EPA/600/R-18/219 | August 2018 | www.epa.gov/research
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
2012 Annual Report to
Characterize the Ottawa
River Using Physical,
Biological, and Chemical
Lines of Evidence
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Land and Materials Management Division
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
11
-------
2012 Annual Report to Characterize the
Ottawa River Using Physical, Biological,
and Chemical Lines of Evidence
by
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
and
Battelle Memorial Institute
Columbus, OH 43201
Contract No. EP-C-05-057
Task Order 50
Contract No. EP-W-09-024
Work Assignments 0-11,1-11, 2-10, and 3-07
Contract No. EP-C-11-038
Task Order 30
Contract No. EP-C-16-014
Task Order 002
Co-Principal Investigators
Marc A. Mills and Joseph P. Schubauer-Berigan
Land and Materials Management Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
and
James M. Lazorchak, Ken M. Fritz, and John R. Meier (r)
Systems Exposure Division
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
in
-------
dai trier
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) funded and managed, or partially funded
and collaborated in, the research described herein. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and
administrative review and has been approved for publication. Any opinions expressed in this
report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency; therefore,
no official endorsement should be inferred. Any mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
iv
-------
sword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting
the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, U.S. EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our
ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from
pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research
program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air,
land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems;
remediation of contaminated sites, sediments, and ground water; prevention and control of indoor
air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private
sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging
problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems by: developing and
promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment, advancing scientific and
engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions, and providing the technical
support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations and
strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
Contaminated sediments continue to be a concern nationally and internationally. Sediments serve
as long-term sinks for compounds such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals, and other contaminants of concern (COCs). Large areas of
contaminated sediment accumulation are known to pose a threat to benthic, aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems, as well as human health. Sediment contamination exists in every region and state of
the Nation, negatively impacting overlying surface waters and surrounding ecosystems. To date,
three primary technologies have been applied to the remediation of contaminated sediment sites:
1) engineered capping with clean materials such as sand, 2) monitored natural recovery (MNR)
wherein the contaminant source has been removed and natural capping with sediment is allowed
to cover or bury the contaminated sediment over a long period of time while natural chemical,
physical, and microbial processes break down contaminants in the buried sediment, and
3) environmental dredging that relies on rapid mechanical removal of the contaminated sediment
layer and subsequent off-site confined disposal.
The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) selected environmental dredging as the
remedy of choice for remediation and cleanup of the Ottawa River. The Ottawa River, located in
northwestern Ohio on the west side of Toledo, is a part of the Maumee River Area of Concern
(AOC). PCBs, PAHs, and lead constituted the COCs for this site. Dredging was carried out on
selected segments of Reaches 2, 3, and 4 of the Ottawa River during the summer and fall of 2010.
v
-------
In 2008, U.S. EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) partnered with GLNPO to
conduct an extensive evaluation of the remedial project scheduled to take place on the lower
Ottawa River site over the next 7 years (through 2015) to:
• Develop methods and metrics designed to monitor the progress of the remediation project
and provide sufficient information to permit a remedy effectiveness assessment (REA) to
be performed, and
• Carry out an REA at the conclusion of this GLNPO-sponsored environmental dredging
project.
A Phase 1 baseline assessment of the site (U.S. EPA, 2017) was conducted in the summer and fall
of 2009 and the spring of 2010 prior to the onset of dredging. A comprehensive evaluation and
monitoring program conducted by U.S. EPA ensued that utilized established methods and metrics
and developed and evaluated innovative methods and approaches. In addition to the Phase 1 pre-
remedy baseline assessment, monitoring was conducted: 1) during the dredging period in the
summer and fall of 2010 (Phase 2), 2) immediately following dredging (near-term evaluation) in
the late fall of 2010 and the summer and fall of 2011 (Phase 3), and 3) over three of the next four
summers in 2012 (Phase 4-1; this report), 2013 (Phase 4-2), and 2015 (Phase 4-3) to assess long-
term recovery of the river and surrounding ecosystem. Tasks for Phases 2, 3, and 4 will be
documented and summarized in future data reports. A final comprehensive interpretive report
(along with an REA) will conclude documentation of this project.
Monitoring and evaluation activities were carried out along multiple lines of evidence (LOEs -
physical, biological, and chemical) to assess COC fate and transport and ecosystem response and
recovery. These activities included sampling and analysis of sediment, water, indigenous fish,
macroinvertebrates, riparian spiders, basal resources, and worm tissues. Data were also generated
from deployment, retrieval, and analysis of passive samplers and analysis of macroinvertebrate
community data as a measure of biotic integrity.
Cynthia Sonich-Mullin, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
vi
-------
Abstract
International concern about contaminated sediments is increasing as sustainable practices are
needed to maintain water resources and waterways as important economic, commercial,
recreational, and community resources. Sediments often serve as long-term sinks for legacy
pollutants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
inorganics, and other emerging and known contaminants of concern (COCs). Large areas of
contaminated sediment accumulation are known to pose a threat to benthic, aquatic, and terrestrial
ecosystems, as well as human health. Sediment contamination exists in every United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Region and state of the Nation, negatively
impacting overlying surface waters and surrounding ecosystems, and ultimately the health and
quality of life for surrounding communities.
U.S. EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) conducts interdisciplinary contaminated
sediment research projects within the Agency's Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC)
Research Program to evaluate the effectiveness of risk management strategies and develop
innovative treatment technologies. These projects have investigated and documented methods and
approaches to assess remediation projects in the short term (project driven goals) and over longer-
term restoration and recovery periods (programmatic goals). Research described in this report
focuses on the development of methods and approaches to conduct a remedy effectiveness
assessment (REA) on environmental remediation projects. In this research effort, several
monitoring and sampling approaches were utilized and evaluated during the remediation of
contaminated sediments in the Ottawa River within the Maumee River Area of Concern (AOC).
These approaches have been developed on contaminated sediment sites by ORD in cooperation
with U.S. EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) and U.S. EPA's Superfund (SF)
Program. Environmental dredging was designated as the remedy of choice for the Ottawa River
project (located in northwestern Ohio on the west side of Toledo). The Ottawa River is part of the
Maumee River AOC, which drains into Lake Erie at Toledo. Environmental dredging was
employed on the most contaminated areas or units within Reaches 2, 3, and 4 of the Lower Ottawa
River stretching upstream (generally south and west) from River Mile (RM) 3.5 to RM 8.4. A
total of 18 sampling stations was established between RM 3.2 and RM 8.8; in Reach 2 and 3, three
of the six stations were located in remediated zones and three stations were located in un-
remediated zones for comparison. In Reach 4, four stations were located in the remediated zone
and two stations were located in the un-remediated zone. The total for the three reaches is 10
stations in the remediated zone and eight stations in the un-remediated zone.
