambient Density Profile Point
Ambient Density at Depth = 6 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 26 ft
Value
45
45
300
750
26
0.0051
0
0
2
1.0175
1.0205
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
deg.
deg.
g/cc
g/cc
AMBIENT VELOCITY DATA
Parameter
Profile
X-Direction Velocity at Depth = 10 ft
Z-Direction Velocity at Depth = 10 ft
X-Direction Velocity at Depth = 20 ft
Z-Direction Velocity at Depth = 20 ft
Value
Units
2-Point at constant depth
0.422
0.503
0.316
0.377
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
DISPOSAL OPERATION DATA
Parameter
Location of Disposal Point from Top of Grid
Location of Disposal Point from Left Edge of Grid
Dumping Over Depression
Value
141002
21002
0
Units
ft
ft
SERIM Appendix G
G-35
August 2008
-------
INPUT, EXCECUTION AND OUTPUT
Parameter
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Duration of Simulation
Long Term Time Step
Value
600
900
27,650
3,300
14,400
600
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
sec
sec
COEFFICIENTS
Parameter
Settling Coefficient
Apparent Mass Coefficient
Drag Coefficient
Form Drag for Collapsing Cloud
Skin Friction for Collapsing Cloud
Drag for an Ellipsoidal Wedge
Drag for a Plate
Friction Between Cloud and Bottom
4/3 Law Horizontal Diffusion Dissipation Factor
Unstratified Water Vertical Diffusion Coefficient
Cloud/Ambient Density Gradient Ratio
Turbulent Thermal Entrainment
Entrainment in Collapse
Stripping Factor
Keyword
BETA
CM
CD
CDRAG
CFRIC
CDS
CD4
FRICTN
ALAMDA
AKYO
GAMA
ALPHAO
ALPHAC
CSTRIP
Value
o.ooo1
l.OOO1
0.5001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.1001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.0011
Pritchard Expression
0.2501
0.2351
0.1001
0.0031
1 Model default value
2 Represents center of disposal site. Dredged material requiring disposal in another location in order to
meet the dilution criteria must be brought to the attention of EPA and USACE.
Typical dilution achieved after 4 hours = 1,700:1
Typical dilution achieved at all times outside disposal site = 100:1
SERIM Appendix G
G-36
August 2008
-------
Gulfport East ODMDS STFATE Input Parameters
X=600ft
Z=900ft
Gulfport East
ODMDS
X
' Disposal Location
X= 14,100ft
Z=2,100ft
X=27,650ft
Z=3,300ft
%
\ r°K
v%
rojsy
•^
%
^
Model Grid
45X45
@ 3 00 ft/grid in X direction
75 Oft/grid in Z direction
Z+
SERIM Appendix G
G-37
August 2008
-------
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
SITE DESCRIPTION
Parameter
Number of Grid Points (left to right)
Number of Grid Points (top to bottom)
Spacing Between Grid Points (left to right)
Spacing Between Grid Points (top to bottom)
Constant Water Depth
Roughness Height at Bottom of Disposal Site
Slope of Bottom in X-Direction
Slope of Bottom in Z-Direction
Number of Points in Ambient Density Profile Point
Ambient Density at Depth = 6 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 25 ft
Value
45
45
300
600
25
.0051
0
0
2
1.0175
1.0205
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
deg.
deg.
g/cc
g/cc
AMBIENT VELOCITY DATA
Parameter
Profile
X-Direction Velocity at Depth =
Z-Direction Velocity at Depth =
X-Direction Velocity at Depth =
Z-Direction Velocity at Depth =
10 feet
10 feet
19 feet
19 feet
Value
Units
2-Point at constant depth
0.303
0.582
0.227
0.436
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
DISPOSAL OPERATION DATA
Parameter
Location of Disposal Point from Top of Grid
Location of Disposal Point from Left Edge of Grid
Dumping Over Depression
Value
13,8002
2,7002
0
Units
ft
ft
SERIM Appendix G
G-38
August 2008
-------
INPUT, EXCECUTION AND OUTPUT
Parameter
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Duration of Simulation
Long Term Time Step
Value
600
900
27,000
4,500
14,400
600
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
sec
sec
COEFFICIENTS
Parameter
Settling Coefficient
Apparent Mass Coefficient
Drag Coefficient
Form Drag for Collapsing Cloud
Skin Friction for Collapsing Cloud
Drag for an Ellipsoidal Wedge
Drag for a Plate
Friction Between Cloud and Bottom
4/3 Law Horizontal Diffusion Dissipation Factor
Unstratified Water Vertical Diffusion Coefficient
Cloud/Ambient Density Gradient Ratio
Turbulent Thermal Entrainment
Entrainment in Collapse
Stripping Factor
Keyword
BETA
CM
CD
CDRAG
CFRIC
CDS
CD4
FRICTN
ALAMDA
AKYO
GAMA
ALPHAO
ALPHAC
CSTRIP
Value
o.ooo1
l.OOO1
0.5001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.1001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.0011
Pritchard Expression
0.2501
0.2351
0.1001
0.0031
1 Model default value
2 Represents center of disposal site. Dredged material requiring disposal in another location in order to
meet the dilution criteria must be brought to the attention of EPA and USACE.
Typical dilution achieved after 4 hours = 1,200:1
Typical dilution achieved at all times outside disposal site = 170:1
SERIM Appendix G
G-39
August 2008
-------
Gulfport West ODMDS STFATE Input Parameters
X
X=600ft
Z=900ft
Gulfport West
ODMDS
X
Disposal Location
X= 13,800ft
Z=2,700ft
l>e/ ^Oc. -
Sf^V.
•N**ro,
X=27,000ft
Z=4,500ft
'••&>
Model Grid
45X45
@ 300 ft/grid in X direction
600ft/grid inZ direction
Z+
SERIM Appendix G
G-40
August 2008
-------
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
SITE DESCRIPTION
Parameter
Number of Grid Points (left to right)
Number of Grid Points (top to bottom)
Spacing Between Grid Points (left to right)
Spacing Between Grid Points (top to bottom)
Constant Water Depth
Roughness Height at Bottom of Disposal Site
Slope of Bottom in X-Direction
Slope of Bottom in Z-Direction
Number of Points in Ambient Density Profile Point
Ambient Density at Depth = 0 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 22.5 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 45 ft
Value
45
45
700
700
45
0.0051
0
0
3
1.0241
1.0241
1.0248
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
deg.
deg.
g/cc
g/cc
g/cc
AMBIENT VELOCITY DATA
Parameter
Water Depth
Profile
X-Direction Velocity
Z-Direction Velocity
Value
45
Logarithmic
0
0.65
Units
ft
ft/sec
ft/sec
DISPOSAL OPERATION DATA
Parameter
Location of Disposal Point from Top of Grid
Location of Disposal Point from Left Edge of Grid
Dumping Over Depression
Value
15,750
7,875
0
Units
ft
ft
SERIM Appendix G
G-41
August 2008
-------
INPUT, EXECUTION AND OUTPUT
Parameter
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Duration of Simulation
Long Term Time Step
Value
555
10,393.5
30,945
21,106.5
14,400
600
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
sec
sec
COEFFICIENTS
Parameter
Settling Coefficient
Apparent Mass Coefficient
Drag Coefficient
Form Drag for Collapsing Cloud
Skin Friction for Collapsing Cloud
Drag for an Ellipsoidal Wedge
Drag for a Plate
Friction Between Cloud and Bottom
4/3 Law Horizontal Diffusion Dissipation Factor
Unstratified Water Vertical Diffusion Coefficient
Cloud/Ambient Density Gradient Ratio
Turbulent Thermal Entrainment
Entrainment in Collapse
Stripping Factor
Keyword
BETA
CM
CD
CDRAG
CFRIC
CDS
CD4
FRICTN
ALAMDA
AKYO
GAMA
ALPHAO
ALPHAC
CSTRIP
Value
o.ooo1
l.OOO1
0.5001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.1001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.00101
Pritchard Expression
0.2501
0.2351
0.1001
0.0031
1 Model default value
SERIM Appendix G
G-42
August 2008
-------
New Wilmington ODMDS STFATE
Input Parameters
Actual Western
Boundary
New Wilmington ODMDS
X=555ft
Z=10,393.5ft
Model Western
' Boundary
Disposal Location
X= 15,75 Oft
Z=15,750ft
current velocity
= 0.65fps
X=30,945ft
Z=21,106.5ft
N
Model Grid
45X45
Z+
700ft/grid
SERIM Appendix G
G-43
August 2008
-------
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
SITE DESCRIPTION
Parameter
Number of Grid Points (left to right)
Number of Grid Points (top to bottom)
Spacing Between Grid Points (left to right)
Spacing Between Grid Points (top to bottom)
Constant Water Depth
Roughness Height at Bottom of Disposal Site
Slope of Bottom in X-Direction
Slope of Bottom in Z-Direction
Number of Points in Ambient Density Profile Point
Ambient Density at Depth = 0 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 52 ft
Value
50
50
250
250
52
.0051
0
0
2
1.0325
1.0325
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
deg.
deg.
g/cc
g/cc
AMBIENT VELOCITY DATA
Parameter
Velocity Profile
X-Direction Velocity (3 feet)
Z-Direction Velocity (3 feet)
X-Direction Velocity (31.2 ft.)
Z-Direction Velocity (31.2 ft)
Value
Units
2-Point at constant depth
0.29
0
0.11
0
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
ft/sec
DISPOSAL OPERATION DATA
Parameter
Location of Disposal Point from Top of Grid
Location of Disposal Point from Left Edge of Grid
Dumping Over Depression
Value
5000
5000
0
Units
ft
ft
SERIM Appendix G
G-44
August 2008
-------
INPUT, EXECUTION AND OUTPUT
Parameter
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Duration of Simulation
Long Term Time Step
Value
2000
2000
8000
8000
14,400
600
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
sec
sec
COEFFICIENTS
Parameter
Settling Coefficient
Apparent Mass Coefficient
Drag Coefficient
Form Drag for Collapsing Cloud
Skin Friction for Collapsing Cloud
Drag for an Ellipsoidal Wedge
Drag for a Plate
Friction Between Cloud and Bottom
4/3 Law Horizontal Diffusion Dissipation Factor
Unstratified Water Vertical Diffusion Coefficient
Cloud/Ambient Density Gradient Ratio
Turbulent Thermal Entrainment
Entrainment in Collapse
Stripping Factor
Keyword
BETA
CM
CD
CDRAG
CFRIC
CDS
CD4
FRICTN
ALAMDA
AKYO
GAMA
ALPHAO
ALPHAC
CSTRIP
Value
o.ooo1
l.OOO1
0.5001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.1001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.0010
Pritchard Expression
0.2501
0.2351
0.1001
0.0031
l default value
Calculated from NOAA field work at Fort Pierce (1994)
SERIM Appendix G
G-45
August 2008
-------
SAVANNAH DISTRICT
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
Brunswick Harbor ODMDS
[In development]
SERIM Appendix G G-46 August 2008
-------
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
[In development]
SERIM Appendix G G-47 August 2008
-------
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
SITE DESCRIPTION
Parameter
Number of Grid Points (left to right)
Number of Grid Points (top to bottom)
Spacing Between Grid Points (left to right)
Spacing Between Grid Points (top to bottom)
Constant Water Depth
Roughness Height at Bottom of Disposal Site
Slope of Bottom in X-Direction
Slope of Bottom in Z-Direction
Number of Points in Ambient Density Profile Point
Ambient Density at Depth = 0 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 36 ft
Value
45
45
350
350
36
.0051
0
0
2
1.0215
1.0220
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
deg.
deg.
g/cc
g/cc
AMBIENT VELOCITY DATA
Parameter
Water Depth
Profile
Vertically Averaged X-Direction Velocity
Vertically Averaged Z-Direction Velocity
Value
36
Logarithmic
0.0
0.33
Units
ft
ft/sec
ft/sec
DISPOSAL OPERATION DATA
Parameter
Location of Disposal Point from Top of Grid
Location of Disposal Point from Left Edge of Grid
Dumping Over Depression
Value
7,875
7,875
0
Units
ft
ft
SERIM Appendix G
G-48
August 2008
-------
INPUT, EXECUTION AND OUTPUT
Parameter
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Duration of Simulation
Long Term Time Step
Value
1,800
1,800
13,950
13,950
14,400
600
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
sec
sec
COEFFICIENTS
Parameter
Settling Coefficient
Apparent Mass Coefficient
Drag Coefficient
Form Drag for Collapsing Cloud
Skin Friction for Collapsing Cloud
Drag for an Ellipsoidal Wedge
Drag for a Plate
Friction Between Cloud and Bottom
4/3 Law Horizontal Diffusion Dissipation Factor
Unstratified Water Vertical Diffusion Coefficient
Cloud/Ambient Density Gradient Ratio
Turbulent Thermal Entrainment
Entrainment in Collapse
Stripping Factor
Keyword
BETA
CM
CD
CDRAG
CFRIC
CDS
CD4
FRICTN
ALAMDA
AKYO
GAMA
ALPHAO
ALPHAC
CSTRIP
Value
o.ooo1
l.OOO1
0.5001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.1001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.02252
Pritchard Expression
0.2501
0.2351
0.1001
0.0031
l default value
Calculated from NOAA field work at Fort Pierce (1994)
SERIM Appendix G
G-49
August 2008
-------
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
SITE DESCRIPTION
Parameter
Number of Grid Points (left to right)
Number of Grid Points (top to bottom)
Spacing Between Grid Points (left to right)
Spacing Between Grid Points (top to bottom)
Constant Water Depth
Roughness Height at Bottom of Disposal Site
Slope of Bottom in X-Direction
Slope of Bottom in Z-Direction
Number of Points in Ambient Density Profile Point
Ambient Density at Depth = 0 ft
Ambient Density at Depth = 36 ft
Value
45
45
350
350
36
.0051
0
0
2
1.0215
1.0220
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
deg.
deg.
g/cc
g/cc
AMBIENT VELOCITY DATA
Parameter
Water Depth
Profile
Vertically Averaged X-Direction Velocity
Vertically Averaged Z-Direction Velocity
Value
36
Logarithmic
0.0
0.33
Units
ft
ft/sec
ft/sec
DISPOSAL OPERATION DATA
Parameter
Location of Disposal Point from Top of Grid
Location of Disposal Point from Left Edge of Grid
Dumping Over Depression
Value
7,875
7,875
0
Units
ft
ft
SERIM Appendix G
G-50
August 2008
-------
INPUT, EXECUTION AND OUTPUT
Parameter
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
Duration of Simulation
Long Term Time Step
Value
1,800
1,800
13,950
13,950
14,400
600
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft
sec
sec
COEFFICIENTS
Parameter
Settling Coefficient
Apparent Mass Coefficient
Drag Coefficient
Form Drag for Collapsing Cloud
Skin Friction for Collapsing Cloud
Drag for an Ellipsoidal Wedge
Drag for a Plate
Friction Between Cloud and Bottom
4/3 Law Horizontal Diffusion Dissipation Factor
Unstratified Water Vertical Diffusion Coefficient
Cloud/Ambient Density Gradient Ratio
Turbulent Thermal Entrainment
Entrainment in Collapse
Stripping Factor
Keyword
BETA
CM
CD
CDRAG
CFRIC
CDS
CD4
FRICTN
ALAMDA
AKYO
GAMA
ALPHAO
ALPHAC
CSTRIP
Value
o.ooo1
l.OOO1
0.5001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.1001
l.OOO1
0.0101
0.02252
Pritchard Expression
0.2501
0.2351
0.1001
0.0031
default value
Calculated from NOAA field work at Fort Pierce (1994)
SERIM Appendix G
G-51
August 2008
-------
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
Georgetown ODMDS
[In development]
-------
Appendix H
BIO ACCUMULATION REFERENCE TABLE
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix H
BIOACCUMULATION REFERENCE TABLE
Table 1. Bioaccumulation Reference Table*
Compound
Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Pesticides
Aldrin
Chlordane & Derivatives
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDT
4,4' DDE
4,4' ODD
Steady State
Factor
(bivalve/
polychaete)
(see Note 3)
1.0/1.0
1 .0/1 .0
1 .0/1 .0
1 .0/1 .0
1 .0/1 .0
1 .0/1 .0
1 .0/1 .0
1.0/1.0
1 .0/1 .0
1 .0/1 .0
1 .0/1 .0
1.0/1.0
1.0/1.0
2.7/2.7
1.9/1.9
1.7/1.7
2.9/2.9
2.4/2.4
2.6/2.6
FDA
Limits
bivalve
(mg/kg)
—
86.0
3.0
13.0
—
1.7
1.0
80.0
(M9/kg)
300.0
300.0
300.0
5000.0
—
polychaete/
Crustacea
(mg/kg)
76.0
4.0
12.0
—
1.5
1.0
70.0
(M9/kg)
300.0
300.0
300.0
5000.0
—
Ecological
Non-Specific
Effects Threshold
(see Note 1 below)
bivalve
(mg/kg)
12.6
1.0
6.3
0.2
0.1
0.3
2.2
14.2
1.0
0.3
11.6
(M9/kg)
560.0
64.0
15.2
42.2
—
polychaete
(mg/kg)
12.6
27.8
10.0
0.4
0.1
0.3
2.2
14.2
1.0
0.3
0.3
(M9/kg)
160.0
64.0
4.4
1.2
—
EPA Region 4 Background Concentration (see Note 2 below)
South Atlantic Bight
Background
Concentration
bivalve
(mg/kg)
O.16
4.4-8.6
<0.19
0.68-2.7
0.4-4.6
1.2-2.9
0.05-0.77
O.02
0.9-3.7
0.70-1.4
<0.96
O.10
10-20
(M9/kg)
<6.6
<6.7
<6.6
<17
<6.7
<17
polychaete
(mg/kg)
<0.22
6.2-46
<0.22
0.26-1.8
2.8-7.1
2.5-3.5
0.36-0.60
0.02-0.05
1 .6-3.5
1 .2-1 .9
<0.95
<0.22
20-27
(M9/kg)
<8.9
<6.8
<12
<17
<6.8
<87
North Gulf of Mexico
Background
Concentration
bivalve
(mg/kg)
0.22-0.47
3.4-5.4
O.14
0.15-0.83
0.49-5.2
0.58-2.8
<0.47
<0.028
0.7-3.1
0.5-1.5
0.11-0.56
<0.47
7.0-30.0
(M9/kg)
<4.2
<4.4
<4.4
<11.0
<4.4
<8.6
polychaete
(mg/kg)
O.31
7.4-37.0
<0.09
0.34-1 .4
0.89-4.6
2.3-5.3
0.31-1.2
0.03-0.04
0.53-3.5
0.61-0.99
<0.15
O.31
14-16
(M9/kg)
<7.3
<11.0
<5.0
<13.0
<5.0
<9.6
Eastern Florida
Background
Concentration
bivalve
(mg/kg)
—
2.9-4.4
0.90-2.0
1.0-2.3
1.2-1.4
0.10-0.21
<0.04
0.61-2.1
<0.24
7.4-15
(M9/kg)
<0.7
<07
<07
<1.7
<0.7
<1 3
polychaete
(mg/kg)
—
11-47
1.0-1.20
1.0-2.2
3.5-3.9
0.73-1.3
0.02-0.05
0.89-3.4
<0.25
18-23
(M9/kg)
<0.7
<0.7
<0.7
<5.7
<0.7
<1.3
SERIM Appendix H
H-l
August 2008
-------
Table 1. Bioaccumulation Reference Table* (continued)
Compound
Endosulfan & Derivatives
Endrin & Derivatives
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorocyclohexane &
Derivatives
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene
Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1 ,2,3,4,-c,-d)Pyrene
Pyrene
Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Steady State
Factor
(bivalve/
polychaete)
(see Note 3)
1 .0/1 .0
1.0/1.3
1.0/1.0
1.0/1.0
1.0/1.0
1.1/1.1
1 .0/1 .0
1.0/1.0
1 .0/1 .0
1.0/1.0
1.7/1.7
2.1/2.1
2.9/2.9
2.3/2.3
2.3/2.3
1 .4/1 .4
2.0/2.0
1.1/1.1
1 .0/1 .0
3.0/3.0
1.1/1.1
1.0/1.0
1 .0/1 .0
1 .0/1 .0
FDA
Limits
bivalve
—
300.0
300.0
—
—
(Mg/kg)
polychaete/
Crustacea
—
300.0
300.0
—
—
(Mg/kg)
Ecological
Non-Specific
Effects Threshold
(see Note 1 below)
bivalve
2.9
3.8
11.5
—
74.1
5.9
2.7
(Mg/kg)
7.3
8.8
—
—
—
—
polychaete
2.9
3.7
11.5
—
—
5.9
2.7
(Mg/kg)
1.2
—
—
—
—
12.8
—
—
—
—
EPA Region 4 Background Concentration (see Note 2 below)
South Atlantic Bight
Background
Concentration
bivalve
<17
<17
<8.0
<6.7
<29.1
<34
<670
(M9/kg)
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
polychaete
<17
<17
<49
<6.6
<79.3
<33
<660
(M9/kg)
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
North Gulf of Mexico
Background
Concentration
bivalve
<24.0
<19.6
<3.3
<4.4
—
<33
<650
(M9/kg)
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
13.00
11.00
10.00
14.00
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
polychaete
<27.6
<22.6
<3.7
<5.0
—
<24
<500
(M9/kg)
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
11.00
16.00
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
14-17
Eastern Florida
Background
Concentration
bivalve
<2.0
-------
Table 1. Bioaccumulation Reference Table* (continued)
Comoound
LMWpah
HMWpah
Total PAHs
PCBs
Total Region 4 PCBs
Organotins
Monobutyltin
Dibutyltin
Tributyltin
Total (as Sn)
Other Organics
(3-and/or 4-)Methylphenol
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Methylphenol
Benzyl Butyl Phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
Di-n-Butylphthalate
Di-n-Octylphthalate
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Steady State
Factor
(bivalve/
polychaete)
(see Note 3)
—
—
1 .0/1 .7
—
1.0/1.0
—
—
2.8/2.8
—
1.0/1.0
—
1.0/1.0
1.2/1.2
—
—
FDA
Limits
bivalve
—
—
(M9/kg)
2000.0
(M9/kg)
(M9/kg)
polychaete/
Crustacea
—
—
(M9/kg)
2000.0
(M9/kg)
(M9/kg)
Ecological
Non-Specific
Effects Threshold
(see Note 1 )
bivalve
—
40000.0
(Mg/kg)
390.0
(Mg/kg)
—
114.4
(M9/kg)
847.0
—
—
—
—
—
polychaete
—
40000.0
(Mg/kg)
390.0
(Mg/kg)
—
52.4
(M9/kg)
EPA Region 4 Background Concentration (see Note 2)
South Atlantic Bight
Background
Concentration
bivalve
60
60
170
(Mg/kg)
11.4-100.8
(Mg/kg)
—
—
(M9/kg)
<80
<160
<20
64.70
177.50
<170
<170
<170
<170
<170
<170
<170
<170
<170
<170
polychaete
60
60
170
(M9/kg)
20.4-121
(M9/kg)
(M9/kg)
<80
<160
<20
<40
<170
<170
<170
<170
<170
<170
<170
<170
<170
<170
<170
North Gulf of Mexico
Background
Concentration
bivalve
60.00
64.00
178
(M9/kg)
10.0-19.1
(M9/kg)
(M9/kg)
polychaete
64-67
60.0
181-184
(Mg/kg)
13.4-17.5
(Mg/kg)
—
—
(M9/kg)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Eastern Florida
Background
Concentration
bivalve
60.0
60.0
170
(M9/kg)
0.25-0.33
(M9/kg)
<1.0
0.5-0.6
<1.0
0.8-0.9
(M9/kg)
polychaete
60.0
60.0
170
(Mg/kg)
0.60
(Mg/kg)
<1.3
<1.3
<1.3
0.6-1.0
(Mg/kg)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
SERIM Appendix H
H-3
August 2008
-------
Table 1. Bioaccumulation Reference Table* (continued)
Compound
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine/
Diphenylamine
Phenol
Pentachlorophenol
Dioxins
Dioxin/Furan TEQ
PCB TEQ
Total TEQ
Steady State
Factor
(bivalve/
polychaete)
(see Note 3)
—
1.0/1.0
1.1/1.1
—
—
FDA
Limits
bivalve
—
—
—
—
polychaete/
Crustacea
—
—
—
—
Ecological
Non-Specific
Effects Threshold
(see Note 1 )
bivalve
—
269.0
(ng/kg)
—
—
polychaete
—
85.1
(ng/kg)
—
—
EPA Region 4 Background Concentration (see Note 2)
South Atlantic Bight
Background
Concentration
bivalve
<170
101.70
<80
(ng/kg)
0.32-0.36
2.00-2.23
2.36-2.58
polychaete
<170
<80
<80
(ng/kg)
0.18-0.44
2.57
3.01
North Gulf of Mexico
Background
Concentration
bivalve
—
—
(ng/kg)
0.16-0.19
1 .97-5.62
2.12-5.78
polychaete
—
—
(ng/kg)
0.31-0.63
2.39-3.00
2.70-3.63
Eastern Florida
Background
Concentration
bivalve
—
—
(ng/kg)
polychaete
—
—
(ng/kg)
*AII data are wet weights and represent steady state concentrations
—= No data available
NOTE 1. Description of the Calculation of the Non-Specific Ecological Effects Thresholds
The thresholds have been formulated to evaluate potential bioaccumulation-related adverse effects of dredged sediments proposed for disposal in offshore locations. The
thresholds are tissue concentrations of given compounds that are not expected to have unacceptable effects in marine organisms. They have been calculated based on (1) Water
Quality Criteria (WQC) for chronic effects in saltwater organisms and (2) the potential of the given compounds to accumulate in tissues of marine organisms once equilibrium is
established between the concentration of the compound in water and the concentration of the compound in given species' tissues. Ambient WQC for chronic effects on saltwater
organisms are concentrations in water that are not expected to lead to adverse effects with long-term exposure. Most values are based on water concentrations with no adverse
chronic effects on 95% of saltwater organisms. However, criteria occasionally are set lower based on FDA Action Limits (for safe concentrations in species consumed by humans),
accumulated tissue concentrations associated with adverse effects, or because of potential effects on species of commercial or recreational value. The criteria have been
developed by EPA since the 1970s, but are not available for all compounds of concern in the Ocean Dumping Program. Where a criterion was not available, but an indication was
given of concentrations relevant to chronic effects, this value was used instead.
Bioconcentration and bioaccumulation factors were also taken primarily from the Ambient Water Quality Criteria documents, although others were also obtained from EPA
document #823-R-00-002. Most studies included in these documents were subject to requirements for demonstration of steady-state equilibrium, or else noted exposure
durations. A Bioconcentration Factor (BCF) is a ratio of the concentration of a given compound in water to the concentration of the compound in an organism's tissues. These are
typically derived in laboratory studies in which water is the only possible exposure medium (i.e., sediment and food are absent). Bioaccumulation Factors (BAFs) are similar, but do
account for exposure via food and sediment. These are typically derived from field exposures and are more indicative of true bioaccumulation potential if derived appropriately, but
few such values were available. BCFs are used here with sediment exposures (1) because organisms in the Ocean Dumping Program's 28-day tests are not generally provided
food, (2) because of the lack of BAFs, and (3) to allow calculations with WQC. Both BCFs and BAFs are chemical- and species-specific.
Multiplying the WQC by the BCF gives a steady-state (equilibrium) estimate of the chemical concentration a species would eventually accumulate in its tissues if it were exposed to
the chemical at the saltwater chronic WQC concentration. The chronic WQC concentrations are designed as maximum allowable concentrations that would not result in adverse
chronic effects in most marine species. Thus, it is expected that tissue concentrations resulting from bioaccumulation in an organism exposed to the chronic WQC concentration
would not have adverse effects in most marine species. Calculations are shown in Table 2, below.
SERIM Appendix H
H-4
August 2008
-------
NOTE 2. Region 4 Background Concentrations
It is often useful to compare tissue concentrations from bioaccumulation studies to background tissue concentrations from organisms collected in the vicinity of the proposed
disposal site (see Section 6.3 of the Green Book). When bioaccumulation in organisms exposed to project dredged material is not greater than tissue concentrations in organisms
from the vicinity of the disposal site (the background levels), it means that placement of the material would not result in bioaccumulation above existing ambient levels in the
general area and thus does not have a potential to cause undesirable effects. When bioaccumulation in organisms exposed to project dredged materials is greater than these
levels, it may or may not be predictive of adverse effects (e.g., it may reflect extremely low "background" levels).
During the period from 2002 until 2007, EPA Region 4 conducted field surveys to collect bivalves and polychaetes from coastal waters of the southeastern U.S. Organisms were
collected along the South Atlantic Bight (northeast Florida to southern North Carolina), the northern Gulf of Mexico (Pensacola, Florida to Gulfport, Mississippi) and east Florida
(Cape Canaveral, Florida to Fort Pierce, Florida). Organisms were collected using a dredge (e.g., Fall River dredge, clam dredge) in water depths of approximately 20 meters.
Tissue samples were analyzed by the EPA Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division laboratory. Less-than values indicate that the analyte was not detected below the
stated concentration. Other concentrations represent the high-end or range of background concentration detected. Total PCBs were calculated using the method described in
Chapter 7 of this Southeast Regional Implementation Manual. Many of the congeners were not detected.
NOTE 3. Steady State Factors
In some cases, contaminant concentrations are not expected to reach steady-state within the 28-day exposure duration of a standard bioaccumulation test. Steady-state factors
represent the factor that must be applied (multiplied) to the 28-day bioaccumulation tissue concentration to estimate the contaminant concentration that would be reached if
sufficient exposure time was allowed to the tissue concentrations to reach steady-state (i.e., the bioaccumulation levels that could be expected to occur in the field after disposal).
Various studies have developed methods for calculating what proportion of the steady-state tissue concentration is expected at 28 days. These are based on KoW, a value
representing how a given chemical will partition between water and lipid in an organism. All concentrations in this table represent steady-state values.
SERIM Appendix H H-5 August 2008
-------
Table 2: Tissue Threshold Calculations Based on Water Quality Criteria
Compound
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Aldrin
Chlordane & Derivatives
Dieldrin
Saltwater
Chronic Water
Quality Criterion
(ug/L)
36
8.8
50
1.91
5.6
0.0252
8.3
71
0.923
31
86
0.074
0.0042
0.00192
BCF
(bivalve/
polychaete)
350/350
113/3160
125/200
88/203
17.5/17.5
10000/10000
262/262
200/200
1056/1056
11/11
135/3.7
8000/2300
6600/6600
8000/2300
Tissue
Cone.
(mg/kg)
(bivalve/
polychaete)
12.6/12.6
1.0/27.8
6.3/10.0
0.2/0.4
0.1/0.1
0.3/0.3
2.2/2.2
14.2/14.2
1.0/1.0
0.3/0.3
11.6/0.3
0.56/0.16
0.026/0.026
0.015/0.004
Remarks
Ambient concentration is based on arsenic (III); BCF is based on
the eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica}
BCFs are based on blue mussel (Mytilus edulis} and polychaete
(Ophryotrocha diadema)
Ambient concentration is based on chromium (VI) since it is
substantially more toxic than chromium (III); BCFs are based on
eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)an$ polychaete ( Neanthes
arenaceodentata)
BCFs are based on quahog clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) and
polychaete (Nereis divers/color)
BCFs are based on quahog clam (Mercenaria mercenaria)
BCFs are based on eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)
BCFs are based on eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)
BCFs are based on euphausiid (adult) Meganyctiphanes
BCFs are based on blue mussel (Mytilus edulis)
BCFs are based on blue mussel (Mytilus edulis)
BCFs are based on soft shell clam (Mya arenaria)sn$ shrimp
(Pandalus montagui)
BCF estimate is based on dieldrin since aldrin rapidly transforms
to dieldrin in the environment; BCF is based on eastern oyster
(Crassostrea virginica) and marine fish, spot (Leiostomus
xanthurus}
BCF is based on sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus)
BCF is based on eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) and
marine fish, spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)
SERIM Appendix H
H-6
August 2008
-------
Table 2: Tissue Threshold Calculations Based on Water Quality Criteria (continued)
Compound
DDT
Endosulfans
Endrin
Heptachlor
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
Acenaphthene
Fluoranthene
TBT
Pentachlorophenol
Total PCBs
Saltwater
Chronic Water
Quality Criterion
(ug/L)
O.OOl2
0.00872
0.00232
0.00362
0.013s
0.00022
20
16
0.0074
7.9
0.03
BCF
(bivalve/
polychaete)
42400/1200
328/328
1670/1600
3181/3181
450/450
13350/13350
0.36/0.06
0.55/0.80
114.4/52.39
34/11
13000/1300
Tissue
Cone.
(mg/kg)
(bivalve/
polychaete)
0.042/0.001
0.003/0.003
0.004/0.004
0.01/0.01
0.006/0.006
0.003/0.003
0.007/0.001
0.009/0.013
0.001/0.0004
0.269/0.087
0.39/0.39
Remarks
BCF is based on eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) and pink
shrimp (Penaeus duorarum)
BCF is based on sheepshead minnow
BCF is based on eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) and
grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pug/d)
BCF is based on marine fish, spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)
BCFs are based on quahog clam (Mercenaria mercenaria)
BCF is based on eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)
BCFs are based on quahog clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) and
cunner ( Tautogolabrus adspersus)
BCFs are based on clam (Macoma nasuta} and sand worm
(Nereis virens)
BCF are based on eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)sn$
polychaete (Nereis divers/color)
BCF is based on eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)an($
sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus}
BCF is based on eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)
1 From draft WQC issued for review and comment in 2003
2 Based on more protective Final Residual Value
3 From 1987 Draft WQC. No saltwater chronic value is listed for silver in the 1980 WQC.
4 Acute WQC was reduced by 20 to estimate chronic value
5 0.01*LC50
SERIM Appendix H
H-7
August 2008
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix I
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN/
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (SAP/QAPP)
GUIDANCE AND EXAMPLE ON
FORMAT AND CONTENT
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)
[Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)]
Guidance on Format and Content
INSTRUCTIONS
The SAP is equivalent to the draft QAPP and will be used in the development of the testing
contract scope of work (SOW). The draft QAPP (or SAP) should be coordinated with EPA
prior to initiation of the SOW. A final QAPP also should be coordinated with EPA prior to
initiation of sampling. This document contains the key elements you will need for your
SAP/QAPP and is designed for you to begin adding your own project-specific information.
Bear in mind that you will have "gaps" for information that is not known or available at the
time the draft is submitted and which will be added upon finalization of the document.
NOTE: Begin creating your actual project-specific SAP/QAPP using EPA's Guidance for Quality Assurance
Project Plans (G-5) for guidance on format and content. Remember: Too much information is better
than too little, and repetition will likely make the review process more efficient than having the reviewers
constantly refer back to previous entries. The blue explanatory text boxes in the template can (and
should) remain in-place for all versions. It is recommended that you use the existing formatting and
fonts whenever possible. However, you may adjust them if necessary to fit tables and figures.
Have the following publications readily available while you are preparing your Sampling and Analysis
Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP):
a. USEPA and USAGE. 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean
Disposal - Testing Manual (Green Book). EPA-503/8-91-001. February 1991.
http://www.epa.QOv/owow/oceans/Qbook/gbook.Ddf
b. USEPA and USAGE. 2008. Southeast Regional Implementation Manual (SERIM) -
Requirements and Procedures for Evaluation of the Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material in
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coast Waters (SERIM). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region 4 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division, Atlanta, GA.
http://www.epa.aov/reaion4/water/oceans/documents/Reaional Implementation Manual.pdf
c. USEPA. 1995. QA/QC Guidance for Sampling and Analysis of Sediments, Water, and
Tissues for Dredged Material Evaluations - Chemical Evaluations. EPA-823-B 95 001.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/library/sediment/evaluationguide.pdf
d. USEPA. 2001. Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (QA/R-5) (PDF 120KB) -
March 2001, EPA/240/B-01/003. These specifications are equivalent to Chapter 5 of EPA
Manual 5360. http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/r5-final.pdf
e. USEPA. 2001. Methods for Collection, Storage and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical
and Toxicological Analyses: Technical Manual. EPA 823-B-01-002. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.aov/waterscience/cs/collectionmanual.pdf
f. USEPA. 2002. Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (G-5) [G-5 publication] (PDF
401KB) - December 2002, EPA/240/R-02/009. (Note: This document replaces EPA/600/R-
98/018 issued in February 1998.) http://www.epa.QOv/quality/qs-docs/Q5-final.pdf
SAP/QAPP Guidance on Format and Contents: Instructions
1
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
GROUP A. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1.0 ELEMENT Al - TITLE AND APPROVAL SHEET
For instructions on preparing the title and approval sheets, see Guidance for Quality
Assurance Project Plans (G-5), Section 2.1.1 and Requirements for Quality Assurance Project
Plans (QA/R-5), Section 3.2.1.
Title: {ADD YOUR PROJECT'S FULL TITLE HERE}
Organization/Applicant: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), Wilmington District
Technical Manager:
Signature: Date:
QA Manager (if applicable):
Signature: Date:
Regulatory Agency: USEPA Region 4
Project Manager:
Signature: Date:.
QA Manager:
Signature: Date:.
Regulatory Agency: USACE District Regulatory Division (where applicable)
Regulatory Project Manager:
Signature: Date:
Sediment Testing Specialist:
Signature: Date:
QA Manager:
Signature: Date:
Contractor 1:
Project Manager:
Signature: Date:_
QA Officer:
Signature: Date:.
{if necessary, add more contacts and signatures in accordance with your SAP/QAPP}
Section 1.0, Element Al: Title and Approval Sheet
2
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
2.0 EMENT A2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS
For guidance on preparing a Table of Contents, see Guidance for Quality Assurance Project
Plans (G-5) Section 2.1.2 and Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (QA/R-5)
Section 3.2.2. A document control format or component is not required.
This Table of Contents is a "field" that will self-update when you right click in it and
choose "Update Field." (If you have added/deleted numbered headings, update the entire
table and not just the page numbers.)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 ELEMENT Al - TITLE AND APPROVAL SHEET 2
2.0 ELEMENT A2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
3.0 ELEMENT A3 - DISTRIBUTION LIST 5
4.0 ELEMENT A4 - PROJECT/TASK ORGANIZATION 6
4.1 List of Acronyms 6
4.2 Dredging Project Proponent 6
4.3 Dredging Project Team and Responsibilities 7
5.0 ELEMENT A5 - PROBLEM DEFINITION/BACKGROUND 10
5.1 Background/Site History 10
5.2 Identification of Principal Data Users and Decision Makers 10
6.0 ELEMENT A6-DREDGING PROJECT/TASK DESCRIPTION 11
6.1 Purpose/Background 11
6.1.1 General Background 11
6.1.2 Permitting 12
6.2 Description of the Sampling and Analysis 12
6.2.1. Measurements That Are Expected During the Course of the
Sediment Sampling 12
6.2.2. Applicable Technical Quality Standards or Criteria 12
6.2.3. Special Personnel or Equipment Requirements That May Indicate
the Complexity of the Dredging Project 13
6.2.4. Assessment Techniques Needed for the Dredging Project 13
6.2.5. Schedule for the Work Performed 13
6.2.6. Dredging Project and Quality Records Required, Including the
Types of Reports Needed 13
7.0 ELEMENT A7 - QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA FOR MEASUREMENT DATA 14
8.0 ELEMENT AS - SPECIAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS/CERTIFICATION 15
9.0 ELEMENT A9 - DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDS 16
9.1 Reporting of Results 16
9.2 Report Format 16
Data Reporting Package Archiving and Retrieval 16
10.0 ELEMENT Bl - SAMPLING PROCESS DESIGN 17
10.1 Scheduled Dredging Project Activities, Including Measurement Activities 17
10.2 Rationale for the Design 17
10.3 Design Assumptions 18
10.4 Procedures for Locating and Selecting Environmental Samples 19
10.5 Classification of Measurements as Critical or Noncritical 20
Section 2.0, Element A2: Table of Contents
3
-------
10.6 Validation of Any Nonstandard Methods 20
11.0 ELEMENT B2 - SAMPLING AND METHODS REQUIREMENTS 21
11.1 Describe the Sample Collection, Preparation, and Decontamination
Procedures 21
11.2 Identify Support Facilities for Sampling Methods 21
11.3 Describe Sampling/Measurement System Failure Response and
Corrective Action Process 21
11.4 Describe Sampling Equipment, Sample Preservation, and Holding Times 21
12.0 ELEMENT B3 - SAMPLE HANDLING AND CUSTODY REQUIREMENTS 22
13.0 ELEMENT B4 - ANALYTICAL METHODS REQUIREMENTS 23
13.1 Subsampling 23
13.2 Preparation of the Samples 23
13.3 Analytical Methods 23
13.3.1 Physical and Chemical Analysis 23
13.3.2 Biological Analysis 24
14.0 ELEMENT B5 - QUALITY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS 26
15.0 ELEMENT B6 - INSTRUMENT/EQUIPMENT TESTING, INSPECTION, AND
MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 27
16.0 ELEMENT B7 - INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION AND FREQUENCY 28
17.0 ELEMENT B8 - INSPECTION/ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUPPLIES AND
CONSUMABLES 29
18.0 ELEMENT B9 - DATA ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS (NON-DIRECT
MEASUREMENTS) 30
19.0 ELEMENT BIO - DATA MANAGEMENT, INTERPRETATION, AND REDUCTION 31
20.0 ELEMENT Cl - ASSESSMENTS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS 32
21.0 ELEMENT C2 - REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT 33
22.0 ELEMENT Dl - DATA REVIEW, VALIDATION, AND VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.. 34
23.0 ELEMENT D2 - VALIDATION AND VERIFICATIONS METHODS 35
24.0 ELEMENT D3 - RECONCILIATION WITH DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES 36
25.0 REFERENCES 37
Attachments
Section 2.0, Element A2: Table of Contents
4
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
3.0 ELEMENT A3 - DISTRIBUTION LIST
For help preparing a distribution list, see Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5)
Section 2.1.3 and Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans(QA/R-5) Section 3.2.3.
This document is to be distributed to the following individuals for review and approval prior to
commencement of sampling activities:
1. USAGE Technical Manager:
2. USAGE QA/QC Manager:
3. USEPA Project Manager:
4. USEPA QA/QC Manager:
5. Contractor Project Manager:
6. Contractor QA/QC Manager:
Section 3.0, Element A3: Distribution List Project/Task Organization
5
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
4.0 EMENT A4 - PROJECT/TASK ORGANIZATION
Provide the information as described in Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (G-5)
Section 2.1.4 and Requirements for Quality Assurance Project P/ans (QA/R-S) Section 3.2.4.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
4.1 List of Acronyms
A list and definitions of all acronyms used in the SAP should be provided in the document.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
4.2 Dredging Proiect Proponent
Be sure to identify the applicant(s), including name, address, phone, fax, and email address.
If Civil Works or O&M project, include the Project Manager or O&M contact.
Applicant:
Regulatory:
Section 4.0, Element A4: Project/Task Organization
6
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
4.3 Dredging Proiect Team and Responsibilities
This section should give the names, affiliations, address, phone, fax, and e-mail address and
a list of responsibilities of the principle contact(s) responsible for the following elements of
the proposed testing program:
• Dredging project planning and coordination
• Field sample collection and transport, including chain of custody
• Sample holding and archiving
• Laboratory preparation and analysis for physical, chemical, and bioassay testing.
Contacts should be given for all laboratories involved in sediment testing.
• Quality Assurance (QA) management
• Final data reporting
Organization:
Project Manager:
Address:
Phone:
Fax:
email:
Responsibilities:
EPA Project Manager:
Address:
Phone:
Fax:
email:
Responsibilities:
Contractor 1:
Project Manager:
Address:
Phone:
Fax:
email:
Responsibilities:
Section 4.0, Element A4: Project/Task Organization
7
-------
Subcontractor 1:
Project Manager
Address:
Phone:
Fax:
email:
Responsibilities:
Chemistry Laboratory 1:
Project Manager
Address:
Phone:
Fax:
email:
Responsibilities:
Chemistry Laboratory 2:
Project Manager
Address:
Phone:
Fax:
email:
Responsibilities:
Toxicology Laboratory 1:
Project Manager
Address:
Phone:
Fax:
email:
Responsibilities:
Geotechnical Laboratory:
Project Manager
Address:
Phone:
Fax:
email:
Responsibilities:
Section 4.0, Element A4: Project/Task Organization
8
-------
Full
PROJECT ORGANIZATION CHART
{Insert your project's organizational chart here (change the page orientation if you need to)}
Section 4.0, Element A4: Project/Task Organization
9
-------
Full Title
5.0 ELEMENT A5 - PROBLEM DEFINITION/BACKGROUND
This section should provide sufficient project background as described in EPA Guidance for
Quality Assurance Project Plans (G-5) and EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
5.1 Background/Site History
This section should provide the background behind the dredging project (purpose and need)
and summarize all available site use, dredging and testing information that could have a
bearing on sampling or testing decisions for the proposed dredging project. It is suggested
that the following information from at least the last three dredging episodes be provided (if
available):
• Date and location of dredging, volume removed, general characteristics of the dredged
material (sand vs. silt/clay) and disposal site used.
• Summary of past testing results (physical, chemical, and biological) and associated
suitability determinations. It would be helpful to include figures of the area dredged,
sampling locations and summary data tables from earlier reports.
• Summary of testing results from adjacent or nearby areas, if available. These data,
obtained from other dredging projects or monitoring programs, are particularly useful for
dredging projects with little or no previous dredged material testing information.
• Identification and description of site-specific and nearby land- and water-based activities
that may affect sediment quality in the proposed dredging area (e.g., fuel docks, outfalls,
industrial uses).
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
5.2 Identification of Principal Data Users and Decision Makers
This section should identify the regulating agencies and other data users (e.g., USAGE, EPA,
state and local governments).
Agency-Organization
Location
Area(s) of Responsibility
{Add rows as necessary}
Section 5.0, Element A5: Problem Definition/Background
10
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
6.0 ELEMENT A6 - DREDGING PROJECT/TASK DESCRIPTION
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
6.1 Purpose/Background
6.1.1 General Background
This section should provide a comprehensive description of the proposed dredging project
including the following information:
• Location (city and county) of the dredging project (include the vicinity and dredging site
maps with scale)
• Type of facility involved (e.g., oil refinery, recreational harbor, dry dock, military
terminal, etc.)
• Type of activity supported by dredging project (e.g., navigation channel, recreational
harbor, military, etc.)
• Purpose of the proposed dredging (e.g., maintenance dredging of berths or channels,
channel or berth deepening, etc.)
• The area(s), depth(s), overdredge depth(s), and estimated in-place volume of dredged
material associated with the proposed dredging project. Indicate whether side slopes
and overdredge are included in the volume calculations and the acreage of the dredging
project based on the top of the side slope.
• Existing/pre-dredging conditions and depth(s). This may be accomplished by cross
referencing the bathymetric data required by Section 10.4 of this appendix.
• Physical characteristics of the dredged material (if known).
• The proposed dredging method (e.g., clam shell, hydraulic, hopper).
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 6.0, Element A6: Dredging Project/Task Description
11
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
6.1.2 Permitting
This section should indicate whether the proposed dredging will require a MPRSA 103 permit
or whether it is a Civil Works project. For permitted projects, this section should indicate
whether the proposed dredging is for a new permit or an extension or re-issuance of an
existing permit. For projects where permits have been in place, include a discussion of any
special permit conditions or related actions that may have bearing on SAP/QAPP approval.
This section should also briefly summarize the status of any applications for the proposed
dredging project. This information should include, but is not limited to, the following items.
A table may be useful in presenting this information.
• Date of MPRSA 103 application to CE District
• Date of Public Notice if already issued
• Proposed date of Public Notice if not already issued
• Existing and previous permit numbers associated with dredging projects in the area
(include all permits, not just MPRSA 103). For each permit, indicate agency, issuance
and expiration dates, permitted volume(s), and any limitations.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
6.2 Description of the Sampling and Analysis
6.2.1. Measurements That Are Expected During the Course of the
Sediment Sampling
This section should cite the list of physical properties, chemicals of concern, and bioassay
tests to be undertaken. Also, identify the methods and reporting limits that will be used in
making these measurements. The use of tables is strongly recommended. This section
should be consistent with Section 13.3.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
6.2.2. Applicable Technical Quality Standards or Criteria
This section should address any relevant State Water Quality Standards or Federal Water
Quality Criteria, if applicable.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 6.0, Element A6: Dredging Project/Task Description
12
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
6.2.3. Special Personnel or Equipment Requirements That May Indicate
the Complexity of the Dredging Project
Indicate "Not Applicable" if there are no personnel or equipment needs beyond those
required for normal sampling and testing for a dredging project. Examples may include drill
rigs for land-based sampling.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
6.2.4. Assessment Techniques Needed for the Dredging Project
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (G-5) Section 2.1.6. Use of cross-
reference to Section 20 of this SAP would be appropriate.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
6.2.5. Schedule for the Work Performed
This section should give an estimated schedule for the testing program including:
• Commencement of field sampling
• Completion of field sampling
• Completion of chemical and physical testing
• Completion of biological testing
• Delivery of final testing report
• Expected or proposed dredging and disposal timeframes (i.e., include consideration of
any relevant dredging or disposal timing restrictions).
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
6.2.6. Dredging Project and Quality Records Required, Including the
Types of Reports Needed
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (G-5) Section 2.1.6. Use of cross-
reference to Section 20 of this SAP would be appropriate.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 6.0, Element A6: Dredging Project/Task Description
13
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
7.0 ELEMENT A7 - QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA FOR MEASUREMENT
DATA
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (G-5) Section 2.2.7 and Requirements for
Quality Assurance Project Plans (QA/R-5) Section 3.1.7. Appendix D of Guidance for Quality
Assurance Project Plans (G-5) has a good discussion of the difference between Data Quality
Objectives (DQO) and Data Quality Indicators (DQI).
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 7.0, Element A7: Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data
14
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
8.0 ELEMENT A8 - SPECIAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS/CERTIFICATION
Applicants and consultants may use this section to document any state, local government, or
project-specific training or certification requirements such as laboratory certification.
Indicate "Not Applicable" if there are no personnel training or certification requirements
beyond those required for normal sampling and testing for a dredging project. (Refer to
Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.1.8.)
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 8.0, Element A8: Special Training Requirements/Certification
15
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
9.0 ELEMENT A9 - DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDS
Refer to Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.1.9.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
9.1 Reporting of Results
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
9.2 Report Format
This section should indicate the format for the final reporting of data (e.g., hard copy,
electronic) and the software that will be used for data files and test documents. [See SERIM
Appendix C.]
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Data Reporting Package Archiving and Retrieval
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (G-5) Section 2.1.9 and Requirements for
Quality Assurance Project Plans (QA/R-5).
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 9.0, Element A9: Documentation and Records
16
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
GROUP B. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
10.0 ELEMENT Bl - SAMPLING PROCESS DESIGN
Refer to Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.2.1.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
10.1 Scheduled Dredging Proiect Activities. Including Measurement Activities
Describe schedule of proposed sampling relative to dredging schedule. This is especially
important for projects involving routine maintenance.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
10.2 Rationale for the Design
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 10.0, Element Bl: Sampling Process Design
17
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
10.3 Design Assumptions
Be sure to address contingency plans to account for changes or modifications to the
proposed sampling plan.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 10.0, Element Bl: Sampling Process Design
18
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
10.4 Procedures for Locating and Selecting Environmental Samples
This section should provide all information describing and justifying the proposed location, depth,
and compositing plan for each sediment sample. The text of this section should provide a brief
explanation of and justification for the proposed sampling locations representative of the material
within each dredging unit to be dredged (e.g., based on grid, shoaling patterns, pollution
sources, or ship interference or movement) and compositing (e.g., based on location, geological,
or physical/chemical considerations). Sampling depths should be equal to the proposed dredging
depth (authorized depth and advance maintenance), full overdredge depth, and expected
sediment disturbance depth (see SERIM Section 4.5). A pre-sampling hydrographic survey
should be taken prior to SAP submission to get the best possible bathymetric data for volume
estimates and sample positioning. The following information should be superimposed on or
included with the survey map(s).
• Date when the hydrographic survey was conducted
• Scale
• Proposed Dredging Units
• Proposed sediment sampling locations and composite boundaries if applicable
• Proposed dredging site water sample location
• Large scale features (e.g., piers, berthing areas, boat ramps)
• Dredging project boundaries (include boundaries delineating different project depths)
• Contour lines depicting areas that will actually be dredged (i.e., showing areas that are less
than project depth, and that are less than the proposed overdepth).
• Potential sources of sediment contamination (e.g., fuel docks and storage facilities,
culverts/outfalls, dry docks, RCRA/Superfund sites).
It is suggested that the following information be presented in tabular form:
• Nomenclature planned to identify field and laboratory samples/composites: To facilitate
review of analytical and QA documentation, cross reference all proposed sample identification
numbers to a unified system. Field sampling identification should correspond to sites
indicated on the survey map and core logs.
• Compositing Plan: Rationale for the proposed compositing. Address why sediment
throughout the area or layer to be composted is expected to be relatively homogeneous
physically and chemically (refer to past test results for the area, if available).
• Dredging Volume: Estimate of the in-place volume of material to be dredged (including the
full overdepth, even if this differs from the pay-depth in a dredging contract) that is
represented by each station, sample and composite.
• Sampling Depths: Include the proposed depth of each core sample. Depths should be equal
to the proposed dredging depth plus the full overdredge depth.
• Sample Analysis: Identify which tests will be run on core samples or composites of samples
(e.g., physical tests, chemical tests, water column toxicity tests, benthic toxicity tests, or
bioaccumulation tests).
• Field Parameters: Describe how samples will be evaluated in the field. Field staff members
typically make observations of visible layers in the core samples, odor, color, consistency, and
texture of the sediment. Measurements are also frequently collected in the field (e.g.,
temperature, salinity, etc. of the water column, tidal state, etc.)
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 10.0, Element Bl: Sampling Process Design
19
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
The following section should provide information on the reference site(s) and control site(s)
that will be used for comparison with sediments from the proposed dredging location(s).
Reference sediment must be collected from the approved reference location associated with
the proposed disposal site. The following information should be provided for the reference
samples:
• Map identifying reference site locations with coordinates
• Number of samples making up reference composite.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
10.5 Classification of Measurements as Critical or Noncritical
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
10.6 Validation of Any Nonstandard Methods
Any method modification must be fully documented.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 10.0, Element Bl: Sampling Process Design
20
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
11.0 EMENT B2 - SAMPLING AND METHODS REQUIREMENTS
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.2.2.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
11.1 Describe the Sample Collection. Preparation, and Decontamination
Procedures
This section of the SAP should provide a full and detailed description of the procedures for
water, sediment, and tissue sample collection; equipment decontamination; sample logging;
sample packaging; and storage. This section should include discussion of the following
elements:
• Proposed field sampling schedule.
• Proposed field sampling procedures/equipment (e.g., coring device) and rationale,
sample containers (e.g., type of buckets, glass jars), and storage equipment (e.g.,
cooler).
• Proposed navigation and positioning methods.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
11.2 Identify Support Facilities for Sampling Methods
This should include a brief description of the equipment and vessel (s) used in the sampling
operation.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
11.3 Describe Sampling/Measurement System Failure Response and
Corrective Action Process
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
11.4 Describe Sampling Equipment, Sample Preservation, and Holding Times
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 11.0, Element B2: Sampling and Methods Requirements
21
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
12.0 EMENT B3 - SAMPLE HANDLING AND CUSTODY REQUIREMENTS
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (G-5) Section 2.2.3. This section should
include discussions of the following elements:
• Proposed sample preservation, transport and chain-of-custody procedures.
• Proposed sample storage and archiving procedures (e.g., temperatures and holding
times, cross referencing is encouraged).
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 12.0, Element B3: Sample Handling and Custody Requirements
22
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
13.0 EMENT B4 - ANALYTICAL METHODS REQUIREMENTS
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.2.2.
Element B4 encompasses the information indicated in Sections 13.1 through 13.3, below.
13.1 Subsamplinq
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
13.2 Preparation of the Samples
This information may be combined in a table with the requirement of 13.3, below.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
13.3 Analytical Methods
This information may be combined in a table with the requirement of 13.2. Laboratories are
allowed to use professional judgment in modifying and developing alternatives to approved
test methods to take advantage of emerging technologies that reduce costs, overcome
analytical difficulties, and enhance data quality. A necessary condition of method flexibility is
the requirement that modified method produce results equivalent or superior to results
produced by the approved reference method. The flexibility to select more appropriate
methods provides an opportunity to use new technologies to overcome matrix interference
problems, lower detection limits, improve laboratory productivity, or reduce the amount of
hazardous wastes in the laboratory.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
13.3.1 Physical and Chemical Analysis
This section should present the following information in tabular format:
• Characteristics to be measured (e.g., conventional physical measurements, metals, PAHs,
polychlorinated biphenyls, organotins, and pesticides),
• Proposed preparation/extraction and cleanup methods,
• Proposed analytical methods,
• Target Detection Limits (TDL) of elutriate, sediment (dry weight basis) and tissue (wet
weight basis). TDLs should meet those specified in the SERIM Tables 5-3 to 5-7, 5-9 to
5-11, and 6-4 to 6-8.
Discussion of the proposed methods should be included to clarify any study-specific or lab-
specific modifications or additions, or to justify substantive deviations from the methods in
Tables 5-2 to 5-11 and 6-4 to 6-8 of the SERIM.
Section 13.0, Element B4: Analytical Methods Requirements
23
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
13.3.2 Biological Analysis
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
'in some circumstances, EPA/USACE may agree to review draft data in order to expedite tiered testing (e.g., to decide on an
appropriate compositing scheme, whether addition bioaccumulation testing is necessary, or a reduced list of analytes for
bioaccumulation analysis). Any SAP proposing review of draft data should provide a full justification for the request being
made.
Section 13.0, Element B4: Analytical Methods Requirements
24
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
Bioassav Protocols
Generally, the SAP should reference recommended protocols for conducting bioassays (e.g.,
ASTM or EPA standard methods). The following project-specific information should be
included, as well as discussion of any proposed deviations from or clarifications of the
recommended protocols:
• Species proposed for use and rationale for their selection (e.g., seasonal availability,
substrate preference/tolerances), if necessary,
• Source of test organisms, and collection and handling procedure (including acclimation
procedures),
• Control sediment source,
• Reference sediment source,
• Number of laboratory replicates proposed,
• Reference toxicant(s),
• Performance standards for control and reference samples,
• Performance standards for reference toxicant testing (e.g., laboratory mean and standard
deviation on LC50/EC50 data for each species proposed for testing),
• Water quality parameters (e.g., salinity, temperature, pH, ammonia, and dissolved oxygen) to
be measured in overlying water/elutriate, including measurement procedures and frequency,
• Proposed bioassay sediment interstitial water monitoring parameters (e.g., salinity, pH,
ammonia, and sulfides), including measurement procedures and frequency. This should
include any procedures for compensating for elevated interstitial concentrations.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 13.0, Element B4: Analytical Methods Requirements
25
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
14.0 EMENT B5 - OUAIJTY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.2.5.
Field and laboratory QC procedures should follow recommended minimum laboratory QC
outline in the SERIM, as well as standard industry practices for environmental samples. All
QC in a cited method must be performed. This section should reference the guidance used
or discuss the following QC components as they relate to the proposed sampling and
analysis:
• Field cross-contamination and filter blanks
• Method blanks
• Duplicates (reported as relative standard deviation)
• Ongoing Precision and Recovery (OPR) [sometimes referred to as a laboratory control
samples, quality control check sample, laboratory-fortified blank, or blank spike]
• Matrix spikes
• Spike duplicates
• Surrogate spikes
• QC batch size
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 14.0, Element B5: Quality Control Requirements
26
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
15.0 ELEMENT B6 - INSTRUMENT/EQUIPMENT TESTING. INSPECTION. AND
MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.2.6.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 15.0, Element B6: Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance Requirements
27
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
16.0 E EMENT B7 - INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION AND FREQUENCY
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.2.7.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 16.0, Element B7: Instrument Calibration and Frequency
28
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
17.0 ELEMENT B8 - INSPECTION/ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUPPLIES
AND CONSUMABLES
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.2.8.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 17.0, Element B8: Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Consumables
29
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
18.0 ELEMENT B9 - DATA ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS f NON-DIRECT
MEASUREMENTS)
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.2.9.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 18.0, Element B9: Data Acquisition Requirements (Non-Direct Measurements)
30
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
19.0 EMENT BIO - DATA MANAGEMENT. INTERPRETATION. AND REDUCTION
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.2.10.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
19.1 Data Management
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
19.2 Data Interpretation and Reduction
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 19.0, Element BIO: Data Management
31
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
GROUP C. ASSESSMENT AND OVERSIGHT
20.0 ELEMENT Cl - ASSESSMENTS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.3.1.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 20.0, Element Cl: Assessments and Response Actions
32
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
21.0 ELEMENT C2 - REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.3.2.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 21.0, Element C2: Reports to Management
33
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
GROUP D. DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY
22.0 ELEMENT Dl - DATA REVIEW. VALIDATION. AND VERIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.4.1.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 22.0, Element Dl: Data Review, Validation, and Verification Requirements
34
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
23.0 ELEMENT D2 - VALIDATION AND VERIFICATIONS METHODS
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.4.2.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 23.0, Element D2: Validation and Verifications Methods
35
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
24.0 E EMENT D3 - RECONCILIATION WITH DATA OUAIJTY OBJECTIVES
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.4.3.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 24.0, Element D3: Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives
36
-------
{Add Your Project's Full Title Here}
25.0 REFERENCES
List the references you used to compile your QAPP.
{Begin adding your project-specific information here.}
Section 24.0, Element D3: Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives
37
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
EXAMPLE OF A COMPLETED SAP/OAPP
The following document is an EXAMPLE of a completed SAP/QAPP for a
project sponsored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District. It is provided as a guide for you to refer to so you can see the
extent of information you will need to provide for YOUR project-specific
SAP/QAPP.
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)
[Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)]
Guidance on Format and Content
INSTRUCTIONS
The SAP is equivalent to the draft QAPP and will be used in the development of the testing
contract scope of work (SOW). The draft QAPP (or SAP) should be coordinated with EPA
prior to initiation of the SOW. A final QAPP also should be coordinated with EPA prior to
initiation of sampling. This document is an example of a completed SAP/QAPP. Information
that is needed in the draft QAPP (or SAP) is identified in this example with black text.
Information that is not yet determined at the time the draft is submitted and which will be
added upon finalization of the QAPP is identified in this example with green italicized text'to
make it stand out whether printed or viewed in color or in black and white (do not confuse
with document titles, also in italics).
NOTE: Begin creating your actual project-specific SAP/QAPP using EPA's Guidance for Quality Assurance
Project Plans (G-5) for guidance on format and content. Remember: Too much information is better
than too little, and repetition will likely make the review process more efficient than having the reviewers
constantly refer back to previous entries. The blue explanatory text boxes in the template can (and
should) remain in-place for all versions.
Have the following publications readily available while you are preparing your Sampling and Analysis
Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP):
a. USEPA and USAGE. 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean
Disposal - Testing Manual (Green Book). EPA-503/8-91-001. February 1991.
http://www.epa.QOv/owow/oceans/Qbook/gbook.pdf
b. USEPA and USAGE. 2008. Regional Implementation Manual - Requirements and Procedures
for Evaluation of the Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material in Southeastern U.S. Atlantic and Gulf
Coast Waters(SERIM). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 and U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, South Atlantic Division, Atlanta, GA.
http://www.epa.QOv/reQion4/water/oceans/documents/ReQional Implementation Manual.pdf
c. USEPA. 1995. QA/QC Guidance for Sampling and Analysis of Sediments, Water, and
Tissues for Dredged Material Evaluations - Chemical Evaluations. EPA-823-B 95 001.
http://www.epa.QOv/waterscience/library/sediment/evaluationQuide.pdf
d. USEPA. 2001. Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (QA/R-5) (PDF 120KB) -
March 2001, EPA/240/B-01/003. These specifications are equivalent to Chapter 5 of EPA
Manual 5360. httD://www.eDa.QOv/aualitv/as-docs/r5-final.Ddf
e. USEPA. 2001. Methods for Collection, Storage and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical
and Toxicological Analyses: Technical Manual. EPA 823-B-01-002. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.QOv/waterscience/cs/collectionmanual.Ddf
f. USEPA. 2002. Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (G-5) [G-5 publication] (PDF
401KB) - December 2002, EPA/240/R-02/009. (Note: This document replaces EPA/600/R-
98/018 issued in February 1998.) http://www.epa.QOv/quality/qs-docs/Q5-final.pdf
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
GROUP A. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1.0 ELEMENT Al - TITLE AND APPROVAL SHEET
For instructions on preparing the title and approval sheets, see Guidance for Quality
Assurance Project Plans (G-5), Section 2.1.1 and Requirements for Quality Assurance Project
Plans (QA/R-5), Section 3.2.1.
Title: EVALUATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL PROPOSED FOR OCEAN DISPOSAL:
RELOCATED TURNING BASIN, NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER, WILMINGTON,
NORTH CAROLINA
Organization/Applicant: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), Wilmington District
Technical Manager: Phil Wolf
Signature: Date:
QA Manager (if applicable): Phil Payonk
Signature: Date:
Regulatory Agency: USEPA Region 4
Project Manager: Gary Collins
Signature: Date:.
QA Manager: William Bokey
Signature: Date:.
Regulatory Agency: USAGE District Regulatory Division (where applicable)
Regulatory Project Manager: N/A
Signature: Date:
Sediment Testing Specialist:
Signature: Date:
QA Manager:
Signature: Date:
Contractor 1: ANAMAR Environmental Consulting, Inc.
Project Manager: Nadia Lombardero
Signature: Date:.
QA Officer: Paul Barman
Signature: Date:
Section 1.0, Element Al: Title and Approval Sheet
1
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
2.0 EMENT A2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS
For guidance on preparing a Table of Contents, see Guidance for Quality Assurance Project
Plans (G-5) Section 2.1.2 and Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (QA/R-5)
Section 3.2.2. A document control format or component is not required.
This Table of Contents is a "field" that will self-update when you right click in it and
choose "Update Field." (If you have added/deleted numbered headings, update the entire
table and not just the page numbers.)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 ELEMENT Al - TITLE AND APPROVAL SHEET 1
2.0 ELEMENT A2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
3.0 ELEMENT A3 - DISTRIBUTION LIST 4
4.0 ELEMENT A4 - PROJECT/TASK ORGANIZATION 5
4.1 List of Acronyms 5
4.2 Dredging Project Proponent 6
4.3 Dredging Project Team and Responsibilities 7
5.0 ELEMENT A5 - PROBLEM DEFINITION/BACKGROUND 11
5.1 Background/Site History 11
5.2 Identification of Principal Data Users and Decision Makers 16
6.0 ELEMENT A6 - DREDGING PROJECT/TASK DESCRIPTION 17
6.1 Purpose/Background 17
6.1.1 General Background 17
6.1.2 Permitting 19
6.2 Description of the Sampling and Analysis 20
6.2.1. Measurements That Are Expected During the Course of the
Sediment Sampling 20
6.2.2. Applicable Technical Quality Standards or Criteria 21
6.2.3. Special Personnel or Equipment Requirements That May Indicate
the Complexity of the Dredging Project 21
6.2.4. Assessment Techniques Needed for the Dredging Project 21
6.2.5. Schedule for the Work Performed 22
6.2.6. Dredging Project and Quality Records Required, Including the
Types of Reports Needed 23
7.0 ELEMENT A7 - QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA FOR MEASUREMENT DATA 24
8.0 ELEMENT A8 - SPECIAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS/CERTIFICATION 28
9.0 ELEMENT A9 - DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDS 29
9.1 Reporting of Results 29
9.2 Report Format 30
9.3 Data Reporting Package Archiving and Retrieval 33
10.0 ELEMENT Bl - SAMPLING PROCESS DESIGN 34
10.1 Scheduled Dredging Project Activities, Including Measurement Activities 34
10.2 Rationale for the Design 34
10.3 Design Assumptions 36
Section 2.0, Element A2: Table of Contents
2
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
10.4 Procedures for Locating and Selecting Environmental Samples 38
10.5 Classification of Measurements as Critical or Noncritical 44
10.6 Validation of Any Nonstandard Methods 44
11.0 ELEMENT B2 - SAMPLING AND METHODS REQUIREMENTS 45
11.1 Describe the Sample Collection, Preparation, and Decontamination
Procedures 45
11.2 Identify Support Facilities for Sampling Methods 48
11.3 Describe Sampling/Measurement System Failure Response and
Corrective Action Process 49
11.4 Describe Sampling Equipment, Sample Preservation, and Holding Times 49
12.0 ELEMENT B3 - SAMPLE HANDLING AND CUSTODY REQUIREMENTS 50
13.0 ELEMENT B4 - ANALYTICAL METHODS REQUIREMENTS 52
13.1 Subsampling 52
13.2 Preparation of the Samples 52
13.3 Analytical Methods 52
13.3.1 Physical and Chemical Analysis 53
13.3.2 Biological Analysis 62
14.0 ELEMENT B5 - QUALITY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS 65
15.0 ELEMENT B6 - INSTRUMENT/EQUIPMENT TESTING, INSPECTION, AND
MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 71
16.0 ELEMENT B7 - INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION AND FREQUENCY 72
17.0 ELEMENT B8 - INSPECTION/ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUPPLIES AND
CONSUMABLES 73
18.0 ELEMENT B9 - DATA ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS (NON-DIRECT
MEASUREMENTS) 74
19.0 ELEMENT BIO - DATA MANAGEMENT, INTERPRETATION, AND REDUCTION 75
19.1 Data Management 75
19.2 Data Interpretation and Reduction 75
20.0 ELEMENT Cl - ASSESSMENTS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS 77
21.0 ELEMENT C2 - REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT 78
22.0 ELEMENT Dl - DATA REVIEW, VALIDATION, AND VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS 79
23.0 ELEMENT D2 - VALIDATION AND VERIFICATIONS METHODS 80
24.0 ELEMENT D3 - RECONCILIATION WITH DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES 81
25.0 REFERENCES 82
Attachments
Section 2.0, Element A2: Table of Contents
3
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
3.0 ELEMENT A3 - DISTRIBUTION LIST
For help preparing a distribution list, see Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5)
Section 2.1.3 and Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans(QA/R-5) Section 3.2.3.
This document is to be distributed to the following individuals for review and approval prior to
commencement of sampling activities:
1. USAGE Technical Manager: Phil Wolf
2. USAGE QA/QC Manager: Phil Payonk
3. USEPA Project Manager: Gary Collins
4. USEPA QA/QC Manager: William Bokey
5. Contractor Project Manager: Nadia Lombardero
6. Contractor QA/QC Manager: Paul Berman
Section 3.0, Element A3: Distribution List Project/Task Organization
4
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
4.0 EMENT A4 - PROJECT/TASK ORGANIZATION
Provide the information as described in Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (G-5)
Section 2.1.4 and Requirements for Quality Assurance Project P/ans (QA/R-S) Section 3.2.4.
Element A4 encompasses the information indicated in Sections 4.1 through 4.3, below.
4.1 List of Acronyms
A list and definitions of all acronyms used in the SAP should be provided in the document.
ASTM
APP
CCC
CMC
COC
CQAR
CY
DQCR
DQI
DQO
DU
EDD
EPA (USEPA)
FDA (USFDA)
HSP
ITM
LPC
LRL
LIMS
MDL
MLLW
MLW
MRL
MPRSA
NECFR
NELAC
NOAA
O&M
ODMDS
ASTM International (formerly American Society for Testing and Materials)
Accident Prevention Plan
Criteria Continuous Concentration
Criterion Maximum Concentration
Contaminant(s) of Concern
Chemical Quality Assurance Report
Cubic Yards
Daily Quality Control Report
Data Quality Indicators
Data Quality Objectives
Dredging Unit
Electronic Data Deliverable
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Food and Drug Administration
Health and Safety Plan
Inland Testing Manual (EPA, 1998)
Limiting Permissible Concentration
Laboratory Reporting Limit
Laboratory Information Management System
Method Detection Limit
Mean Lower Low Water
Mean Low Water
Method Reporting Limit
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
Northeast Cape Fear River
National Environmental Laboratory Association Conference
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Operation and Maintenance
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
Section 4.0, Element A4: Project/Task Organization
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
PAH Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
QAM Quality Assurance Manual
QAP Quality Assurance Plan
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
SAD South Atlantic Division (USAGE)
SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan
SERIM Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
TB Turning Basin
TDL Target Detection Limit
TBD To Be Determined
USAGE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4.2 Dredging Project Proponent
Be sure to identify the applicant(s), including name, address, phone, fax, and email address.
If Civil Works or O&M project, include the Project Manager or O&M contact.
Applicant: US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) - Wilmington District
Regulatory: USEPA Region 4
See below for contact information.
Section 4.0, Element A4: Project/Task Organization
6
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
4.3 Dredging Proiect Team and Responsibilities
This section should give the names, affiliations, address, phone, fax, and e-mail address and
a list of responsibilities of the principle contact(s) responsible for the following elements of
the proposed testing program:
• Dredging project planning and coordination
• Field sample collection and transport, including chain of custody
• Sample holding and archiving
• Laboratory preparation and analysis for physical, chemical, and bioassay testing.
Contacts should be given for all laboratories involved in sediment testing.
• Quality Assurance (QA) management
• Final data reporting
Organization: US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Project Manager: Phil Wolf
USAGE, Charleston District:
69A Hagood Ave.
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843)329-8069
Fax: (843)329-2331
email: Philip.M.Wolf@sac.usace.army.mil
Responsibilities: Design, permit, construct, and maintain the relocated NECFR turning basin
EPA Project Manager: Gary Collins
Coastal Section
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: (404)562-9395
Fax: (404) 562-9343
email: collins.garyw@epa.gov
Responsibilities: Give concurrence to environmental requirements of dredged sediment for
approval for offshore disposal per the Green Book (USEPA 1991), SERIM
(USEPA/USACE 1993), and the ITM (USEPA 1998)
Contractor 1: ANAMAR Environmental Consulting, Inc.
Project Manager: Nadia Lombardero
2106 NW 67* Place, Suite 5
Phone: (352)377-5770
Fax: (352)378-7620
email: nlombardero@anamarinc. com
Responsibilities: Field logistics planning, sample collection and transport, chains of custody,
quality assurance management, final data reporting
Section 4.0, Element A4: Project/Task Organization
7
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Subcontractor 1: University of North Carolina Wilmington
Project Manager: Captain Jerry Com pea u
5600 Marvin K. Moss Lane
Wilmington, N.C. 28409
Phone: (910)962-2301
Fax: N/A
email: compeaug@uncw.edu
Responsibilities: Vessel support for field collections
Chemistry Laboratory 1: Columbia Analytical Services, Inc.
Project Manager: Jeff Christian
13175. 13th Avenue
Kelso WA, 98626
Phone: (360)501-3316
Fax: (360)636-1068
email: jchristian@kelso. caslab. com
Responsibilities: Sample holding and archiving, laboratory preparation and analysis for
sediment, elutriate, and tissues.
Chemistry Laboratory 2: Columbia Analytical Services, Inc
Project Manager: Sam (Xiang Qiu) Liang
10655RichmondAve., Ste. 130A
Houston, TX77042
Phone: (713) 266-1599
Fax: (713)266-0130
email: XLiang@houston.caslab.com
Responsibilities: Sample holding and archiving, laboratory preparation and analysis for
sediment dioxin analyses.
Toxicology Laboratory 1: Weston Solutions Inc.
Project Manager: David Moore
2433 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Phone: (760)931-8081
Fax: (760)931-1580
email: David.Moore@WestonSolutions.com
Responsibilities: Sample holding and archiving, laboratory preparation and analysis for
Suspended Phase, Solid Phase, and Bioaccumulation Potential analyses.
Section 4.0, Element A4: Project/Task Organization
8
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Geotechnical Laboratory: MACTEC
Project Manager: MarkColeman
3901 Carmichael Avenue
Jacksonville, FL 32207
Phone: (904)396-5173
Fax: (904)396-5703
email: MAColeman@mactec.com
Responsibilities: Sample holding and archiving, laboratory preparation and analysis for physical
analyses.
The successful completion of this project relies on open lines of communication between the
client, contractor, regulatory agencies, laboratories, and subcontractors. This communication
and successful completion of the project is ANAMAR's utmost goal. Contact information will be
readily available throughout the life of this project, from pre-planning to field work, data
analysis, data reduction, and reporting. Any questions, clarifications, suggestions, and/or
problems will be addressed in a timely manner.
See Project Organization Chart on next page.
Section 4.0, Element A4: Project/Task Organization
9
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
PROJECT ORGANIZATION CHART
USAGE
Technical Manager: Phil Wolf
(843) 329-8069
QA Manager: PhN Payonk
(910) 251-4589
USEPA
Project Manager: Gary Collins
(404) 562-9395
QA/QC Manager: William Bokey
(7061355-8604
Contractor: ANAMAR
Project Manager: Nadia Lombardero
(352) 377-5770
Contractor: ANAMAR
QA/QC Manager: PaulBerman
(352)377-5770x106
\
\
Subcontractor:
UNCW
Project Manager:
Captain Jerry
Compeau
(910) 962-2301
I
Geotechnical Lab:
MACTEC
Project Manager:
Mark Coleman
(904) 396-5173
^ )
i
Chemistry Lab:
CAS
Project Manager:
Jeff Christian
(360) 501-3316
^ }
i
Toxicological Lab:
Weston
Project Manager:
David Moore
(760) 931-8081
^ J
Section 4.0, Element A4: Project/Task Organization
10
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
5.0 EMENT A5 - PROBLEM DEI INITION/BACKGROUND
This section should provide sufficient project background as described in EPA Guidance for
Quality Assurance Project Plans (G-5) and EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project
Element A5 encompasses the information indicated in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, below.
5.1 Background/Site History
This section should provide the background behind the dredging project (purpose and need)
and summarize all available site use, dredging and testing information that could have a
bearing on sampling or testing decisions for the proposed dredging project. It is suggested
that the following information from at least the last three dredging episodes be provided (if
available):
• Date and location of dredging, volume removed, general characteristics of the dredged
material (sand vs. silt/clay) and disposal site used.
• Summary of past testing results (physical, chemical, and biological) and associated
suitability determinations. It would be helpful to include figures of the area dredged,
sampling locations and summary data tables from earlier reports.
• Summary of testing results from adjacent or nearby areas, if available. These data,
obtained from other dredging projects or monitoring programs, are particularly useful for
dredging projects with little or no previous dredged material testing information.
• Identification and description of site-specific and nearby land- and water-based activities
that may affect sediment quality in the proposed dredging area (e.g., fuel docks, outfalls,
industrial uses).
Information in this section is from the report Wilmington Harbor Cape Fear River, NC General
Re-evaluation Report (GRR), Alternative Formulation Briefing Preconference Materials, July
2007. See Attachment 1.
This project requires the relocation of a ship turning basin in the Northeast Cape Fear River
(NECFR). Existing conditions require that ships docking above the Isabelle Holmes Bridge must
back through one or two bridges on the return route downstream. For navigation safety and
operability, a turning basin needs to be established above the Hilton Railroad Bridge to allow
ships to return downstream bow-first.