PCBs constituted the primary COC for this site, with PAHs and lead comprising secondary COCs.
Hydraulic dredging was carried out from May 2010 through December 2010 on this Great Lakes
Legacy Act (GLLA) remediation project. Extensive site characterization was conducted by
GLNPO, ORD, and their partners at Federal and State agencies in the fall of 2009 and the early
spring of 2010 prior to the onset of remediation (referred to as Phase 1). Phase 2 consisted of
monitoring and sampling activities conducted during dredging operations from late spring to early
winter of 2010. Phase 3 details near-term or immediate post-remedy monitoring that was
performed in November 2010 and from March to September 2011. Long-term monitoring
commenced in Phase 4 of the study in 2012 and continued during three of the ensuing four years
vii
-------
through 2015. Phase 4 monitoring was conducted in the summers of 2012 (Phase 4-1; this report),
2013 (Phase 4-2), and 2015 (Phase 4-3).
In partnership with GLNPO and other Federal and State agencies, a comprehensive sustained
research program (2009-2015) was implemented by ORD for the Ottawa River remediation proj ect
to evaluate and optimize the assessment and monitoring methods first developed and evaluated as
part of the larger ORD Research Program. These methods were conceived and developed along
physical, biological, and chemical lines of evidence (LOEs) that can be used in a weight of
evidence (WOE) framework to assess sediment remedies. Utilization, monitoring, and evaluation
of these methods and LOE approach on the Ottawa River project began with site characterization
and baseline assessment prior to the onset of environmental dredging in 2009 (U.S. EPA, 2017)
and continued during and following dredging through 2015.
The LOE approach is especially well suited and adaptable to monitoring contaminant fate and
transport and ecosystem recovery through the use of physical, biological, and chemical assessment
methodologies such as: 1) comprehensive sampling and chemical analysis of contaminants in
surface, suspended, and historic sediments; 2) sampling, chemical analysis, and development of
alternative toxicity endpoints for indigenous fish; 3) bathymetry-based approaches; 4) multi-
purpose macroinvertebrate collection techniques for determining benthic conditions and
contaminant exposure; and 5) passive sampler technologies and deployment techniques. Using
multiple LOE-based metrics and a WOE framework, specific mechanisms and processes can be
characterized to quantify and inform a project manager on the short- and long-term effectiveness
of a selected remedy on the surrounding ecosystem.
This report summarizes the site characterization and data collection tasks carried out in 2012
(Phase 4-1; see Section 3.8), the first year of long-term post remediation operations. Additional
data reports will follow that document the subsequent phases of the Ottawa River project, long-
term post-dredging monitoring in 2013 (Phase 4-2), and long-term post-dredging monitoring in
2015 (Phase 4-3). The Phase 1 baseline report (U.S. EPA, 2017) was prepared to document the
project objectives and designs as well as report the baseline condition prior to remediation. The
baseline report constitutes an expanded overview of the project and documents details, methods,
appendices, etc. that will not be repeated in the subsequent reports except as needed for
clarification. Companion data analysis and monitoring reports are also available for during
dredging operations in 2010 (Phase 2) and immediately or near-term post dredging
characterization in 2010-2011 (Phase 3). Methods, appendices, etc. that are introduced in previous
reports or will be introduced in subsequent report are or will be respectively, documented and
described therein; otherwise, they will be referenced back to the Phase 1 baseline report.
The objective of the Phase 4-1 study was to provide a characterization of sediment, water column,
and food web characteristics in the long-term post dredging operations, and ecosystem conditions
in selected zones of the Ottawa River. Specifically, the tasks carried out in Phase 4-1 over two
field events and reported herein consisted of the following:
• Collection and analysis of surficial sediment samples,
• Characterization of the physical habitat,
• Collection and analysis of water column samples,
-------
• Deployment, retrieval, and analysis of Hester-Dendy (H-D) macroinvertebrate samplers to
assess both tissue chemistry and biotic condition,
• Deployment, retrieval, and analysis of passive samplers,
• Collection and analysis of fish, basal resources, and invertebrate samples,
• Collection and analysis of Brown Bullhead fish samples,
• Sediment toxicity evaluation, and
• Collection and analysis of riparian spiders.
IX
-------
inowledgements
A project of this scope and magnitude requires the support and active participation of a large group
of committed staff including managers, researchers, administrators, field support personnel, and
analytical chemists and microbiologists. The dedication and competency of this staff
encompassing both government employees and contractors demonstrated over the past 8 years of
this multi-phase project are appreciated and commended. The partnership established between the
National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) and the National Environmental
Exposure Laboratory (NERL) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA's) Office
of Research and Development (ORD) and the U.S. EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO) over the course of this long project is a testimony to mutual sustained interdepartmental
cooperation and trust. Funding provided by GLNPO and ORD throughout this project is gratefully
acknowledged. The results of this project along with those from a sister project carried out on the
Ashtabula (OH) River Area of Concern (AOC) during roughly the same time period have laid the
groundwork for conducting remedy effectiveness assessments (REAs) on future contaminated
sediment remediation projects.
The primary contractor for this project, Battelle Memorial Institute (Columbus, Ohio), has
provided many of the field deployment and sampling duties and most of the chemical analyses
associated with this project. Its attention to detail in performing the complex field and laboratory
phases of this project coupled with proficient synthesizing of the large database generated into
numerous interpretable data reports were key factors in the success of this undertaking. The
cooperation of J.F. Brennan Company, Inc. in providing dredge location and inventory data and
working with field crews during the dredging operations was essential to matching dredging
inventories and residuals with environmental measurements and is much appreciated.
The principal authors of this report, Eric FooteA, Heather Thurston, Stacy Pala, and Paul SokoloffA
from Battelle, along with EPA Co-Principal Investigators Marc Mills*, Ken Fritz, James
Lazorchak, Joseph Schubauer-Berigan, and John Meier4 and EPA Task Order Manager Richard
Brenner4 wish to express their appreciation to the following individuals for their substantial and
valuable contributions to this research project:
* Corresponding Investigator: mills.marc@epa.gov
* Now retired from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
A No longer employed with Battelle.
x
-------
U.S. EPA/NRMRL
Pat Clark4
Brian Crone
Dennis Timberlake
Roger Yeardley
USGS
Johanna Kraus
David Walters
Battelle
Elizabeth BranchA
Sarah Brennan
Matt FitzpatrickA
Greg HeadingtonA
Lisa Lefkovitz
Robert Lizotte
Kristen Nichols
Peggy Pelletier
Carole Peven-McCarthy
Kelly Quigley
Lincoln RemmertA
Matt Schumitz
Jonathan Thorn
Shane WaltonA
Shane WilliamsA
Corey WisneskiA
U.S. EPA/NERL
David Bencic
Adam Biales
Robert Flick
Denise Gordon
Brent Johnson
David Lattier
Roy Martin
Mary Jane See
Paul Wernsing*
J.F. Brennan Company,
Inc.
Mark Binsfeld
Tyler Lee
U.S. EPA/GLNPO
Scott Cieniawski
Amy Pelka
Marc Tuchman
Formerly
The McConnell Group,
Currently
Michigan Dept. of
Environmental Quality
Brandon Armstrong
Formerly
The McConnell Group,
Currently
Pegasus Technical
Services, Inc.
Susanna DeCelles
Herman Haring
William Thoeny
Formerly
The McConnell Group,
Currently
APTIM
Paul Weaver
Formerly
The McConnell Group,
Currently
Mt. Carmel West
Laboratory Services
Melissa Wratschko
* Now retired from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
A No longer employed with Battelle.
XI
-------
;nts
Disclaimer iv
Foreword v
Abstract vii
Acknowledgements x
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations xvi
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Contaminated Sediments Research 1
1.2 Site Description 1
1.3 Remedy Design 2
2 Research Project Objectives - Evaluation of Methods and an Approach for Conducting
REAs 4
3 Experimental Approach 6
3.1 Proj ect Organization by Phases 6
3.2 Sampling Design 6
3.2.1 Sampling Stations 6
3.2.2 Water Depth 7
3.3 Field Sampling Methods 7
3.4 Physical Lines of Evidence 8
3.5 Biological Lines of Evidence 8
3.5.1 Lacustuary Invertebrate Community Index (LICI) for Macroinvertebrates 8
3.5.2 Whole-Sediment Toxicity Assays 14
3.6 Chemical Lines of Evidence 14
3.7 Data Management 14
3.8 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 15
4 Data Results 20
4.1 Physical Lines of Evidence 20
4.1.1 Ecological Assessment 20
4.2 Biological Lines of Evidence 22
4.2.1 LICI Macroinvertebrate Data 22
4.2.2 Toxicity Testing 24
4.3 Chemical Lines of Evidence 31
4.3.1 Contaminant Concentrations in Surface Sediment 31
4.3.1.1 Sediment Characteristics 35
4.3.1.2 Particle Size Distribution (PSD) Data 36
4.3.2 Water Samples 37
4.3.2.1 Passive Sampler Concentration Data for PEDs Suspended in the Water
Column 39
4.3.3 Contaminant Concentrations in Tissue Samples 41
xii
-------
4.3.3.1 Contaminant Concentrations in Macroinvertebrates 41
4.3.3.2 Contaminant Concentrations in Fish Tissue Samples 44
4.3.3.3 Contaminant Concentrations in Tetragnathidae Spiders 47
5 References 50
A|:-r
-------
Figure 1-1. Ottawa River Reaches 2, 3, and 4 and ORD Sampling Stations 3
Figure 3-1. ORD Sampling Stations in Reach 2 11
Figure 3-2. ORD Sampling Stations in Reach 3 12
Figure 3-3. ORD Sampling Stations in Reach 4 13
Figure 4-1. Mean Lacustuary Invertebrate Community Index (LICI) Scores (±1 SE) at
Remediated and Non-remediated Sites in 2012. The Number of Sites within each
Treatment is Shown in the Bars. The Dashed Line Identifies the Lacustuary
Restoration Target for the Degraded Benthos Beneficial Use Impairment (BUI).22
Figure 4-2. Lacustuary Invertebrate Community Index (LICI) Scores from 2012 along the
Lower Ottawa River. Horizontal Lines Delineate the Ohio EPA Narrative Classes
and the Dotted Line Delineate the Degraded Benthos Beneficial Use Impairment
(BUI) Restoration Target LICI Score 23
Figure 4-3. Total PAH Concentrations (A - Dry Weight and B - Organic Carbon Normalized)
in Surface Sediments (August 2012 - Deployment). Stations with an * are within
the Remediation Footprint 32
Figure 4-4. tPCB Concentrations (A - Dry Weight and B - Organic Carbon Normalized) in
Surface Sediment (August 2012 - Deployment). Stations with an * are within the
Remediation Footprint 33
Figure 4-5. Contribution of PCB Homologs in Percent tPCB in Surface Sediment (August 2012
- Deployment). Stations with an * are within the Remediation Footprint 34
Figure 4-6. PSD Data from Surface Sediments (August 2012 - Deployment). Stations with an *
are within the Remediation Footprint 36
Figure 4-7. Total PAH Concentrations in Whole Water Samples (August 2012). Stations with
an * are within the Remediation Footprint 38
Figure 4-8. tPCB Concentrations in Whole Water Samples (August 2012). Stations with an *
are within the Remediation Footprint 38
Figure 4-9. Percent of tPCB as Homolog Contributions in Whole Water Samples (August 2012).
Stations with an * are within the Remediation Footprint 39
Figure 4-10. Total PAH Concentrations per PED Suspended in the Water Column (August
2012). Stations with an * are within the Remediation Footprint 40
Figure 4-11. tPCB Concentration per PED Suspended in the Water Column (August 2012).
Stations with an * are within the Remediation Footprint 40
Figure 4-12. Percent of tPCB as Homolog Contribution for Water Column PED Samples
(August 2012). Stations with an * are within the Remediation Footprint 41
Figure 4-13. Total Priority Pollutant PAHs and Total Alkylated PAH Concentrations (A - Wet
Weight and B - Lipid-Normalized) with Error Estimates (±1 SE) in
Macroinvertebrates Samples from the Ottawa River (August 2012). Stations with
an * are within the Remediation Footprint 42
Figure 4-14. Mean tPCB Concentrations (A - Wet Weight and B - Lipid-Normalized) with
xiv
-------
Error Estimates (±1 SE) in Macroinvertebrates Samples from the Ottawa River
(August 2012). Stations with an * are within the Remediation Footprint 43
Figure 4-15. Contributions of PCB Homologs in Percent tPCB in Macroinvertebrates (August
2012). Stations with an * are within the Remediation Footprint 44
Figure 4-16. Mean Total PAH Concentrations (A - Wet Weight and B - Lipid Normalized) with
Error Estimates (±1 SE) in Fish Collected from Each of the Reaches of the Ottawa
River 45
Figure 4-17. Mean tPCB Concentrations (A - Wet Weight and B - Lipid Normalized) with
Error Estimates (±1 SE) in Fish Collected from the Ottawa River 46
Figure 4-18. Contribution of PCB Homologs in Percent tPCB from Fish Collected from the
Ottawa River 47
Figure 4-19. Mean (± 1 SE) tPCB Concentrations (A - Wet Weight and B - Lipid-Normalized)
in Tetragnathid Spiders Collected along Three Reaches of the Lower Ottawa
River (August/September 2012). Stations with an * are within the Remediation
Footprint 48
Figure 4-20. Contribution of PCB Homologs in Percent tPCB in Tetragnathid Spiders from the
Ottawa River (August/September 2012). Stations with an * are within the
Remediation Footprint 49
xv
-------
II i i r \ i vnvms ari'J Mjbreviations
AOC Area of Concern
AVS/SEM Acid Volatile Sulfide/Simultaneously Extracted Metals
AWBERC Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center
BB bioaccumulation or body burden
BUI beneficial use impairment
COC contaminant of concern
CPOM coarse particulate organic matter
DNA deoxyribonucleic acid
DO dissolved oxygen
DQO data quality objective
ft foot/feet
g grams
GLLA Great Lakes Legacy Act
GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office
HASP Health and Safety Plan
H-D Hester-Dendy multi-plate artificial samplers
IBI Index of Biotic Integrity
ID identification
LICI Lacustuary Invertebrate Community Index
LOC level of chlorination
LOEs lines of evidence
MDL method detection limit
mg/L milligrams per liter
MIwB Modified Index of well-being
NERL National Environmental Exposure Laboratory
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Ohio EPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
ORD Office of Research and Development
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PED polyethylene devices
PPAH priority pollutant PAH
PRC performance reference compound
PSD particle size distribution
xvi
-------
QA
quality assurance
QAPP
Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC
quality control
QHEI
Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index
R2R2R
Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization
REA
Remedy Effectiveness Assessment
RL
reporting limit
RM
River Mile
RMHRW
reformulated moderately hard reconstituted water
S.D.