The relocation of the turning basin is part of the deepening project that has been previously
tested.
This is new-work requiring the area to be excavated; therefore, no previous sediment, elutriate,
or toxicological testing has been done on the proposed dredge material. Numerous studies
have been performed in the past along the Cape Fear and the Northeast Cape Fear Rivers.
Historically, dredged material from the rivers has been disposed of either offshore in the
Section 5.0, Element A5: Problem Definition/Background
11
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Wilmington ODMDS or the New Wilmington ODMDS, or in disposal islands located adjacent to
the Cape Fear River and/or the Northeast Cape Fear River.
No Action. The No Action alternative would maintain the existing ship turning basin at Almont.
Ships would continue to be required to back through the Hilton Railroad and Isabelle Holmes
Bridges stern-first. Turning would continue to pose hazards to yacht moorings in the vicinity.
Relocation of Ship Turning Basin in Northeast Cape Fear River. The Almont turning
basin has been the only turning basin available in the NECF 32-foot authorized project. As the
deepening studies progressed, discussions began with the river pilots regarding alternative
locations for turning basins.
The preferred choice by the pilots was based upon their current needs in the river. The
Chemserve terminal became the preferred location for a turning basin since it has the highest
current use. Four alternatives emerged, all of which would serve the needs of the pilots. All
alternatives would have construction methods of some combination of rock blasting, mechanical
excavating, and cutter/suction hydraulic dredging.
Upon getting input from local river pilots and the users of the turning basin, Alternative 2(A)
was determined to be the best and most effective alternative.
Alternative Options for Relocation of Turning Basin
Alternative 1: Enlarging of turning basin at upper terminus. NOT SELECTED
Section 5.0, Element A5: Problem Definition/Background
12
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Alternative 2(A): Creation of middle turning basin A, south.
THIS IS THE ALTERNATIVE BEING CONSIDERED FOR THIS SAP/QAPP
The entire turning basin and channel are to be deepened to -39 feet (+2 paid overdredege).
Currently, the channel is maintained at -32 feet. Please note that the map below is to show the
general configuration of the turning basin and is not for planning; specifically, the "REQD
DEPTH" listed on this map is not factual for this project.
Alternative 3(B): Creation of middle turning basin B, middle. NOT SELECTED
Section 5.0, Element A5: Problem Definition/Background
13
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Alternative 4(C): creation of middle turning basin C, north. NOT SELECTED
Previous Studies and Projects
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Final Feasibility Report and Environmental
Impact Statement on Improvement of Navigation, Cape Fear - Northeast Cape Fear Rivers
Comprehensive Study, Wilmington, North Carolina, June 1996. This report was prepared in
final response to a resolution adopted 8 September 1988 by the United States House of
Representatives, which directed that the existing Federal project for Wilmington Harbor be
reviewed and improvements considered. Recommendations included improvements to
Wilmington Harbor by deepening the channels from the Atlantic Ocean to Wilmington from 38
feet to 42 feet; deepening the 25-foot channel in the up-river portion of the harbor to 34 feet,
and widening the channel from 200 feet to 250 feet; and enlarging two anchorage/turning
basins.
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Environmental Assessment, Reconstruction
Modifications of Authorized Improvements, Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina, February 2000.
This environmental assessment addressed preconstruction modifications to harbor
improvements including Ocean Bar Channel realignment, beach placement of dredged sand,
rock blasting without air curtains, and a comprehensive dredging and disposal plan.
Wilmington Harbor and the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers are periodically
maintenance dredged with the material being placed either in the Wilmington ODMDS, the New
Wilmington ODMDS, or in a disposal island adjacent to the Cape Fear River. Each past dredging
project has gone through the appropriate environmental review process with supporting
documentation and studies.
Alternative 1 in Section 5.1, enlarging of turning basin at upper terminus, has been approved
for ocean disposal; it was included in a sampling event for maintenance/deepening of
Wilmington Harbor. Sampling and testing took place in 2004.
This is new-work requiring the area to be excavated, therefore no previous sediment, elutriate,
or toxicological testing has been done on the proposed dredge material.
The last dredging event in the area was performed in October 2005. It is believed that
Chemserve, a company that has a facility in the immediate area has actually dredged the
Section 5.0, Element A5: Problem Definition/Background
14
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Federal Channel themselves more recently. This is being confirmed and will be updated in the
Final SAP/QAP.
Recent studies have been performed in adjacent areas of the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape
Fear Rivers in conjunction with the maintenance dredging and deepening projects.
54
GPS Map Detail ('
Even though this exact area has not been tested, results from previous studies in the region
showed no significant mortality of bioassay or bioaccumulation organisms and no significantly
elevated sediment or elutriate results. The most recent 103 sediment evaluation was
performed in 2004, and complete results are documented in the report Evaluation of Dredged
Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal: Wilmington Harbor, Wilmington, North Carolina
(ANAMAR 2005). Core samples were taken approximately 0.6 miles upstream and 1 mile
downstream of the proposed turning basin (Samples NECFU04 and NECFD04 on map above).
Core logs and grain size data of these two samples are located in Attachment 3. This report
was submitted to USACE-Wilmington District and concurrence was given by USEPA Region 4.
Section 5.0, Element A5: Problem Definition/Background
15
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
5.2 Identification of Principal Data Users and Decision Makers
This section should identify the regulating agencies and other data users (e.g., USAGE, EPA,
state and local governments).
Agency-Organization
Location
Area(s) of Responsibility
USAGE
Wilmington, NC
Design, permit, construct, and maintain
the relocated NECFR turning basin, and
manage the New Wilmington ODMDS
USEPA
Region 4, Atlanta, GA
Give concurrence to environmental
requirements of dredged sediment for
approval for offshore disposal per the
Green Book (USEPA 1991), SERIM
(USEPA/USACE 1993), and the ITM
(USEPA 1998), and manage the New
Wilmington ODMDS
Section 5.0, Element A5: Problem Definition/Background
16
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
6.0 ELEMENT A6 - DREDGING PROJECT/TASK DESCRIPTION
Element AS encompasses the information indicated in Sections 6.1 and 6.2, below.
6.1 Purpose/Background
6.1.1 General Background
This section should provide a comprehensive description of the proposed dredging project
including the following information:
• Location (city and county) of the dredging project (include the vicinity and dredging site
maps with scale)
• Type of facility involved (e.g., oil refinery, recreational harbor, dry dock, military
terminal, etc.)
• Type of activity supported by dredging project (e.g., navigation channel, recreational
harbor, military, etc.)
• Purpose of the proposed dredging (e.g., maintenance dredging of berths or channels,
channel or berth deepening, etc.)
• The area(s), depth(s), overdredge depth(s), and estimated in-place volume of dredged
material associated with the proposed dredging project. Indicate whether side slopes
and overdredge are included in the volume calculations and the acreage of the dredging
project based on the top of the side slope.
• Existing/pre-dredging conditions and depth(s). This may be accomplished by cross
referencing the bathymetric data required by Section 10.4 of this appendix.
• Physical characteristics of the dredged material (if known).
• The proposed dredging method (e.g., clam shell, hydraulic, hopper).
• Proposed dredged material disposal site and disposal zone if appropriate.
Information in this section is taken from the report Wilmington Harbor Cape Fear River, NC
General Re-evaluation Report (GPR), Alternative Formulation Briefing Preconference Materials,
July 2007. See Attachment 1.
Creation of Turning Basin
The purpose of this project is to determine if the sediment proposed to be dredged from the
relocated NECFR turning basin is acceptable for disposal in the New Wilmington ODMDS. The
turning basin will be located just north of Chemserve in Reach 3 - this is the southernmost of
the three options in this area. This has been described as the "pilots preferred alternative"
because of its proximity to the Chemserve terminal and its functional geometry relating to
adjacent reaches. The turning basin at Reach 7 (Almont) and at Reach 2 (Southern States) will
be abandoned upon completion of construction.
Refer to the maps in Attachment 2.
Section 6.0, Element A6: Dredging Project/Task Description
17
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Assumptions:
For the purposes of quantity estimates shown below, the NECFR project is complete with -35'
required (-37' allowable) in the channel only from Reach 3, station 12+00, northward to
Reach 1, station 3+00. The existing turning basin remains at its current depth.
Description:
Channel would be deepened to -39' required (-41' allowable) from Reach 3, station 12+00,
northward to station 1+50 to accommodate a new 800' by 800' turning basin. Basin corners
will be chamfered into the existing channel geometry. The 250' wide channel above Reach 3 ,
station 1+50 would be a -35' required project.
Quantity Summary:
Note: These quantities are estimates and reflect the difference between the assumed condition
and the proposed alternative. Based on surveys conducted June 23, 2005 [Formula: proposed
channel and turning basin volumes - (minus) assumed condition channel volumes]
Design Volume
633,800
Advance
Maintenance
0
Paid Allowable
Overdredge
64,000
Unpaid Allowable
Overdredge
0
TOTAL
697,800
Bedrock occurs in the TB at approximately 30-35 feet MLLW, as such the total volumes listed
above combine the sediment and rock expected to be encountered. See Section 10 for a
breakdown of sediment vs. rock volumes.
Location
The project location is Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, New Hanover County, North
Carolina. See the maps in Attachment 2.
Type of Facility Involved
New-work, relocated turning basin spanning the existing channel just north of the Chemserve
Terminal located at 2005 North 6th Street, Wilmington, NC 28401-2843
Type of Activity Supported
The activity involves a turning basin in support of commercial navigation.
Purpose of the Proposed Dredging
Relocation of the turning basin to improve navigation, operability of the channel, and river
safety. See Section 5.1.
Area. Depths. Volume
Refer to the maps in Section 5.1, in Attachment 1 pages D-28 and G-120, and in Attachment 2.
Area: (approx) 1,020,000 ft2, or 23.4 acres
Section 6.0, Element A6: Dredging Project/Task Description
18
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Depths: The channel would be deepened to -39' required (-41' allowable) from Reach 3,
station 12+00, northward to station 1+50 to accommodate the turning basin. Basin corners will
be chamfered into the existing channel geometry.
Allowable Paid Overdredge: 2 feet
Allowable Non-Paid Overdredge: Zero (0) feet based on the assumption that rock will be
encountered below approximately 30 to 35 feet. See core logs from adjacent areas,
Attachment 3.
Existing Conditions and Depth(s)
Depths currently range from approximately 23 to 36 feet in the channel and from 16 to 26 feet
in the turning basin area. The depths vary widely due to shoaling and other natural processes.
The sediment in the area is expected to be similar to nearby areas of the river for which testing
has taken place. Approximately the first foot is likely to be fine sandy silt, under that it is
expected to be fine sand mixed with layers of mud and silt, at approximately 30-35 feet will be
cemented limestone of the bedrock. See bathymetry maps in Attachment 2 and corelogs/grain
size data from 2004 in Attachment 3.
Proposed Dredging Method
Combination of rock blasting, mechanical excavating, and cutter-suction hydraulic dredging.
Proposed Disposal Site/Zone
New Wilmington ODMDS for sediment, any rock removed may be disposed of in the
decommissioned turning basin(s)
6.1.2 Permitting
This section should indicate whether the proposed dredging will require a MPRSA 103 permit
or whether it is a Civil Works project. For permitted projects, this section should indicate
whether the proposed dredging is for a new permit or an extension or re-issuance of an
existing permit. For projects where permits have been in place, include a discussion of any
special permit conditions or related actions that may have bearing on SAP/QAPP approval.
This section should also briefly summarize the status of any applications for the proposed
dredging project. This information should include, but is not limited to, the following items.
A table may be useful in presenting this information.
• Date of MPRSA 103 application to CE District
• Date of Public Notice if already issued
• Proposed date of Public Notice if not already issued
• Existing and previous permit numbers associated with dredging projects in the area
(include all permits, not just MPRSA 103). For each permit, indicate agency, issuance
and expiration dates, permitted volume(s), and any limitations.
Section 6.0, Element A6: Dredging Project/Task Description
19
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
The dredge material from Alternative 1 (in Section 5.1), Enlarging of turning basin at upper
terminus, has been approved for ocean disposal. It was included in a sampling event for
maintenance/deepening of Wilmington Harbor. Sampling and testing took place in 2004.
This project is a civil works project, therefore a permit will not be required.
6.2 Description of the Sampling and Analysis
6.2.1. Measurements That Are Expected During the Course of the
Sediment Sampling
This section should cite the list of physical properties, chemicals of concern, and bioassay
tests to be undertaken. Also, identify the methods and reporting limits that will be used in
making these measurements. The use of tables is strongly recommended. This section
should be consistent with Section 13.3.
See Section 13.3 for proposed analytical methods and target detection limits.
PHYSICAL ANALYSIS (Sediments)
Grain Size
Specific Gravity
Total Solids
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (Sediments, Elutriates, and Site Water)
Metals
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)
Dioxins (sediments only - not elutriates or site water)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) (sediments only - not elutriates or site water)
BIOASSAY AND BIOACCUMULATION TESTS:
Suspended Particulate Phase toxicity tests using three species: the Inland Silverside,
Menidia beryllina; the mysid, Americamysis bahia; and larvae of the bivalve oyster,
Crassostrea virginica. Test duration will be 96 hours.
Solid Phase toxicity tests using two species: the amphipod, Leptocheirusplumulosus;
and the polychaete, Nereis arenaceodentata.
Whole Sediment Bioaccumulation 28-day exposure bioaccumulation testing. Test
organisms: the polychaete, Nereis virens; and the bentnose clam, Macoma nasuta.
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF TISSUES:
Analyze bioaccumulation test organism tissues for selected contaminants of concern
(COCs). Tissues will be analyzed for percent moisture, percent lipids, and contaminants
detected in the chemical analysis of sediment (metals and PAHs). Direction on target
analytes for tissue analysis will be provided before the end of the 28-day exposure period.
Section 6.0, Element A6: Dredging Project/Task Description
20
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
6.2.2. Applicable Technical Quality Standards or Criteria
This section should address any relevant State Water Quality Standards or Federal Water
Quality Criteria, if applicable.
Sediment results will be compared to published sediment screening values where appropriate.
These levels are the Threshold Effects Level (TEL) and the Effects Range-Low (ERL). The TEL
represents the concentration below which adverse effects are expected to occur only rarely, and
the ERL is the value at which toxicity may begin to be observed in sensitive species (Buchman
1999). Comparisons will be used for reference only, not for any regulatory decisions.
Elutriate and Site Water results will be compared to the Federal Water Quality Criteria -
Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC). The CMC is an estimate of the highest concentration
of a pollutant in saltwater to which an aquatic community can be exposed briefly without
resulting in an unacceptable effect (EPA 2002).
Tissue chemistry results will be compared to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) Action
Levels (USFDA 2003) for those analytes that have a published limit, reference station levels,
and Region 4 bioaccumulation table values in Appendix H of the SERIM. Results may also be
used in a risk-based evaluation if they exceed reference concentrations and Region 4
bioaccumulation table values
6.2.3. Special Personnel or Equipment Requirements That May Indicate
the Complexity of the Dredging Project
Indicate "Not Applicable" if there are no personnel or equipment needs beyond those
required for normal sampling and testing for a dredging project. Examples may include drill
rigs for land-based sampling.
Sampling in the turning basin will be done using a vibratory type core sampler. Samples will be
taken to project depth +2 feet paid allowable over-depth or to refusal, whichever is
encountered first.
6.2.4. Assessment Techniques Needed for the Dredging Project
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (G-5) Section 2.1.6. Use of cross-
reference to Section 20 of this SAP would be appropriate.
This project is not overly complex; it is fairly straightforward in that it is for collection of
samples in a small extent of the waterway, it is a one-time sampling event (i.e., no long-term
maintenance or measurements), and that the field work can be accomplished in a span of 2 to
3 days. As such, the assessment techniques stated in Section 20 are adequate to provide
sufficient assurance that the quality objectives of the project will be met.
Section 6.0, Element A6: Dredging Project/Task Description
21
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
6.2.5. Schedule for the Work Performed
This section should give an estimated schedule for the testing program including:
• Commencement of field sampling
• Completion of field sampling
• Completion of chemical and physical testing
• Completion of biological testing
• Delivery of final testing report
• Expected or proposed dredging and disposal timeframes (i.e., include consideration of
any relevant dredging or disposal timing restrictions).
It is anticipated that sampling will be performed December 2007-January 2008.
Dredging is expected to begin in August 2009 (at the earliest), with a reasonable chance that it
will be August 2010 due to funding constraints.
Responsibility
USAGE
USAGE
Contractor
USAGE
USAGE
Contractor
USAGE/EPA
Contractor
Contractor
Contractor
Contractor
USAGE
EPA
Estimated Schedule for Sampling/Testing/Reporting Schedule
Prepare a Scope & Internal Government Estimate from SAP
Contracting
Price Quote
Contracting and Environmental Evaluate Proposal
Negotiate, Award, and Notice to Proceed
Prepare QAPP
Coordinate/Approve QAPP
Simultaneously Preparing and Coordinating for Sampling and Analysis
Commence Field Sampling (20 Workdays after Approved QAPP)
Completion of Field Sampling
Completion of Chemical and Physical Sampling
Completion of Biological Testing
Delivery of Final Testing Report
Prepare 103 Report/Concurrence
EPA Review of 103
Calendar
Days after
Contract
Award
7
21
30
37
44
58
86
128
191
317
380
422
471
Section 6.0, Element A6: Dredging Project/Task Description
22
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
6.2.6. Dredging Project and Quality Records Required, Including the
Types of Reports Needed
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (G-5) Section 2.1.6. Use of cross-
reference to Section 20 of this SAP would be appropriate.
The following reports must be submitted:
1. Sampling and Analysis/draft Quality Assurance Project Plan (SAP/QAPP) submitted for
review and comment. USAGE will submit to EPA for final approval.
2. Final Quality Assurance Project Plan (SAP/QAPP), following update from comments for
final approval prior to sampling. USAGE will submit to EPA for final approval.
3. Site-Specific Safety and Health Plan - Accident Prevention Plan
4. Preliminary Sediment Chemistry Data Report
5. The Marine, Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA) Section 103
Sediment Evaluation Testing Report
6. Chemical Quality Assurance Report (CQAR). The CQAR is to evaluate all of the
representative data from the project field sampling and laboratory analyses. For each
group of data, a data review checklist is completed that assesses daily field QC reports
and specific QC chemical data quality indicators, and it enables the reviewer to identify
potential data problem areas that may require additional data validation. The Quality
Assurance Report identifies non-conformances, QC deficiencies, or other problems that
would impact the data quality objectives as specified in the work plan and the QAPP.
The Chemical Data Quality Assessment Report summarizes the overall usability of the
data for the intended purposes. This report will be an appendix to the Final Sediment
Testing Report (see Section 5, above).
7. Daily Quality Control Reports (DQCR). A DQCR will be prepared by the Field Team
Leader or Project Manager for each day sampling is conducted. This report will contain
a description of the work performed, samples collected, general conditions, corrective
actions taken, departures from the sampling plans, and any other notes or comments
needed that will document the day's activities. This report will be an appendix to the
Final Sediment Testing Report (see item 5, above).
Section 6.0, Element A6: Dredging Project/Task Description
23
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
7.0 ELEMENT A7 - QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA FOR MEASUREMENT
DATA
Data Quality Objectives for Sediment and Tissue Chemical Analyses
Parameter
PAHs and
Pesticides
QC
Measurement
MB
MS/MSD
Duplicate
SRM**
ICV
CCV
Surrogates
Internal
Standard
1C
MDL
Frequency
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
1 set per 20
samples or 1 set
per batch up to 20
samples
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
Immediately
following calibration
curve
Minimum - one per
10 samples and at
the end of each
batch whenever
batch is greater
than 10 or for
GC/MS at the
beginning of every
12 hours
Every sample
Every sample
Verify after each
initial calibration
Verify MDL study
once per year for
each analyte of
interest
Acceptance Criteria
No analyte should be
detected > RL
70 - 130% for spike limits
30% RSD for precision
30% RSD for precision
(Evaluated for analytes
>3x RL)
Within limits specified by
provider (Evaluated for
analytes >3x RL)
80 - 1 20% Recovery
RRF or RF <25% for
GC/MS methods and <15
for all other methods
30 - 1 50% Recovery
50 - 200% Recovery
<20% RSD for each
analyte or RF <30% for
GC/MS
Updated annually
Storage/Holding
Times
14 days until
extraction, 40 days
thereafter
Section 7.0, Element A7: Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data
24
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Parameter
Dioxins
Metals
QC
Measurement
MB
LCS
MS/MSD or
LCS/LCSDA
ICV
CCV°
Initial Calibration
Standards
MB
MS/MSD
Duplicate
SRM
LCS/LFB
ICV
Frequency
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
1 set per 20
samples or 1 set
per batch up to 20
samples
Immediately
following calibration
curve
At the beginning of
every 12 hours of
analysis
Once per run
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
1 set per 20
samples or 1 set
per batch up to 20
samples
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
Immediately
following calibration
curve
Acceptance Criteria
No analyte should be
detected > RL
70-130% for spike limits
70-130% recovery for
accuracy and <20 %
difference for precision
50 - 1 50% recovery
80-120%
Native standards
65-135%
Labeled standards
80-120%
Native standards
65-135%
Labeled standards
No analyte should be
detected > RL
70 - 130% for spike limits
30% RSD (Evaluated for
analytes >3x RL)
70 - 1 30% Recovery
(Evaluated for analytes
>3x RL)
70 - 1 30% Recovery
90 - 1 1 0% Recovery
Storage/Holding
Times
14 days until
extraction, 40 days
thereafter
1 80 Days
Section 7.0, Element A7: Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data
25
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Parameter
TOC
QC
Measurement
ccv
LDR
Initial Calibration
for AA, Hg
MDL
ICB
MB
MS/MSD
Triplicate
SRM**
ICV
CCV
1C
Frequency
Minimum - one per
10 samples and at
the end of each
batch whenever
batch is greater
than 10
Verify LDR once per
quarter for ICP
analysis and one
time for mercury
analysis
Performed daily
Verify MDL study
once per year for
each analyte of
interest
Immediately after
initial calibration
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
1 set per 20
samples or 1 set
per batch up to 20
samples
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
Immediately
following calibration
curve
At the beginning of
every 12 hours of
analysis
Verify after each
initial calibration
Acceptance Criteria
90 - 1 1 0% Recovery
Refer to frequency
Correlation coefficient >
0.995
Updated annually
No analyte should be
detected > RL
No analyte should be
detected > RL
75 - 125% for spike limits
20% RSD for precision
(Evaluated for analytes
>3x RL)
20% RSD for precision
(Evaluated for analytes
>3x RL)
Within limits specified by
provider (Evaluated for
analytes >3x RL)
80 - 1 20% Recovery
90 - 1 1 0% Recovery
cc> 0.9950 for all
calibrations
Storage/Holding
Times
28 Days
Section 7.0, Element A7: Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data
26
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Parameter
Grain Size
% Solids and
Specific
Gravity
QC
Measurement
MDL
Triplicate
Duplicate
Frequency
Verify MDL study
once per year for
each analyte of
interest
1 set per 20
samples or per
batch
1 set per 10
samples or per
batch
Acceptance Criteria
Updated annually
<20% RSD
Within 20% Relative %
Difference
Storage/Holding
Times
Undetermined
Undetermined
If SRMs are not available, use laboratory control samples
Section 7.0, Element A7: Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data
27
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
8.0 ELEMENT A8 - SPECIAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS/CERTIFICATION
Applicants and consultants may use this section to document any state, local government, or
project-specific training or certification requirements such as laboratory certification.
Indicate "Not Applicable" if there are no personnel training or certification requirements
beyond those required for normal sampling and testing for a dredging project. (Refer to
Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.1.8.)
It is strongly recommended that all field personnel have at a minimum: 24-hour HAZWOPER
training and certification in first aid and CPR. All sampling and field work must conform to the
USAGE Safety Manual EM 385-1-1 (USAGE 2003).
Section 8.0, Element A8: Special Training Requirements/Certification
28
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
9.0 ELEMENT A9 - DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDS
Refer to Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.1.9.
Element A9 encompasses the information indicated in Sections 9.1 through 9.3, below.
9.1 Reporting of Results
The data obtained will be presented in graphical, tabular, and written text as appropriate. The
draft and final testing reports will undergo internal technical review and quality assurance
review by persons with appropriate technical qualifications to ensure that the report meets the
project requirements specified in the technical work plan and the QA goals. The draft and final
reports shall present all aspects of evaluations of the dredged material required under Section
103 of the Marine, Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA) as described in
Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal Testing Manual(USACE/EPA 1991)
and shall present the results of field sampling, physical/chemical analyses of sediment,
toxicological testing, and bioaccumulation exposures as outlined in Appendix D of the SERIM.
The reports will consist of 81/2M by 11" pages with drawings or oversized tables folded, if
necessary, to this size. The report margins shall be suitable for use in a durable 3-ring binder.
A decimal numbering system will be used, with each section having a unique decimal
designation. Reports that require extensive editing, have extensive errors, or are not in the
required formats will be rejected and re-submittal will be required. All submittals under shall
be sent to USACE-Wilmington District. Any maps, drawings, figures, sketches, databases,
spreadsheets, or text files prepared for this report shall be provided in both hard copy and
digital form.
The digital copies of reports and other text documents shall be provided in Microsoft Word 2000
(or higher version). Spreadsheet files and data files shall be provided in Microsoft Excel 2000
(or higher version) format. All text, spreadsheet, and database files shall be delivered compact
disk read-only memory (CD-ROM) with ISO-9660 format. Level IV laboratory data should be
provided as Adobe Acrobat PDF files.
Geographic data shall be provided in feet and projected into the North Carolina State Plane
coordinate system.
Five copies of the final report (hard copies and CD) shall be submitted to USACE-Wilmington
District. Only one copy of Level IV laboratory reporting data is required.
Section 9.0, Element A9: Documentation and Records
29
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
9.2 Report Format
This section should indicate the format for the final reporting of data (e.g., hard copy,
electronic) and the software that will be used for data files and test documents. [See SERIM
Appendix C.]
Standard Formats and Requirements for Digital Data Provided to the
Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Contract
(CESAW-TS-PE March 2002)
The following paragraphs represent the format for electronic files being delivered as part of any
contract. These paragraphs do not specify content or what the electronic files should contain.
The content or data represented should be specified in the basic Scope of Work.
1. Specifications for Digital Data. Any maps, drawings, figures, sketches, databases,
spreadsheets, or text files prepared under the terms of this contract shall be provided in
both hard copy and digital form, unless otherwise specified in the Scope of Work. The hard
copy deliverables shall be defined in the body of the basic Scope of Work.
2. Text, Spreadsheet, and Database Files: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District standard computing software is Microsoft Office. Reports and other text documents
shall be provided in Microsoft Word 2000 (or higher version) format and Adobe Portable
Document Format (PDF). Spreadsheet files shall be provided in Microsoft Excel 2000 (or
higher version) format. Databases shall be provided in Microsoft Access format, unless
otherwise specified in the basic Scope of Work. Prior to database development, the
contractor shall provide the Government with a Technical Approach Document and Entity
Relationship Diagram for approval which describes the contractor's technical approach to
designing and developing the database. All text, spreadsheet, and database files shall be
delivered on compact disk read-only memory (CD-ROM) with ISO-9660 format.
3. Digital Mapping and Data Standards: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District utilizes Microstation for Computer Assisted Drafting and Design CADD. Data
provided must be readable by Microstation SE or higher to provide design drawings,
sketches, or figures. All digital files provided in Microstation shall be provided in feet and
projected into the North Carolina State Plane coordinate system. The maps shall use the
GRS 1980 spheroid and the North American Datum 1983 (WGS-84, and shall be provided
on CD-ROMs
4. Geographic Information System (GIS) Data Delivery Format
a. Digital geographic maps and the related digital information shall be developed using
double precision and delivered in uncompressed ARC/INFO export file format (.eOO)
using ARC/INFO Release 8.0 or higher. The Wilmington District will also accept
ARC/View Shapefiles. These file formats are geographic information system
software applications produced by the Environmental Systems Research Institute of
Redlands, California, and are in the CIS software suite used by U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District.
Section 9.0, Element A9: Documentation and Records
30
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
b. Digital geographic maps and the related digital information shall be usable on an
IBM-compatible personal computer system using the Windows NT 4.0 or Windows
2000 operating systems. This data shall be provided on compact disk read-only
memory (CD-ROM) with ISO-9660 format.
5. General Digital Standard for CADD and GIS Files
a. Geographic data shall be provided in feet and projected into the North Carolina State
Plane coordinate system. The maps shall use the GRS 1980 spheroid and the North
American Datum 1983 (WGS-84). Vertical upland topographic surveys shall use
NGVD 1929. Hydrographic survey will reference the local dredging datum which will
be provided in the project scope of services. No offsets shall be used. Each map
layer or coverage shall have a projection file. Map or drawing scales will be
determined by the Contracting Officer's Representative for the contract. Mapping
accuracy for the agreed scales will conform to the American Society for
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS), "Accuracy Standards for Large-Scale
Maps" and "Interim Accuracy Standards for Large-Scale Maps" (ASPRS, 1991).
Copies of the ASPRS Accuracy Standards can be obtained by contacting:
American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 210
Bethesda, MD 20814-2160
b. Geographic data must be provided in a form that does not require translation,
preprocessing, or post processing before being used in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineer's System. However, the Contractor shall consult with the Government
(specifically the Geographic Information Systems Coordinator) concerning the use of
alternative delivery formats such as MicroStation SE or higher to provide design
drawings, sketches, or figures. All digital files provided in Microstation shall be in the
same projection and use the same coordinate system, datum, and units as stated
above, and shall be provided on CD-ROMs.
c. Geographic Data Structure: All geographic information shall be developed in a
structure consistent with the Spatial Data Standards (SDS), Version 1.9, released in
December 1999, or a higher version if available at the time of this project. The
Contractor shall consult with the Government concerning modifications or additions
to the SDS. The Government may approve modifications to the Standard if it is
determined that SDS does not adequately address subject data sets. Copies of the
SDS may be obtained by contacting:
Director, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
Tri-Service CADD/GIS Technology Center
Attn: CEWES-IM-DA/Smith
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
d. Geographic Data Documentation: For each digital file delivered containing
geographic information (regardless of format), the Contractor shall provide
documentation consistent with the "Content Standards for Digital Geospatial
Section 9.0, Element A9: Documentation and Records
31
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Metadata, June 1998" published by the Federal Geographic Data Committee. The
documentation shall include but is not limited to the following: the name and
description of the map layer or coverage, the source of the data and any related
data quality information such as accuracy and time period of content, the type of
data coverage (point, line, polygon, etc.), the field names of all attribute data and a
description of each field name, the definition of all codes used in the data fields, the
ranges of numeric fields and the meaning of these numeric ranges, the creation date
of the map layer and the name of the person who created it. A point of contact shall
be provided to answer technical questions. A metadata generation software, called
Document.aml, is available from ESRI for use with ARC/INFO to help in the
production of the required metadata. Corpsmet 95 metadata software is available
from the U.S. Army Geospatial Clearinghouse at http://corpsgeol.usace.army.mil/.
Copies of the FGDC metadata standard can be obtained by contacting:
FGDC Secretariat
c/o U.S. Geological Survey
590 National Center
Reston, Virginia 22092
(703) 648-5514
FGDC metadata standards can also be found on the Internet at
http://www.fgdc.gov
e. Geographic Data Review: The digital geographic maps, related data, and text
documents shall be included for review in the draft and final contract submittals. The
reviews may include a visual demonstration of the geographic data on the Windows
NT computer system in the Environmental Resources Section CIS Unit's. Actual
installation of the digital data from the CD-ROM onto the computer will be conducted
by CIS Unit personnel. However, the Contractor shall have a technical consultant
available at each review to assist with any digital data discrepancies. The data will
be analyzed for subject content and system compatibility. Review comments to data
and text shall be incorporated by the Contractor prior to approval of the final
submittal.
f. Ownership: All digital files, final hard-copy products, source data acquired for this
project, and related materials, including that furnished by the Government, shall
become the property of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District and will
not be issued, distributed, or published by the Contractor.
Section 9.0, Element A9: Documentation and Records
32
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
9.3 Data Reporting Package Archiving and Retrieval
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (G-5) Section 2.1.9 and Requirements for
Quality Assurance Project Plans (QA/R-5).
All reports, data, field sheets, correspondence, notes, field books, and any other documents
associated with this project will be archived by the contractor for a minimum of 5 years from
the date of the final report. Prior to disposal of any records, the contractor must contact the
client (USACE-Wilmington) for authorization and direction in the disposal of said documents.
Section 9.0, Element A9: Documentation and Records
33
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
GROUP B. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
10.0 ELEMENT Bl - SAMPLING PROCESS DESIGN
Refer to Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.2.1.
Element Bl encompasses the information indicated in Sections 10.1 through 10.6, below.
10.1 Scheduled Dredging Project Activities. Including Measurement Activities
Describe schedule of proposed sampling relative to dredging schedule. This is especially
important for projects involving routine maintenance.
Sampling, analysis, and reporting will take place prior to dredging. Due to the nature of this
new-work project, the material is highly unlikely to change between sampling and dredging.
Additional sampling will be conducted prior to any maintenance dredging of this area.
10.2 Rationale for the Design
This section should give a brief overview description of the type and extent (i.e., number of
samples and composites) of testing being proposed. Justification for the proposed testing
program should be made by explicit reference to the dredging project description and site
history information presented in earlier sections, as well as to any existing guidance on
sampling design (e.g., Green Book, SERIM). It is particularly important to clearly explain the
rationale for any proposed sampling and compositing approach that differs from existing
agency guidelines.
As the proposed project constitutes a new-work project, and no previous data exist, analysis
will consist of all three analytical tiers, including bioaccumulation bioassays.
Review of the EPA Envirofacts database indicates the following permitted discharges in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed project:
#NC0065307. Worslev Companies - exo 12/31/06
#NCG080598. Ptc of Mount Airv Inc.-exo 8/31/07
#NCG500162. CEMEX Inc.. exp 7/31/071
Section 10.0, Element Bl: Sampling Process Design
34
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
I \
Southern States Chemical
City of Wilmington
South Atlantic _
Services Inc.
Previous testing discussed in Section 5.1 indicates that there are low concentrations of COCs
and no significant adverse response in biological tests conducted on sediments from nearby
areas. The proposed project is not located adjacent to shoreline areas or berthing facilities and
is therefore not likely subject to contamination. Based on this analysis, the proposed project
sediments have been given a ranking of'low' (refer to Table 4-2, SERIM) relative to the
potential for significant concentrations of COCs and adverse biological effects.
Estimated volumes for the project are 454,800 cubic yards of sediment and 179,000 cubic yards
of rock down to the design depth. Considering the paid allowable overdepth of 2 feet, there is
a potential additional volume of approximately 75,500 cubic yards of material. However, the
overdepth material is likely to be rock. Rock material will consist of one dredging unit (DU) and
will not require sampling or testing. For the remaining material, based on the estimated volume
(454,800 CY) and the guidance provided in the SERIM for low ranked materials, the remaining
sediments have been divided into two DUs for a total of three DUs. One DU represents the
upper sediments (down to -28 feet MLLW) most likely to be subject to any contamination. The
second DU represents the lower sediments less likely to be subject to any contamination. One
set of analyses will be conducted for each DU except for the rock DU. Each of the DUs being
Section 10.0, Element Bl: Sampling Process Design
35
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
tested will be represented by five subsamples. This exceeds that recommended in the SERIM,
but is necessary due to the possible variability within the dredging area. The five subsamples
from each DU will be composited and collected at the same location for both the turning basis
(TB) surface and TB subsurface DUs. Two of the subsamples will be located within the
footprint of the existing channel, and the remaining three will be distributed through the
remaining portion of the turning basin with at least one sampling point located on either side of
the existing channel. The DUs are summarized in the table below:
Dredging Unit
1
2
3
TB Surface
TB Subsurface
TB Rock
Depth (feet MLLW)
Surface to -28
-28 to point of refusal or -41
Point of refusal to -41
Estimated Volume
(cubic yards)
158,400
296,400
179,000 to 254,500
Number of
Subsamples
5
5
N/A
One field replicate will be collected as described in the EPA document QA/QC Guidance for
Sampling and Analysis of Sediments, Water, and Tissues for Dredged Material Evaluations (EPA
1995). The field replicate will be collected at the same location and time as one project sample,
and will be analyzed for sediment chemistry, elutriate chemistry and physical parameters, but
not for toxicological testing.
Reference Sample: For dredged material evaluations for ocean disposal, the test results from
proposed dredging site samples are compared to test results from appropriate reference site
sediments. Reference sediment is defined as, "A sediment, substantially free of contaminants,
that is as similar to the grain size of the dredged material and the sediment at the disposal site
as practical, and reflects conditions that would exist in the vicinity of the disposal site had no
dredged-material disposal ever occurred, but had all other influences on sediment condition
taken place" (1991 Green Book, Section 3.1.2).
The reference station was sampled in 2004 as part of 103 evaluation in Wilmington Harbor.
Grain size data revealed that it contained 81.1% sand and 18.9% silt/clay.
10.3 Design Assumptions
Assumptions used for the creation of this SAP include the following:
1. The contractor will have access to each sampling site. Some ports, marinas, military
facilities, etc., have limited access due to security concerns, ship berthing, and other
factors.
2. If a sampling point needs to be relocated based on logistical concerns, including but not
limited to the below-mentioned scenarios, the relocated sampling point will be recorded
Section 10.0, Element Bl: Sampling Process Design
36
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
with a GPS unit capable of sub-meter accuracy. The relocated point will coincide with
depths and locations of the dredging prism. Every effort will be taken to inform the USAGE
Technical Manager, the QA Manager, or the USEPA Project Manager prior to any deviations
from this sampling plan. In all likelihood, the USAGE Technical Manager will be present
during sampling. Any deviation will be explained in the DQCR, the field sheet(s), and the
testing report.
3. The surveys (bathymetry data) are current, accurate, and the most recent available.
Possible foreseen problems and solutions include the following:
Problem: Rock at a depth not allowing sample collection. Solution: Relocate sample location
or sample using a different technique.
Problem: Mooring of a ship or barge at a sampling location. Solution: Relocate sample
location or attempt to get ship moved to provide access.
Problem: Heavy traffic in the channel or turning basin area limiting sample collection.
Solution: Relocate sample location(s), postpone sampling, or sample around traffic
(safety dependent).
Problem: Weather (hurricane, lightning, etc.) or rough seas. Solution: Postpone sampling
until the situation clears.
Note that there is no way to accurately predict every problem that may arise when in the field.
Every effort will be taken to inform the USAGE Technical Manager or the QA Manager of any
changes in the sampling scheme prior to the change taking place. The contractor Project
Manager and the Field Team Leader will be familiar with the project and project goals and make
an educated, scientifically based decision on the change if the USAGE Technical Manager, QA
Manager or the USEPA Project Manager cannot be contacted. Any deviation will be explained in
the DQCR, the field sheet(s), and in the testing report.
Section 10.0, Element Bl: Sampling Process Design
37
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
10.4 Procedures for Locating and Selecting Environmental Samples
This section should provide all information describing and justifying the proposed location, depth,
and compositing plan for each sediment sample. The text of this section should provide a brief
explanation of and justification for the proposed sampling locations representative of the material
within each dredging unit to be dredged (e.g., based on grid, shoaling patterns, pollution
sources, or ship interference or movement) and compositing (e.g., based on location, geological,
or physical/chemical considerations). Sampling depths should be equal to the proposed dredging
depth (authorized depth and advance maintenance), full overdredge depth, and expected
sediment disturbance depth (see SERIM Section 4.5). A pre-sampling hydrographic survey
should be taken prior to SAP submission to get the best possible bathymetric data for volume
estimates and sample positioning. The following information should be superimposed on or
included with the survey map(s).