standard deviation
SE
standard error
SF
Superfund
SHC
Sustainable and Healthy Communities
SOP
standard operating procedure
SPMD
semipermeable membrane device
SWAC
surface weighted average concentration
TOC
total organic carbon
tPCB
total PCBs calculated as the sum of 117 PCB congeners
TSS
total suspended solids
Hg/L
micrograms per liter
U.S. EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
WOE
weight of evidence
yd3
cubic yard
xvii
-------
1 uction
1.1 Contaminated Sediments Research
Research on the effectiveness of remediation of contaminated sediment sites is being conducted
under the Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) Research Program in the United States
Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA's) Office of Research and Development (ORD).
This research effort responds to needs within U.S. EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO), EPA's Superfund (SF) Program, EPA Regions, and State Environmental Agencies to
define comprehensive assessment approaches for characterizing the efficacy of contaminated
sediment remediation projects. The research carried out under the SHC Program is focused on
developing and evaluating physical, biological, and chemical methods and metrics to measure
environmental changes resulting from remedial activities and applying these multiple lines of
evidence (LOEs) in a weight of evidence (WOE) assessment. These assessments are project
specific and an important part of a larger goal to remediate, restore, and revitalize selected water
bodies and their associated communities. Through the paradigm of Remediation to Restoration to
Revitalization (R2R2R), a systems approach of prioritizing remediation and restoration projects
can be targeted to more expeditiously benefit wildlife, human health, and the surrounding
communities.
The research project described in this report was focused on the development and evaluation of
methods and metrics along physical, biological, and chemical LOEs to measure the effectiveness
in remediating contaminated sediments within selected segments of the Ottawa River. A long-
term objective was to utilize the data generated to support the preparation of a remedy effectiveness
assessment (REA) of the remediation project at its conclusion. ORD, through its research mission,
assumed the lead role in methods and metrics development and will be responsible for conducting
the aforementioned REA in conjunction with its partners. The Ottawa Baseline Report (U.S. EPA,
2017) described the goals and objectives of the entire project while focusing on the pre-remedy
data produced from a baseline characterization of environmental conditions within the project area.
This report and subsequent reports will provide results and summaries of post-remedy monitoring
conducted by ORD and its partners. Finally, at the conclusion of the project, a synthesis report
will be prepared that considers the project as a whole (i.e., pre-remedy, during-remedy, and post-
remedy data), evaluates and compares methods and metrics, and presents an REA for the
remediation activities carried out on the Ottawa River by GLNPO. Details of the collaborations
with GLNPO and other Federal and State partners are described in Section 1.2 of the Baseline
Report (U.S. EPA, 2017).
1.2 Site Description
The Ottawa River lies in the extreme northwest part of Ohio, flowing into Lake Erie's western
basin at the City of Toledo. The Ottawa River is a component of the Maumee River Area of
Concern (AOC) (https://www.epa.gov/maumee-river-aoc).
This section of the river has four reaches based on longitudinal changes in geomorphology and
hydrology. Reach 1 starts at River Mile (RM) 0.0 and proceeds southerly to RM 3.2, Reach 2
from RM 3.2 to RM 4.9, Reach 3 from RM 4.9 to RM 6.5, and Reach 4 from RM 6.5 to RM 8.8.
1
-------
Figure 1-1 shows Reaches 2, 3, and 4 and the 18 ORD stations that were sampled within these
reaches.
1.3 Remedy Design
Approximately 260,000 cubic yards (yd3) of contaminated sediments were targeted for removal
between RM 8 and RM 3.2. The contaminants of concern (COCs) include polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals (principally lead), and oil
and grease. Remediation was accomplished through environmental dredging in targeted
management units to established cut lines (Westcott et al., 2011) based on contaminant
concentration profiles. These cut lines were established to reach specific post-cleanup and final
goals for the remedial project area. Hydraulic dredging along with dewatering and containment
of contaminated sediment using geomembranes and treatment of water draining through the
geomembranes constituted the sediment removal and disposal system utilized on this project.
Details of the remedial design and operations of the remediation project are available in Conestoga
Rovers and Associates (2009).
2
-------
Michigan
Lake
Erie
7
Area
of
Detail
Ohio
4ED
©
*
<1?
£
m
«
©
J£j35f^i
HL5t? *7-*
$Ii$i484&s s9SEi%]
lirkh Nii• ?c*3« afe
Legend:
Reach 2 Sampling Location
^ Reach 3 Sampling Location
(2) Reach 4 Sampling Location
t ~l Dredge Area
¦¦ River Reach Boundaries
0
BATTELLE
ft«t tttUZOit
Project
Samplir>g Locations
Ottawa River (Ohio)
Figure 1-1. Ottawa River Reaches 2, 3, and 4 and ORE) Sampling Stations.
-------
II , seaivJi Project Objectives - Evaluation -i M ihod >n I m
Approach r>nducmi ,11
The overall objectives of this research effort were to:
1. Develop methods and metrics along physical, biological, and chemical LOEs to evaluate
remedy effectiveness following contaminated sediment remediation operations.
2. Develop an approach to quantify and locate the sources of post-dredge residuals.
These objectives, jointly shared by GLNPO and ORD, are complementary and will be described
further in the final comprehensive report that evaluates the four phases of the project: pre-remedy
baseline assessment, during-remedy monitoring, immediate post-remedy monitoring, and long-
term post-remedy monitoring. This report will focus on the first year of long-term monitoring
(2012) phase of the project.
Objective 1
Objective 1 focused on evaluating specific methods and metrics to support an approach to quantify
remedy effectiveness following an environmental remediation project. This approach follows
three LOEs: physical, biological, and chemical. Using these LOEs, a WOE assessment evaluates
remedy effectiveness, specifically: 1) the recovery of surface sediment concentrations immediately
following remedial actions and overtime, and 2) the response and recovery of biological indicators
during and following remedial activities. This approach was developed on a site-specific basis
and was limited to environmental dredging and specific COCs, but with considerations toward
developing an approach to be applied on sediment remediation projects in general.
Objective 2
Methods used to achieve Objective 2 included sediment core profiling and sediment chemistry
analysis, field analysis to characterize metals, and bathymetric surveys to characterize dredge
residuals. Two primary sources of residual contamination are left behind following an
environmental dredging project. These sources are divided into dredge residuals and undredged
residuals. The undredged residuals are generally considered contaminated sediments that have
been missed during dredge operations either due to not dredging to the targeted sediment removal
elevations (cut lines) or inadequate dredge pass overlaps. The second category of residuals, dredge
residuals, are generally accepted as materials that have been resuspended during dredge operations
and have either settled back or flowed back into the dredge cut. This research was more focused
toward dredge residuals that will be described and evaluated in a future final comprehensive report.
A final comprehensive report will evaluate the four phases of the proj ect to determine if the two
objectives were met.
The Phase 1 baseline report describes the details of the project and the environmental baseline
assessment conducted in 2009-2010 by ORD and its partners. Ultimately, an REA will be reported
for the Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA) remediation of the Ottawa River that occurred between
2009 and 2015. The goal of the REA will be to provide pre- and post-remedy comparisons using
a combination of quantitative and qualitative metrics to assess environmental changes.
Environmental impact data along three LOEs (physical, biological, and chemical) are detailed
herein. Table 2-1 presents the matrices evaluated in each phase of the project.
4
-------
Table 2-1. Matrices Evaluated for each Line of Evidence in each Phase of the Project.
Phases of the Project
1
2
3
4-1
4-2
4-3
Study Periods
2009-
May
2010
May-
Oct
2010
Nov 2010/
March-
Sept 2011
June-
Sept
2012
June-
Sept
2013
June-
Sept
2015
Physical LOEs
Bathymetry and Remediated Sediment Volume
X
X
Ecological Assessment
X
X
X
X
X
X
Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI)
X1
X
Biological LOEs
Lacustuary Invertebrate Community Index (LICI) for
Macroinvertebrates
X2
X
X
X
X
X
Toxicity Testing - Chironomus teutons and Hvalella azteca
X
X
X
X
X
X
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and Modified Index of well-
being (MIwB)
X3
X
Fish Tumors and Anomalies
X3
X
Sport Fish Tissue Consumption Advisory
X
Chemical LOEs
Contaminants in Surface Sediment
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sediment Characteristics - Bulk Density and Moisture
X
X
X
X
X
X
Particle Size Distribution (PSD) Data
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface Sediment Metals and Acid Volatile
Sulfides/Simultaneously Extractable Metals (AVS/SEM)
X
X
Passive Samplers - Sediment4
X
X
Surface Weighted Average Concentration (SWAC)
X
X
Subsurface PAH and PCB Mass Estimates
X
X
Contaminants in Water
X
X
X
X
X
X
Water Characteristics - TOC, TSS, and Turbidity
Direct Water Concentrations
X
X
X
X
X
X
Passive Samplers in Water Column4
X
X
X
X
X
Porewater Concentrations
X
X
Contaminants in Tissue
X
X
X
X
X
X
Contaminants in Macroinvertebrates
X
X
X
X
X
X
Contaminants in Fish Tissue
X
X
X
X
X
X
Contaminants in Tetragnathidae Spiders
X
X
X
X
X
X
Contaminants in Araneidae Spiders
X
Contaminants in Adult Terrestrial Insects
X
Contaminants in Basal Resources, Periphyton, and Coarse
Particulate Organic Matter (CPOM)
X
Bioaccumulation assessment - Lumbriculus
X
X
1 QHEI data actually collected in 2007.
2 Data collected in 2007 and 2009 were presented in the Baseline Report.
3 Data collected in 2007.
4 Semipermeable membrane devices (SPMDs) in 2009 and 2011; polyethylene devices (PEDs) in 2012, 2013, and 2015.
5
-------
3 Experim zh
oject Organization by Phases
The conceptual design of this project was developed to address the two overall project objectives
described in Section 2. The approach to addressing these objectives and associated issues are
described in detail below as a series of overall sub-objectives related to the entire project.
• Phase 1 was the baseline characterization conducted pre-remediation (2009-spring 2010).
• Phase 2 was conducted during remediation (May-December 2010).
• Phase 3 was conducted immediately post-remediation (November 2010, and March-
September 2011).
• Phase 4 was the longer-term monitoring conducted post-remediation (August-September
2012, July-September 2013, and July-September 2015).
3.2 Sampling Design
Field sampling activities across the four phases of this project consisted of a multiple LOEs
approach that characterized physical, biological, and chemical metrics within the project area. By
design, the sampling was targeted to cover the entire project area, specifically areas that underwent
active remediation (dredging) and areas that were not actively remediated. Phase 4-1 field
sampling was conducted following preparation of the Phase 2 and 3 Quality Assurance Project
Plan (QAPP; U.S. EPA, 2010a) and the Phase 1 Health and Safety Plan (HASP; U.S. EPA, 2010b)
as provided in Appendix A.
3.2.1 Sampling Stations
A total of 18 sampling stations, six each in Reaches 2, 3, and 4, were selected for this study (see
Pre-Remedy Baseline Characterization of the Ottawa River Using Physical, Biological, and
Chemical Lines of Evidence for more information on these stations [U.S. EPA, 2017]). During
Phase 4-1 (long-term post-dredging monitoring), 18 stations were sampled (10 remediated and 8
non-remediated stations across three reaches of the Lower Ottawa River). In August of 2012,
water column passive samplers (polyethylene devices [PEDs]) and Hester-Dendy (H-D) multi-
plate artificial substrate samplers were deployed in duplicate (Figure 3-1 [U.S. EPA, 2017]).
Concurrent surface sediment (6-in. deep cores) and mid-water column samples were collected
during deployment (Figure 3-2 [U.S. EPA, 2017]). Duplicate samples are field duplicates that are
collected in the same manner as the original sample and processed and analyzed as a separate
sample. Macroinvertebrate samples were harvested from the artificial substrates following
retrieval of the H-D samplers after a 42-day deployment. Benthic macroinvertebrates were
collected to assess biological integrity (Lacustuary Invertebrate Community Index [LICI]) at three
remediated stations (2B, 3A, and 4D) and three non-remediated stations (2A, 3B, and 4A), and to
measure body burden (BB) H-D tissue COCs (also referred to as bioaccumulation H-Ds) at the 18
stations. Sediment, water, macroinvertebrates, spiders, and fish tissue were analyzed for PCBs
and PAHs as well as biological assessments of health (e.g., toxicity and bioavailability assays).