• Date when the hydrographic survey was conducted
• Scale
• Proposed Dredging Units
• Proposed sediment sampling locations and composite boundaries if applicable
• Proposed dredging site water sample location
• Large scale features (e.g., piers, berthing areas, boat ramps)
• Dredging project boundaries (include boundaries delineating different project depths)
• Contour lines depicting areas that will actually be dredged (i.e., showing areas that are less
than project depth, and that are less than the proposed overdepth).
• Potential sources of sediment contamination (e.g., fuel docks and storage facilities,
culverts/outfalls, dry docks, RCRA/Superfund sites).
It is suggested that the following information be presented in tabular form:
• Nomenclature planned to identify field and laboratory samples/composites: To facilitate
review of analytical and QA documentation, cross reference all proposed sample identification
numbers to a unified system. Field sampling identification should correspond to sites
indicated on the survey map and core logs.
• Compositing Plan: Rationale for the proposed compositing. Address why sediment
throughout the area or layer to be composted is expected to be relatively homogeneous
physically and chemically (refer to past test results for the area, if available).
• Dredging Volume: Estimate of the in-place volume of material to be dredged (including the
full overdepth, even if this differs from the pay-depth in a dredging contract) that is
represented by each station, sample and composite.
• Sampling Depths: Include the proposed depth of each core sample. Depths should be equal
to the proposed dredging depth plus the full overdredge depth.
• Sample Analysis: Identify which tests will be run on core samples or composites of samples
(e.g., physical tests, chemical tests, water column toxicity tests, benthic toxicity tests, or
bioaccumulation tests).
• Field Parameters: Describe how samples will be evaluated in the field. Field staff members
typically make observations of visible layers in the core samples, odor, color, consistency, and
texture of the sediment. Measurements are also frequently collected in the field (e.g.,
temperature, salinity, etc. of the water column, tidal state, etc.)
Section 10.0, Element Bl: Sampling Process Design
38
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Sample stations for the collection of sediment and water-column samples are listed below.
Sediment samples were chosen and are to be collected from locations and depths coinciding
with the dredging prism. The selected reference station is located in the Atlantic Ocean and
corresponds to reference station RS-NW-D in Appendix K of the SERIM. The five subsamples
from the proposed turning basin (NECFTB07-a through -e) will be collected and composited as
described in Section 10.2. Site water for background chemical analysis and for the generation
of elutriates will be taken from the approximate center of the proposed turning basin.
Cores will be taken to project depth (+2-foot paid allowable overdredge) or to refusal,
whichever is encountered first.
Sampling locations were selected randomly to best represent the dredging area meeting the
criteria discussed in Section 10.2.
See maps and bathymetry in Attachment 2 and geotechnical data in Attachment 3.
Nomenclature:
Sample IDs to be collected are listed below:
Sample ID
NECFTB07-Upper
NECFTB07-Lower
Reference
NECFTB07-REF
NECFTB07-Site
Water*
Sub
Sample
a
b
c
d
e
a
b
c
d
e
a-e
~
Coordinates, WGS84
N 34.263805206
N 34.262355163
N 34.264452627
N 34.262096391
N 34.263927756
N 34.263805206
N 34.262355163
N 34.264452627
N 34.262096391
N 34.263927756
N 33.78687
N 34.26255
W 77.95097332
W 77.94996459
W 77.95021267
W 77.94864564
W 77.94870635
W 77.95097332
W 77.94996459
W 77.95021267
W 77.94864564
W 77.94870635
W 77.98934
W 77.94919
Sample
Type
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Grab
Grab
Depth of Core
from
sed
surface
-28
~
to
-28
-41 or
refusal
~
Collected at 1
meter above
bottom
* Sample NECFTB07-Site Water will be collected from the approximate center of the turning
basin and will be used for background chemical analysis and to generate elutriates.
Compositing Plan:
The subsamples NECFTB07-UPPER-a through -e will be composited to make one sample for
analysis, NECFTB07-Upper.
The subsamples NECFTB07-LOWER-a through -e will be composited to make one sample for
analysis, NECFTB07-Lower.
Section 10.0, Element Bl: Sampling Process Design
39
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
The subsamples NECFTB07-REF-a through -e will be composited to make one sample for
analysis, NECFTB07-REF.
Estimated Dredge Volume:
Sample/
Dredge Unit ID
NECFTB07-Upper
TB Surface
NECFTB07-Lower
TB Subsurface
No Sample
TB Rock
Sub
Sample
a
b
c
d
e
a
b
c
d
e
N/A
Subsample
Representative
Volume (est.)
31,680
31,680
40,000
40,000
15,040
60,000
60,000
50,000
70,000
56,400
N/A
Sample
Representative
Volume (est.)
158,400
296,400
N/A
Total Volume
(est.)
454,800
179,000-
254,500
Grand Total
to be
Dredged
(est.)
633,800-
709,300
Sampling Depths:
Samples will be taken to project depth +2 feet paid allowable overdredge or to refusal,
whichever is encountered first.
Section 10.0, Element Bl: Sampling Process Design
40
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Sample Analysis:
All analyses will be conducted on the composite samples made from the appropriate
subsamples as noted in the Compositing Plan above. Below are the analyte groups to be
tested for this project, a complete list of analyses and methods is listed in Section 13.3.1.
Sample:
Test
1/5
s
1/5
X
la-
ment Chemistry
S
Elutriate/Water Chemistry
Tissue Chemistry*
Grain Size
Atterburg Limits
Total Solids
Settling Rates
Specific Gravity
Bulk Density
TOC
Metals
Organotins
TPH
Pesticides
Herbicides
PCB Congeners
PCB Aroclors
PAHs
Dioxins
Semi-Volatiles
Biphenyl
VOAs
Metals
Organotins
TPH
Pesticides
Herbicides
PCB Congeners
PCB Aroclors
PAHs
Dioxins
Semi-Volatiles
Biphenyl
VOAs
Ammonia
Cyanide
Metals
Organotins
TPH
Pesticides
Herbicides
PCB Congeners
PCB Aroclors
PAHs
Dioxins
NECFTB07-
Upper
Y
—
Y
~
Y
~
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
~
Y
Y
Y
Y
—
~
~
Y
Y
~
Y
~
Y
Y
Y
~
~
~
~
—
~
Y
Y
~
Y
~
Y
Y
Y
~
NECFTB07-
Lower
Y
—
Y
~
Y
~
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
~
Y
Y
Y
Y
~
~
~
Y
Y
~
Y
~
Y
Y
Y
~
~
~
~
~
~
Y
Y
~
Y
~
Y
Y
Y
~
NECFTB07-
Replicate
Y
—
Y
~
Y
~
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
—
Y
Y
Y
Y
~
~
~
Y
Y
—
Y
~
Y
Y
Y
—
~
~
~
~
~
Y
Y
~
Y
—
Y
Y
Y
~
NECFTB07-
REF
Y
—
Y
~
Y
~
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
~
Y
Y
Y
Y
—
~
~
Y
Y
~
Y
~
Y
Y
Y
~
~
~
~
—
—
Y
Y
~
Y
~
Y
Y
Y
~
NECFTB07-
Site Water
~
—
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Y
Y
~
Y
~
Y
Y
Y
~
~
~
~
~
Y
Y
~
Y
~
Y
Y
Y
~
Pretest
Tissues
~
—
~
~
~
—
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Y
Y
~
Y
—
Y
Y
Y
~
Section 10.0, Element Bl: Sampling Process Design
41
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Sample:
Test
Toxicology
Semi-Volatiles
Biphenyl
VOAs
% Lipids
Suspended
Phase Bioassay
Solid Phase
Bioassay
Bioaccumulation
Potential
NECFTB07-
Upper
~
~
~
~
Y
Y
Y
NECFTB07-
Lower
~
~
~
~
Y
Y
Y
NECFTB07-
Replicate
—
—
~
~
~
~
~
NECFTB07-
REF
~
~
~
~
~
Y
Y
NECFTB07-
Site Water
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Pretest
Tissues
~
—
—
Y
~
~
~
Y = analysis will be performed
- = analysis will not be performed/not required or not applicable
* Parameters for tissue analysis may be adjusted upon review of the sediment chemistry results; a final
decision will be made after negotiations between ANAMAR, USAGE, and USEPA.
Field Parameters:
Site conditions such as prevailing weather, wind direction, air temperature, and tidal cycle will
be documented at each sampling site. In situ measurements, depth, date and time,
coordinates, current conditions, sediment descriptions, number of containers, and team
members will be recorded on project-specific field sheets. When sampling the inshore site
water sample, in situ hydrographic measurements for water temperature, pH, water depth,
dissolved oxygen, salinity, and conductivity will be collected at the surface of the water column
using either a YSI 650MDS or a Hydrolab Multi Probe Datasonde®. Turbidity will be measured
using a Hach 2100P® Turbidimeter. All instruments will be calibrated at the beginning and end
of the sampling day according to the manufacturers' specifications.
The following section should provide information on the reference site(s) and control site(s)
that will be used for comparison with sediments from the proposed dredging location(s).
Reference sediment must be collected from the approved reference location associated with
the proposed disposal site. The following information should be provided for the reference
samples:
• Map identifying reference site locations with coordinates
• Number of samples making up reference composite.
The Reference Station (NECFTB07-REF) is located in an area used in previous 103 evaluation
studies in the Wilmington Harbor-Cape Fear River area. It corresponds to station RS-NW-D
recommended in Appendix K of the SERIM. The reference sediment is natural sediment that
is:
• Substantially free of contaminants;
• Serves as a point of comparison to identify potential effects of contaminants in the dredged
material and to determine compliance with the limiting permissible concentration (LPC);
• Reflective, as possible, of hydrographic conditions characteristic of the disposal site; and
Section 10.0, Element Bl: Sampling Process Design
42
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
• As similar in grain-size distribution, organic content, and % moisture to the proposed
dredged material as possible.
The following values are from core samples taken in 2004 approximately 0.6 miles upstream
(NECFU04) and 1 mile downstream (NECFD04) of the TB. See Attachment 3 for core logs,
maps and grain size data of the 2004 samples. The reference sample was collected in 2004
and again in 2007 (REF04 and REF07 respectively).
NECFU04: 23.4% fines, 76.6% sand, TOC = 1.67%
NECFD04: 10.0% fines, 87.7% sand, TOC = 0.62%
REF04: 18.9% fines, 81.1% sand ,TOC = 0.60%
REF07: 18.5% fines, 81.5% sand, TOC = 0.42%
The reference site is offshore of Cape Fear Inlet, in about 30-45 feet of water and will be a
composite of a minimum of five grab samples; one set of coordinates is provided; as such, all
subsamples will be collected from the immediate area.
NECFTB07-REF
°
N 33.78687
W 77.98934
»&*»***
C* 41 38
Section 10.0, Element Bl: Sampling Process Design
43
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
10.5 Classification of Measurements as Critical or Noncritical
Horizontal and vertical accuracy of the sampling locations is critical in that they must be within
the dredge prism. Toxicology results are key in determining the suitability of sediment to be
disposed offshore and are critical as well.
10.6 Validation of Any Nonstandard Methods
No modifications to methods are expected in this project.
Section 10.0, Element Bl: Sampling Process Design
44
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
11.0 EMENT B2 - SAMPLING AND METHODS REQUIREMENTS
Element B2 encompasses the information indicated in Sections 11.1 through 11.4, below.
11.1 Describe the Sample Collection, Preparation, and Decontamination
Procedures
Field Sampling Schedule
It is expected that sampling will be performed in a span of less than 1 week. This is dependent
on several factors including but not limited to weather conditions, equipment, and accessibility.
Redundant systems will be in place to limit down-time due to equipment failure (see
Section 11.3, Corrective Action). Contact with facilities in the immediate area and local security
forces (e.g., USGC) will be coordinated prior to mobilizing to the field. Contact information for
all parties involved as well as local facilities and security forces will be distributed to all parties
and will be on-hand in the field.
Field and Sampling Procedures
General field methodologies and procedures follow those outlined in the Green Book
(USACE/EPA 1991) and procedures documented in the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection Standard Operating Procedures for Field Activities (DEP-SOP-001/01). Although the
project will be performed in North Carolina, the Florida sample collection SOPs provide
scientifically sound methods for equipment decontamination, instrument calibration, and sample
handling. A copy of these publications will be on hand for reference during field activities.
Prior to the sampling trip, the volume of sediment needed will be calculated; enough sample
volume will be collected to ensure enough volume for all analyses and archiving. It is estimated
that 25 gallons of sediment per station will be collected in order to conduct all the physical,
chemical, and toxicological analyses.
Section 11.0, Element B2: Sampling and Methods Requirements
45
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Sample Position Accuracy
The coordinates will be entered into a Trimble GeoXT GPS receiver capable of sub-meter
accuracy, as well as a back-up unit (WAAS-enabled Garmin Map76). Sampling sites will be
located onsite using the first unit, and will be confirmed with the second unit. The depth at all
stations will be recorded. For inshore sampling locations, depth will be recorded with a
sounding chain at the sampling location. The depth at the offshore reference station will be
recorded with the fathometer provided on the sampling vessel.
At each site, water depth will be corrected to MLLW using a tide staff or the predicted tides
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The most recent
bathymetric surveys will be provided by USACE-Wilmington prior to the sampling event and will
be used as a reference in the field to confirm depths.
Sampling
Site conditions such as prevailing weather, wind direction, air temperature, and tidal cycle will
be documented at each sampling site. In situ measurements, depth, date and time,
coordinates, current conditions, sediment descriptions, number of containers, and team
members will be recorded on project-specific field sheets. An example Field Sheet is located at
the end of this QAPP.
Water Grab Sampling: Water samples will be collected consistent with recommendations in
the SERIM, at 1 meter above the bottom with either a non-contaminating pump (submersible
pump designed for environmental water sampling or peristaltic pump) or with a Van Dorn type
sampler. The preferred method will be to use a non-contaminating submersible pump, the
other methods listed here are backup methods and will not likely be used.
When sampling the inshore site water sample, in situ hydrographic measurements for water
temperature, pH, water depth, dissolved oxygen, salinity, and conductivity will be collected at
the surface of the water column using either a YSI 650MDS or a Hydro/ab Multi Probe
Datasonde®. Turbidity will be measured using a Hach 2100P® Turbid/meter. All instruments
will be calibrated according to the manufacturers' specifications at the beginning and end of the
sampling day.
Sediment Core Sampling: Core sampling will be performed by vibratory core. The ANAMAR
Project Manager and a USACE-Wilmington representative will be onboard to direct the actual
collection of the sediment. ANAMAR will direct the crew of the coring/surveying vessel.
Appropriate core liners will be used and all sampling activities will be done according to
ANAMAR's protocols. All equipment coming into contact with the samples will be of an
approved material (e.g., Teflon®, stainless steel, polycarbonate [Lexan®]).
The target penetration depth below the water surface will be calculated based on target core
penetration, current water depth and current tide height. When sediment cores are collected
using a vibracore, the retrieved sample is subject to material compaction. This means that a
core with a penetration depth of 10 feet may result in a recovered core only 8-9 feet in length.
Since the material is unlikely to compress uniformly along the length of the core, this will make
the exact division line between the upper and lower sections difficult to determine. ANAMAR
estimates that a difference of ±1 foot could be expected.
Section 11.0, Element B2: Sampling and Methods Requirements
46
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
When the core is brought aboard the vessel, it will be placed horizontally on a clean surface.
Using the actual penetration depth, and actual recovered core length, the division of the upper
and lower samples (-28' MLLW) will be calculated. The lower portion of the core will be
extruded into one decontaminated stainless steel bin, and the upper portion will be extruded
into another. This will be repeated until the required volume of sediment has been collected.
Both sections of the core will be photographed, and notes on the samples' appearance and
characteristics will be recorded on sample specific field sheets. With the technicians using
decontaminated stainless steel utensils and new disposable lab gloves, the samples will be
transferred into pre-cleaned, pre-labeled 5-gallon Teflon® bags. All containers will be placed in
coolers on ice immediately. Upon return to the boat dock, the samples will be transferred to
and locked in a vehicle or a refrigerated trailer.
Sediment Grab Sampling: Grab samples will be collected with a stainless steel Van Veen,
Ponar or similar type clamshell device and then emptied into a decontaminated stainless steel
bin. When the required volume of sediment has been collected, a picture of the sample will be
taken and notes on the sample's appearance and characteristics will be recorded on the field
sheet. Using decontaminated stainless steel utensils and new disposable gloves, the technician
will transfer the sample into pre-cleaned 5-gallon Teflon® bags. All containers will be properly
labeled and placed in coolers on ice immediately. Upon return to the boat dock, the samples
will be transferred to and locked in a vehicle or a refrigerated trailer.
Field Replicate: One field replicate will be collected as described in the EPA document QA/QC
Guidance for Sampling and Analysis of Sediments, Water, and Tissues for Dredged Material
Evaluations (EPA 1995). The field replicate will be analyzed for sediment chemistry, elutriate
chemistry and physical parameters, but not for toxicological testing. It will be given a different
sample ID so the laboratory will not be able to differentiate between it and its duplicate.
Decontamination: All equipment contacting sediment or water samples will be cleaned and
decontaminated as described in FDEP SOP, FC1131 (FDEP 2004). Below is a summarized list of
procedures. Work surfaces on the sampling vessel will cleaned before the sampling day begins
and before leaving each station. All equipment contacting sediment or water samples, gloves
and any protective clothing will be changed and/or cleaned between sampling stations to
prevent cross contamination.
Decontamination Procedures
• Wash and scrub to remove gross contamination
• Wash/scrub with Liquinox®
• Rinse with SITE WA TER
• Rinse with DI WA TER
• 2X Rinse with ISOPROPANOL
• 2X Rinse with HEXANE (added due to dioxin analysis, not in FDEP SOP FC1131)
• 3XRinse with DI WATER
• Air dry
• Store wrapped in new, clean aluminum foil
Section 11.0, Element B2: Sampling and Methods Requirements
47
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Any derived waste will be contained and disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local
laws.
Sample Storage and Transport: After collection, the samples will be immediately placed in
pre-labeled containers, put in coolers, and packed with ice. Coolers will remain locked inside a
field vehicle or in a refrigerated trailer. If the coolers will be in a vehicle, the ice will be checked
and refreshed as needed, at a minimum of every morning and every evening until samples are
shipped to the laboratory. The temperature inside the refrigerated trailer will be kept at <4 °C
and recorded twice daily, every morning and every evening. If the temperature in the trailer
either remains slightly above 4 °C (above ~ 5-6 °C) for two consecutive readings, or if one
reading is above ~8 °C, the samples will be placed on wet ice.
Chain-of-custody forms will be filled out and will accompany samples at all times during
transport from the field operations area to the laboratory. The forms will note the sample ID
and date and time of collection). Each sample will be identified by a unique alphanumeric
system. After samples are logged in at the laboratory and assigned a unique laboratory ID
number, they will be stored, handled, processed, and analyzed as described in the Quality
Assurance Manuals and/or Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) of the testing laboratories.
Homogenization, Compositing, Elutriation:
Upon returning to the contractor's offices (or possibly on-site, depending on logistics and time
available), the subsamples from each sample will be composited in a large decontaminated
stainless steel bin and divided for physical, chemical, and toxicological analyses, and also for
generation of elutriates. Elutriates will be generated using the methods described in the Inland
Testing Manual (ITM) (USEPA/USACE1998). The samples will be re-labeled and sent to the
appropriate labs. Chain-of-custody forms from the field will have each subsample ID listed.
When the samples are composited, the subsample IDs will no longer be appropriate and new
chain-of-custody forms will be filled out and accompany the samples to the final destination. All
samples will be kept at <4 °C, either by being placed on wet ice or by being stored in a
refrigerated trailer.
11.2 Identify Support Facilities for Sampling Methods
This should include a brief description of the equipment and vessel (s) used in the sampling
operation.
All sampling will be done according to published procedures. Each sampling vessel will conform
to USCG regulations, and all sampling activities will conform to the USAGE Safety Manual
(USAGE 2003).
Inshore vibracoring will be conducted from the USACE snag boat "Snell", and offshore sampling
will be performed from a 24-foot or equivalent vessel equipped with a hoisting mechanism.
Section 11.0, Element B2: Sampling and Methods Requirements
48
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
11.3 Describe Sampling/Measurement System Failure Response and
Corrective Action Process
Corrective Action
Any event that does not conform to the QAPP, SOPs, or SAP is considered a nonconformance
event. These will be identified as quickly as possible and reported to the Project Manager (PM)
as soon as practical. If the nonconformance event happens in the fieldwork portion of this
project, it will be documented in the DQCR. The project director and/or project manager will
confer with USACE-Wilmington and outline a procedure for accomplishing the task so the quality
of the project is not compromised. Every effort will be taken to contact the USAGE
representative prior to any deviation from the above-mentioned procedures.
Backups of field equipment and supplies will be on-hand in case of equipment failure or other
factors that render the primary method unusable. Examples of what will be taken as backups
include: Ponar sampler, Lexan® liners, sample containers, in situ multi-parameter meter,
turbidi'meter, peristaltic pump, etc.
11.4 Describe Sampling Equipment, Sample Preservation, and Holding Times
All sampling techniques and equipment will be in accordance with FDEP SOPs and/or USEPA
published procedures (USEPA 1995).
Any sampling device or material coming into contact at any time with a sample will be
decontaminated as described in Section 11.1 and made of an approved material (Teflon®,
polycarbonate [Lexan®], or stainless steel). Cores will be taken in a polycarbonate liner with a
stainless steel bit and core-catcher. Water will be collected with a non-contaminating pump.
Grab samples will be taken with a Van Veen or Ponar type clamshell sampler. All samples will
be placed in appropriate pre-cleaned containers and put in coolers on wet ice immediately after
collection.
Other types of sampling equipment are described in section 11.1.
All holding times and preservation will conform to USEPA guidelines in QA/QC Guidance for
Sampling and Analysis of Sediments, Water, and Tissues for Dredged Material Evaluations
(USEPA 1995).
Section 11.0, Element B2: Sampling and Methods Requirements
49
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
12.0 EMENT B3 - SAMPLE HANDLING AND CUSTODY REQUIREMENTS
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.2.3. This section should
include discussions of the following elements:
• Proposed sample preservation, transport and chain-of-custody procedures.
• Proposed sample storage and archiving procedures (e.g., temperatures and holding
times, cross referencing is encouraged).
All sample handing will be done according to procedures and methods outlined in QA/QC
Guidance for Sampling and Analysis of Sediments, Water, and Tissues for Dredged Material
Evaluations'(USEPA 1995).
Sample Handling
All sediment and water containers will be labeled accurately and filled out entirely. The label
information will be consistent with that provided on the chain-of-custody form. Sample labels
will include the following information:
1. Project
2. Sample Identification number and station number
3. Matrix
4. Date and time of sample collection
5. Depth of sample
6. Name of collector
7. Sample preservation used, if required
8. Type of analysis
9. Lab number or name
Samples will be composited and homogenized as described in Section 11.1. Section 11.1 also
explains procedures pertaining to sample storage and transport.
Chain-of-Custody Requirements
Chain-of-custody records from the field will have each subsample ID listed. When the samples
are composited, the subsamples will no longer be appropriate and new chain-of-custody forms
will be filled out and accompany the samples to the final destination. All samples will be kept at
<4°C, either by being placed on wet ice or by being stored in a refrigerated trailer.
Upon receipt at the laboratories, the samples will be logged into the laboratory's LIMS and
assigned a unique number for tracing through the analytical process in the lab. Any sample
aliquot, tissue sample being transferred from the toxicology lab to the chemistry lab, or any
other lab transfer of any sample (sediment, water, or tissue) will have complete
chain-of-custody records. All chain-of-custody records will be included in the final report to
USAGE.
Section 12.0, Element B3: Sample Handling and Custody Requirements
50
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Storage and Disposal of Samples
The laboratories will retain all remaining unused sample volume under appropriate temperature
and light conditions at least until the data generated from the samples goes through ANAMAR
QA/QC and is approved as acceptable. Preferably, samples will be retained until the final report
is submitted to the USACE. The storage/archive time will be dependant on space available at
the laboratory. Approval by the USACE Project Manager will be obtained prior to disposal of
any sediment, water, or tissue sample if disposal is needed before the final report is submitted.
Samples will be disposed of properly according to federal, state, and local laws.
Additional information regarding sample storage is presented in Section 11.1 (Sample Storage
and Transport).
Section 12.0, Element B3: Sample Handling and Custody Requirements
51
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
13.0 EMENT B4 - ANALYTICAL METHODS REQUIREMENTS
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.2.2.
Element B4 encompasses the information indicated in Sections 13.1 through 13.3, below.
13.1 Subsamplinq
A minimum of five subsamples of each sample will be collected and composited for analysis.
13.2 Preparation of the Samples
This information may be combined in a table with the requirement of 13.3, below.
The subsamples from each sample will be composited in a large, decontaminated stainless steel
bin and divided for physical, chemical and toxicological analyses, and also for generation of
elutriates. Elutriates will be generated using the methods described in the ITM (USEPA/USACE
1998). The samples will be re-labeled and sent to the appropriate labs. Chain-of-custody
records from the field will have each subsample ID listed. When the samples are composited,
the subsamples will no longer be appropriate and new chain-of-custody forms will be filled out
and accompany the samples to the final destination. All samples will be kept at <4 °C either by
being placed on wet ice or by being stored in a refrigerated trailer.
13.3 Analytical Methods
This information may be combined in a table with the requirement of 13.2. Laboratories are
allowed to use professional judgment in modifying and developing alternatives to approved
test methods to take advantage of emerging technologies that reduce costs, overcome
analytical difficulties, and enhance data quality. A necessary condition of method flexibility is
the requirement that modified method produce results equivalent or superior to results
produced by the approved reference method. The flexibility to select more appropriate
methods provides an opportunity to use new technologies to overcome matrix interference
problems, lower detection limits, improve laboratory productivity, or reduce the amount of
hazardous wastes in the laboratory.
Section 13.0, Element B4: Analytical Methods Requirements
52
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
13.3.1 Physical and Chemical Analysis
This section should present the following information in tabular format:
• Characteristics to be measured (e.g., conventional physical measurements, metals, PAHs,
polychlorinated biphenyls, organotins, and pesticides),
• Proposed preparation/extraction and cleanup methods,
• Proposed analytical methods,
• Target Detection Limits (TDL) of elutriate, sediment (dry weight basis) and tissue (wet
weight basis). TDLs should meet those specified in the SERIM Tables 5-3 to 5-7, 5-9 to
5-11, and 6-4 to 6-8.
Discussion of the proposed methods should be included to clarify any study-specific or lab-
specific modifications or additions, or to justify substantive deviations from the methods in
Tables 5-2 to 5-11 and 6-4 to 6-8 of the SERIM.
Physical and Chemical Analysis of Sediment, Elutriates, and Tissues: Physical and
chemical analyses will be conducted on the same sediment used for the biological testing
(i.e., all composited samples and reference sediments). Adequate sample will be collected to
allow sufficient material to be analyzed to account for high water content in the sediment
samples and dilution of samples when addressing detection limits and interferences.
Sediment samples will be obtained from an estuarine environment. The contractor will utilize
applicable measures to control salt interference. Composite samples from a particular
location will be completely homogenized prior to obtaining splits for the required analyses.
The concentration, reporting limit (RL), and method detection limit (MDL) will be reported on
a dry weight basis.
If alternative methods or detection limits are used, approval from USEPA and USACE-
Wilmington is required. For grain size distributions, in addition to reporting the percentages
in each size class, a graph of the cumulative frequency percentages using U.S. Army
Engineering (ENG) Form 2087 (Gradation Curves) or similar form will be used.
Sufficient sediment will be collected during field work to run all tests on all sediment samples
(including duplicates), and to run re-tests of any of the samples if required. Analyses shall be
performed in a timely fashion, allowing for retesting prior to expiration of holding times.
Elutriates will be generated using procedures described in the ITM (USEPA/USACE1998).
Analytes, Methods, and Target Reporting Limits: Sediment Physical Analyses
Parameter
Grain Size
Total Solids/Water Content
Specific Gravity of soils
Test Method
ASTM-D422
ASTM-D2216-80 Plumb
1998
ASTMD-854-00
Reporting Limit
1.0 %
1.0 % solids
0.01 mg/L
Section 13.0, Element B4: Analytical Methods Requirements
53
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Analytes, Methods, and Target Reporting Limits: Sediment Chemistry
Test Parameters
METALS/OTHERS
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
ORGANOTINS
Monobutyltin
Dibutyltin
Tributyltin
PESTICIDES
Aldrin
Chlordane & derivatives
Technical Chlordane
a fc/s>-Chlordane
r #re/7s>Chlordane
Oxychlordane
C/s-Nonachlor
77a/7s-Nonachlor
ODD & derivatives
o,p' (2,40-DDD
p,p' (4,4')-DDD
0,p' (2,40-DDE
p,p' (4,4')-DDE
0,p' (2,40-DDT
p,p' (4,4')-DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan & derivatives
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endrin & derivatives
Test Met hod
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
7471A
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
9071
9060(mod)
Krone et at.
Krone
Krone
Krone
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
Reporting Limit
(Dry Weights)
0.50 mg/kg
0.10 mg/kg
0.50 mg/kg
0.10 mg/kg
0.10 mg/kg
0.10 mg/kg
0.10 mg/kg
0.05 mg/kg
0.10 mg/kg
0.20 mg/kg
0.062 mg/kg
1.00 mg/kg
0.50 mg/kg
0.25 mg/kg
100 mg/kg
1.0 ng/kg
1.3 iag/kg
1.5 ng/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7|ag/kg
1.7|ag/kg
Section 13.0, Element B4: Analytical Methods Requirements
54
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Analytes, Methods, and Target Reporting Limits: Sediment Chemistry
Test Parameters
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
Heptachlor and derivatives
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC)
a-BHC
(3-BHC
5-BHC
y-BHC (Lindane)
Methoxychlor
Mi rex©
Toxaphene
Total Chlorinated Pesticides
PCB CONGENERS
PCB-8
PCB-18
PCB-28
PCB-44
PCB-49
PCB-52
PCB-66
PCB-77
PCB-87
PCB-101
PCB-105
PCB-118
PCB-126
PCB-128
PCB-138
PCB-153
PCB-156
PCB-169
PCB-170
PCB-180
PCB-183
PCB-184
PCB-187
PCB-195
PCB-206
PCB-209
Test Met hod
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Reporting Limit
(Dry Weights)
1.7 ng/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7|agiVkg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
167 iag/kg
10 ng/kg
1 ng/kg
1 ng/kg
1 ng/kg
1 iag/kg
1 iag/kg
1 |ag/kg
1 ng/kg
1 ng/kg
1 ng/kg
1 iag/kg
1 iag/kg
1 |ag/kg
1 ng/kg
1 ng/kg
1 ng/kg
1 iag/kg
1 iag/kg
1 |ag/kg
1 ng/kg
1 ng/kg
1 ng/kg
1 iag/kg
1 iag/kg
1 |ag/kg
1 ng/kg
1 ng/kg
Section 13.0, Element B4: Analytical Methods Requirements
55
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Analytes, Methods, and Target Reporting Limits: Sediment Chemistry
Test Parameters
PCB AROCLORS
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
Test Met hod
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
Reporting Limit
(Dry Weights)
33 iag/kg
33 iag/kg
33 iag/kg
33 ng/kg
33 ng/kg
33 ng/kg
33 iag/kg
POL YNUCLEAR AROMA TIC HYDROCARBONS
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
DIOXINS
All congeners
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8290
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ^g/kg
20 ^g/kg
20 ^g/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ^g/kg
1.0ppt(2378TCDD)
Analytes, Methods, and Target Reporting Limits: Elutriate Chemistry
Test Parameter
METALS/OTHERS
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Test Method
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
7471A
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
Reporting Limit
1 |ag/L
Lufl/k
Lufl/k
LuflZk
1 M.g/L
1 M.g/L
1 M.g/L
0.2 ng/L
Lufl/k
2 |ag/L
Section 13.0, Element B4: Analytical Methods Requirements
56
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Analytes, Methods, and Target Reporting Limits: Elutriate Chemistry
Test Parameter
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
ORGANOTINS
Monobutyltin
Dibutyltin
Tributyltin
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
PESTICIDES
Aldrin
Chlordane & derivatives
Technical Chlordane
a fc/s>-Chlordane
y #re/7s>Chlordane
Oxychlordane
C/s-Nonachlor
7?2/7s-INonachlor
ODD & derivatives
o,p' (2,40-DDD
p,p' (4,4')-DDD
0,p' (2,40-DDE
p,p' (4,4')-DDE
0,p' (2,40-DDT
p,p' (4,4')-DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan & derivatives
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endrin & derivatives
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
Heptachlor and derivatives
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC)
a-BHC
(3-BHC
5-BHC
y-BHC (Lindane)
Methoxychlor
Mi rex©
Toxaphene
Test Method
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
Krone
Krone
Krone
Krone
9071
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
Reporting Limit
Lufl/t
Lufl/t
IHQ/L
O.Olng/L
0.01ng/L
0.01 ng/L
0.50 mg/L
0.5 ng/L
0.5 ng/L
0.5 ng/L
0.5 ng/L
0.5 ng/L
0.5 ng/L
0.5 ng/L
0.05 ng/L
0.05 ng/L
0.05 ng/L
0.05 ng/L
0.05 ng/L
0.05 ng/L
0.01 ng/L
0.01 ng/L
O.Olng/L
0.01|ag/L
0.01|ag/L
O.Olng/L
0.01|ag/L
0.01|ag/L
0.01|ag/L
0.01|ag/L
0.01|ag/L
0.01|ag/L
O.Olng/L
O.Olng/L
0.2 ^g/L
Section 13.0, Element B4: Analytical Methods Requirements
57
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Analytes, Methods, and Target Reporting Limits: Elutriate Chemistry
Test Parameter
PCB CONGENERS
PCB-8
PCB-18
PCB-28
PCB-44
PCB-49
PCB-52
PCB-66
PCB-77
PCB-87
PCB-101
PCB-105
PCB-118
PCB-126
PCB-128
PCB-138
PCB-153
PCB-156
PCB-169
PCB-170
PCB-180
PCB-183
PCB-184
PCB-187
PCB-195
PCB-206
PCB-209
PCB AROCLORS
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
Test Method
Mod8082NOAA
Mod8082NOAA
Mod8082NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod8082NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod8082NOAA
Mod8082NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod8082NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod8082NOAA
Mod8082NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod8082NOAA
Mod8082NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod8082NOAA
Mod8082NOAA
Mod 8082 NOAA
Mod8082NOAA
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
8082
Reporting Limit
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
2ng/L
0.05 ng/L
0.05 ng/L
0.05 ng/L
0.05 ng/L
0.05 ng/L
0.05 ng/L
0.05 ng/L
Section 13.0, Element B4: Analytical Methods Requirements
58
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Test Parameter
Test Method
Reporting Limit
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
8270SIM/8310
0.005 ng/L
0.005 ng/L
0.005 ng/L
0.005 ng/L
0.005 ^g/L
0.005 ^g/L
0.005 ^g/L
0.005 ng/L
0.005 ng/L
0.005 ng/L
0.005 ng/L
0.005 ng/L
0.005 ng/L
0.005 ng/L
0.005 ng/L
0.005 ng/L
0.005 ^g/L
0.005 ^g/L
Chemical Analyses of Tissues. Tissues from the 28-day bioaccumulation test organisms will be
analyzed for the COCs listed below*:
Analytes, Methods, and Target Reporting Limits: Tissue Chemistry*
Test Parameter
METALS/OTHERS
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
% Moisture
Lipids
Test Method
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
7471A
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
6010b/200.8
EPA 1986, 1987
Lee et al., 1989
Reporting Limit
(Wet Weights)
0.5 mg/kg
0.2 mg/kg
0.5 mg/kg
0.1 mg/kg
0.5 mg/kg
1 mg/kg
0.2 mg/kg
0.02 mg/kg
1 mg/kg
0.20 mg/kg
0.062 mg/kg
0.01 mg/kg
1 mg/kg
0.1%
0.1%
Section 13.0, Element B4: Analytical Methods Requirements
59
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Analytes, Methods, and Target Reporting Limits: Tissue Chemistry*
Test Parameter
ORGANOTINS
Monobutyltin
Dibutyltin
Tributyltin
PESTICIDES
Aldrin
Chlordane & derivatives
Technical Chlordane
a fc/s>-Chlordane
r #re/7s>Chlordane
Oxychlordane
C/s-Nonachlor
77a/7s-Nonachlor
ODD & derivatives
o,p' (2,40-DDD
p,p' (4,4')-DDD
0,p' (2,40-DDE
p,p' (4,4')-DDE
0,p' (2,40-DDT
p,p' (4,4')-DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan & derivatives
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endrin & derivatives
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
Heptachlor and derivatives
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC)
a-BHC
(3-BHC
5-BHC
y-BHC (Lindane)
Methoxychlor
Mi rex©
Toxaphene
Total Chlorinated Pesticides
Test Method
Krone et at.
Krone
Krone
Krone
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
8081A
Reporting Limit
(Wet Weights)
1.0 ng/kg
1.3 iag/kg
1.5 ng/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7|ag/kg
1.7|ag/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7ngn/kg
1.7 ng/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 |ag/kg
1.7 ng/kg
167 iag/kg
10 ng/kg
Section 13.0, Element B4: Analytical Methods Requirements
60
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Analytes, Methods, and Target Reporting Limits: Tissue Chemistry*
Test Parameter
Test Method
Reporting Limit
(Wet Weights)
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
DIOXINS
All congeners
8310/8270 SIM
8310/8270 SIM
8310/8270 SIM
8310/8270 SIM
8310/8270 SIM
8310/8270 SIM
8310/8270 SIM
8310/8270 SIM
8310/8270 SIM
8310/8270 SIM
8310/8270 SIM
8310/8270 SIM
8310/8270 SIM
8310/8270 SIM
8310/8270 SIM
8310/8270 SIM
8310/8270 SIM
8310/8270 SIM
8290
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ^g/kg
20 ^g/kg
20 ^g/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ng/kg
20 ^g/kg
20 ^g/kg
1.0 ppt (2378 TCDD-others slightly
higher)
* The list of analytes for tissues may be adjusted based on examination of sediment chemistry results.
Section 13.0, Element B4: Analytical Methods Requirements
61
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
13.3.2 Biological Analysis
This section should present an overview of the bioassay testing that is proposed. It should
include a discussion of any project-specific parameters that have been prearranged that may
influence future decision-making for this dredging project (i.e., additional bioaccumulation
testing).1
Summary of Toxicity Test Species Requirements
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE PHASE TOXICITY
Crustacean
Mysids, Americamysis bahia - 1-5 days old; age difference within batch to be 24 hours or less
Fish
Silverside, Menidia menidia, M. beryllina, or M. peninsulae —9-14 days old; age difference within batch
to be 24 hours or less
Zooplankton
Bivalve larvae (oyster) (Crassostrea virginica) - Embryos within 4 hours of fertilization or
Sea urchin larvae (Arbacia punctulata)
SOLID PHASE (WHOLE-SEDIMENT) TOXICITY
Infaunal Amphipod
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Burrowing Polvchaete
Neries areceodentata
BIOACCUMULATION
Burrowing Polvchaete
Sand worm, Nereis virens
Bivalve
Bent-nose clam, Macoma nasuta relatively uniform in size
In some circumstances, EPA/USACE may agree to review draft data in order to expedite tiered testing (e.g., to decide on an
appropriate compositing scheme, whether addition bioaccumulation testing is necessary, or a reduced list of analytes for
bioaccumulation analysis). Any SAP proposing review of draft data should provide a full justification for the request being
made.