The sampling conducted during Phase 4-1 of this study deviated from the baseline site
characterization in that the following LOEs were not assessed in this phase: bathymetry,
Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI), Ohio EPA's Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and
6
-------
Modified Index of Well-Being (MIwB), surface weighted average concentrations (SWACs) of
contaminants, and subsurface PCB mass estimates. These LOEs are described in detail in U.S.
EPA (2017). In addition, the passive samplers deployed in the 2009 baseline study were semi-
permeable membrane device (SPMD) samplers. In 2012, PEDs were deployed in the water
column and were used moving forward throughout Phase 4 of this study. For this 2012 study, no
performance reference compounds (PRCs) were added to the PEDs as were done with the SPMDs
in 2011.
3.2.2 Water Depth
Average water depth in the Ottawa River ranged from 0.95 feet (ft) at Station 2D to 11.0 ft at
Station 3E (Table 3-1). Water depth in Reach 2 ranged from 0.5 ft to 9.02 ft, in Reach 3 ranged
from 3.8 ft to 11.32 ft, and in Reach 4 ranged from 2.0 ft to 10.9 ft.
Table 3-1. Reach Information for the 18 ORD Stations and River Mile and Minimum,
Maximum, and Average Water Depths When Available.
REACH
Station ID
River
Mile
Minimum
Water Depth
(ft)
Maximum
Water Depth
(ft)
Average
Water Depth
(ft)
REACH 2
2A
3.5
3.1
4.2
3.7
REACH 2
2B
4.6
8.1
9.0
8.6
REACH 2
2C
4.9
3.4
4.1
3.7
REACH 2
2D
4
0.5
1.4
1.0
REACH 2
2E
3.9
3.9
4.5
4.2
REACH 2
2F
3.7
1.0
2.3
1.7
REACH 3
3A
5.5
8.5
9.1
8.8
REACH 3
3B
6.2
5.1
6.2
5.7
REACH 3
3C
5.3
4.7
4.8
4.8
REACH 3
3D
5
3.8
4.4
4.1
REACH 3
3E
5.8
10.7
11.3
11.0
REACH 3
3F
6.1
7.1
7.4
7.3
REACH 4
4A
6.8
4.2
4.2
4.2
REACH 4
4B
6.5
8.6
8.6
8.6
REACH 4
4C
8
9.8
10.9
10.4
REACH 4
4D
7.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
REACH 4
4E
8.6
2.0
2.5
2.3
REACH 4
4F
8.4
2.0
5.5
3.7
NA = Not available
* Approximate RM based on visual observation in comparison to known RM for 18 ORD stations.
mpling Methods
The following sections describe the general field sampling methods employed for collection of
field samples in Phase 4-1 of the Ottawa River study. The Phase 4-1 results are presented in this
7
-------
report in Section 4; field sampling information such as chain-of-custody logs, field logs photos,
and field notes are provided in Appendix B. Figures 3-1 through 3-3 show the locations for the
ORD Phase 4-1 samples. Table 3-2 provides the station coordinates for the 2009 Baseline Study
and the 2012 Phase 4-1 Sampling and the offset for each station. To sample designated study
locations, a 24-ft boat was positioned on station so that the center of the boat was as close to the
target as possible given the GPS equipment, water level and flow, weather conditions, and
access. Water grab samples and sediment composite samples were collected from these
stations. For composite sediment samples, four to eight 6-in. shallow cores were collected from
each side of the boat including front and back. The boat was then repositioned approximately 4 ft
downstream to deploy the H-D samplers. Significant offsets were required at times due to access
to study locations due to weather, water levels, on-site construction activities, etc. Offsets were
noted in the field notes and calculated and reported in Table 3-2.
3.4 Physical Lines idence
Remediation of contaminated sediments often results in large-scale physical changes to the
sediment, hydrodynamics, and geomorphology of the system. These changes impact the overall
water depth (bathymetry), water flow, and sediment composition.
Physical habitat was recorded using Ohio EPA's Ecological Assessment field form. Physical
habitat data from the Ecological Assessment field form (see Figure 3-12 in U.S. EPA, 2017) were
collected at six stations where benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled for the LICI.
A more detailed description of the physical LOEs used on the Ottawa River to determine remedy
effectiveness can be found in U.S. EPA (2017).
3.5 Biological I n(.>, *.i if- '• idence
Data collected along biological LOEs assist in evaluating biological community response to a
remedial action and in evaluating biologically focused clean-up goals. Biological surveys and
metrics that measure the presence, condition, and population distributions of specific types of fish,
insects, algae, plants, and aquatic life assess the overall health of the community and quality of the
associated habitat in the GLLA project area. The biological metrics used to assess ecosystem
health in the pre-remedy baseline site characterization were: the LICI for macroinvertebrates;
toxicity testing; the IB I; the MIwB; and fish tumors and anomalies, and DNA damage in Brown
Bullhead catfish (U.S. EPA, 2017). In this Phase 4-1 report, only the LICI for macroinvertebrate
and toxicity testing were measured. This information informs the status of a beneficial use
impairment (BUI) #6: Degradation of Benthos (Ohio EPA, 2016).
3.5.1 Laeustuary Invertebrate Community Index (LICI) for Macroinvertebrates
Ohio EPA's LICI is a multi-metric index used to evaluate the biological condition of Ohio's
lacustuaries for the Clean Water Act and the BUI status associated with degradation of benthos
(Ohio EPA, 2016). The Ottawa River has an aquatic life use designation of warm-water habitat.
Ohio EPA considers aquatic community data to be useful as response indicators for assessing
changes in the true environment of water bodies (Ohio EPA, 2007a). Further details on the LICI,
including the specific metrics and their scoring, are provided in the 2009 Baseline Report (U.S.