Section 13.0, Element B4: Analytical Methods Requirements
62
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Bioassav Protocols
Generally, the SAP should reference recommended protocols for conducting bioassays (e.g.,
ASTM or EPA standard methods). The following project-specific information should be
included, as well as discussion of any proposed deviations from or clarifications of the
recommended protocols:
• Species proposed for use and rationale for their selection (e.g., seasonal availability,
substrate preference/tolerances), if necessary,
• Source of test organisms, and collection and handling procedure (including acclimation
procedures),
• Control sediment source,
• Reference sediment source,
• Number of laboratory replicates proposed,
• Reference toxicant(s),
• Performance standards for control and reference samples,
• Performance standards for reference toxicant testing (e.g., laboratory mean and standard
deviation on LC50/EC50 data for each species proposed for testing),
• Water quality parameters (e.g., salinity, temperature, pH, ammonia, and dissolved oxygen) to
be measured in overlying water/elutriate, including measurement procedures and frequency,
• Proposed bioassay sediment interstitial water monitoring parameters (e.g., salinity, pH,
ammonia, and sulfides), including measurement procedures and frequency. This should
include any procedures for compensating for elevated interstitial concentrations.
Quality control procedures for toxicological analyses include the following:
Water Bioassav Samples
(See Green Book Section 11.1 - Tier III: Water-Column Bioassays, for details.)
• Reference toxicant tests - Geometric dilution series of five unreplicated concentrations, one
of which must give >50% mortality and one of which must give <50% mortality; conducted
once monthly per laboratory-cultured species and on each lot of purchased or field-collected
organisms; 10 organisms per exposure chamber; 96-hour exposure (48-hour minimum for
bivalve larvae); no sediment; use artificial seawater or clean natural seawater as the diluent,
depending on which was employed in the bioassays.
• Control mortality <10% mean (<30% abnormality for live oyster and sea urchin larvae)
Sediment Bioassav Samples
(See Green Book Section 11.2 - Whole-Sediment Bioassays, for details.)
• Reference toxicant tests - Geometric dilution series of five un-replicated concentrations,
one of which must give >50% mortality and one of which must give <50% mortality;
conducted once monthly per laboratory-cultured species and on each lot of purchased or
field-collected organisms; 10 organisms per exposure chamber; 10-day exposure; use
artificial seawater or clean natural seawater as the overlying water depending on which was
employed in the bioassays.
Section 13.0, Element B4: Analytical Methods Requirements
63
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
• Ammonia in the overlying water and porewater will be monitored; appropriate action as
described in the ITM (USEPA/USACE 1998) and/or the SERIM (USEPA/USACE 2008) will be
taken for any ammonia results above limits recommended in the SERIM (<60 mg/l - see
table 6-2 for Leptocheirusplumulosus}.
• Control mortality <10% mean (amphipods control mortality <10% mean and no individual
chamber >20% mortality)
Sediment Bioaccumulation Samples
(See Green Book Section 12.1 - Tier III: Determination of Bioavaliability, for details.)
• Reference toxicant tests - Geometric dilution series of five un-replicated concentrations,
one of which must give >50% mortality and one of which must give <50% mortality;
conducted once monthly per laboratory-cultured species and on each lot of purchased or
field-collected organisms; 20-25 organisms per exposure chamber; 28-day exposure; use
artificial seawater or clean natural seawater as the diluent depending on which was
employed in the bioaccumulation studies
Where control mortality is >10%, determine if the following conditions exist:
a. adequate replicates to obtain statistical power;
b. stressed organisms;
c. contaminated control sediment;
d. contamination of test system;
e. quality control problems; and
f. adequate tissue for chemical analyses.
Tissue samples from the 28-day bioaccumulation tests will be analyzed for the constituents
listed in Section 13; the list of constituents may be adjusted based on examination of sediment
chemistry results. Each series must include a minimum of five replicates of test sediment, five
replicates of reference sediment, and three replicates of control sediment. An analysis will be
made for each replicate. A minimum of 20 organisms per replicate is required for each test
chamber, although more organisms may be required in order to conduct the specified tissue
analyses at the end of the test exposure. All tissues will be depurated for 24 hours in clean
sand prior to freezing.
Section 13.0, Element B4: Analytical Methods Requirements
64
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
14.0 EMENT B5 - OUAIJTY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.2.5.
Field and laboratory QC procedures should follow recommended minimum laboratory QC
outline in the SERIM, as well as standard industry practices for environmental samples. All
QC in a cited method must be performed. This section should reference the guidance used
or discuss the following QC components as they relate to the proposed sampling and
analysis:
• Field cross-contamination and filter blanks
• Method blanks
• Duplicates (reported as relative standard deviation)
• Ongoing Precision and Recovery (OPR) [sometimes referred to as a laboratory control
samples, quality control check sample, laboratory-fortified blank, or blank spike]
• Matrix spikes
• Spike duplicates
• Surrogate spikes
• QC batch size
• A detailed discussion should be included to clarify any study-specific or lab-specific
modifications or to justify substantive deviations from recommended QC components.
All chemical analyses will be performed by Columbia Analytical Services, Inc (CAS). CAS is a
NELAC-certified laboratory; all analyses will be performed according to NELAC standards. The
Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and SOPs for CAS will clearly define quantitative and
qualitative objectives for each analysis such as MDLs, precision, accuracy, completeness,
representativeness, and comparability. The QAM and SOPs will be strictly adhered to for all
analyses completed under the project. Appropriate standard quality-control checks such as
sample splits and replicates, blanks, spiked blanks, matrix spikes and duplicates, surrogate and
internal standards, and calibration standards will be incorporated into all laboratory activities
and described in the laboratory's QAM and SOPs.
The QAM and SOPs will list the analytical equipment used for testing, along with relevant
calibration and standard reference materials used, maintenance schedules, and recordkeeping
methods. The accuracy and precision limits included in the QAM and SOPs of the analytical
laboratory will meet the criteria established for this evaluation. The laboratory
managers/directors listed in Section 2.0 will be responsible for assigning appropriately-trained
analysts to perform the specific tests. As part of the NELAC certification, corrective procedures
have been established ifQA objectives are not met.
USACE-Specific Data Quality Objectives
Chemical data must conform to the data quality objectives listed below. Chemical data that fall
outside of the acceptable limits will be re-tested at no additional cost to the government. All
analytical anomalies will be described in detail in the final report.
Section 14.0, Element B5: Quality Control Requirements
65
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Data Quality Objectives for Chemical Analyses
Parameter
PAHs and
Pesticides
QC
Measurement
MB
MS/MSD
Duplicate
SRM**
ICV
CCV
Surrogates
Internal
Standard
1C
MDL
Frequency
1 per 20 samples
or 1 per batch up
to 20 samples
1 set per 20
samples or 1 set
per batch up to 20
samples
1 per 20 samples
or 1 per batch up
to 20 samples
1 per 20 samples
or 1 per batch up
to 20 samples
Immediately
following
calibration curve
Minimum - one per
10 samples and at
the end of each
batch whenever
batch is greater
than 10 or for
GC/MS at the
beginning of every
12 hours
Every sample
Every sample
Verify after each
initial calibration
Verify MDL study
once per year for
each analyte of
interest
Acceptance
Criteria
No analyte should
be detected > RL
70 -130% for spike
limits
30% RSD for
precision
30% RSD for
precision
(evaluated for
analytes >3x RL)
Within limits
specified by
provider (evaluated
for analytes >3x
RL)
80-120%
Recovery
RRF or RF <25%
for GC/MS
methods and <15
for all other
methods
30 - 1 50%
Recovery
50 - 200%
Recovery
<20% RSD for
each analyte or RF
<30% for GC/MS
Updated annually
Storage/Holding
times
14 Days until
extraction, 40 days
thereafter
Section 14.0, Element B5: Quality Control Requirements
66
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Parameter
Organotins
QC
Measurement
MB
MS/MSD
Duplicate
SRM**
ICV
CCV
Surrogates
1C
MDL
Frequency
1 per 20 samples
or 1 per batch up to
20 samples
1 set per 20
samples or 1 set
per batch up to 20
samples
1 per 20 samples
or 1 per batch up to
20 samples
1 per 20 samples
or 1 per batch up to
20 samples
Immediately
following calibration
curve
At the beginning of
every 12 hours of
analysis
Every sample
Verify after each
initial calibration
Verify MDL study
once per year for
each analyte of
interest
Acceptance
Criteria
No analyte should
be detected > RL
70 - 1 30% for spike
limits
40% RSD for
precision
40% RSD for
precision
(Evaluated for
analytes >3x RL)
Within limits
specified by
provider (Evaluated
for analytes >3x
RL)
75-125% Recovery
75-125% Recovery
20-150% Recovery
<20% RSD
Updated annually
Storage/Holding
times
14 Days until
extraction, 40 days
thereafter
Parameter
Dioxins
QC
Measurement
MB
LCS
Frequency
1 per 20 samples
or 1 per batch up
to 20 samples
1 per 20 samples
or 1 per batch up
to 20 samples
Acceptance
Criteria
No analyte should
be detected > RL
70-1 30% for spike
limits
Storage/Holding
times
14 Days until extraction,
40 days thereafter
Section 14.0, Element B5: Quality Control Requirements
67
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Parameter
QC
Measurement
MS/MSD or
LCS/LCSDA
ICV
CCV°
Initial
Calibration
Standards
Frequency
1 set per 20
samples or 1 set
per batch up to 20
samples
Immediately
following
calibration curve
At the beginning of
every 12 hours of
analysis
Once per run
Acceptance
Criteria
70-130% recovery
for accuracy and
<20 % difference
for precision
50- 150%
recovery
80-120%
Native standards
65-135%
Labeled
standards
80-120%
Native standards
65-135%
Labeled
standards
Storage/Holding
times
Parameter
Metals
QC
Measurement
MB
MS/MSD
Duplicate
SRM
LCS/LFB
ICV
Frequency
1 per 20 samples
or 1 per batch up to
20 samples
1 set per 20
samples or 1 set
per batch up to 20
samples
1 per 20 samples
or 1 per batch up to
20 samples
1 per 20 samples
or 1 per batch up to
20 samples
1 per 20 samples
or 1 per batch up to
20 samples
Immediately
following
calibration curve
Acceptance
Criteria
No analyte should
be detected > RL
70 -130% for
spike limits
30% RSD
(Evaluated for
analytes >3x RL)
70-130%
Recovery
(Evaluated for
analytes >3x RL)
70-130%
Recovery
90 - 1 1 0%
Recovery
Storage/Holding
times
1 80 Days
Section 14.0, Element B5: Quality Control Requirements
68
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Parameter
QC
Measurement
ccv
LDR
Initial
Calibration for
AA, Hg
MDL
ICB
Frequency
Minimum - one per
10 samples and at
the end of each
batch whenever
batch is greater
than 10
Verify LDR once
per quarter for ICP
analysis and one
time for mercury
analysis
Performed daily
Verify MDL study
once per year for
each analyte of
interest
Immediately after
initial calibration
Acceptance
Criteria
90 - 1 1 0%
Recovery
Refer to
frequency
Correlation
coefficient >
0.995
Updated annually
No analyte should
be detected > RL
Storage/Holding
times
TOC
MB
MS/MSD
Triplicate
SRM**
ICV
1 per 20 samples
or 1 per batch up
to 20 samples
1 set per 20
samples or 1 set
per batch up to 20
samples
1 per 20 samples
or 1 per batch up
to 20 samples
1 per 20 samples
or 1 per batch up
to 20 samples
Immediately
following
calibration curve
No analyte should
be detected > RL
75 -125% for
spike limits
20% RSD for
precision
(Evaluated for
analytes >3x RL)
20% RSD for
precision
(Evaluated for
analytes >3x RL)
Within limits
specified by
provider
(Evaluated for
analytes >3x RL)
80- 120%
Recovery
28 Days
Section 14.0, Element B5: Quality Control Requirements
69
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
Parameter
QC
Measurement
ccv
1C
MDL
Frequency
At the beginning of
every 12 hours of
analysis
Verify after each
initial calibration
Verify MDL study
once per year for
each analyte of
interest
Acceptance
Criteria
90- 110%
Recovery
cc > 0.9950 for all
calibrations
Updated annually
Storage/Holding
times
Grain Size
Triplicate
1 set per 20
samples or per
batch
<20% RSD
Undetermined
% Solids
and
Specific
Gravity
Duplicate
1 set per 10
samples or per
batch
Within 20%
Relative %
Difference
Undetermined
If SRMs are not available, use laboratory control samples
Achieving the desired reporting limits (RLs) and method detection limits (MDLs) is critical to
providing a suitable evaluation of the COCs and the suitability of the sediments for ocean
disposal. The laboratory must perform yearly MDL verification studies on the matrices tested
under this project. The most recent MDL verification studies on sediment, water, and tissue
matrices will be submitted with the final data report.
The final report will include detailed explanations when the actual reporting limits exceed
those listed in this table and/or when an alternative test method is used. Any deviation from
the proposed methods will receive prior approval from USACE-Wilmington.
Section 14.0, Element B5: Quality Control Requirements
70
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
15.0 ELEMENT B6 - INSTRUMENT/EQUIPMENT TESTING. INSPECTION. AND
MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.2.6.
Field Instruments/ All field instruments will be maintained in accordance with manufacturers'
recommendations and will comply with FDEP SOPs, including but not limited to cleaning,
inspection, changing of batteries, DO membranes, etc. Maintenance records will be kept
according to FDEP SOP FT1000 (FDEP 2004).
Each instrument will also be inspected, tested, and calibrated prior to mobilizing to the field to
ensure they are in good working order.
Laboratory Instruments: The QAM and/or SOPs for each laboratory listed in Section 4.3 list
the analytical equipment used for testing, along with relevant calibration and standard
reference materials used, maintenance schedules, and recordkeeping methods. The accuracy
and precision limits included in the QAM and SOPs of the analytical laboratory meet the criteria
established for this evaluation. The laboratory managers/directors listed in Section 4.3 will be
responsible for assigning appropriately-trained analysts to perform the specific tests. As part of
the NELAC certification, corrective procedures have also been established if QA objectives are
not met.
Section 15.0, Element B6: Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance Requirements
71
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
16.0 E EMENT B7 - INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION AND FREQUENCY
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.2.7.
All laboratory instruments used in the analysis of sediment, elutriate, tissue, and toxicological
analyses will be calibrated according to the method, laboratory Quality Assurance Manual,
SOPs, or any other NELAC-approved method. All records of calibration will also be documented
and provided in the laboratory reports according to the above procedures.
All instruments used to take readings in the field will be calibrated according to the
manufacturers' recommended procedures at the beginning of each sampling day. An end-of-
day reading will be taken to document that the instrument remained calibrated throughout the
sampling day. This calibration will be recorded and documented on a calibration log and
supplied to USAGE with copies of all field paperwork. Acceptance limits for in situ
measurements are below:
• pH: ±0.2 SU
• Conductivity: ±5%
• Dissolved Oxygen: ±5%
• Turbidity: 0.1-10 NTU ±10%; 11-40 NTU ±8%; 41-100 NTU ±6.5%; >100 NTU ±5%
Section 16.0, Element B7: Instrument Calibration and Frequency
72
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
17.0 ELEMENT B8 - INSPECTION/ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUPPLIES
AND CONSUMABLES
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.2.8.
All sample containers will be certified pre-cleaned and will have a Certificate of Analysis showing
the containers were free of COCs. These Certificates of Analysis will be kept and retained with
the project files by ANAMAR. For containers provided by the laboratory(s), Certificates of
Analysis will be kept by the laboratory according to their QAM and/or SOPs.
All calibration standards used for field instruments will be in-date. Lot numbers and expiration
dates of each standard used will be recorded on the calibration sheets. Standards will also be
appropriate for the results measured in the field (i.e., if marine water is being measured,
conductivity standards will be of the appropriate concentration to accurately represent marine
water as opposed to fresh water).
All laboratory consumables will be inspected, handled, stored, documented, and used according
to NELAC requirements and in accordance with each laboratory's QAM and/or SOPs.
Section 17.0, Element B8: Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Consumables
73
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
18.0 ELEMENT B9 - DATA ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS f NON-DIRECT
MEASUREMENTS)
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.2.9.
Various forms of data will be generated while implementing this project: photographs, maps,
CIS data, research-derived data, etc. All data generated during this project will be retained by
the contractor. Any data not required to be submitted as described in Section 6 will be supplied
to USAGE and/or US EPA upon request.
Section 18.0, Element B9: Data Acquisition Requirements (Non-Direct Measurements)
74
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
19.0 EMENT BIO - DATA MANAGEMENT. INTERPRETATION. AND REDUCTION
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.2.10.
Element BIO encompasses the information indicated in Sections 19.1 19.2, below.
19.1 Data Management
Each laboratory has established, NELAC-approved procedures for data management, collection,
validation, reduction, and reporting. As such, the analytical results will be extensively reviewed
in-house by the laboratories submitting the data.
Each laboratory will submit an Electronic Data Deliverable (EDO) and a hard copy data packet to
ANAMAR. All data tables will be generated from the EDO and will be cross-checked against the
hard copy data packet When a data packet is received by ANAMAR, it will be reviewed by
ANAMAR's QA/QC Officer, with emphasis on NELAC standards. All laboratory reports received
will include laboratory QC data generated in the analysis of the project samples including results
of all method blanks, lab duplicates/triplicates, matrix spikes, spike duplicates/triplicates,
reference material, surrogate spikes, standards, check standards, and calibration verifications.
The analytical results for of these QC samples will be reviewed and documented in a CQAR for
each analytical data packet received. This report will be incorporated into the final data report.
The CQAR consists of a checklist and a case narrative of the analytical runs. Any
nonconformance, QC deficiency, or other problems that would impact data quality will be
addressed in the CQAR. In particular, ANAMAR will compare data to the data quality objectives
listed in Section 7, as well as confirm that target detection limits listed in Section 13.3.1 were
reached. If any data quality objective is not reached, the laboratory will re-analyze the
sample(s) and/or provide documentation for the failed criteria. The CQAR will contain a written
record of the validity of each data package and its subsequent use in the report.
Field parameters, sample descriptions, site conditions, core logs, and additional information
pertaining to the sample and sampling process will be recorded on sample-site-specific field
sheets. Calibration data for field instruments will be recorded on calibration sheets. A DQCR
will be filled out for each day of sampling and sample processing. Each of these records is
integral to the successful completion of this project. As such, they will be reviewed, reported,
and retained as described elsewhere in this document.
ANAMAR will use the password-protected Client Login section on the company's website
(www. ana marine, com) to upload documents for client access and to keep USACE-Wilmington
up to date with all documents and data related to this project. This provides access to current
documents and allows USACE-Wilmington to perform an in-progress data review data.
19.2 Data Interpretation and Reduction
Data reduction in the final report will be done as discussed in the Green Book and the SERIM.
This contract included the STFATE model. Numerical models are components of the Tier III
Section 19.0, Element BIO: Data Management
75
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
water column evaluations. The STFA TE model will be used and run only for the COC that
requires the greatest dilution for which an LC50 can be determined. Numerical input parameters
to be used for the STFA TE will be coordinated with EPA Region 4 and USAGE.
The results of the water column toxicity tests are used to calculate an LC50 and/or an EC50. The
water column LPC for the dredged material is 1% of the LC50. If the numerical mixing model
predicts that the concentration of dredged material in the water column will not exceed 1% of
the LC50 concentration either outside the disposal site or within the disposal site 4 hours after
the discharge of dredged material, the proposed discharge of dredged material meets the water
column LPC. If either criterion is not met, the dredged material does not meet the water
column LPC.
Toxicity and bioaccumulation data will undergo statistical analysis in accordance with the Green
Book. The goal is to determine whether the mean effect of exposure to dredged sediment is
significantly greater than the mean exposure to the reference sediment.
All reports will undergo extensive internal review and will be submitted to USACE-Wilmington.
Accompanying the final report will be a CD containing all of the project files including electronic
versions of all data reports, maps, figures, tables, text, photos, and any other electronic files
used to generate the report.
Section 19.0, Element BIO: Data Management
76
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
GROUP C. ASSESSMENT AND OVERSIGHT
20.0 ELEMENT Cl - ASSESSMENTS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.3.1.
Assessments and response actions throughout the life of this project are the responsibility of
the QA/QC Officer and are performed in-part through the review and audit process.
Performance and systems audits are performed to evaluate the capability and performance of a
measurement system. Audits are utilized to ensure that field and laboratory activities will
provide data reflective of site conditions and within project QA/QC requirements. A
performance audit is used to evaluate the accuracy of a measurement method or component of
the method. A systems audit focuses on evaluating the principal components of a sample
collection or data collection method to determine proper selection and use of that method.
ANAMAR field sampling teams will be overseen and directed at all times by the Project Manager.
Field teams are audited periodically, usually annually, by the ANAMAR Project Director,
company President, or QA/QC Officer. These audits entail an observation and critique of
sampling methods, collection, preservation, labeling, handling of sediment and/or water
samples to ensure SOPs are being followed, that all equipment is calibrated and used properly,
the Health and Safety Plan is being followed, and all aspects of the project are on schedule.
Documentation of these audits is retained by ANAMAR.
Each laboratory used in this project regularly undergoes audits in accordance with their NELAC
certifications. Although no project-specific laboratory audits are scheduled for this project, any
deficiencies identified in a recent audit that may adversely affect the data quality for this project
will be brought to the attention of the ANAMAR Project Manager.
Any event that does not conform to the SAP/QAP, SOPs, or QAMS is considered a noncon-
formance event. These will be identified as quickly as possible and reported to the Project
Manager as soon as practical. If the nonconformance event happens in the fieldwork portion of
this project, it will be documented in the Daily Quality Control Report (DQCR). The project
manager will confer with the USACE-Wilmington and outline a procedure for accomplishing the
task so the quality of the project is not compromised. Every effort will be taken to contact the
USAGE and/or USEPA representative prior to any deviation from the procedures documented in
this SAP/QAPP.
Section 20.0, Element Cl: Assessments and Response Actions
77
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
21.0 ELEMENT C2 - REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.3.2.
The following reports must be submitted:
1. Sampling and Analysis /draft Quality Assurance Project Plan (SAP/QAPP), submitted to
USEPA for review and comment;
2. Final Quality Assurance Project Plan (SAP/QAPP), submitted to USEPA following update
from comments for final approval prior to sampling;
3. Site Specific Safety and Health Plan - Accident Prevention Plan;
4. Preliminary Sediment Chemistry Data Report;
5. MPRSA Section 103 Sediment Evaluation Testing Report.
6. Chemical Quality Assurance Report. The CQAR evaluates all of the representative data
from the project field sampling and laboratory analyses. For each group of data, a data
review checklist is completed that assesses daily field QC reports and specific QC
chemical data quality indicators, and enables the reviewer to identify potential data
problem areas that may require additional data validation. The CQAR identifies non-
conformances, QC deficiencies, or other problems that would impact the data quality
objectives as specified in the work plan and the QAPP. The CQAR summarizes the
overall usability of the data for the intended purposes. This report will be an appendix
to the Final Sediment Testing Report (see Section 5).
7. Daily Quality Control Reports (DQCR). A DQCR will be prepared by the Field Team
Leader or Project Manager for each day sampling is conducted. This report will contain
a description of the work performed, samples collected, general conditions, corrective
actions taken, departures from the sampling plans, and any other notes or comments
needed that will document the day's activities. This report will be an appendix to the
Final Sediment Testing Report (see Section 5).
Section 21.0, Element C2: Reports to Management
78
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
GROUP D. DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY
22.0 ELEMENT Dl - DATA REVIEW. VALIDATION. AND VERIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.4.1.
Data Validation
Data validation is a process used to accept or reject data and determine if the data are
traceable, defensible, and can be used for a particular project. Each laboratory will have
established, state-approved procedures for data collection, validation, reduction, and reporting.
As such, the analytical results will be extensively reviewed in-house by the laboratories
submitting the data.
Section 22.0, Element Dl: Data Review, Validation, and Verification Requirements
79
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
23.0 ELEMENT D2 - VALIDATION AND VERIFICATIONS METHODS
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.4.2.
When a data packet is received by the contractor, it will be reviewed by the QA/QC Officer, with
emphasis on NELAC standards. All laboratory reports received will include laboratory QC data
generated during analysis of the project samples including results of all method blanks, lab
duplicates/triplicates, matrix spikes, spike duplicates/triplicates, reference material, surrogate
spikes, standards, check standards, and calibration verifications. The analytical results for these
QC samples will be reviewed and documented in a CQAR for each analytical data packet
received. This report will be incorporated into the final data report. The CQAR consists of a
checklist and a case narrative of the analytical runs. Any nonconformance, QC deficiency, or
other problem that would impact data quality will be addressed in the CQAR. The contractor
will compare data to the data quality objectives listed in Section 7.0, as well as confirm that
target detection limits listed in Section 13.3 were reached. If any data quality objective is not
reached, the laboratory will re-analyze the sample(s) and/or provide documentation for the
failed criteria. The CQAR will provide a written record of the validity of each data package and
its subsequent use in the report.
In situ readings and calibration of field equipment used to take the readings will be validated by
the contractor's QA/QC Officer using the following criteria (meter reading compared to
calibration standard):
• pH: ±0.2 SU
• Conductivity: ±5%
• Dissolved Oxygen: ±5%
• Turbidity: 0.1-10 NTU ±10%; 11-40 NTU ±8%; 41-100 NTU ±6.5%; >100 NTU ±5%
The instruments will be calibrated prior to each sampling day. An end-of-day reading will be
taken at the completion of sampling each day. Any reading outside the above criteria will be
flagged appropriately. Calibration sheets will document the pre-calibration, post-calibration,
and end-of-day readings.
One blind duplicate QC sample will be collected in the field. This sample will be given a
different name so the laboratory will not be able to differentiate between it and its duplicate.
Section 23.0, Element D2: Validation and Verifications Methods
80
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
24.0 E EMENT D3 - RECONCILIATION WITH DATA OUAIJTY OBJECTIVES
See Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) Section 2.4.3.
Data will be reconciled with the data quality objectives listed in Section 14 and with the target
detection limits listed in Section 13.3 by comparison with the laboratory results. Chemical data
that fall outside of the acceptable limits and not validated BY A QA/QC Officer will be re-tested
at no additional cost to the government. All analytical anomalies will be described in detail in
the final report. In the case of reruns, the initial and rerun result will be presented in the final
report.
Many analytical methods describe procedures for analytical anomalies that occur during
analysis. These method-specific procedures must be followed.
Tissue chemistry following the bioaccumulation potential tests will be run on each of the five
replicates of each sample and species. The five individual results will be averaged and will be
compared to the average of the reference sample for each analyte. Results greater than 100%
of the reference sample will undergo statistical analysis according to procedures described in
the Green Book and/or the SERIM.
Section 24.0, Element D3: Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives
81
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal:
Relocated Turning Basin, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC
25.0 REFERENCES
List the references you used to compile your QAPP.
USEPA and USAGE. 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal-Testing
Manua/(Green Book). EPA-503/8-91-001. February 1991.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/gbook/gbook.pdf
USEPA and USAGE. 2008. Regional Implementation Manual - Requirements and Procedures for
Evaluation of the Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material in Southeastern U.S. Atlantic and
Gulf Coast Waters (SERIM). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division, Atlanta, GA.
http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/oceans/documents/Regional Implementation Manu
al.odf
USEPA. 2001. Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (QN^-5) (PDF 120KB)-
March 2001, EPA/240/B-01/003. These specifications are eguivalent to Chapter 5 of
EPA Manual 5360. http://www.epa.gov/guality/gs-docs/r5-final.pdf
USEPA. 2002. Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans(G-5) [G-5 publication] (PDF
401KB) - December 2002, EPA/240/R-02/009. (Note: This document replaces
EPA/600/R-98/018 issued in February 1998.) htto://www.eoa.aov/auaIitv/as-docs/a5-
final.pdf
USEPA. 2001. Methods for Collection, Storage and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical and
Toxicological Analyses: Technical Manual. EPA 823-B-01-002. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/collectionmanual.pdf
USEPA. 1995. QA/QC Guidance for Sampling and Analysis of Sediments, Water, and Tissues
for Dredged Material Evaluations - Chemical Evaluations. EPA-823-B-95-001.
http://www.epa.aov/waterscience/librarv/sediment/evaluationauide.pdf
Section 24.0, Element D3: Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives
82
-------
Appendix J
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
AND
SEDIMENT TESTING REPORT
REVIEWER'S CHECKLISTS
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
EPA Region 4 / USAGE SAD
Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)
Reviewer's Checklist
Project:
Permit/File No:
Review Item
Yes
(x)
No
(x)
NA
(x)
Project Description
1 . Is the type of dredging project described (Maintenance/New Work)?
2. Is permit status information given?
3. Is dredging history of the site provided?
4. Is dredging depth given?
5. Is dredging overdepth given?
6. Is dredging volume given?
7. Is the site description adequate (e.g. include discussion of land and water-
based activities influencing sediment quality)?
Sampling
1 . Is bathymetry (hydrographic survey) provided?
2. Is hydrographic survey completed within 90 days?
3. Is area to be dredged clearly delineated on the survey?
4. Are dredging units defined?
5. Are sampling locations indicated on site bathymetric survey?
6. Are sampling locations representative of shoaling and expected contamination
sources?
7. Are number of composites adequate given site history?
8. Are number of composites adequate given total volume to be dredged?
9. Is dredged material volume represented by each composite given?
10. Are proposed sample depths to permitted depth plus overdredge depth?
1 1 . Is the compositing rationale fully described?
12. Is the sampling device described?
13. Reference stations
a. Reference sediment site
b. Elutriate preparation water
c. Reference/dilution water for LPC determination
Testing, Biological and Chemical
1 . Are the following analyses included?
a. Grain size
b. Total organic carbon (TOC)
c. Total solids
d. Metals
e. Phthalate esters
f. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
g. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
h. Pesticides
i. Butlytins
SERIM Appendix J
J-l
August 2008
-------
Project:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8
9.
10.
11.
12.
Is the proposed level of testing adequate given history of site and proposed
disposal location?
Are names and contacts for all toxicity labs given?
Are names and contacts for all chemistry labs given?
Are proposed test species for water column toxicity testing appropriate?
Are proposed test species for benthic toxicity testing appropriate given the
site's sediment conditions (e.g., expected grain size and salinity, results of
earlier testing, test species availability)?
Are provisions made for pre-test measurements of interstitial water chemistry
parameters (e.g., ammonia, sulfides, pH, and salinity)?
Are appropriate procedures described for adjusting interstitial water
concentrations of these parameters if pre-test concentrations exceed the
tolerance limits of the test organisms?
Should there be analyses for any special or nonstandard contaminants of
concern?
Are the detection limits expressed in dry weight for sediments?
Are the detection limits expressed in wet weight for tissues?
Are the detection limits appropriate for chemical and physical analysis?
NOTES:
Reviewer:
Date:
This checklist is not to be used as a guide to SAP development. It is used as a checklist for the reviewer
to assure that key technical information is included in the SAP.
SERIM Appendix J
J-2
August 2008
-------
EPA Region 4 / USAGE SAD
Sediment Testing Reports
Reviewer's Checklist
Project:
Permit/File No:
Review Item
Yes
(x)
No
(x)
NA
(x)
Project Description
1 . Location (map) of dredging project and disposal site
2. Project map (plan drawing, dredging unit boundaries, design depth, quantities)
3. Project volumes
4. General material description (new work/maintenance; sand/silt/clay)
Sampling Information
1 . Sample locations table (coordinates, depth) and map
2. Sampling device described
3. Discussion of rationale for sample location and compositing scheme
4. Sample depth described relative to project depth (below water/sediment
interface)
5. Reference locations
a. Reference sediment site location
b. Elutriate Preparation Water Sample Location
c. Elutriate Dilution Water Sample Location or Source of Dilution Water
6. Discussion of any problems encountered during sampling
Materials and Methods
1. Description of field sampling and handling procedures
2. References for laboratory protocols
a. EPA method number
b. Detection limits
c. Test species used in each test including supplier or collection site
d. Source of seawater used in all tests
e. Bioassay test procedures and QA/QC information
f. Statistical analyses procedures
Final Results
1 . Summary Tables of Results
a. Physical properties
b. Sediment chemistry
c. Elutriate chemistry (estimated from sediment chemistry or actual)
d. Elutriate bioassays including statistical comparisons and LC50 calc
e. Sediment toxicity including statistical comparison
f. Tissue chemistry
2. Raw Data Sheets
a. Physical properties
b. Sediment chemistry
c. Elutriate chemistry
d. Tissue chemistry
References
SERIM Appendix J
J-3
August 2008
-------
Project:
Discussion and Analysis
1 . General discussion of results in comparison to historic results in area
2. Comparison of elutriate chemistry to WQC/WQS
3. Mixing model results (elutriate chemistry and bioassays)
4. Whole sediment toxicity test (comparison of dredged sediments to reference)
5. Statistical comparison of tissue concentrations (comparison of dredged
sediments to reference)
QA/QC
1 . Appendices with sample collection, handling, and tracking?
2. Water quality monitoring results for elutriate bioassays?
3. Elutriate reference toxicant raw data?
4. Water quality monitoring results for sediment bioassays?
5. Sediment reference toxicant raw data?
6. Survivorship and water quality monitoring results for sediment bioaccumulation
studies?
7. MDL studies and internal QC checks
8. Standard operating procedures
9. Quality Assurance Plan
10. References
Reviewer:
Date:
This checklist is not to be used as a guide to testing report content and format. It is used as a checklist
for the reviewer to assure that key information is included in the testing report.
SERIM Appendix J
J-4
August 2008
-------
Appendix K
RECOMMENDED REFERENCE SITES
FOR REGION 4 ODMDSs
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix K
RECOMMENDED REFERENCE SITES FOR REGION 4 ODMDSs
The 1991 Green Book (EPA and USAGE, 1991, Section 3.1.2) defines a reference sediment as,
"A sediment, substantially free of contaminants, that is as similar to the grain size of the
dredged material and the sediment at the disposal site as practical, and reflects conditions that
would exist in the vicinity of the disposal site had no dredged-material disposal ever occurred,
but had all other influences on sediment condition taken place." (EPA and USAGE, 1991,
Section 3.1.2). Reference sediment sampling stations are selected to simulate conditions at the
proposed disposal site in the absence of past dredged material disposal. Reference sediments
must be collected for each evaluation. Results from previous evaluations are not acceptable.
In 2002 and 2006, EPA Region 4 undertook studies of potential areas to be used as a source of
reference sediments for each ODMDS managed by EPA Region 4. The goal of the studies was
to locate for each ODMDS reliable sources of reference sediments with a range of grain sizes. A
reference site exhibiting the physical grain size characteristics (percent fines) most similar to
the proposed dredged material could then be chosen.
One criterion for selecting a reference site was the consistency with which samples of similar
grain size could be obtained. Sites exhibiting high variability between grabs were eliminated.
All coordinates are based upon the North American Datum of 1983. Sediments for the
reference sites also underwent chemical analysis to document that they are substantially free of
contaminants. The 2002 and 2006 studies did not survey all of the Region 4 ODMDSs. In some
cases, historically used reference sites that demonstrated consistent results were selected or
status and trend monitoring stations for which grain size and chemical monitoring data are
available were selected. Reference sites exhibiting the physical grain size characteristics
(percent fines) most similar to the proposed dredged material should be selected for obtaining
reference sediments.
SERIM Appendix K K-l August 2008
-------
CONTENTS
Content Page
Wilmington District K-3
Morehead ODMDS K-3
New Wilmington ODMDS K-3
Charleston District K-4
Georgetown ODMDS K-4
Charleston ODMDS K-5
Port Royal ODMDS K-6
Savannah District K-7
Savannah ODMDS K-7
Brunswick ODMDS K-8
Jacksonville District K-9
Fernandina ODMDS K-9
Jacksonville ODMDS K-10
Canaveral ODMDS K-ll
Fort Pierce ODMDS K-12
Palm Beach ODMDS K-13
Port Everglades ODMDS K-14
Miami ODMDS K-15
Tampa ODMDS K-16
Mobile District K-17
Pensacola Offshore ODMDS K-17
Mobile ODMDS K-18
Pascagoula ODMDS K-19
Gulfport Eastern & Gulfport Western ODMDSs K-19
SERIM Appendix K K-2 August 2008
-------
Wilmington District
Morehead ODMDS
None currently recommended
New Wilmington ODMDS
Station I.D.
RS-NW-A
RS-NW-B
RS-NW-C
RS-NW-D
Description
Sand*
Sand
Silty sand
Sandy silt
Avg. %
Fines
2.00
12.87
27.11
63.81
Range of %
Fines
n/a
11.8-14.3
25.3-33.5
53-66
Latitude
dd° mm. mm'
33 46.302
33 47.838
33 50.574
33 47.136
Longitude
dd° mm. mm'
78 3.612
78 8.940
78 9.066
77 59.370
* historically used
""s\£; /V^ | RS-NW-C j ^S' 5ix-J^S1^;
5J ,/' tj . Tlq ^Qfi1 J'.b3J: f.. ^-V!v'J 3^
/ f,, ,* i" J |GDSFJ ufTtf^^JJ*^ ihfi1 ^-iHii..' -^^ i-l--_ --
I Wilmin
. *<
P--5
RS-NW-B
0 s
' IRS-NW-AM^EgrlL^i^w^ 7 s//J •*/
N e r//8 /j:.4J^o'V' ATi««^A •?/
/ s o ./o ^.^^^S^^vV^i^; V Vi^^-/:/^/
• - •/ J^-" i*-4 • *V^K» l2
' c ^^ -.v / .' (7i •' -'• a '•Oi
: L— ^ e e 7' Sllii\ ••'•'.„ ^; • 4l| // 8 '••. r'l'--.
New Wilmington I ^ >;f Ar--^^'^',.^/^ 9\
j * ^E ^| t? .-" '| . \__ _,'£& ;' ,' yf''.* / "^ Sl.
•>J
« /•
/ 9
.x 3
'"
.JO
,-,, '"^-...jn. '/
1 /o,^
'•<•„
10,
?J*
SERIM Appendix K
K-3
August 2008
-------
Charleston District
Georgetown ODMDS
Station I.D.
RS-GT-A
RS-GT-B
RS-GT-C
Description
Sand*
Silty sand
Sand
Avg. %
Fines
0.35
27.73
1.52
Range of %
Fines
0.33 - 0.38
23.9 - 32.8
1.44-1.70
Latitude
dd° mm. mm'
33 11.028
33 13.410
33 13.020
Longitude
dd° mm. mm'
79 4.080
79 8.472
79 7.020
* historically used
/ Xx S
\l >^yHV
1 \ FWi.i
\\ \ ^
HVJI- i VW^IP* i^ I
tbsSbftl^ RS-GT-C
Y ' RS-GT-A
Georgetown Harbor [;£. (-
SERIM Appendix K
K-4
August 2008
-------
Charleston ODMDS
Station I.D.