8
-------
Table 3-2. Station Coordinates for the 2009 Baseline Study and 2012 Phase 4-1 Sampling Event and Offsets for each Location
vo
Station
ID
2009
2012
Offset between
2009 and 2012 (ft)
Northing1
Easting1
Latitude2
Longitude2
Northing1
Easting1
Latitude2
Longitude2
2A
746403.945
1693885.173
41.710998
83.505766
746399.247
1693891.031
41.710985
83.505744
7.5
2F
745676.221
1693706.707
41.708995
83.506389
745673.572
1693700.811
41.708988
83.506410
6.5
2E
745347.736
1692735.554
41.708063
83.509931
745346.463
1692738.847
41.708059
83.509919
3.5
2D
745040.677
1691628.905
41.707185
83.513971
745040.331
1691632.744
41.707184
83.513956
3.9
2B
743413.851
1689912.295
41.702666
83.520187
743412.745
1689914.971
41.702663
83.520177
2.9
2C
743611.076
1688630.1
41.703166
83.524890
743610.854
1688632.214
41.703165
83.524883
2.1
3D
743590.206
1687708.98
41.703079
83.528262
743588.463
1687706.97
41.703074
83.528270
2.7
3C
742154.952
1687260.537
41.699126
83.529842
742158.196
1687262.296
41.699135
83.529836
3.7
3A
741222.28
1686808.589
41.696552
83.531457
741224.839
1686810.627
41.696559
83.531449
3.3
3E
740305.281
1685854.004
41.694004
83.534912
740304.485
1685856.301
41.694002
83.534903
2.4
3F
739301.25
1685164.929
41.691227
83.537391
739319.614
1685171.454
41.691277
83.537368
19.5
3B
739050.784
1684596.043
41.690521
83.539463
739045.765
1684607.084
41.690508
83.539422
12.1
4B
738420.262
1682491.934
41.688722
83.547138
738408.306
1682520.906
41.688690
83.547032
31.3
4A
738095.556
1681619.445
41.687802
83.550318
738095.806
1681616.163
41.687802
83.550330
3.3
-------
Table 3-2 (continued). Station Coordinates for the 2009 Baseline Study and 2012 Phase 4-1 Sampling Event and Offsets for
each Location
Station
ID
2009
2012
Offset between
2009 and 2012 (ft)
Northing1
Easting1
Latitude2
Longitude2
Northing1
Easting1
Latitude2
Longitude2
4D
738123.391
1678508.019
41.687775
83.561709
738174.99
1678500.324
41.687916
83.561740
52.2
4C
736026.508
1676689.315
41.681960
83.568273
736034.016
1676614.831
41.681978
83.568546
74.9
4F
734984.009
1675528.999
41.679060
83.572474
734977.27
1675527.948
41.679042
83.572477
6.8
4E
733916.009
1674738
41.676103
83.575321
733915.57
1674740.599
41.676102
83.575311
2.6
1 State Plane Datum - Ohio State Plane, NAD83, North Zone 3401, U.S. Survey Feet
2 Latitude/Longitude Datum - GCS_North_American_1983
NA - Not applicable; no samples collected during remedy activities
-------
Legend
* Core Locations
Other Sampling Locations
• Post- Dredge
@ During Dredging
# Pro- Dredge
Dredge Areas
Batreiie
Coring Locations and
Dredge Areas - Ottawa River
Lucas County, OH
{source )
Figure 3-1. ORD Sampling Stations in Reach 2.
-------
to
... • |V
Legend
¦ Core Locations
Other Sampling Locations
• Post- Dredge
® During Dredging
# Pre- Dredge
Dredge Areas
0
0 500 1.000
Battelfe
Coring Locations and
Dredge Areas - Ottawa River
Lucas County, OH
(source. )
Figure 3-2. ORI) Sampling Stations in Reach 3.
-------
Figure 3-3. ORD Sampling Stations in Reach 4.
Baireiie
Coring Locations and
Dredge Areas - Ottawa River
Lucas County, OH
{source. )
Legend
¦ Core Locations
Other Sampling Locations
• Post- Dredge
® During Dredging
# Pro- Dredge
Dredge Areas
-------
EPA, 2017j. Macroinvertebrate assemblage data for the LICI were collected at three remediated
(2B, 3 A, and 4D) and three non-remediated stations (2A, 3B, and 4A).
From composited surface sediment samples (top 6- in. core composites), 2 liters (L) of sediment
were collected at each station at the times of deployment (Round 1) and retrieval (Round 2) of the
macroinvertebrate samplers. These samples were returned to NERL-Cincinnati, and 10-day static-
renewal bulk sediment toxicity tests using Chironomus tentans and Hyalella azteca were
conducted for each round. The toxicity endpoints measured were percent survival and growth with
physical/chemical parameters (i.e., ammonia, pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and
temperature). Further details on the toxicity testing method are described in U. S. EPA (2017).
3.5.2 Whole-Sediment Toxicity Assays
Bioassays were performed with the benthic invertebrates Hyalella azteca and Chrironomus tentans
to ascertain any adverse effects on survival and/or growth via sediment contamination. Sediment
samples were collected from 18 sites along the Ottawa River in August 2012. Testing in the
Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center (AWBERC), Cincinnati, Ohio
Cincinnati Aquatic Research Facility occurred in September and October 2012. Organisms were
exposed to 100 mL of homogenized sediment with 175 mL of overlying laboratory produced
synthetic water (reformulated moderately hard reconstituted water [R-MHRW]) for a 10-day
duration in replicates of six per site sample. Water was changed daily by a 2X water volume
additions of R-MHRW in a flow-through apparatus then fed. Upon exposure completion,
organisms were sieved to enumerate live organisms then dried and weighed to obtain mass. The
survival and growth effect endpoints are determined via one-tailed t-tests comparing each
treatments response (% survival and mass) to that of a control sample. A sample p-value < 0.05
with <80% survival for H. azteca and <70% survival for C. tentans (U.S. EPA, 2000) classifies
the sample as toxic via statistically significant adverse mortality, while a p-value < 0.05 and mass
less than that of the control treatment reveals the sample has an adverse effect on organism growth.
3.6 Chemical Lines ence
Typical metrics for chemical LOEs include concentration of contaminants in surface sediments
and biological tissues and the mass of chemical contaminants removed. LOEs for 2012 sampling
are provided in Table 2-1. Sediment concentration measurements can be used to determine human
and aquatic life exposure assessments, sediment remediation goals, and potential causes and
sources of biological impairment and to assist in determining appropriate disposal strategies for
dredged sediment. Detailed methods for the analysis of contaminants in the Ottawa River can be
in found U.S. EPA (2017). During the baseline study, PCB congeners, homologs, and Aroclors
were measured; however, in Phase 4-1, only PCB congeners and homologs were analyzed.
3.7 Data Management
Total PCBs were determined by summing the concentrations of 117 PCB congeners (Table 3-3).
These congeners were consistently analyzed across the project period (2009 through 2015), and
their sum is henceforth referred to as tPCB. Additional PCB congeners were analyzed but not
consistently across the project period and the data are available in Appendix C. Non-detected
values were included at one-half the method detection limit (MDL) for summing. Similarly, PCB
homologs for the 10 levels of chlorination (LOCs) were determined by summing the individual
congeners within each LOC.
14
-------
Total PAHs were presented separately as the sum of the 16 Priority Pollutant PAHs (PPAHs) and
as the sum of 18 alkylated PAHs (Table 3-4). Additional PAHs were analyzed and the data are
available in Appendix C. All non-detects were considered as one-half the MDL for summing
purposes. Total Priority PAHs calculated as a sum of the 16 PAHs are henceforth referred to as
total PPAH.