RS-CH-A
Description
Sand*
Avg. %
Fines
3.00
Range of %
Fines
n/a
Latitude
dd° mm. mm'
32 43.308
Longitude
dd° mm. mm'
79 41.178
* historically used
,— ... . ., ••
''• "--"".\^ ' -..--•• .*• -v r >..2£.^ i _.j_ \ ' .-V, Hi •'•£--!. f.'* \ .-'?\ .-. . • - •: :
•I ^' s>r J'V •• ^ ':Vvj''"''-~J*i*' , - •: •?• '/} f\"-fi^-t,f ,.f •'•• •-.; : ..-'... I
.• :,-«-:<•& .^-J^';*l-'4^s T'^^J- -..-^'-. 'i.->-Jr--.^V. --' "•'•••' •'--•>•.••.> • - ••
-y -^. ^. X... •J-^T'1 • - j. •*"^^-1 ^ • • y A- -.Si, ,••»..-• ,. • . . •
• • . -^: -L_- ^-... •. • . — -1.!.,-. ff •• -4f *. .•- " -^ <_..•_• _l*i . . _ • • ii
, *V^;,/;sVilt^£^ "•>'*' :•• .^^^^^C^W^haj:^.;;,'.'-'''',
I ' ^" ..-.'-, •.'•..--•••• -K!- ', L".-.^.' .' a-: '%jll?r". .." • '•* j"V J V— •,*li^ .••'•• • >:. i 'SV' • y _ •*" -
•-^/..^^^^•W^::V^,^^^y^-/ .;: :., ^-;' ^/^ • ' ;' ' .
^^xi^^K^^v;:- . -,-•
. _ ., ..
>:v ':--.'-v--"^ ^•'*••"•••• • ^i-'":, *:. '! • •" '.'• '-:•''•
.-!..••• •,*••:;s-v•;':• •;:•••>.•.". .;MI, • •'.:.•. '.•.•.•:•
''-..•.^^-•-t'^c-^ -^ ••"-'•'• • ••••" - ••:•"•-•:• •
^;•'•• .-.'• r?:-;..:• -s- '>".'•-; • • •.''..- /',. -•'...-;' • •
SERIM Appendix K
K-5
August 2008
-------
Port Royal ODMDS
Station I.D.
RS-PR-A
RS-PR-B
RS-PR-C
RS-PS-A
RS-PS-B
RS-PS-C
RS-PS-D
Description
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand*
Sand*
Sand*
Silty sand
Avg. %
Fines
7.46
9.19
9.36
3.92
3.02
2.35
20.95
Range of %
Fines
5.56-9.16
6.43 - 12.60
6.61-11.10
3.43 - 4.97
2.33 - 3.33
2.12-2.66
20.3-22.10
Latitude
dd° mm. mm'
32 13.128
32 14.592
32 15.036
32 0.468
32 0.258
32 0.054
32 5.358
Longitude
dd° mm. mm'
80 29.898
80 31.542
80 29.190
80 45.330
80 45.504
80 45.684
80 45.552
* used on one previous occasion
^ *- •—- -\'~ ' " ^^i - r
• -j-/^. j-<-.:•;:';.:..;-f;:y:. ••- .-^^
•"Fru^^VtwaiiwW'al'f tVf~.-i; vyi.w i vj £4 n vi i^t i. A«c_ytVit : .• •
'.,- • Ji'".- •/^•v"-"^ jfv."-:'^1 ***-^">• - ^ '. '. f
f- * m, r v •"£ • J^-v • r. •.-•"•-' -, m
,-.\ •-•-/-. v *• • ,VT, •; • ^x- --h . jr .''••• i -' •
:.-!•: 1<^VC!^' '.&• ^ A •" ' '•" """ r'.;
" R-'* Jw^c-y--xs -'. •!•" *.•--,* L - : •* ••" •
*j»r:/.. ••-"\-
<# ' .,-.-V:.."'
':i^! ^•'..]'• '..'--.-
'-TV ._. s. ., /
'-:'::2'^:-^ •'-:•. ;v;*;:;';:i--:-:,
r?s-^&;:-"?%\\if •'•:•-
'. •'.'. V •'•'- " ' , •' j'j *'...• 3' '
•'*'•'. ' •: ' .'j'* T;* ! - < . •' >'•' '."
RS-PR-C I.'.-..' .
ot
RS-PR-A I
SERIM Appendix K
K-6
August 2008
-------
Savannah ODMDS
Savannah District
Station I.D.
RS-PS-A
RS-PS-B
RS-PS-C
RS-PS-D
RS-SV-A
RS-SV-B
Description
Sand, used once
Sand, used once
Sand, used once
Silty sand
Silty sand
Sand w/ some silt
Avg. %
Fines
3.92
3.02
2.35
20.95
20.95
10.67
Range of %
Fines
3.43 - 4.97
2.33 - 3.33
2.12-2.66
20.3-22.10
20.3-22.10
9.85-12.20
Latitude
dd° mm. mm'
32 0.468
32 0.258
32 0.054
32 5.358
32 5.358
32 -4.020
Longitude
dd° mm. mm'
80 45.330
80 45.504
80 45.684
80 45.552
80 45.552
80 48.000
SERIM Appendix K
K-7
August 2008
-------
Brunswick ODMDS
Station I.D.
RS-BW-A
RS-BW-B
RS-BW-C
Description
Sand*
Sand*
Sand w/ some silt
Avg. %
Fines
7.10
2.15
23.90
Range of %
Fines
6.72 - 7.83
1.85-2.67
25.2-27.6
Latitude
dd° mm. mm'
31 0.498
31 0.498
31 6.528
Longitude
dd° mm. mm'
81 14.472
81 13.458
81 17.406
* historically used
^•^-^Ki^mm- ;/:IRS-BW-C i
. . .
. vSE; I :-->Ii: V-r''--if• ••-.•.'•
'• :'''V'. '.''•
Brunswick Harbor
'
.--'.. . '-'
?..-• i •- i^:.' . '
'•';% 4- ^-.,..:.:;"•
SERIM Appendix K
K-8
August 2008
-------
Jacksonville District
Fernandina ODMDS
Station I.D.
RS-FD-A
RS-FD-B
RS-FD-C
RS-FD-D
Description
Silty sand*
Sand
Silt/sand
Silty sand
Avg. %
Fines
14.51
4.89
46.34
26.38
Range of %
Fines
12.1-18.2
4.63-5.51
44.1-51.8
26.3-30.3
Latitude
dd° mm. mm'
30 34.500
30 34.236
30 34.500
30 30.480
Longitude
dd° mm. mm'
81 18.084
81 14.286
81 22.020
81 21.780
* historically used
. . ..;•.*«#••'.
i. X'$fUC *. ^
M|? --^Ci^i r •' -:''?r."•;? ^': ':^\r^^V"f5v^ ' ;:-^*^ ;';>
I ^K^^^fe^^.\'': ':.^- ,^^/:^ ^^ , 1 >; ;.
% '^-^ ^i^>;p. ^\v-/'v-" - :' - ' •' *:tP •>.; --V*-s;'f-c-\;'; V'1 I '^^ "
*$£\ ' £-*rt 4 "S^r t ' ^;^ : ' • '•' •:' • • ^••'•- •• '- '•'• ' *• • K * "• '-' -
J^t^^'(- ^^J%:. • :-'C '•• • v '•! -^^^rr— * D—7
l^ W:«':;.--'-I1!--:^->/•-.\r/-':^-• •^••^ ••.;•'•x. •'.. ^ J ^^N Fernandina Beach
SERIM Appendix K
K-9
August 2008
-------
Jacksonville ODMDS
Station I.D.
RS-JX-A
RS-JX-B
RS-JX-C
RS-JX-D
RS-JX-E
Description
Sand*
Sandy silt
Silty sand
Silt/sand
Sand w/ some silt
Avg. %
Fines
5.30
64.88
41.08
49.53
15.00
Range of %
Fines
4.76-5.61
56.2-78.1
37.8-47.4
43.7-58.1
15.5-17.1
Latitude
dd° mm. mm'
30 20.016
30 21.222
30 20.046
30 25.200
30 22.320
Longitude
dd° mm. mm'
81 17.982
81 21.462
81 21.708
81 20.400
81 18.300
* historically used
WR-.j.v
. •',i • " v,,,./-... . :- ''-Not For Navigational Use
•-. fe<:Jfei^V/' •" '
/:•$*
..
' '*
ft .. <
RS-JX-E
UKITE: ^A~E - ej^r c
001 1>»
APPROACHES TO __ ,'
ST. JOHNS RIVER
SERIM Appendix K
K-10
August 2008
-------
Canaveral ODMDS
Station I.D.
RS-CAN-A
RS-CAN-B
RS-CAN-C
RS-CAN-D
RS-CAN-E
RS-CAN-F
Description
Silty fine sand w/
some shell*
Silty fine sand w/
some shell*
Silt/clay*
Silt/clay*
Silt/clay
Silt/clay
Avg. %
Fines
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Range of %
Fines
40-43
40-43
60-70
60-70
10-20
10-20
Latitude
dd° mm. mm'
28 20.100
28 17.502
28 15.540
28 21.852
28 20.574
28 17.742
Longitude
dd° mm. mm'
80 29.832
80 29.562
80 30.744
80 29.736
80 32.436
80 33.078
* historically used
: .. ^..-..
= . .-' ' • ' " -•''>"- • • ' M ."""'.•, * .
I =—" ->'->- -v'/-X ,..^>v> -'••-•-• ><"
, Canaveral Harbor K , •;- '"\is~ \ "•"". ':.'<<
1 - . , . f - -~- ' ' ."•-•': ••••/:•
.v^/^^^^i^'VA
• ' •"'•*•• •'..,"'• - •-• .•» ' *' ?i'- , •' '•;;.. ' ':.': • i". =• .,
''•'- %^-,'w'* '(':-'-i'"-" "''•'''"•'• ''••''.''" '••''"•' '•',•'. -. •':'• '•""'. ' ''"'"' " i••"'". ~V' •': - ''•.«.'".'•
?l--...:.: \V VrU^-"A-', • :'- •-•''''• ',\= '"••• i-"> •- ••'•'- '• :-'"'l '*•'?," ••••' '*•.'•:" ..•• "•-.-. •;• *•<•.•"..-'
SERIM Appendix K
K-ll
August 2008
-------
Fort Pierce ODMDS
Station I.D.
RS-FP-A
RS-FP-B
Description
Fine sand w/ shell*
Fine sand w/ shell*
Avg. %
Fines
1.40
7.00
Range of %
Fines
n/a
n/a
Latitude
dd° mm. mm'
27 26.616
27 27.378
Longitude
dd° mm. mm'
80 12.138
80 13.098
* historically used
'.-ri'\' i' • "•. '••-"t-.-fc'" "•. '"''• '••••:"••'•. •" "^ " -. ' ','
, «*p3- "*•:•• .:V>- •- w -. .••••.•-.'...•'•.x •.:>-. •-.- ... ••- •?.
•'• ^H^Y, :•£:- •* :••' •>;:V"; v/ V A >VV < >>; \ •. ->'Jn
) 11^ KJ^tS '-• «•"••.-£•• •^-' -J-. - '• • • '• A- • - • - -• -' • -• -
i xyjwfi- %£$''•?••• f*%? ' • *
-' . • ,-• . -
' '.*... -. •• '. •• "• •••••' * . ' I •
^ty^j^]RSi|' :- VvC\" ', .-' :: ;'i\
" "
SERIM Appendix K
K-12
August 2008
-------
Palm Beach ODMDS
Station I.D.
RS-PB-A
RS-PB-B
RS-PB-C
Description
Fine sand w/ shell
Silt/clay
Silt/clay
Avg. %
Fines
1.00
n/a
25.00
Range of %
Fines
n/a
15-17
n/a
Latitude
dd° mm. mm'
26 48.486
26 45.000
26 49.998
Longitude
dd° mm. mm'
79 59.052
79 57.138
79 57.000
\
Beach Harbor
,.-..
T- " • ^
^ 's<
- "
SERIM Appendix K
K-13
August 2008
-------
Port Everglades ODMDS
Station I.D.
RS-PE-A
RS-PE-B
Description
Silty fine sand
Silty fine sand
Avg. %
Fines
15.00
15.00
Range of %
Fines
n/a
n/a
Latitude
dd° mm. mm'
26 9.000
26 4.998
Longitude
dd° mm. mm'
80 1.500
80 1.500
-n^ .'"5-r'l *"•
I/ ... \^f,-^ X^
v.^ ^..,v..->.|^..,,,
das
X'M
;*3 ' ,„„
SERIM Appendix K
K-14
August 2008
-------
Miami ODMDS
Station I.D.
RS-MH-A
RS-MH-B
Description
Fine sandy clay
Fine sand
Avg. %
Fines
n/a
n/a
Range of %
Fines
30-50
15-20
Latitude
dd° mm. mm'
25 47.079
25 44.999
Longitude
dd° mm. mm'
80 3.383
80 4.461
3!JT S? JP
>« ill,...1l....',..^.(1,.'.1,J
828 •*j,1,,v.'t-'-'' ' X
^J> 'V-'"* ^^ f V
^V" X '; .
7
;-
Vt
SERIM Appendix K
K-15
August 2008
-------
Tampa ODMDS
Station I.D.
RS-TAM-A*
RS-TAM-B*
Description
Sand
Sand
Avg. %
Fines
n/a
n/a
Range of %
Fines
2.7-6.7
2.7-6.7
Latitude
dd° mm. mm'
27 33.16
27 29.57
Longitude
dd° mm. mm'
83 4.9
83 4.88
* Two to three grabs are taken at each location and the sediments are composited to create the
reference sediment.
4~""ff r*~--
i Tl J L -I JT J-*. '. 4 *1-lL
73
N*>
® CW.-!
/ {cj'fisn Ham-,'
/'--''(aafh mfo^
© ^
WAY XlWCWOflftB^^
'x
X Sd "SsLcii*.-.'j),i / SlCfesfrl. / "AfichnV" ^-V 5
rifi'WA 7i l/*ei v^--' V-3t-^ *s ^ -•% ^ \? •
1.1 U .^LifA . DS -v^ ,TK5J^g« ^* ^-^Xii KfJ \f 1
I''*'' '-N 7^- T/ a4°^5ir]S•:,• |''..fi^^iw^.,..-^n°^Pfa^>/
-------
Pensacola Offshore ODMDS
Mobile District
Station I.D.
RS-PEN-A
RS-PEN-B
RS-PEN-C
RS-PEN-D
Description
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Avg. %
Fines
0.68
2.3
1.05
1.06
Range of %
Fines
0.62 - 0.76
1.90 - 2.86
0.85-1.15
0.68 - 1.35
Latitude
dd° mm. mm'
30 14.0982
30 15.0198
30 10.758
30 10.9992
Longitude
dd° mm. mm'
87 13.1088
87 12.3492
87 24.093
87 20.2458
shown have beer adjusted
d overland signal aropa-
iverifed ay comparison
; bucn rr'uuc lu noul I ho
estoiisiiec! by (he U.S.
inee no- to rely solely nr
SERIM Appendix K
K-17
August 2008
-------
Mobile ODMDS
Station I.D.
RS-MOB-A
RS-MOB-B
RS-MOB-C
RS-MOB-D
Description
sand
sand
silty sand
silty sand
Avg. %
Fines
0.55
1.24
31.93
40.73
Range of %
Fines
0.00 - 0.86
0.94 - 2.02
20.00-42.10
33.50-52.10
Latitude
dd° mm. mm'
30 7.0578
30 7.0692
30 5.124
30 6.225
Longitude
dd° mm. mm'
87 57.774
87 56.3472
87 5.8278
87 15.4452
>20ft5M"P"
ll
II
ll
tt
7
Mobile ODMDS ij
Fl 10s 125ft 24M
IF R 78ft
(use of
,;!RWM'
" Mo (A)
Strobe Ft 2.5s
,4OffW
RAC
tSTSh*— "L^, ... , „
RS-MOB-C |-9
SERIM Appendix K
K-18
August 2008
-------
Pascagoula ODMDS
Station I.D.
RS-PAS-A
RS-PAS-B
RS-PAS-C
RS-PAS-D
Description
sandy silt
silt
sandy silt
silty sand
Avg. %
Fines
74.23
89.73
70.55
22.83
Range of %
Fines
72.70 - 76.60
87.60 - 92.40
50.80 - 77.90
11.20 - 34.40
Latitude
dd° mm. mm'
30 11.1378
30 7.3512
30 4.2402
30 5.634
Longitude
dd° mm. mm'
88 105.1032
88 99.8772
88 100.512
88 95.367
Gulf port Eastern & Gulfport Western ODMDSs
Station I.D.
RS-GP-A
RS-GP-B
RS-GP-C
RS-GP-A
Description
sandy silt
sandy silt
silt
sandy silt
Avg. %
Fines
74.93
76.4
93.57
74.93
Range of %
Fines
64.50-91.50
72.40 - 81.60
92.10-96.10
64.50-91.50
Latitude
dd° mm. mm'
30 6.411
30 4.7898
30 6.003
30 6.411
Longitude
dd° mm. mm'
88 119.7252
88 116.7192
88 110.8122
88 119.7252
G..lpnrt IR TFl WSCM) 1240 kHz
^Pascagoula ODMDS
Gulfport Eastern
ODMDS
SERIM Appendix K
K-19
August 2008
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix L
TEST CONDITIONS
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix L
TEST CONDITIONS
NOTE: Adjustments to references were made to provide updates and consistency throughout
the test acceptance criteria presented in this appendix. If discrepancies in units, ranges, etc.,
are noticed between the materials presented here and the publication references, please use
the information in these Appendix L tables as your test condition guidelines.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
Phytoplankton or Zooplankton: L-2
Bivalves
Crassostrea virgin ica
Mytilus edulis
Mercenaria mercenaria
Echinoderms
Arbacia punctulata
Strongylocentrotus sp.
Lytechinus pictus
Crustacean: L-14
Americamysis bahia
Fish: L-16
Menidia menidia
Menidia beryl Una
Menidia peninsulas
Cyprinodon variegatus
Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for Acute Toxicity Sediment
Testing of Dredged Material
Amphipods: L-24
Ampelisca abdita
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Shrimp L-28
Americamysis bahia
Polychaetes L-30
Neanthes arenaceodentata
Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for Sediment Bioaccumulation
Testing of Dredged Material
Bivalves L-34
Macoma nasuta
Yoldia limatula
Polychaetes L-40
Nereis virens
Arenicola sp.
SERIM Appendix L L-l August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR
Crassostrea virginica LARVAE, ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
1. Test type:
2. Test duration:
3. Temperature:
4. Salinity:
5. DO concentration:
6. pH:
7. Light quality:
8. Light intensity:
9. Photoperiod:
10. Test chamber size:
11. Test solution volume:
12. Renewal of test solutions:
13. Age of test organisms:
14. Concentration of organisms per test
chamber:
15. Number of replicate chambers per
elutriate concentration:
16. Feeding requirements:
17. Test solution aeration:
18. Dilution water:
19. Test treatments:
20. Dilution series:
21. Endpoint:
Static non-renewal
48 h, based on control development; not to
exceed 54 h
25 ± 1°C
Optimal 30 (range: 18-32) ± 2%o
60-100% of saturation
Optimal 7.8 ± 0.5; measure according to
ASTM protocol
Ambient laboratory illumination
500-1000 lux
16L/8D
20-30 ml
10-30 ml
None
Larvae, less than 4 h after fertilization
15-30/ml; do not exceed 30/ml
Minimum of 5, plus 1 chamber for water
quality monitoring
None
None
Optimal 30 (range: 18-32) ± 2%0; natural
seawater or suitable artificial seawater
prepared with Milli-Q® or equivalent
deionized water
100% elutriate, 100% control water, 100%
dilution water (if different from control)
100%, 50%, 10%, 1% of the dredged
material elutriate (Note: lower
concentrations may be necessary if test
elutriate is toxic or contains very fine non-
settleable solids)
Survival, embryo shell development to
hinged, D-shaped prodisoconch I larva
SERIM Appendix L
L-2
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR
Crassostrea virginica LARVAE, ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
22. Sample holding requirements:*
23. Field sample volume required:^
24. Test acceptability:
<2 wk for sediments. Toxicity tests
prepared from sediments should be started
within 2 wk of sampling, but not later than
8 wk after sampling.
<14 d for site, dilution, and control waters;
elutriates are to be used within 24 h of
preparation
1 L sediment per sample station/4 L site
water for creation of 100% elutriate
^90% survival AND >70% shell
development to hinged, D-shaped
prodisoconch I larva in the control
* Obtain prior approval from your local EPA and USAGE district offices if sediment samples will
be held longer than the specified sample holding requirements. Prior approval could be
obtained during the review and approval of the Sampling and Analysis Plan.
^This is the minimum volume required to run the test one time. If you need to repeat the test
or archive the sample, you should collect additional equivalent volumes.
References:
ASTM. 2004. Standard Guide for Conducting Static Acute Toxicity Tests Starting with Embryos
of Four Species of Saltwater Bivalve Mollusks. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 11.06.
E724-98(2004). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
USEPA. 1995. Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to West Coast Marine and Estuarine Organisms. First edition.
EPA/600/R-95/136 West Coast Manual.
SERIM Appendix L
L-3
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR
Mytilus edulis LARVAE, ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
1. Test type:
2. Test duration:
3. Temperature:
4. Salinity:
5. DO concentration:
6. pH:
7. Light quality:
8. Light intensity:
9. Photoperiod:
10. Test chamber size:
11. Test solution volume:
12. Renewal of test solutions:
13. Age of test organisms:
14. Concentration of organisms per test
chamber:
15. Number of replicate chambers per
elutriate concentration:
16. Feeding requirements:
17. Test solution aeration:
18. Dilution water:
19. Test treatments:
20. Dilution series:
21. Endpoint:
Static non-renewal
48 h, based on control development; not to
exceed 54 h
16 ± 1°C
Optimal 30 (range: 18-32) ± 2%o
60-100% of saturation
Optimal 7.8 ± 0.5; measure according to ASTM
protocol
Ambient laboratory illumination
500-1000 lux
16L/8D
20-30 ml
10-30 ml
None
Larvae, less than 4 h after fertilization
15-30/ml; do not exceed 30/ml
Minimum of 5, plus 1 chamber for water quality
monitoring
None
None
Optimal 30 (range: 18-32) ± 2%0; natural
seawater or suitable artificial seawater prepared
with Milli-Q® or equivalent deionized water
100% elutriate, 100% control water, 100%
dilution water (if different from control)
100%, 50%, 10%, 1% of the dredged material
elutriate (Note: lower concentrations may be
necessary if test elutriate is toxic or contains
very fine non-settleable solids)
Survival, embryo shell development to hinged,
D-shaped prodisoconch I larva
SERIM Appendix L
L-4
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR
Mytilus edulis LARVAE, ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
22. Sample holding requirements:*
23. Field sample volume required:^
24. Test acceptability:
<2 wk for sediments. Toxicity tests prepared
from sediments should be started within 2 wk of
sampling, but not later than 8 wk after
sampling.
<14 d for site, dilution, and control waters;
elutriates are to be used within 24 h of
preparation
1 L sediment per sample station/4 L site water
for creation of 100% elutriate
>90% survival AND >70% shell development
to hinged, D-shaped prodisoconch I larva in the
control
* Obtain prior approval from your local EPA and USAGE district offices if sediment samples will
be held longer than the specified sample holding requirements. Prior approval could be
obtained during the review and approval of the Sampling and Analysis Plan.
^ This is the minimum volume required to run the test one time. If you need to repeat the test
or archive the sample, you should collect additional equivalent volumes.
References:
ASTM. 2004. Standard Guide for Conducting Static Acute Toxicity Tests Starting with Embryos
of Four Species of Saltwater Bivalve Mollusks. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 11.06.
E724-98(2004). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
USEPA. 1995. Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to West Coast Marine and Estuarine Organisms. First edition.
EPA/600/R-95/136. West Coast Manual.
SERIM Appendix L
L-5
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR
Mercenaria mercenaria LARVAE, ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
1. Test type:
2. Test duration:
3. Temperature:
4. Salinity:
5. DO concentration:
6. pH:
7. Light quality:
8. Light intensity:
9. Photoperiod:
10. Test chamber size:
11. Test solution volume:
12. Renewal of test solutions:
13. Age of test organisms:
14. Concentration of organisms per test
chamber:
15. Number of replicate chambers per
elutriate concentration:
16. Feeding requirements:
17. Test solution aeration:
18. Dilution water:
19. Test treatments:
20. Dilution series:
21. Endpoint:
Static non-renewal
48 h, based on control development; not to
exceed 54 h
25 ± 1°C
Optimal 30 (range: 18-32) ± 2%o
60-100% of saturation
Optimal 7.8 ± 0.5; measure according to
ASTM protocol
Ambient laboratory illumination
500-1000 lux
16L/8D
20-30 ml
10-30 ml
None
Larvae, less than 4 h after fertilization
15-30/ml; do not exceed 30/ml
Minimum of 5, plus 1 chamber for water
quality monitoring
None
None
Optimal 30 (range: 18-32) ± 2%0; natural
seawater or suitable artificial seawater
prepared with Milli-Q® or equivalent
deionized water
100% elutriate, 100% control water, 100%
dilution water (if different from control)
100%, 50%, 10%, 1% of the dredged
material elutriate (Note: lower
concentrations may be necessary if test
elutriate is toxic or contains very fine non-
settleable solids)
Survival, embryo shell development to
hinged, D-shaped prodisoconch I larva
SERIM Appendix L
L-6
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR
Mercenaria mercenaria LARVAE, ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
22. Sample holding requirements:*
23. Field sample volume required:^
24. Test acceptability:
<2 wk for sediments. Toxicity tests
prepared from sediments should be started
within 2 wk of sampling, but not later than
8 wk after sampling.
<14 d for site, dilution, and control waters;
elutriates are to be used within 24 h of
preparation
1 L sediment per sample station/4 L site
water for creation of 100% elutriate
>i90% survival AND >60% shell
development to hinged, D-shaped
prodisoconch I larva in the control
* Obtain prior approval from your local EPA and USAGE district offices if sediment samples will
be held longer than the specified sample holding requirements. Prior approval could be
obtained during the review and approval of the Sampling and Analysis Plan.
^ This is the minimum volume required to run the test one time. If you need to repeat the test
or archive the sample, you should collect additional equivalent volumes.
References:
ASTM. 2004. Standard Guide for Conducting Static Acute Toxicity Tests Starting with Embryos
of Four Species of Saltwater Bivalve Mollusks. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 11.06.
E724-98(2004). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
USEPA. 1995. Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to West Coast Marine and Estuarine Organisms. First edition.
EPA/600/R-95/136. West Coast Manual.
SERIM Appendix L
L-7
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR
Arbacia punctulata LARVAE, ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
1. Test type:
2. Test duration:
3. Temperature:
4. Salinity:
5. DO concentration:
6. pH:
7. Light quality:
8. Light intensity:
9. Photoperiod:
10. Test chamber size:
11. Test solution volume:
12. Renewal of test solutions:
13. Age of test organisms:
14. Concentration of organisms per test
chamber:
15. Number of replicate chambers per
elutriate concentration:
16. Feeding requirements:
17. Test solution aeration:
18. Dilution water:
19. Test treatments:
20. Dilution series:
21. Endpoint:
Static non-renewal
48-96 h; test duration is based on the time
necessary for >70% of control embryos to
develop to the pluteus stage. 72 ± 2 h
(optimal)
20 ± 1°C (general)
Optimal 30 (range: 27-36) ± 2%o
60-100% of saturation
Optimal 7.8 ± 0.5; measure according to
ASTM protocol
Ambient laboratory illumination
500-1000 lux
16L/8D
20-30 ml
10-30 ml
None
Larvae, less than 4 h after fertilization
15-30/ml; do not exceed 50/ml
Minimum of 5, plus 1 chamber for water
quality monitoring
None
None; unless DO falls below 60% of saturation
Optimal 30 (range: 27-36) ± 2%0; natural
seawater or suitable artificial seawater
prepared with Milli-Q® or equivalent deionized
water
100% elutriate, 100% control water, 100%
dilution water (if different from control)
100%, 50%, 10%, 1% of the dredged
material elutriate (Note: lower concentrations
may be necessary if test elutriate is toxic or
contains very fine non-settleable solids)
Survival, embryo development
SERIM Appendix L
L-8
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR
Arbacia punctulata LARVAE, ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
22. Sample holding requirements:*
23. Field sample volume required:^
24. Test acceptability:
<2 wk for sediments. Toxicity tests prepared
from sediments should be started within 2 wk
of sampling, but not later than 8 wk after
sampling.
<14 d for site, dilution, and control waters;
elutriates are to be used within 24 h of
preparation
1 L sediment per sample station/4 L site water
for creation of 100% elutriate
>70% survival AND >70% normal embryo
development in controls
* Obtain prior approval from your local EPA and USAGE district offices if sediment samples will
be held longer than the specified sample holding requirements. Prior approval could be
obtained during the review and approval of the Sampling and Analysis Plan.
^This is the minimum volume required to run the test one time. If you need to repeat the test
or archive the sample, you should collect additional equivalent volumes.
References:
ASTM. 2004. Standard Guide for Conducting Static Acute Toxicity Tests with Echinoid Embryos.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 11.06. E1563-98(2004-el). American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
USEPA. 1990. Conducting the Sea Urchin Larval Development Test. ERL-Narragansett
Standard Operating Procedure 1.03.007.
USEPA. 1995. Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to West Coast Marine and Estuarine Organisms. First edition.
EPA/600/R 95/136. West Coast Manual.
SERIM Appendix L
L-9
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR
Strongylocentrotus purpuratus LARVAE, ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
1. Test type:
2. Test duration:
3. Temperature:
4. Salinity:
5. DO concentration:
6. pH:
7. Light quality:
8. Light intensity:
9. Photoperiod:
10. Test chamber size:
11. Test solution volume:
12. Renewal of test solutions:
13. Age of test organisms:
14. Concentration of organisms per test
chamber:
15. Number of replicate chambers per
elutriate concentration:
16. Feeding requirements:
17. Test solution aeration:
18. Dilution water:
19. Test treatments:
Static non-renewal
48-96 h; test duration is based on the time
necessary for >70% of control embryos to
develop to the pluteus stage. 72 ± 2 h
(optimal)
12 ± 1°C (general)
5. purpuratus 12 ± 1°C (WA, OR, AK)
5. purpuratus 14 ± 1°C (CA)
Optimal 30 (range: 27-36) ± 2%o
60-100% of saturation
Optimal 7.8 ± 0.5; measure according to ASTM
protocol
Ambient laboratory illumination
500-1000 lux
16L/8D
20-30 ml
10-30 ml
None
Larvae, less than 4 h after fertilization
15-30/ml; do not exceed 50/ml
Minimum of 5, plus 1 chamber for water quality
monitoring
None
None, unless DO falls below 60% of saturation
Optimal 30 (range: 27-36) ± 2%0; natural
seawater or suitable artificial seawater
prepared with Milli-Q® or equivalent deionized
water
100% elutriate, 100% control water, 100%
dilution water (if different from control)
SERIM Appendix L
L-10
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR
Strongylocentrotus purpuratus LARVAE, ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
20. Dilution series:
21. Endpoint:
22. Sample holding requirements:*
23. Field sample volume required:^
24. Test acceptability:
100%, 50%, 10%, 1% of the dredged material
elutriate (Note: lower concentrations may be
necessary if test elutriate is toxic or contains
very fine non-settleable solids)
Survival, embryo development
<2 wk for sediments. Toxicity tests prepared
from sediments should be started within 2 wk
of sampling, but not later than 8 wk after
sampling.
<14 d for site, dilution, and control waters;
elutriates are to be used within 24 h of
preparation
1 L sediment per sample station/4 L site water
for creation of 100% elutriate
>70% survival AND >70% normal embryo
development in controls
* Obtain prior approval from your local EPA and USAGE district offices if sediment samples will
be held longer than the specified sample holding requirements. Prior approval could be
obtained during the review and approval of the Sampling and Analysis Plan.
^This is the minimum volume required to run the test one time. If you need to repeat the test
or archive the sample, you should collect additional equivalent volumes.
References:
ASTM. 2004. Standard Guide for Conducting Static Acute Toxicity Tests with Echinoid Embryos.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 11.06. E1563-98(2004)el. American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
USEPA. 1995. Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to West Coast Marine and Estuarine Organisms. First edition.
EPA/600/R-95/136. West Coast Manual.
SERIM Appendix L
L-ll
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA
Lytechinus pictus LARVAE, ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
1. Test type:
2. Test duration:
3. Temperature:
4. Salinity:
5. DO concentration:
6. pH:
7. Light quality:
8. Light intensity:
9. Photoperiod:
10. Test chamber size:
11. Test solution volume:
12. Renewal of test solutions:
13. Age of test organisms:
14. Concentration of organisms per test
chamber:
15. Number of replicate chambers per
elutriate concentration:
16. Feeding requirements:
17. Test solution aeration:
18. Dilution water:
19. Test treatments:
20. Dilution series:
Static non-renewal
48-96 h: Test duration is based on the time
necessary for >70% of control embryos to
develop to the pluteus stage. 72 ± 2 h
(optimal)
12 ± 1°C (general)
Optimal 30 (range: 27-36) ± 2%o
60-100% of saturation
Optimal 7.8 ± 0.5; measure according to ASTM
protocol
Ambient laboratory illumination
500-1000 lux
16L/8D
20 - 30 ml
10 - 30 ml
None
Larvae, less than 4 h after fertilization
15-30/ml; do not exceed 50/ml
Minimum of 5, plus 1 chamber for water quality
monitoring
None
None, unless DO falls below 60% of saturation
Optimal 30 (range: 27-36) ± 2%0; natural
seawater or suitable artificial seawater
prepared with Milli-Q® or equivalent deionized
water
100% elutriate, 100% control water, 100%
dilution water (if different from control)
100%, 50%, 10%, 1% of the dredged material
elutriate (Note: lower concentrations may be
necessary if test elutriate is toxic or contains
very fine non-settleable solids)
SERIM Appendix L
L-12
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA
Lytechinus pictus LARVAE, ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
21. Endpoint:
22. Sample holding requirements: *
23. Field sample volume required:^
24. Test acceptability:
Survival, embryo development
<2 wk for sediments. Toxicity tests prepared
from sediments should be started within 2 wk
of sampling, but not later than 8 wk after
sampling.
<14 d for site, dilution, and control waters;
elutriates are to be used within 24 h of
preparation
1 L sediment per sample station/4 L site water
for creation of 100% elutriate
>70% survival AND >70% normal embryo
development in controls
* Obtain prior approval from your local EPA and USAGE district offices if sediment samples will
be held longer than the specified sample holding requirements. Prior approval could be
obtained during the review and approval of the Sampling and Analysis Plan.
^This is the minimum volume required to run the test one time. If you need to repeat the test
or archive the sample, you should collect additional equivalent volumes.
References:
ASTM. 2004. Standard Guide for Conducting Static Acute Toxicity Tests with Echinoid Embryos.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 11.06. E1563-98(2004)el. American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
USEPA. 1995. Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to West Coast Marine and Estuarine Organisms. First edition.
EPA/600/R-95/136. West Coast Manual.
SERIM Appendix L
L-13
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR
Americamysis bahia, ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
1. Test type:
2. Test duration:
3. Temperature:
4. Salinity:
5. DO concentration:
6. pH:
7. Light quality:
8. Light intensity:
9. Photoperiod:
10. Test chamber size:
11. Test solution volume:
12. Renewal of test solutions:
13. Age of test organisms:
14. Number of organisms per test chamber:
15. Number of replicate chambers per
elutriate concentration:
16. Feeding requirements:
17. Test solution aeration:
18. Dilution water:
Static-renewal
96 h
20 ± 1°C; or 25 ± 1°C (recommended);
test temperatures must not deviate (i.e.,
maximum minus minimum temperature) by
more than 3°C during the test (required)
Optimal 30 (range: 20-30) ± 2%o
60-100% of saturation
Optimal 7.8 ± 0.5; measure according to
Section 10.2 of reference method (EPA,
2002)
Ambient laboratory illumination
500-1000 lux
16L/8D
250ml
200ml
After 48 h (required minimum)
1-5 d; <24 h range in age (required)
Minimum of 10
Minimum of 5
Artemia nauplii are made available while
holding prior to test; feed 0.2 ml of
concentrated suspension of Artemia nauplii
<24 h old, daily (approximately 100 nauplii
per mysid)
None unless DO concentrations fall below
60% of saturation. Rate should not exceed
100 bubbles/min.
Optimal 30 (range: 20-30) ± 2%0; natural
seawater or suitable artificial seawater
prepared with Milli-Q® or equivalent
deionized water
SERIM Appendix L
L-14
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR
Americamysis bahia, ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
19. Test treatments:
20. Dilution series:
21. Endpoint:
22. Sample holding requirements:*
23. Field sample volume required:^
24. Test acceptability:
100% elutriate, 100% control water, 100%
dilution water (if different from control)
100%, 50%, 10% of the dredged material
elutriate (Note: lower concentrations may be
necessary if test elutriate is toxic or contains
very fine non-settleable solids)
Survival
<2 wk for sediments. Toxicity tests
prepared from sediments should be started
within 2 wk of sampling, but not later than
8 wk after sampling.
<14 d for site, dilution, and control waters;
elutriates are to be used within 24 h of
preparation
1 L sediment per sample station/4 L site
water for creation of 100% elutriate
>90% survival in control treatment
* Obtain prior approval from your local EPA and USAGE district offices if sediment samples will
be held longer than the specified sample holding requirements. Prior approval could be
obtained during the review and approval of the Sampling and Analysis Plan.
^This is the minimum volume required to run the test one time. If you need to repeat the test
or archive the sample, you should collect additional equivalent volumes.
Reference:
USEPA. 2002. Methods for Measuring Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms. 5th edition. EPA-821-R-02-012. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC 20460.
SERIM Appendix L
L-15
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA
FOR THE ATLANTIC SILVERSIDE, Menidia menidia,
ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
1. Test type:
2. Test duration:
3. Temperature:
4. Salinity:
5. DO concentration:
6. pH:
7. Light quality:
8. Light intensity:
9. Photoperiod:
10. Test chamber size:
11. Test solution volume:
12. Renewal of test solutions:
13. Age of test organisms:
14. Number of organisms per test chamber:
15. Number of replicate chambers per
elutriate concentration:
16. Feeding requirements:
17. Test solution aeration:
18. Dilution water:
Static non-renewal
96 h
20 ± 1°C; or 25 ± 1°C (recommended);
test temperatures must not deviate (i.e.,
maximum minus minimum temperature) by
more than 3°C during the test (required)
Optimal 30 (range: 15-32) ± 2%o
60-100% of saturation
Optimal 7.8 ± 0.5; measure according to
Section 10.2 of reference method (EPA,
2002)
Ambient laboratory illumination
500-1000 lux
16L/8D
250 ml (minimum); 1000 mL recommended
200 ml (minimum); 500 mL recommended
None
9-14 d, <24 h range in age
Minimum of 10
Minimum of 5
Artemia nauplii are made available while
holding prior to test; add 0.2 ml Artemia
nauplii concentrate (approximately 1000) at
48 h
None unless DO concentrations fall below
60% of saturation. Rate should not exceed
100 bubbles/min.
Optimal 30 (range: 15-32) ± 2%0; natural
seawater or suitable artificial seawater
prepared with Milli-Q® or equivalent
deionized water
SERIM Appendix L
L-16
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA
FOR THE ATLANTIC SILVERSIDE, Menidia menidia,
ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
19. Test treatments:
20. Dilution series:
21. Endpoint:
22. Sample holding requirements:*
23. Field sample volume required:^
24. Test acceptability:
100% elutriate, 100% control water, 100%
dilution water (if different from control)
100%, 50%, 10% of the dredged material
elutriate (Note: lower concentrations may be
necessary if test elutriate is toxic or contains
very fine non-settleable solids)
Survival
<2 wk for sediments. Toxicity tests
prepared from sediments should be started
within 2 wk of sampling, but not later than
8 wk after sampling.
<14 d for site, dilution, and control waters;
elutriates are to be used within 24 h of
preparation
1 L sediment per sample station/4 L site
water for creation of 100% elutriate
>90% survival in controls
* Obtain prior approval from your local EPA and USAGE district offices if sediment samples will
be held longer than the specified sample holding requirements. Prior approval could be
obtained during the review and approval of the Sampling and Analysis Plan.
^This is the minimum volume required to run the test one time. If you need to repeat the test
or archive the sample, you should collect additional equivalent volumes.
Reference:
USEPA. 2002. Methods for Measuring Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms. 5th edition. EPA-821-R-02-012. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC 20460.
SERIM Appendix L
L-17
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE
INLAND SILVERSIDE, Menidia beryllina, ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
1. Test type:
2. Test duration:
3. Temperature:
4. Salinity:
5. DO concentration:
6. pH:
7. Light quality:
8. Light intensity:
9. Photoperiod:
10. Test chamber size:*
11. Test solution volume:*
12. Renewal of test solutions:
13. Age of test organisms:
14. Number of organisms per test chamber:
15. Number of replicate chambers per
elutriate concentration:
16. Feeding requirements:
17. Test solution aeration:
18. Dilution water:
19. Test treatments:
Static non-renewal
96 h
20 ± 1°C; or 25 ± 1°C (recommended);
test temperatures must not deviate (i.e.,
maximum minus minimum temperature) by
more than 3°C during the test (required)
Optimal 30 (range: 1-32) ± 2%o
60-100% of saturation
Optimal 7.8 ± 0.5; measure according to
Section 10.2 of reference method (EPA,
2002)
Ambient laboratory illumination
500-1000 lux
16L/8D
250 ml (minimum); 1000 mL recommended
200 ml (minimum); 500 mL recommended
None
9-14 d, <24 h range in age
Minimum of 10
Minimum of 5
Artemia nauplii are made available while
holding prior to test; add 0.2 ml Artemia
nauplii concentrate (approximately 1000) at
48 h
None unless DO concentrations fall below
60% of saturation. Rate should not exceed
100 bubbles/min.
Optimal 30 (range: 1-32) ± 2%0; natural
seawater or suitable artificial seawater
prepared with Milli-Q® or equivalent
deionized water
100% elutriate, 100% control water, 100%
dilution water (if different from control)
SERIM Appendix L
L-18
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE
INLAND SILVERSIDE, Menidia beryllina, ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
20. Dilution series:
21. Endpoint:
22. Sample holding requirements:*
23. Field sample volume required:^
24. Test acceptability:
100%, 50%, 10% of the dredged material
elutriate (Note: lower concentrations may be
necessary if test elutriate is toxic or contains
very fine non-settleable solids)
Survival
<2 wk for sediments. Toxicity tests
prepared from sediments should be started
within 2 wk of sampling, but not later than
8 wk after sampling.
<14 d for site, dilution, and control waters;
elutriates are to be used within 24 h of
preparation
1 L sediment per sample station/4 L site
water for creation of 100% elutriate
>90% survival in controls
* Obtain prior approval from your local EPA and USAGE district offices if sediment samples will
be held longer than the specified sample holding requirements. Prior approval could be
obtained during the review and approval of the Sampling and Analysis Plan.
^This is the minimum volume required to run the test one time. If you need to repeat the test
or archive the sample, you should collect additional equivalent volumes.
Reference:
USEPA. 2002. Methods for Measuring Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms. 5th edition. EPA-821-R-02-012. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC 20460.
SERIM Appendix L
L-19
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA
FOR THE TIDEWATER SILVERSIDE, Menidia peninsulas,
ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
1. Test type:
2. Test duration:
3. Temperature:
4. Salinity:
5. DO concentration:
6. pH:
7. Light quality:
8. Light intensity:
9. Photoperiod:
10. Test chamber size:*
11. Test solution volume:*
12. Renewal of test solutions:
13. Age of test organisms:
14. Number of organisms per test chamber:
15. Number of replicate chambers per
elutriate concentration:
16. Feeding requirements:
17. Test solution aeration:
18. Dilution water:
19. Test treatments:
Static non-renewal
96 h
20 ± 1°C; or 25 ± 1°C (recommended);
test temperatures must not deviate (i.e.,
maximum minus minimum temperature) by
more than 3°C during the test (required)
Optimal 30 (range: 15-32) ± 2%o
60-100% of saturation
Optimal 7.8 ± 0.5; measure according to
Section 10.2 of reference method (EPA,
2002)
Ambient laboratory illumination
500-1000 lux
16L/8D
250 ml (minimum); 1000 mL recommended
200 ml (minimum); 500 mL recommended
None
9-14 d, <24 h range in age
Minimum of 10
Minimum of 5
Artemia nauplii are made available while
holding prior to test; add 0.2 ml Artemia
nauplii concentrate (approximately 1000) at
48 h
None unless DO concentrations fall below
60% of saturation. Rate should not exceed
100 bubbles/min.
Optimal 30 (range: 15-32) ± 2%0; natural
seawater or suitable artificial seawater
prepared with Milli-Q® or equivalent
deionized water
100% elutriate, 100% control water, 100%
dilution water (if different from control)
SERIM Appendix L
L-20
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA
FOR THE TIDEWATER SILVERSIDE, Menidia peninsulas,
ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
20. Dilution series:
21. Endpoint:
22. Sample holding requirements:*
23. Field sample volume required:^
24. Test acceptability:
100%, 50%, 10% of the dredged material
elutriate (Note: lower concentrations may be
necessary if test elutriate is toxic or contains
very fine non-settleable solids)
Survival
<2 wk for sediments. Toxicity tests prepared
from sediments should be started within 2 wk
of sampling, but not later than 8 wk after
sampling.
<14 d for site, dilution, and control waters;
elutriates are to be used within 24 h of
preparation
1 L sediment per sample station/4 L site
water for creation of 100% elutriate
>90% or greater survival in controls
* Obtain prior approval from your local EPA and USAGE district offices if sediment samples will
be held longer than the specified sample holding requirements. Prior approval could be
obtained during the review and approval of the Sampling and Analysis Plan.
^This is the minimum volume required to run the test one time. If you need to repeat the test
or archive the sample, you should collect additional equivalent volumes.
Reference:
USEPA. 2002. Methods for Measuring Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms. 5th edition. EPA-821-R-02-012. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC 20460.
SERIM Appendix L
L-21
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA
FOR THE SHEEPSHEAD MINNOW, Cyprinodon variegatus,
ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
1. Test type:
2. Test duration:
3. Temperature:
4. Salinity:
5. DO concentration:
6. pH:
7. Light quality:
8. Light intensity:
9. Photoperiod:
10. Test chamber size:
11. Test solution volume:
12. Renewal of test solutions:
13. Age of test organisms:
14. Number of organisms per test chamber:
15. Number of replicate chambers per
elutriate concentration:
16. Feeding requirements:
17. Test solution aeration:
18. Dilution water:
19. Test treatments:
Static non-renewal
96 h
20 ± 1°C; or 25 ± 1°C (recommended);
test temperatures must not deviate (i.e.,
maximum minus minimum temperature) by
more than 3°C during the test (required)
Optimal 30 (range: 5-32) ± 2%o
60-100% of saturation
Optimal 7.8 ± 0.5; measure according to
Section 10.2 of reference method (EPA,
2002)
Ambient laboratory illumination
500-1000 lux
16L/8D
250 ml (minimum); 1000 mL recommended
200 ml (minimum); 500 mL recommended
None
1-14 d, <24 h range in age
Minimum of 10
Minimum of 5
Artemia nauplii are made available while
holding prior to test; add 0.2 ml Artemia
nauplii concentrate (approximately 1000) at
48 h
None unless DO concentrations fall below
60% of saturation. Rate should not exceed
100 bubbles/min.
Optimal 30 (range: 5-32) ± 2%0; natural
seawater or suitable artificial seawater
prepared with Milli-Q® or equivalent
deionized water
100% elutriate, 100% control water, 100%
dilution water (if different from control)
SERIM Appendix L
L-22
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species for Water-Column Toxicity Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA
FOR THE SHEEPSHEAD MINNOW, Cyprinodon variegatus,
ACUTE TOXICITY WATER COLUMN TEST
20. Dilution series:
21. Endpoint:
22. Sample holding requirements:*
23. Sample volume required:^
24. Test acceptability:
100%, 50%, 10% of the dredged material
elutriate (Note: lower concentrations may be
necessary if test elutriate is toxic or contains
very fine non-settleable solids)
Survival
<2 wk for sediments. Toxicity tests prepared
from sediments should be started within 2 wk
of sampling, but not later than 8 wk after
sampling.
<14 d for site, dilution, and control waters;
elutriates are to be used within 24 h of
preparation
1 L sediment per sample station/4 L site
water for creation of 100% elutriate
>90% survival in controls
* Obtain prior approval from your local EPA and USAGE district offices if sediment samples will
be held longer than the specified sample holding requirements. Prior approval could be
obtained during the review and approval of the Sampling and Analysis Plan.
^This is the minimum volume required to run the test one time. If you need to repeat the test
or archive the sample, you should collect additional equivalent volumes.
Reference:
USEPA. 2002. Methods for Measuring Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms. 5th edition. EPA-821-R-02-012. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC 20460.
SERIM Appendix L
L-23
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for Acute Toxicity
Sediment Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE
AMPHIPOD, Ampelisca abdita, 10-DAY ACUTE TOXICITY SEDIMENT TEST
1. Test type:
2. Test duration:
3. Temperature:
4. Salinity:
5. DO concentration:
6. pH:
7. Light quality:
8. Light intensity:
9. Photoperiod:
10. Test chamber size:
11. Test solution volume:
12. Renewal of test solutions:
13. Age of test organisms:
14. Number of organisms per test chamber:
15. Number of replicate chambers per
treatment:
16. Feeding requirements:
17. Test solution aeration:
18. Overlying water:
19. Test treatments:
20. Endpoint:
Static non-renewal
10 d
20 ± 1°C
Optimal 28 (range: 20-32) ± 2%o
Not less than 60% saturation
Optimal 7.8 ± 0.5; measure according to
ASTM protocol
Ambient laboratory illumination
500-1000 lux
Continuous light
1-L glass beaker or jar with 10-cm inner
diameter
200 ml (about 2-cm depth minimum)
700 ml overlying water
None
3 to 5 mm, no mature males or females
20
5
none
Water in each test chamber should be
aerated overnight before start of test, and
throughout the test; aeration at rate that
maintains >90% saturation of DO
concentration without disturbing the
sediment surface.
Optimal 28 (range: 20-32) ± 2%0; natural
seawater or suitable artificial seawater
prepared with Milli-Q® or equivalent
deionized water
Site sediment, a reference sediment, and a
control sediment
Survival
SERIM Appendix L
L-24
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for Acute Toxicity
Sediment Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE
AMPHIPOD, Ampelisca abdita, 10-DAY ACUTE TOXICITY SEDIMENT TEST
21. Sample holding requirements:*
22. Field sample volume required:^
23. Test acceptability:
<2 wk for sediments. Sediment toxicity tests
should be started within 2 wk of sampling,
but not later than 8 wk after sampling.
<14 d for overlying water
4 L of site, reference site, and control
sediment, depending on chamber size
>90% survival in controls AND meet
requirements of Table A1.3 in ASTM 2004
and Table 11.3 in USEPA 1994
* Obtain prior approval from your local EPA and USAGE district offices if sediment samples will
be held longer than the specified sample holding requirements. Prior approval could be
obtained during the review and approval of the Sampling and Analysis Plan.
^This is the minimum volume required to run the test one time. If you need to repeat the test
or archive the sample, you should collect additional equivalent volumes.
Note: It is recommended that Ampelisca abdita NOT be used for tests with sediments having
<10% silt/clay content. Pore-water/overlying water ammonia concentrations greater
than 30 mg/l total (or 0.4 mg/l unionized) ammonia at pH 7.7 will result in mortality.
Follow recommended procedures in Appendix N to reduce ammonia levels before
beginning tests.
References:
ASTM. 2004. Standard Test Method for Measuring the Toxicity of Sediment-Associated
Contaminants with Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates. Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Vol. 11.06. E1367-03el. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.
USEPA. June 1994. Methods for Assessing the Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Contaminants
with Estuarine and Marine Amphipods. EPA/600/R-94/025.
SERIM Appendix L
L-25
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for Acute Toxicity
Sediment Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA
FOR THE AMPHIPOD, Leptocheirus plumulosus,
10-DAY ACUTE TOXICITY SEDIMENT TEST
1. Test type:
2. Test duration:
3. Temperature:
4. Salinity
5. DO concentration
6. pH
7. Light quality
8. Light intensity:
9. Photoperiod:
10. Test chamber size:
11. Test solution volume:
12. Renewal of test solutions:
13. Age of test organisms:
14. Number of organisms per test
chamber:
15. Number of replicate chambers per
treatment:
16. Feeding requirement:
17. Test solution aeration:
18. Overlying water:
19. Test treatments:
20. Endpoint:
Static non-renewal
10 d
25 ± 1°C
Optimal 20 (range: 1-32) ± 2%o
Not less than 60% saturation
Optimal 7.8 ± 0.5; measure according to ASTM
protocol
Ambient laboratory illumination
500-1000 lux
Continuous light
1-L glass beaker or jar with 10-cm inner
diameter
200 ml (about 2 cm depth minimum)
700 ml overlying water
None
2 to 4 mm, no mature males or females
20
5
none
Water in each test chamber should be aerated
overnight before start of test, and throughout
the test; aeration at rate that maintains >90%
saturation of DO concentration without
disturbing the sediment surface
Optimal 20 (range: 1-32) ± 2%o, natural
seawater or artificial seawater prepared with
Milli-Q® or equivilant deionized water
Site sediment, a reference sediment, and a
control sediment
Survival
SERIM Appendix L
L-26
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for Acute Toxicity
Sediment Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA
FOR THE AMPHIPOD, Leptocheirus plumulosus,
10-DAY ACUTE TOXICITY SEDIMENT TEST
21. Sample holding requirements:*
22. Field sample volume required:^
26. Test acceptability:
<2 wk for sediments. Sediment toxicity tests
should be started within 2 wk of sampling, but
not later than 8 wk after sampling.
<14 d for overlying water
4 L of site, reference site, and control
sediment, depending on chamber size
>90% survival in controls AND meet
requirements of Table A1.3 in ASTM 2004 and
Table 11.3 in USEPA 1994
* Obtain prior approval from your local EPA and USAGE district offices if sediment samples will
be held longer than the specified sample holding requirements. Prior approval could be
obtained during the review and approval of the Sampling and Analysis Plan.
^This is the minimum volume required to run the test one time. If you need to repeat the test
or archive the sample, you should collect additional equivalent volumes.
NOTE: Pore-water/overlying water ammonia concentrations greater than 60 mg/l total (or
0.8 mg/l unionized) ammonia at pH 7.7 will result in mortality. Follow recommended
procedures in Appendix N to reduce ammonia levels before beginning tests.
References:
ASTM. 2004. Standard Test Method for Measuring the Toxicity of Sediment-Associated
Contaminants with Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates. Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Vol. 11.06. E1367-03el. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.
Schlekat, C.E., B.E. McGee and E. Reinharz. 1992. Testing Sediment Toxicity in Chesapeake
Bay Using the Amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus. An Evaluation. Environ. Toxicol.
Chem. 11:225-236.
USEPA. June 1994. Methods for Assessing the Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Contaminants
with Estuarine and Marine Amphipods. EPA/600/R-94/025.
SERIM Appendix L
L-27
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for Acute Toxicity
Sediment Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA
FOR THE MYSID SHRIMP, Americamysis bahia,
10-DAY ACUTE TOXICITY SEDIMENT TEST
1. Test type:
2. Test duration:
3. Temperature:
4. Salinity
5. DO concentration
6. pH
7. Light quality
8. Light intensity:
9. Photoperiod:
10. Test chamber size:
11. Test solution volume:
12. Renewal of test solutions:
13. Age of test organisms:
14. Number of organisms per test
chamber:
15. Number of replicate chambers per
treatment:
16. Feeding requirement:
17. Test solution aeration:
18. Overlying water:
Static non-renewal
10 d
20 ± 1°C; or 25 ± 1°C (recommended);
test temperatures must not deviate (i.e.,
maximum minus minimum temperature) by
more than 3°C during the test (required)
Optimal 30 (range: 20-30) ± 2%o
60-100% of saturation
Optimal 7.8 ± 0.5; measure according to
Section 10.2 of reference method (EPA, 2002)
Ambient laboratory illumination
500-1000 lux
16L/8D
1 L (minimum)
200 ml (about 2 cm depth minimum)
700 ml overlying water
None
1-5 d; 24 h range in age
Minimum of 10
Minimum of 5
Artem/a naup\\\ are made available while
holding prior to test; feed 0.2 ml of
concentrated suspension of Artem/a r\aup\\\
<24 h old, daily (approximately 100 nauplii per
mysid)
None unless DO concentrations fall below 60%
of saturation; rate should not exceed 100
bubbles/min.
Optimal 30 (range: 20-30) ± 2%0; natural
seawater or suitable artificial seawater
prepared with Milli-Q® or equivalent deionized
water
SERIM Appendix L
L-28
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for Acute Toxicity
Sediment Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA
FOR THE MYSID SHRIMP, Americamysis bahia,
10-DAY ACUTE TOXICITY SEDIMENT TEST
19. Test treatments:
20. Endpoint:
21. Sample holding requirements:*
22. Field sample volume required:^
23. Test acceptability:
Site sediment, a reference sediment, and a
control sediment
Survival
<2 wk for sediments. Sediment toxicity tests
should be started within 2 wk of sampling, but
not later than 8 wk after sampling.
<14 d for overlying water
4 L of site, reference site, and control
sediment, depending on chamber size
>90% survival in controls
* Obtain prior approval from your local EPA and USAGE district offices if sediment samples will
be held longer than the specified sample holding requirements. Prior approval could be
obtained during the review and approval of the Sampling and Analysis Plan.
^This is the minimum volume required to run the test one time. If you need to repeat the test
or archive the sample, you should collect additional equivalent volumes.
References:
ASTM. 2004. Standard Test Method for Measuring the Toxicity of Sediment-Associated
Contaminants with Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates. Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Vol. 11.06. E1367-03el. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.
USEPA. June 1994. Methods for Assessing the Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Contaminants
with Estuarine and Marine Amphipods. EPA/600/R-94/025.
USEPA. October 2002. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving
Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, 5th Ed. EPA-821-R-02-012.
SERIM Appendix L
L-29
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for Acute Toxicity
Sediment Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA
FOR THE POLYCHAETE, Neanthes arenaceodentata,
10-DAY ACUTE TOXICITY SEDIMENT TEST
1. Test type:
2. Test duration:
3. Temperature:
4. Salinity:
5. DO concentration:
6. pH:
7. Light quality:
8. Light intensity:
9. Photoperiod:
10. Test chamber size:
11. Test solution volume:
12. Renewal of test solutions:
13. Age of test organisms:
14. Number of organisms per test chamber:
15. Number of replicate chambers per
treatment:
16. Feeding requirement:
17. Test solution aeration:
18. Overlying water:
19. Test treatments:
20. Endpoint:
21. Sample holding requirements:*
22. Field sample volume required:^
Static non-renewal
10 d
20 ± 1°C
Optimal 30 (range: 28-36) ± 2%o
60-100% of saturation
Optimal 7.8 ± 0.5
Ambient laboratory illumination
500-1000 lux
16L/8D
1 L minimum
200 ml (about 2 cm depth minimum)
700 ml of overlying water
None
2-3 wk post emergence
5-10
5
None
Trickle flow (<100 bubble/min)
Optimal 30 (range: 28-36) ± 2%0; natural
seawater or suitable artificial seawater
prepared with Milli-Q® or equivalent
deionized water
Site sediment; reference sediment; and
control sediment
Survival
<2 wk for sediments; sediment toxicity tests
should be started within 2 wk of sampling,
but not later than 8 wk after sampling;
<14 d for overlying water
4 L of site, reference site, and control
sediment, depending on chamber size
SERIM Appendix L
L-30
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for Acute Toxicity
Sediment Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA
FOR THE POLYCHAETE, Neanthes arenaceodentata,
10-DAY ACUTE TOXICITY SEDIMENT TEST
23. Test acceptability:
>90% survival overall in controls, with
survival in individual replicates
>80%
* Obtain prior approval from your local EPA and USAGE district offices if sediment samples will
be held longer than the specified sample holding requirements. Prior approval could be
obtained during the review and approval of the Sampling and Analysis Plan.
^This is the minimum volume required to run the test one time. If you need to repeat the test
or archive the sample, you should collect additional equivalent volumes.
Reference:
ASTM. 2007. Standard Guide for Conducting Sediment Toxicity Tests with Polychaetous
Annelids. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 11.06. E1611-00(2007). American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
SERIM Appendix L L-31 August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for Sediment Bioaccumulation
Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE
BIVALVE, Macoma nasuta, 28-DAY SEDIMENT BIOACCUMULATION TEST
1. Test type:
2. Test duration:
3. Temperature:
4. Salinity:
5. DO concentration:
6. pH:
7. Light quality:
8. Light intensity:
9. Photoperiod:
10. Test chamber size:
11. Test solution volume:
12. Sediment depth:
13. Renewal of test solutions:
14. Age of test organisms:
15. Number of organisms per test chamber:
16. Number of replicate chambers per
treatment:
17. Feeding requirements:
18. Test solution aeration:
19. Overlying water:
20. Test treatments:
21. Endpoint:
Flow-through or static renewal
28 d
12-16 ± 1°C
Optimal 30 (range: 25-35) + 2%o
60-100% saturation
Optimal 7.8 ± 0.5
Ambient laboratory illumination
500-1000 lux
12L/12D, 16L/8D, 10L/14D
Large chamber (20-30 L volume)
At least 200 g wet wt sediment per g wet
flesh (without shell)
At least 5 cm of sediment depth in large
chamber
Flow-through = 5-10 vol/d;
Static Renewal = 3x/wk
Adults of same year class, 2-4 yr, 28-45 mm
shell length
Depends on chamber size and need for
subsequent analysis
Minimum of 5 (5-8 recommended)
None
Moderate, as needed to maintain DO >60%
saturation
Optimal 30 (range: 25-35) ± 2%0; natural or
artificial seawater prepared with Milli-Q® or
equivalent deionized water
Site sediment; reference sediment; and
control sediment
Survival, tissue residue
SERIM Appendix L
L-32
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for Sediment Bioaccumulation
Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE
BIVALVE, Macoma nasuta, 28-DAY SEDIMENT BIOACCUMULATION TEST
22. Sample holding requirements:*
23. Field sample volume required:^
24. Test acceptability:
<2 wk for sediments. Sediment toxicity tests
should be started within 2 wk of sampling,
but not later than 8 wk after sampling.
<14 d for overlying water
10 L of site, reference site, and control
sediment, depending on chamber size
>90% survival in control and reference
treatments; >75% survival in test treatments
- notify local EPA & USAGE district office
immediately if criteria are not met
* Obtain prior approval from your local EPA and USAGE district offices if sediment samples will
be held longer than the specified sample holding requirements. Prior approval could be
obtained during the review and approval of the Sampling and Analysis Plan.
^This is the minimum volume required to run the test one time. If you need to repeat the test
or archive the sample, you should collect additional equivalent volumes.
References:
ASTM. 2007. Standard Guide for Conducting Determination of the Bioaccumulation of
Sediment Associated Contaminants by Benthic Invertebrates. Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Vol. 11.06. E1688-00a(2007). American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.
Ferraro, S., H. Lee II, R. Ozretich, and D. Specht. 1990. Predicting Bioaccumulation Potential:
A Test of a Fugacity-Based Model. Arch. Environ. Contamin. Toxicol. 19:386-394.
Lee, H., II, B. Boese, J. Pelletier, M. Winsor, D. Specht, and R. Randall. 1993. Guidance
Manual: Bedded Sediment Bioaccumulation Tests. EPA/600/R-93/183. 232 pp.
SERIM Appendix L
L-33
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for Sediment Bioaccumulation
Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE
BIVALVE, Yoldia limatula, 28-DAY SEDIMENT BIOACCUMULATION TEST
1. Test type:
2. Test duration:
3. Temperature:
4. Salinity:
5. DO concentration:
6. pH:
7. Light quality:
8. Light intensity:
9. Photoperiod:
10. Test chamber size:
11. Test solution volume:
12. Sediment depth
13. Renewal of test solutions:
14. Age of test organisms:
15. Number of organisms per test chamber:
16. Number of replicate chambers per
treatment:
17. Feeding requirements:
18. Test solution aeration:
19. Overlying water:
Flow-through or static renewal
28 d
5-20°C (activity minimal at lowest
temperature)
Optimal 30 (range: 27-35) ± 2%o
60-100% of saturation
Optimal 7.8 ± 0.5
Ambient laboratory illumination
500-1000 lux
16L/8D, 14L/10D, 12L/12D
Large chamber (20-30 L volume)
At least 200 g wet wt sediment per g wet
flesh (without shell)
5 cm of sediment depth in large chamber;
Yoldia actively resuspends sediments into
water column, additional sediment may need
to be added during test to maintain minimal
sediment depth
Flow-through = 5-10 vol/d;
Static renewal = 3x/wk
Adults of same year class, 2-4 yr, 28-45 mm
shell length
Depends on chamber size and need for
subsequent analysis
Minimum of 5 (5-8 recommended)
None
Moderate, as needed to maintain DO >60%
of saturation
Optimal 30 (range: 27-35) ± 2%o, natural or
suitable artificial seawater prepared with
Milli-Q® or equivalent deionized water
SERIM Appendix L
L-34
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for Sediment Bioaccumulation
Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE
BIVALVE, Yoldia limatula, 28-DAY SEDIMENT BIOACCUMULATION TEST
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Test treatments:
Endpoint:
Sample holding requirements:*
Field sample volume required:^
Test acceptability:
Site sediment, a reference sediment, and a
control sediment
Survival, tissue residue
<2 wk for sediments. Sediment toxicity tests
should be started within 2 wk of sampling,
but not later than 8 wk after sampling.
<14 d for overlying water
10 L of site, reference site, and control
sediment, depending on chamber size
>90% survival in control and reference
treatments; >75% survival in test treatments
- notify local EPA & USAGE district office
immediately if criteria are not met
* Obtain prior approval from your local EPA and USAGE district offices if sediment samples will
be held longer than the specified sample holding requirements. Prior approval could be
obtained during the review and approval of the Sampling and Analysis Plan.
^This is the minimum volume required to run the test one time. If you need to repeat the test
or archive the sample, you should collect additional equivalent volumes.
References:
ASTM. 2007. Standard Guide for Determination of the Bioaccumulation of Sediment Associated
Contaminants by Benthic Invertebrates. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 11.06.
E1688-00a(2007). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Bender, K. and W.R. Davis. 1984. Effects of Feeding on Yoldia limatula on Bioturbation.
Ophelia. 23: 91-100.
Lee, H., II, B. Boese, J. Pelletier, M. Winsor, D. Specht, and R. Randall. 1993. Guidance
Manual: Bedded Sediment Bioaccumulation Tests. EPA/600/R-93/183. 232 pp.
SERIM Appendix L
L-35
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for Sediment Bioaccumulation
Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE
SAND WORM, Nereis virens, 28-DAY SEDIMENT BIOACCUMULATION TEST
1. Test type:
2. Test duration:
3. Temperature:
4. Salinity:
5. DO concentration:
6. pH:
7. Light quality:
8. Light intensity:
9. Photoperiod:
10. Test chamber size:
11. Test solution volume:
12. Sediment depth:
13. Renewal of test solutions:
14. Age of test organisms:
15. Number of organisms per test chamber:
16. Number of replicate chambers per
treatment:
17. Feeding requirements:
18. Test solution aeration:
19. Overlying water:
20. Test treatments:
Flow-through or static renewal
28 d
10 ± 5°C
Optimal 30 (range: 25-35) ± 2%o
60-100% of saturation
Optimal 7.8 ± 0.5
Ambient laboratory illumination
500-1000 lux
12L/12D
Large chamber (20-30 L volume)
At least 200 g wet wt sediment per g wet
flesh
5-10 cm depth in large chamber
Flow-through = 5-10 vol/d;
Static renewal = 3x/wk
Adult (3-15 g)
Depends on chamber size and need for
subsequent analysis
Minimum of 5 (5-8 recommended)
None
Trickle flow (<100 bubbles/min);
Moderate, as needed to maintain DO >60%
saturation
Optimal 30 (range: 25-35) ± 2%; natural
seawater or suitable artificial seawater
prepared with Milli-Q® or equivalent
deionized water
Site sediment, a reference sediment, and a
control sediment
SERIM Appendix L
L-36
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for Sediment Bioaccumulation
Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE
SAND WORM, Nereis virens, 28-DAY SEDIMENT BIOACCUMULATION TEST
21. Endpoint:
22. Sample holding requirements:*
23. Field sample volume required:^
24. Test acceptability:
Survival, tissue residue
<2 wk for sediments. Sediment toxicity
tests should be started within 2 wk of
sampling, but not later than 8 wk after
sampling.
<14 d for overlying water
10 L of site, reference site, and control
sediment, depending on chamber size
>90% survival in control and reference
treatments; >75% survival in test
treatments - notify local EPA & USAGE
district office immediately if criteria are not
met
* Obtain prior approval from your local EPA and USAGE district offices if sediment samples will
be held longer than the specified sample holding requirements. Prior approval could be
obtained during the review and approval of the Sampling and Analysis Plan.
^This is the minimum volume required to run the test one time. If you need to repeat the test
or archive the sample, you should collect additional equivalent volumes.
References:
ASTM. 2007. Standard Guide for Conducting Sediment Toxicity Tests with Polychaetous
Annelids. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 11.06. E1611-00(2007). American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
ASTM. 2007. Standard Guide for Conducting Determination of the Bioaccumulation of
Sediment Associated Contaminants by Benthic Invertebrates. Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Vol. 11.06. E1688-00a(2007). American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.
Lee, H., II, B. Boese, J. Pelletier, M. Winsor, D. Specht, and R. Randall. 1993. Guidance
Manual: Bedded Sediment Bioaccumulation Tests. EPA/600/R-93/183. 232 pp.
SERIM Appendix L
L-37
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for Sediment Bioaccumulation
Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE
POLYCHAETE, Arenicola marina, 28-DAY SEDIMENT BIOACCUMULATION TEST
1. Test type:
2. Test duration:
3. Temperature:
4. Salinity:
5. DO concentration:
6. pH:
7. Light quality:
8. Light intensity:
9. Photoperiod:
10. Test chamber size:
11. Test solution volume:
12. Sediment dept
13. Renewal of test solutions:
14. Age of test organisms:
15. Number of organisms per test
chamber:
16. Number of replicate chambers per
treatment:
17. Feeding requirements:
18. Test solution aeration:
19. Overlying water:
20. Test treatments:
21. Endpoint:
Flow-through or static renewal
28 d
20 ± 1°C
Optimal 30 (range: 27-35) ± 2%o
60-100% saturation
Optimal 7.8 ± 0.5
Ambient laboratory illumination
500-1000 lux
12L/12D
Large chamber (20-30 L volume)
Minimum 400 g wet wt sediment per g wet
flesh
>15cm
Flow-through = 5-10 vol/d;
Static renewal = 3x/wk
<1 yr (3-6 g wet wt, 5-10 cm length)
Depends on chamber size and need for
subsequent analysis
Minimum of 5 (5-8 recommended)
None
Trickle-flow (<100 bubbles/min); moderate, as
needed to maintain DO >60% saturation
Optimal 30 (range 27-35) ± 2%0; natural
seawater or suitable artificial seawater
prepared with Milli-Q® or equivalent deionized
water
Site sediment, a reference sediment, and a
control sediment
Survival, tissue residue
SERIM Appendix L
L-38
August 2008
-------
Recommended Test Species and Environmental Parameters for Sediment Bioaccumulation
Testing of Dredged Material
SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND TEST ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE
POLYCHAETE, Arenicola marina, 28-DAY SEDIMENT BIOACCUMULATION TEST
22. Sample holding requirements:*
23. Field sample volume required:^
24. Test acceptability:
<2 wk for sediments. Sediment toxicity tests
should be started within 2 wk of sampling, but
not later than 8 wk after sampling.
<14 d for overlying water
10 L of site, reference site, and control
sediment, depending on chamber size
>90% survival in control and reference
treatments; >75% survival in test treatments -
notify local EPA & USAGE district office
immediately if criteria are not met
* Obtain prior approval from your local EPA and USAGE district offices if sediment samples will
be held longer than the specified sample holding requirements. Prior approval could be
obtained during the review and approval of the Sampling and Analysis Plan.
^This is the minimum volume required to run the test one time. If you need to repeat the test
or archive the sample, you should collect additional equivalent volumes.
References:
Gordon, D.C., J. Dale and P.D. Keiger. 1978. Importance of Sediment-Working by the Deposit-
Feeding Polychaete Arenicola marina on the Weathering Rate of Sediment-Bound Oil.
J. Fish Res. Bd. Canada. 35:591-603.
Huttel, M. 1990. Influence of the Lugworm Arenicola marina on Porewater Nutrient Profiles of
Sand Flat Sediments. Mar. Biol. Prog. Ser. 62:241-248.
Lee, H., II, B. Boese, J. Pelletier, M. Winsor, D. Specht, and R. Randall. 1993. Guidance
Manual: Bedded Sediment Bioaccumulation Tests. EPA/600/R-93/183. 232 pp.
SERIM Appendix L
L-39
August 2008
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix M
TESTING GUIDANCE FOR DIOXIN AND
OTHER SUPPLEMENTAL CONTAMINANTS
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix M
TESTING GUIDANCE FOR DIOXIN AND
OTHER SUPPLEMENTAL CONTAMINANTS
Table M-l: Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds
Congener
Chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDD
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PentaCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HexaCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HexaCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HexaCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HeptaCDD
Chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs)
2,3,7,8-TetraCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PentaCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PentaCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HexaCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HexaCDF
1,2,3, 7,8,9-HexaCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HexaCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HeptaCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HeptaCDF
Polychlorinated biphenyls1
3,3',4,4' tetraCB (77)
3,3',4,4',5 pentaCB (126)
3,3',4,4',5,5' hexaCB (169)
Analytical
Method
)
8290, 1613
8290, 1613
8290, 1613
8290, 1613
8290, 1613
8290, 1613
8290, 1613
8290, 1613
8290, 1613
8290, 1613
8290, 1613
8290, 1613
8290, 1613
8290, 1613
8290, 1613
1668
1668
1668
Sediment
Target
Detection
Limit
Ippt
5ppt
5ppt
5ppt
5ppt
5ppt
Ippt
5ppt
5ppt
5ppt
5ppt
5ppt
5ppt
5ppt
5ppt
1 PPb
1 PPb
1 PPb
Tissue
Target
Detection
Limit
0.5 ppt
0.5 ppt
5 ppt
5 ppt
5 ppt
5 ppt
0.5 ppt
0.5 ppt
5 ppt
5 ppt
5 ppt
5 ppt
5 ppt
5 ppt
5 ppt
1 PPb
1 PPb
1 PPb
Humans/
Mammals
TEF2
1
1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.1
0.05
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.0001
0.1
0.01
Fish TEF2
1
1
0.5
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.05
0.05
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.005
0.00005
NOTE: These PCB congeners are already required per Sections 5.2 and 7.3 of the RIM
World Health Organization toxic equivalency factors (TEF): PCDDs, PCDFs and PCBs constitute a group
of persistent environmental chemicals. Due to their hydrophobic nature and resistance towards
metabolism, these chemicals have been found in fatty tissues of animals and humans. Several PCDDs,
PCDFs, and PCBs have been shown to cause toxic responses similar to those caused by 2,3,7,8-TCDD,
the most potent congener within these groups of compounds. These toxic responses include dermal
toxicity, immunotoxicity, carcinogenicity, and adverse effects on reproduction, development, and
endocrine functions. The complex nature of PCDD, PCDF, and PCB mixtures complicates the risk
evaluation for humans, fish, and wildlife. Therefore, the concept of TEFs has been developed. The
TEF indicates an order of magnitude estimate of the toxicity of a compound relative to TCDD. TEF
values, in combination with chemical residual data (sediments, tissues, water) can be used to calculate
toxic equivalent (TEQ) concentrations. TEQ concentrations are calculated using the following
equation:
TEQ=
t x TEFJ
x TEFJ
x TEF,]
nl
n2
«3
TEQs can then be used for risk characterization and management purposes. (Van den Berg et al., 1998)
SERIM Appendix M
M-l
August 2008
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix N
METHODS TO REDUCE AMMONIA FOR
WHOLE SEDIMENT TOXICITY TESTS
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DEC 2 I 1993
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT
FROM:
TO!
Technical Panel Recommendations Concerning Use of Acute
Amphipod Tests in Evaluation of Dredged Material
Tudor T. Davies, Director
Office of Science and Techno!
U.S. Environmental Protectjro'n
David G. Davis, Deputy Direettsr
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John P. Elmore, Chief
Operations, Construction and
Directorate of Civil Works
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
EPA Regional Ocean Dumping Coordinators
EPA Regional Wetlands Coordinators
Corps of Engineers Regulatory and Civil Works
Elements
Over the past two years, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been
working jointly toward development and implementation of two
testing manuals for evaluating dredged material proposed for
disposal in aquatic environments. These documents are titled,
"Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal -
Testing Manual" and "Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for
Discharge in Inland and Near Coastal Waters - Inland Testing
Manual". The Ocean Disposal Manual was published in 1991, and
the draft Inland Testing Manual was recently distributed for
Corps and EPA review. Following publication of the Ocean
Disposal Manual, as the Corps and EPA began to implement this
revised ocean testing protocol, some laboratories experienced
problems conducting amphipod bioassays and replicating laboratory
test results. Some of the laboratories conducting the tests
attributed these problems to ammonia and hydrogen sulfide
toxicity, as well as amphipod sensitivity to grain size. In
order to evaluate the use of amphipod bioassays in the dredged
material regulatory programs, EPA and the Corps convened a
SERIM Appendix N
N-l
August 2008
-------
meeting of Experts on June 18, 1993. This memorandum transmits
the findings of that meeting and subsequent discussions.
The meeting participants supported the continued use of
amphipod bioassays in the dredged material regulatory programs,
and recommended application of the guidance provided in this memo
until EPA publishes standard sediment toxicity test protocols in
1994.
The meeting participants reviewed the results of EPA
research on test protocol development, and the influences of
grain size, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide toxicity. Standard
acute amphipod toxicity test method protocols to be completed by
EPA this year (for five species) will include this information.
Tables 1 and 2, attached to this memorandum, contain test
condition acceptability ranges - based on the "best professional
judgement" of the EPA researchers developing the standard
protocols - for the following test organisms used to evaluate
dredged material: marine and estuarine amphipods (Rhepoxynius.
Ampelisca, Eohaustorius. Leptocheirus), a freshwater amphipod
(Hyalella), a freshwater midge (Chironomus), and a freshwater
oligochaete used in bioaccumulation tests (Lumbriculus). Test
condition acceptability ranges are given for temperature,
salinity, grain size, and ammonia. Hydrogen sulfide toxicity is
not believed to be a problem if dissolved oxygen levels are
maintained in the overlying water. At certain open-water dredged
material disposal sites (e.g., dispersive situations and
situations with well-oxygenated overlying water), ammonia and
hydrogen sulfide may not be contaminants of concern. Whenever
chemical evidence of ammonia is present at toxicologically
important levels, and ammonia is not a contaminant of concern,
the laboratory analyst should reduce ammonia in the sediment's
interstitial water to below 20 mg/1 before adding the benthic
test organism. Ammonia levels in the interstitial water can be
reduced by sufficiently aerating the sample at saturation and
replacing two volumes of water per day. The analyst should
measure interstitial ammonia each day until it reaches 20 mg/1.
After placing the test organism in the sediment, the analyst
should ensure that ammonia concentrations remain within an
acceptable range (see Tables 1 and 2) by conducting the toxicity
test with continuous flow or volume replacement not to exceed two
volumes per day. Table 3 lists several peer-reviewed papers that
deal with the information discussed above. A comparison of life
cycle/ecological characteristics for the marine and estuarine
amphipod species mentioned above is presented in Table 4.
The EPA researchers developing the standard protocols recommended
that laboratories running the amphipod toxicity tests take the
following steps to reduce the likelihood of obtaining invalid
test results.
1) Minimize handling stress of the organisms.
2) Ship the test animals to laboratories quickly at appropriate
temperatures.
2
SERIM Appendix N N-2 August 2008
-------
3) Make certain that proper temperature and other water quality
characteristics are always maintained for the test animals.
4) For marine tests, run tests within ten days of receiving
test animals in the laboratory. (Tests with some species
may need to be run sooner.)
5) Conduct concurrent reference toxicity tests at the start of
a sediment test.
6) Feed the test animals if necessary before use.
7) Use the proper life stage of animal for the test.
8) Always run necessary controls for the tests.
9) Remember that all amphipod test species are not the same,
and be aware of species specific differences in test
acceptability conditions.
10) Culture Hyalella azteca at the testing laboratory.
It is recommended that test acceptability conditions
(including interstitial water ammonia) be measured before
initiating a test. If any test conditions lie outside of
acceptability ranges, alternative test species may be chosen for
use whose test acceptability conditions match the dredged
material. (But for ammonia, follow the guidance in paragraph 3
of this memo.)
The panel discussed performance requirements for selecting a
contractor. It was recommended that as part of the "request-for-
proposal" process, contractors should be required to submit three
sets of control data to show that they can successfully run the
particular test. More detailed guidance is available in the
draft document "QA/QC Guidance for Laboratory Dredged Material
Bioassays" USAGE, Waterways Experiment Station [D. Moore, T.
Dillon, J. Word, J. Ward, MP XX-93 (draft may be obtained from
senior author)]. EPA and the Corps will work on additional
detailed guidance for QA/QC of biological tests in 1994.
EPA and the Corps recognize the need for the development of
standard amphipod test protocols, and for continued training on
amphipod toxicity test methods. EPA will publish and distribute
standard acute toxicity test method protocols for all species
listed in the attached tables in FY 94. The Corps and EPA will
continue to hold training workshops on the test methods, and to
develop training tools such as videos describing test method
protocols. EPA and the Corps will also initiate discussions on
the feasibility of developing a laboratory certification or
accreditation program to support dredged material regulatory
activities.
SERIM Appendix N N-3 August 2008
-------
If you have additional questions concerning the amphipod
bioassays described in this memo please contact the following
persons. For questions concerning the freshwater test contact
Dr. Gary Ankley at EPA's environmental research laboratory in
Duluth, Minnesota 218-720-5603; for questions concerning the
marine and estuarine amphipod tests contact Dr. Norm Rubinstein
at EPA's environmental research laboratory in Narragansett, Rhode
Island 401-782-3002, Dr. Rick Swartz at EPA's environmental
research laboratory in Newport, Oregon 503-867-4031, or Dr. Tom
Dillon at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi 601-634-3922.
Attachments
SERIM Appendix N N-4 August 2008
-------
Table 1
FRESHWATER SEDIMENT TOXICITY AND BIOACCUMULATION
TEST APPLICATION CONDITIONS
PARAMETER
Temperature (°C)
Overlying Salinity (ppt)
Grain Size (% silt/clay)
Total Ammonia (mg/L NH3+NH4)
Sulf ides
Hyalella
23
<15
full range
*
**
Chirononua
23
<1
pending
*
**
Lumbriculus
i - -i~.a— ~=* -1--"" ::: •
23
<1
full range
*
**
The toxicity of total ammonia to Hyalella azteca
hardness and pH. For Lumbriculus variegatus and
ammonia toxicity increases as pH increases, with
to hardness. For a frame of reference, the 10-d
Lake Superior water (40-42 mg/L hardness) is 17.5
for Hyalella azteca. 21.4 (19.2-23.9) mg/L at pH
varieaatus. and 186 (156-222) mg/L at pH 7.7 for
framework for deciding whether observed sediment
be due to ammonia is presented in EPA/USACE (1993
is a function of both water
Chironomus tentans total
little apparent effect due
LC50 for total ammonia in
(14.8-20.7) mg/L at pH 7.5
7.8 for Lumbriculus
Chironomus tentans. A
(or elutriate) toxicity may
; Appendix F).
*Hydrogen Sulfide is not likely to be a problem in these tests if adequate
dissolved oxygen levels are maintained in the overlying water.
EPA/USACE. 1993. Evaluation of dredged material proposed for discharge in
inland and near coastal waters - testing manual (Inland Testing Manual).
Draft Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington, DC.
SERIM Appendix N
N-5
August 2008
-------
LO
m
2
Q.
X'
Table 2
MARINE AND ESTUARINE AMPHIPOD TOXICITY TEST APPLICATION CONDITIONS
PARAMETER
Temperature (°C)
Overlying Salinity (ppt)
Grain Size (% silt/clay)
Ammonia (total mg/L, pH 7.7)
Ammonia (UI1 mg/L, pH 7.7)*
Bulfides
Rhepoxvnius
15
>25
<90
<30
<0.4
**
Ampelisca
20
>20
>10
<30
<0.4
**
Eohaustorius
15
2-34
full range
<60
<0.8
**
Leptocheirus
25
2-32
full range
<60
<0.8
**
*A framework for deciding whether observed sediment (or elutriate) toxicity may be due to ammonia is
presented in EPA/USACE (1993; Appendix F). This document should be consulted if ammonia is suspected
to be a contaminant of concern.
**Hydrogen Sulfide is not likely to be a problem in these tests if adequate oxygen levels are
maintained in the overlying water.
Unionized
(O
EPA/USACE, 1993. Evaluation of dredged material proposed for discharge in inland and near coastal
waters - testing manual (Inland Testing Manual). Draft Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
NJ
O
O
oo
-------
Table 3
American Society for Testing and Materials. E1367-92. Guide for
conducting 10-day static sediment toxicity tests with marine and
estuarine amphipods. In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Water and
Environmental Technology, Vol. 13.04, Philadelphia, PA, 1992.
American Society for Testing and Materials. E1383-93. Standard
guide for conducting sediment toxicity tests with freshwater
invertebrates. ASTM 1993 Annual Book of Standards Vol. 11.04,
Philadelphia, PA, 1993.
Ankley G.T., Phipps, G.L., Leonard, E.N., Benoit,D.A., Mattson,
V.R., Kosian, P.A., Cotter, A.M., Dierkes, J.R., Hansen, D.J.,
and Mahony, J.D. Acid-volatile sulfide as a factor mediating
cadmium and nickel bioavailability in contaminated sediment.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:1299-1307, 1991.
Ankley, G. and Thomas, N. Interstitial water toxicity
identification evaluation approach. In: Sediment Classification
Methods Compendium, pp. 5-1 to 5-14. EPA 823-R-92-006,
Washington, DC, 1992.
Ankley, G.T., Schubauer-Berigan, M.K., and Hoke, R.A. Use of
toxicity identification evaluation techniques to identify dredged
material disposal options: A proposed approach. Environ.
Management. 16:1-6, 1992.
Ankley, G.T., Cook, P.M., Carlson, A.R., Call, D.J., Swenson,
J.A., Corcoran, H.F., and Hoke, R.A. Bioaccumulation of PCBs from
sediments by oligochaetes and fishes: Comparison of laboratory
and field studies. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49:2080-2085, 1992.
Ankley, G.T., Benoit, D.A., Hoke, R.A., Leonard, E.N., West,
C.W., Phipps, G.L., Mattson, V.R., and Anderson, L.A. Development
and evaluation of test methods for benthic invertebrates and
sediments: Effects of flow rate and feeding on water quality and
exposure conditions. Arch. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 25:12-19,
1993.
Ankley, G.T., Benoit, D.A., Balough, J.C., Reynoldson, T.B., Day,
K.E., and Hoke, R.A. Evaluation of potential confounding factors
in sediment toxicity tests with three freshwater benthic
invertebrates. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.; In press, 1994.
Benoit D.A., Phipps, G.A., and Ankley, G.T. A simple, inexpensive
mini-flow system for the automatic renewal of overlying water in
toxicity tests with contaminated sediments. Water Res. 27:1403-
1412, 1993.
Burton, G.A. Assessing the toxicity of freshwater sediments.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:1585-1627, 1991.
Call, D.J., Brooke, L.T., Ankley, G.T., Benoit, D.A., West, C.W.,
and Hoke, R.A. A short-term method for estimating the toxicity of
solid phase sediment to Chironomus tentans. EPA Region 5,
Chicago, IL, 1993.
SERIM Appendix N N-7 August 2008
-------
Table 3, Continued
Call, D.J., Brooke, L.T., Ankley, G.T., Benoit, D.A., Phipps,
G L., West, C.W., and Hoke, R.A. A method for determining
bioaccumulation of sediment-associated contaminants using the
oligochaete, Lumbriculus varieaatus. EPA Region 5, Chicago, IL,
1993.
DeWitt T.H, Ditsworth, G.R., and Swartz, R.C. Effects of natural
sediment features on survival of the Phoxocephalid amphipod,
Rhepoxvnius abronius. Marine Envir. Res. 25:99-124, 1988.
DeWitt, T.H., Swartz, R.C., and Lamberson, J.O. Measuring the
acute toxicity of estuarine sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
8:1035-1048, 1989.
Inqersoll, C.G. and Nelson, M.K. Testing sediment toxicity with
Hvalella azteca (Amphipoda) and Chironomus riparius (Patera).
Tn- Aquatic Toxicology and Risk Assessment. 13th volume, ASTM STP
1096, W.G. Landis and W.H. van der Schalie, Eds. Philadelphia,
PA, pp. 93-109, 1990.
Lamberson, J.O., DeWitt, T.H., and Swartz, R.C. Assessment of
sediment toxicity to marine benthos. In: Sediment Toxicity
Assessment. G.A. Burton, Jr., Ed. Ann Arbor, MI, Lewis
Publishers, pp. 183-211, 1992.
Scott, K.J. and Redmond, M.S. The effects of a contaminated
dredged material on laboratory populations of the tubicolous
amphipod, Ampelisca abdita. In: Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard
Assessment; 12th Volume. ASTM STP 1027, U.M. Cowgill and L.R.
Williams, Eds. Philadelphia, PA, American Society for Testing and
Materials, pp. 289-303, 1989.
Swartz R.C. Marine sediment toxicity tests. In: Contaminated
Marine Sediments - Assessment and Remediation. Washington, D.C.,
National Academy Press, pp. 115-129, 1989.
SERIM Appendix N N-8 August 2008
-------
LO
m
2
Q.
X'
Table 4
COMPARISON OF FOUR MARINE AND ESTUARINE AMPHIPOD SPECIES FOR ACUTE TESTS
Characteristic
Substrate Relation
Zoogeography
Habitat
Life Cycle
Availability
Response Data Base
Ecological
Importance
Rhepoxynius
Free burrowing
Pacific
Poly ha line
Annual
Field
Extensive
High
Ampelisca
Tube dwelling,
closed
Atlantic-Gulf San
Francisco Bay
Poly-upper
mesohaline
30-40 days
Field-culture
Extensive
High
Eohaustorius
Free burrowing
Pacific
Oligo-mesohaline
Annual
Field
Low to moderate
High
Leptocheirus
Tube dwelling,
open
Atlantic
Ol igo-meshohal ine
30-40 days
Field-Culture
Low to moderate
High
(O
NJ
O
O
00
-------
UNfTH) STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D-C. 20460
JUN ! 4 1994
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Recommendations for Conducting Sediment Toxicity
Test with Hysidopsis bah_ta. when Ammonia may be
Present at Toxic Levels
Elizabeth Souther land, Acting
Standards and Applied Science Division (4305)
Office of science and Technology
Mario -P. Del Vicario, Chief
Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch
U.S. EPA Region 2
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance to
U.S. EPA Region 2 on conducting the mysid ten-day solid phase
sediment toxicity test to evaluate dredged material for open
water disposal. This guidance is provided in response to a
letter mailed to Region 2 on April 22, 1994 from Monte Greges,
'U.S. .Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, requesting
guidance on running the mysid test when ammonia is present at
potentially toxic concentrations.
The Office of Science and Technology held a conference call
on May 15, 1994 with EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
scientists and our consultants to develop an acceptable protocol
for- running the mysid test when ammonia may be present at toxic
levels. The following protocol was recommended by conference
call participants who are identified below as recipients of this
memorandum .
1. The Corps of Engineers and EPA issued joint guidance on
December 21, 1993 offering recommendations, based on the
best available information, for reducing ammonia levels in
test systems used for acute amphipod sediment bioassays.
When running mysid tests, it is recommended that the
procedure described in the December 21 memorandum be used
with modifications pertaining specifically to Mvsidopsis
bahia.
2. The Corps of Engineers/EPA December 21 guidance memorandum
states that at certain open-water dredged material disposal
sites (e.g. dispersive situations and situations with well-
ojcygenated overlying water) , ammonia and hydrogen sulf ide
nccytdecffiacycbbta
Prii*«d w» SeyCnda t* at
SERIM Appendix N
N-10
August 2008
-------
may not be contaminants of concern. If chemical evidence of
ammonia is present at toxicologically important levels (i.e.
ammonia concentrations exceeding the species-specific
acceptability ranges) , and ammonia is not a contaminant of
concern, the laboratory analyst running the mysid ton-day
sediment toxicity test, should reduce ammonia in the in the
test system overlying water to the appropriate acceptable
level before adding the tost organism.
3. For Mysidops_is bahia, the species-specific acceptable level
for unionized ammonia concentration in the test system
overlying water (i.e sublethal water column concentration
for a ten-day sediment test) is 0.6 mg/"L in tests run at
26±1°C, 31± g/Kg salinity, and pH of 7.9-8.0 using one day
old organisms . At a test pH of 7.5, the acceptable
concentration of unionized ammonia is 0.3 mg/L. These
acceptability levels were derived on the basis of acute
toxicity tests conducted with ammonia by D.c. Miller, S.
Poucher, J.A. Cardin, and D. Hansen at EPA's Environmental
Research Laboratory, Narragansett, Rhode Island.
4. If unionised ammonia levels in the test system overlying
water exceed the acceptability level for Mvsidopsis bahia
(O.6 mg/L at pH 7.9-8.0 or 0.3 mg/L at pH 7.5} the system
should be flushed at a rate of two volume replacements per
day until it reaches a concentration of unionized amMonia at
or below the acceptability level, overlying water should be
aerated during flushing, and the analyst should measure the
overlying water ammonia concentration each day until the
acceptable concentration is reached. Overlying water should
be sampled approximately 1 cm above the sediment surface.
5. After adding the test organisms to the system, the analyst
should ensure that ammonia concentrations remain within an
acceptable range by conducting the toxicity test with
continuous flow or volume replacement not to exceed two
volumes per day. It is recotsmended that overlying water
concentration of ammonia be measured again at the end of the
test.
6. Accurate measurement of sample pH is crucial in the
calculation of the unionized ammonia fraction. EPA's
Narragansett laboratory recommends the use of specific
equipment and procedures for determining pH of seawater (see
Attachment l)
We are sending this memorandum concurrently to EPA Region 2
and the conference call participants who recommended guidance. We
ask: tiiat conference call participants provide any comments or
modifications of the recommended procedure to Tom Armitage of my
staff by June 24, 1994. We will notify Region 2 if any changes
in the guidance are required.
SERIM Appendix N N-ll August 2008
-------
Attachment
cc: Bob Sngler (COE WES)
Tom Dillon (COE WES)
David. Moore (COE WES)
Xante Greges (COE NY District)
Gary Ankley (EPA ORD)
Don Miller (EPA ORD)
Norm Rabenstejui (EPA ORO)
Rick Swartz (EPA 01D
Tom Chase (EPA OWOW)
Alex Lechich (EPA Region 2}
Joel O'Conner (EPA Region 2)
Dave Tomey (EPA Region 1}
John Scott (SAIC)
SERIM Appendix N N-12 August 2008
-------
Osc Of criteria for developing water quality-based permit limits and
for designing waste treatment facilities requires the selection of an
appropriate wasteload allocation model. Dynamic models are preferred for the
application q£ these criteria (U.S. EPA 1985b) . Limited data or other
consideraticns might make their use impractical, in which case one should
rely on. a steady-state model (U.S. EGA 1986).
Water quality standards for ammonia developed from these criteria should
specify use of environmental monitoring methods which are comparable to the
analytical methods employed to generate the toxicity data base. Total
ammonia may be measured using, an automated idophenol blue method, such as
described by Techm' con industrial Systems (1973) or U.S. ERA (1979) method
350.1. net-ionized anemia concentrations should be calculated using the
dissociation model of Whitfield (1974) as programed by Hampson (1977). This
program was used to calculate most of the un-ionized values for saltwater
organisms listed in Table 1 and 2 of this document. Accurate measurement of
sample pa is crucial in the calculation of the un-ionized ammonia fraction.
•Hie following equipment and procedures were used by EPA in the ammonia
toxicity studies to enhance the precision of pB measurements in salt water.
Tfr«? pe meter reported two decimal places. A Ross electrode with ceramic
junction was used due to its rapid response time; an automatic temperature
compensation, probe provided temperature correction. Note that the
responsiveness of a new electrode may be enhanced by holding it in sea water
for several days prior to use. Two National Bureau of Standards buffer
solutions for calibration preferred for their stability were (1) potassium
28
SERIM Appendix N N-13 August 2008
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix O
QUALITY CONTROL (QC)
SUM MARY TABLES
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix O
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SUMMARY TABLES
PROJECT, SAMPLING, AND LABORATORY INFORMATION
PROJECT, SAMPLING, AND LABORATORY INFORMATION
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
EPA Region 4
SERIM Data Review and Validation Requirements
Dredged Material Disposal Evaluation
Project:
Project Initiation Date:
Project Sampling Dates:
Begin:
End:_
Final Report Date:
Final Review Date:
/ certify the review in this document conforms to all applicable regulatory and project-specific requirements.
QA Officer
(Director or President, Validation Company)
Data Review Document Page 1 of 25 August 2008
-------
Table of Contents
Section
Project, Sampler and Laboratory Information
Signature Cover Page
Table of Contents
Data Review Instructions
Project Review
Laboratory Information
Sample Custody
Analytical Review Summary
List of Acronyms
Chemistry Review
Metals
PAHs, Pesticides, PCB
Tributyltins
Dioxins
TOC
Physical Review
Physical Testing
Toxicology Review
TOX Project Checklist
TOX Data Checklist
Page Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9-11
12-13
14-15
16-17
18- 19
20-21
22-24
25
Data Review Document
Page 2 of 25
August 2008
-------
Data Review Instructions
This document contains a review table listing specific data quality objectives. The purpose of the review spreadsheet is to provide a
template for validation of the project data quality objectives. The tables are contained in an Excel spreadsheet and are designed to follow
the project from initial setup to final review. They may also be filled out manually, using the printed copies as templates.
The Table of Contents on page 2 lists the sections of this document that should be filled out for each project.
Prior to sampling, complete the section titled Project Review. This provides information about the contract and the approval of the
SAP/QAPP.
Also, prior to sampling, complete the section titled Laboratory Information. This will verify that the laboratory is capable of meeting the
DQOs as required.
After sampling, begin filling in the section titled Sample Custody. This section verifies that the samples were properly collected and shipped
to the analytical laboratory. For this section, several questions require the laboratory report to be completed and submitted to the contractor
before they can be answered.
Once the data report has been received by the contractor, begin filling in the section titled Analytical Review Summary. This section shows
information about the contractor review prior to submission of the report to the client by the contractor.
The remaining sections are organized according to analytical group and matrix and should be completed as each section is reviewed. Each
section has a field for entering the analytical method number used. Unless otherwise specified, each analytical method should be
completed on its own page. Then complete the review of specific QC targets listed in the table. Any QC value that does not meet the
specified criteria should be explained in the Review Comments box. In addition, verify that the laboratory has submitted a case narrative
for any QC failures along with corrective actions taken. If this is not received, contact the laboratory to add this to the final report.
Data Review Document Page 3 of 25 August 2008
-------
Project Review
The following sections must be completed prior to field sampling or laboratory analysis:
The SAP/QAPP was prepared and submitted for approval by the Corps of Engineers District Office and EPA Region 4.
Submitted by:
Date submitted:
The SAP/QAPP was approved by the Corps of Engineers District Office and EPA Region 4.
Approved by:
Date Approved:
Any deviations from District-approved protocols for sampling or analysis were clearly stated to the District and approved by the District office and EPA
Region 4.
Data Review Document Page 4 of 25 August 2008
-------
Laboratory Information
Use one sheet for each laboratory that will perform analytical work for this project.
Laboratory Name/Identification:
Is lab NELAC certified? Yes/No If Yes, please supply certification number.
Can lab meet the QC requirements below as specified in the SAP/QAPP?
Yes/No
Analytical requirement
Instrumentation
MDL's
Precision and accuracy
Required turnaround time
Note below any requirements the laboratory is unable to meet.
Data Review Document Page 5 of 25 August 2008
-------
Sample Custody
Was all required information on the chain-of-custody form:
(Yes/No)
Did chain of custody forms accompany samples to subcontract lab?
Is the project identification on the chain of custody?
Are the analyses requested printed on the sample containers?
Were all samples correctly identified?
Were the analyses correctly identified on the chain of custody or an attached document listed on the chain of custody?
Were sample dates and times listed on the chain of custody?
Were the chains of custody signed by both the relinquisher and receiver of the samples?
Was the carrier identified on the chain of custody?
If more than one chain of custody was needed for samples, are the chains of custody clearly numbered?
Were samples packed on wet ice, with an expected receipt temperature of 4 ± 2°C?
Were any sample conditions or irregularities (broken bottles, improper temperature) noted on the chain of custody or accompanying
paperwork?
Was the chain of custody submitted as part of the report to the primary contractor?
Were all requested analyses performed?
Was adequate sample volume provided to the contractor lab?
If any anomalous behavior of the samples was found, was it noted in the lab case narrative?
Additional sample custody issues or deficiencies:
Data Review Document
Page 6 of 25
August 2008
-------
Analytical Review Summary
Were all raw data included in the final report?
(Yes/No)
Prep logs
Analytical logs
Data reduction logs
Calculations
Data report
QC Package
Verify that samples were prepared according to the method specified.
Verify that samples were analyzed according to the method specified.
Verify that data were properly transferred from run to data report.
Verify that QC was calculated and within limits and complete the QC forms provided in this package
Additional data quality issues:
Data Review Document
Page 7 of 25
August 2008
-------
List of Acronyms
1C Initial Calibration
MDL Method Detection Limit
LCS Laboratory Control Sample
CCV Continuing Calibration Verification
MB Method Blank
MS/MSD/MST Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate/Matrix Spike Triplicate
IS Internal Standard
LFB Laboratory Fortified Blank
RL Reporting Limit
LDR Linear Dynamic Range
SRM Standard Reference Material
ICV Initial Calibration Verification
SAP/QAPP Sampling and Analysis Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan
SERIM EPA Region 4 - Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Data Review Document
Page 8 of 25
August 2008
-------
CHEMISTRY REVIEW
CHEMISTRY REVIEW
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Project Identification:,
Reviewed by:
Review Date:
Parameter: Metals (e.g. Silver, Arsenic)
List Metals Analyzed:
Matrix: Q Sediment Q Water/Elutriate Q Tissue
Analytical Method Used:
QC
Measurement
IVILJ
MS/MSD/MST
Duplicate
SRM
LCS/LFB
ICV
Frequency
1 |_/WI £-\J OdlllplOO \_/l
1 per batch up to 20
samples
1 set per 20
samples or per
batch
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
Immediately
following calibration
curve
Acceptance
Criteria
1 NW dlldl^LO OIIWUIU
be detected > RL
70 -130% for spike
limits
30% RSD for
precision
30% RSD for
precision
70 - 1 30% Recovery
70 - 1 30% Recovery
90 - 1 1 0% Recovery
Criteria
Met (Y/N)
Review Comments
Data Review Document
Page 9 of 25
August 2008
-------
Project Identification:,
Reviewed by:
Review Date:
Parameter: Metals (e.g. Silver, Arsenic)
List Metals Analyzed:
Matrix: Q Sediment Q Water/Elutriate Q Tissue
Analytical Method Used:
ccv
LDR
1C
MDL
ICB
Minimum - check
calibration at middle
and end of each
UdlUII Ul 1 pel IU
analyses, whichever
is greater
Verify LDR once per
quarter for ICP
analyses and one
time for mercury
analysis
Verify initial
calibration for AA
and mercury
analysis performed
daily
Verify MDL study
once per year for
each analyte of
interest
Immediately after
initial calibration
90 - 1 1 0% Recovery
cc > 0.9950 for all
calibrations
Updated annually
No analyte should
be detected > RL
Data Review Document
Page 10 of 25
August 2008
-------
Project Identification:,
Reviewed by:
Review Date:
Parameter: Metals (e.g. Silver, Arsenic)
List Metals Analyzed:
Matrix: Q Sediment Q Water/Elutriate Q Tissue
Analytical Method Used:
Additional Issues Related to Data Quality
Use this space to enter any additional comments related to this section that
were not addressed above.
Data Review Document
Page 11 of 25
August 2008
-------
Project Identification:,
Reviewed by:
Review Date:
Parameter:
Matrix:
D
B\Sfdiment
Analytical Method Used:_
Pesticides
Water/Elutriate
D
QC
Measurement
MB
MS/MSD/MST
Duplicate
SRM
ICV
CCV
Frequency
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
1 set per 20
samples or per
batch
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
Immediately
following calibration
curve
At the beginning of
every 12 hours of
analysis
Acceptance
Criteria
No analyte should
be detected > RL
50 - 1 50% for spike
limits
50% RSD for
precision
30% RSD for
precision
Within limits
specified by provider
80- 120% Recovery
<15% Difference
Criteria
Met (Y/N)
Review Comments
Data Review Document
Page 12 of 25
August 2008
-------
Project Identification:,
Reviewed by:
Review Date:
Parameter:
Matrix:
D
B\8idiment
D Pesticides
Q Water/Elutriate
Analytical Method Used:_
Surrogates
Internal
Standard
1C
MDL
ICB
Every sample
Every sample
Verify after each
initial caiioration
Verify MDL study
once per year for
each analyte of
interest
Immediately after
initial calibration
30-150%
30-150%
<20% RSD for each
anaiyte
Updated annually
No analyte should
be detected > RL
Additional Issues Related to Data Quality
Use this space to enter any additional comments related to this section that
were not addressed above.
Data Review Document
Page 13 of 25
August 2008
-------
Project Identification:,
Reviewed by:
Review Date:
Parameter: Tributyltins
Matrix: n Sediment
Analytical Method Used:
Water/Elutriate
Tissue
QC
Measurement
MB
Duplicate
SRM
ICV
CCV
Surrogates
1C
Frequency
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
1 set per 20
samples or per
batch
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
Immediately
following calibration
curve
At the beginning of
every 12 hours of
analysis
Every sample
Verify after each
initial calibration
Acceptance
Criteria
No analyte should
be detected > RL
40%
40%
Within limits
specified by provider
75-125%
75-125%
20-150%
<20% RSD
Criteria
Met (Y/N)
Review Comments
Data Review Document
Page 14 of 25
August 2008
-------
Project Identification:,
Reviewed by:
Review Date:
Parameter: Tributyltins
Matrix: n Sediment
Analytical Method Used:
Water/Elutriate
Tissue
MDL
Verify MDL study
once per year for
each analyte of
interest
Updated annually
Additional Issues Related to Data Quality
Use this space to enter any additional comments related to this section that
Data Review Document
Page 15 of 25
August 2008
-------
Project Identification:,
Reviewed by:
Review Date:
Parameter: Dioxins
Matrix: Q Sediment [j Water/Elutriate Q Tissue
Analytical Method Used:
QC
Measurement
MB
LCS
MS/MSD or
LCS/LCSDA
ICV
CCV°
Initial Calibration
Standards
Frequency
1 per 20 samples
or 1 per batch up
to 20 samples
1 per 20 samples
or 1 per batch up
to 20 samples
1 set per 20
samples or per
Immediately
following
calibration curve
At the beginning
of every 12 hours
of analysis
Once per run
Acceptance
Criteria
No analyte should
be detected > RL
70- 130% for
s|jike limits
70-130%
recovery for
50-150%
80-120%
Native standards
65-135%
Labeled standards
80-120%
Native standards
65-135%
Labeled standards
Criteria
Met (Y/N)
Review Comments
° For method 1613B, one CCV run at the beginning of the 12-hour clock is required. For Method 8290, two CCVs are required - one at the beginning and
one at the ending of the 12-hour clock.
NOTE: MDL studies don't apply to dioxin/furan testing since the detection limits are calculated for each compound on each run depending on the
signal/noise of the HRMS instrument.
Data Review Document
Page 16 of 25
August 2008
-------
Project Identification:,
Reviewed by:
Review Date:
Parameter: Dioxins
Matrix: Q Sediment
Analytical Method Used:
Water/Elutriate
Tissue
Additional Issues Related to Data Quality
Use this space to enter any additional comments related to this
section that were not addressed above.
Data Review Document
Page 17 of 25
August 2008
-------
Project Identification:,
Reviewed by:
Review Date:
Parameter: TOC
Matrix: Sediment
Analytical Method Used:_
QC
Measurement
MB
MS/MSD/MST
Triplicate
SRM
ICV
CCV
Frequency
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
1 set per 20
samples or per
batch
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
1 per 20 samples or
1 per batch up to 20
samples
Immediately
following calibration
curve
At the beginning of
every 12 hours of
analysis
Acceptance
Criteria
No analyte should
be detected > RL
75 -125% for spike
limits
20% RSD for
precision
20% RSD for
precision
Within limits
specified by provider
80- 120% Recovery
90-110%
Criteria
Met (Y/N)
Review Comments
Data Review Document
Page 18 of 25
August 2008
-------
Project Identification:,
Reviewed by:
Review Date:
Parameter: TOC
Matrix: Sediment
Analytical Method Used:_
1C
MDL
Verify after each
initial calibration
Verify MDL study
once per year for
each analyte of
IIILCICOL
cc > 0.9950 for all
calibrations
Updated annually
Additional Issues Related to Data Quality
Use this space to enter any additional comments related to this
section that were not addressed above.
Data Review Document
Page 19 of 25
August 2008
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
PHYSICAL REVIEW
PHYSICAL REVIEW
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Project Identification:,
Reviewed by:
Review Date:
Physical Analysis: Grain Size, % Solids, Specific Gravity, Bulk Density, and Atterburg Limits
Q Grain Size fj Bulk Density fj Specific Gravity fj fj Atterburg Limits
%Solids
Analytical Method Used:_
QC
Measurement
Triplicate
Frequency
1 set per 20
samples or per
batch
Acceptance
Criteria
<20% RSD
Criteria
Met (Y/N)
Review Comments
Physical Analysis: Bulk Density and Atterburg Limits
fj Bulk Density Q Atterburg Limits
Analytical Method Used:
QC
Measurement
Duplicate
Frequency
1 set per 10
samples or per
batch
Acceptance
Criteria
Within 20% Relative
% Difference
Criteria
Met (Y/N)
Review Comments
Data Review Document
Page 20 of 25
August 2008
-------
Project Identification:,
Reviewed by:
Review Date:
Physical Analysis: Grain Size, % Solids, Specific Gravity, Bulk Density, and Atterburg Limits
Additional Issues Related to Data Quality
Use this space to enter any additional comments related to this section that
were not addressed above.
Data Review Document
Page 21 of 25
August 2008
-------
TOXICOLOGY REVIEW
TOXICOLOGY REVIEW
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Project Identification:,
Reviewed by:
Review Date:
Part 1
General Data Reporting Requirements
SUMMARY TABULAR DATA AND PROJECT NARRATIVE
Each of the following elements should be present as described.
A summary table listing the percent survival in all control, reference, and test samples
A summary table containing the LC5o/EC5o values for the suspended particulate phase (SPP) tests and t-tests from the
solid phase tests
A narrative which summarizes all of the deviations from the Green Book and Regional Guidance Manual protocols.
Deviations of sample handling, test conditions, ammonia purging procedures, control performance, reference toxicant test
performance, organism handling/acclimation, and water quality parameters should be provided in this section.
A summary table which documents collection dates and holding times for the test, control, and reference sediment
samples. a ^mes f°r s'te water, SPP, and lab saltwater for all tests should be included in this table.
The data narrative should describe the major biological project activities and results. Computerized tables of results,
water quality, and other pertinent information should be placed in this portion of the biological data package.
RAW BIOLOGICAL AND WATER QUALITY DATA FROM TESTS
Survival Data
Water Quality Parameters
Feeding Schedule and Amount
(if applicable)
Organism Observations
Summary of Test Conditions
TEST ORGANISM HOLDING, HANDLING AND ACCLIMATION
Organism Shipping Data Sheet Provided by Supplier
Copy of Overnight Shipping Airbill (if applicable)
Internal Receiving and Distribution Data
Holding/Acclimation Records (including water quality,
renewals, and feeding)
Mortality During Holding and Acclimation
Taxonomic Identification for Each Species
Data Review Document
Page 22 of 25
August 2008
-------
Project Identification:,
Reviewed by:
Review Date:
REFERENCE TOXICANT DATA
Raw Bench Sheets For Reference Toxicant Tests
Reference Toxicant Stock & Test Solution Preparation Sheet
LC50/EC50 Statistical Calculations
Updated Reference Toxicant Control Charts with Acceptability Limits
STATISTICAL DATA FROM DREDGE MATERIAL TESTS
Provide all computer-generated LC50, EC50, and/or t-test Spreadsheets or graphical interpolations for the SPP and solid
phase tests.
INVALID TEST DATA
If a test was prepeated for any reason, the data from the original test must be included in the final report. If a serious
deviation OCuurs which has me (jutenual iu afieui LBSL auCeiJiabiniy, tue UOMOC INT uisuiCi and crM r\egiun z must ue
contacted immediately to determine if a retest is needed.
Data Review Document
Page 23 of 25
August 2008
-------
Project Identification:,
Reviewed by:
Review Date:
Part II Test-Specific Information (additional to items specified in Part
1)
AMPHIPOD SOLID PHASE TEST
Pretest Overlying Water Renewal Log and Total Porewater Ammonia Data
Total/Unionized Porewater Ammonia Measured in Dummy Jars During Testing
MYSID SOLID PHASE TEST
Pretest Overlying Water Renewal Log and Total Porewater Ammonia Data
Total/Unionized Overlying Unionized Ammonia Measured During Testing
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE PHASE TESTS (SPP)
SPP
Raw
Preparation Log
Data for Bivalve
(All volumes, Mixing Times, Centrifuge
Gamete Collection and Preparation
Information
etc.)
BIOACCUMULATION TESTING
Daily Flow Calibration Log - Initial and Final Adjusted Flows
Pre- and Post-test Depuration Logs - Time Started/Ended and Flow Rates
Receiving Logs for All Natural Saltwater (If Collected)
Preparation Logs for All Artifiical Saltwater
If Control Survival <90%, Provide Detailed Narrative for the
Raw Statistical Data Comparing Test and Reference Tissue
5 Factors
Chemistry
SAMPLING / SAMPLE HANDLING
Chain of Custody Forms for All Test, Control, and Reference Samples
Field Data Sheets and/or Sampling Logs (Including Photos If Available)
Log of Test Sediment Composite Preparation
Sieving - Size of Mesh Used for Samples Used in Toxicity Tests/Bioaccumulation
Holding Times for All Samples (Test, Reference, Control, Elutriate, Lab Saltwater)
in Summary Chart Format
Data Review Document
Page 24 of 25
August 2008
-------
Project Identification:,
Reviewed by:
Review Date:
Laboratory:
Test Species:
Identify each species used for
toxicology in the cells to the right
Correct species used as stated in the
SAP/QAPP? (Y/N)
Test Condition Within Acceptable
Limits? (Y/N)
Control Survival (Y/N)
Reference Toxicant Response " 2sd
(Y/N)
Temperature (Y/N)
Dissolved Oxygen (Y/N)
pH (Y/N)
Salinity (Y/N)
Acclimation Procedures (Y/N)
Sediment Holding Time <6 wks (Y/N)
Statistical Analyses Appropriate (Y/N)
Ammonia Management (Y/N)
Overall test data valid? (Y/N)
Solid Phase
Test
Amphipod
Solid Phase
Test
Mysid
Suspended Participate Tests
Minnow
Mysid
Bivalve Larvae
Bioaccumulation Tests
Sand Worm
Clam
Data Review Document
Page 25 of 25
August 2008
-------
Appendix P
TOXICITY TEST EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
AND WATER QUALITY FORM
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix P
TOXICITY TEST EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND WATER QUALITY FORM
Toxicity Test Experimental Design and Water Quality Measurements
Sample Identification
Dates sampled
Date received at lab
Approximate volume received
Sample storage conditions
Test Species
Supplier
Date acquired
Acclimation/holding time
Age class
Test Procedures
Test location
Test type/duration
Test dates
Control water
Test temperature
Test salinity
Test dissolved oxygen
Test pH
Test total ammonia
Test unionized ammonia
Test photoperiod
Test chamber
Replicates/SPP concentration/treatment
SPP concentrations
Organisms/replicate
Exposure volume
Feeding
Water renewal
Recommended: Actual:
Recommended: Actual:
Recommended: Actual:
Recommended: Actual:
Recommended: < NOEC* Actual:
Recommended: < NOEC * Actual:
Recommended: Zero-Time Range:
Deviations from Test Protocol:
* NOEC (No-Observed-Effect Concentration): The highest concentration of an effluent or toxicant that
causes no observable adverse effects on the test organisms (EPA 2000).
SERIM Appendix P
P-l
August 2008
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
USEPA/USACE
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
ACRONYMS
1991 Green Book
APHA
ASTM
CCC
CDD
CDF
CFR
CMC
COC(s)
CWA
DU
EPA (USEPA)
FDA
GC/FPD
HMWpah
ITM
LDC
LMWpah
LPC
LRL
MPRSA
N/A
NELAC
NEPA
NOAA
NPDES
O&M
ODMDS
PAH
PCB
QA/QC
QAP
QAPP
RIM
SAD
SAP
SERIM
SMMP
SOW
TBD
TBP
TDL
USAGE
uses
WQC
WQS
Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal - Testing Manual
(EPA and USAGE, 1991)
American Public Health Association
ASTM International (formerly American Society for Testing and Materials)
Criteria Continuous Concentration
Chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin(s)
Chlorinated dibenzofuran(s)
Code of Federal Regulations
Criterion Maximum Concentration
Contaminant(s) of Concern
Clean Water Act
Dredging Unit
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Food and Drug Administration
Gas Chromatograph/Flame Photometric Detection
High Molecular Weight PAHs
Inland Testing Manual (EPA, 1998)
London Dumping Convention
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
Limiting Permissible Concentration
Laboratory Reporting Limit
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
Not Applicable
National Environmental Laboratory Association Conference
National Environmental Policy Act
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Operation and Maintenance
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Quality Assurance Plan
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Regional Implementation Manual
South Atlantic Division (USAGE)
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
Site Management and Monitoring Plan
Scope of Work
To Be Determined
Theoretical Bioaccumulation Potential
Target Detection Limit
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Unified Soil Classification System
Federal Water Quality Criteria
State Water Quality Standards
n
73
o
SERIM
August 2008
------- |