An Ottawa relational database was created in Oracle to store all years of data collected from 2009
to 2015, with exports into Microsoft® Access and Excel. Sample collection metadata and
analytical results from all laboratories were submitted for inclusion in this data repository so that
the data could be standardized (i.e., parameter codes) and reviewed for consistency (i.e., station
identifiers), completeness (i.e., field collection information available for all fields), and accuracy
by quality assurance (QA) staff. For this 2012 report, exports from the database were created for
each analytical group (i.e., PAHs, PCBs, lipids, total organic carbon [TOC], etc.) and then for each
matrix (i.e., sediment, water, and tissues). Totals were also calculated for PCBs and PAHs, and,
where appropriate, results were normalized for lipids and TOC.
3.8 Qi ;urance/Quality Control
This multidisciplinary research project was a collaborative effort of the U.S. EPA ORD's National
Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) and National Environmental Exposure
Laboratory (NERL) in coordination with their U.S. EPA program office partner GLNPO. Each
organization had project objectives specific to their mission. Organizing this research effort
required the coordination of the multiple U.S. EPA entities over a multi-year period.
The U.S. EPA quality system is integral to this effort, providing policy and procedures that are
implemented in all aspects of the project to ensure that the data generated from each discipline
would be of a type and quality necessary and sufficient to achieve project objectives. The U.S.
EPA's quality system encompasses management and technical activities related to the planning,
implementation, assessment, and improvement of environmental programs that involve:
• the collection, evaluation, and use of environmental data, and
• the design, construction, and operation of environmental technology.
Consistent with the requirements of the U.S. EPA quality system, the participating U.S. EPA
organizations have implemented Quality Management Plans to define the specific processes and
procedures that each U.S. EPA organization uses to ensure implementation of the U.S. EPA quality
system. The following QA tools were implemented during the project:
• A systematic planning approach was implemented to develop acceptance or performance
criteria for all work covered by the U.S. EPA quality system as defined in the QAPPs for
the project (see Appendix A to this report). Several QAPPs (U.S. EPA, 2010a, 2010b,
2010c, 2012) were developed and approved for use by Battelle and the U.S. EPA quality
staff for each project effort before any data collection activities were initiated in the field
or laboratory. The field sampling and laboratory analysis for Phases 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 were
conducted following the Phase 2 and 3 QAPP (U.S. EPA, 2012) and the Addendum #02
QAPP (U.S. EPA, 2012) and provided in Appendix A of this report. QAPPs that were
developed and implemented for this project are identified in the relevant sections of this
report and in the references section.
15
-------
Table 3-3. List of 117 Individual PCB Congeners that were Consistently Analyzed for all
Ottawa River Project Studies (2009-2015).
PCB Congener
Description
PCB Congener
Description
PCB 1
2-chlorobiphenyl
PCB 54
2,2',6,6'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 3
4-chlorobiphenyl
PCB 56
2,3,3 ',4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 4
2,2'-dichlorobiphenyl
PCB 60
2,3,4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 5
2,3 -dichlorobiphenyl
PCB 64
2,3,4',6-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 6
2,3'-dichlorobipheny 1
PCB 66
2,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 7
2,4-dichlorobiphenyl
PCB 70
2,3',4',5-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 8
2,4'-dichlorobiphenyl
PCB 71
2,3',4',6-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 9
2,5 -dichlorobiphenyl
PCB 74
2,4,4',5-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 11
3,3'-dichlorobipheny 1
PCB 77
3,3 ',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 13
3,4'-dichlorobiphenyl
PCB 81
3,4,4',5-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 15
4,4'-dichlorobiphenyl
PCB 82
2,2',3,3',4-pentachlorobiphenyl
PCB 16
2,2',3 -trichlorobiphenyl
PCB 83
2,2',3,3',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
PCB 17
2,2',4-trichlorobiphenyl
PCB 84
2,2',3,3',6-pentachlorobiphenyl
PCB 18
2,2',5 -trichlorobiphenyl
PCB 85
2,2',3,4,4'-pentachlorobiphenyl
PCB 19
2,2',6-trichlorobiphenyl
PCB 87
2,2',3,4,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl
PCB 22
2,3,4'-trichlorobiphenyl
PCB 91
2,2',3,4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl
PCB 24
2,3,6 -trichlorobiphenyl
PCB 92
2,2', 3,5,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl
PCB 25
2,3 ',4 -trichlorobiphenyl
PCB 95
2,2',3,5',6-pentachlorobiphenyl
PCB 26
2,3 ',5 -trichlorobiphenyl
PCB 97
2,2',3 ',4,5 -pentachlorobiphenyl
PCB 27
2,3 ',6 -trichlorobiphenyl
PCB 99
2,2',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
PCB 28
2,4,4'-trichlorobiphenyl
PCB 100
2,2',4,4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl
PCB 30
2,4,6-trichlorobiphenyl
PCB 101
2,2',4,5,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl
PCB 31
2,4',5 -trichlorobiphenyl
PCB 105
2,3,3',4,4'-pentachlorobiphenyl
PCB 32
2,4',6-trichlorobiphenyl
PCB 110
2,3,3',4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl
PCB 33
2',3,4-trichlorobiphenyl
PCB 114
2,3,4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
PCB 37
3,4,4'-trichlorobiphenyl
PCB 115
2,3,4,4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl
PCB 40
2,2', 3,3 '-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 118
2,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
PCB 41
2,2',3,4-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 123
2',3,4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
PCB 42
2,2',3,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 124
2',3,4,5,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl
PCB 43
2,2', 3,5 -tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 126
3,3 ',4,4',5 -pentachlorobiphenyl
PCB 44
2,2',3,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 128
2,2',3,3',4,4'-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB 45
2,2',3,6-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 130
2,2',3,3',4,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB 46
2,2',3,6'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 134
2,2',3,3',5,6-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB 47
2,2',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 135
2,2',3,3',5,6'-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB 48
2,2',4,5-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 136
2,2',3,3',6,6'-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB 49
2,2',4,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 137
2,2',3,4,4',5-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB 51
2,2',4,6'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 138
2,2',3,4,4',5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB 52
2,2',5,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 141
2,2',3,4,5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB 53
2,2',5,6'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
PCB 144
2,2',3,4,5',6-hexachlorobiphenyl
16
-------
Table 3-3 (continued). List of 117 Individual PCB Congeners that were Consistently
Analyzed for all Ottawa River Project Studies (2009-2015).
PCB Congener
Description
PCB 146
2,2',3,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB 149
2,2',3,4',5',6-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB 151
2,2',3,5,5',6-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB 153
2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB 156
2,3,3',4,4',5-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB 157
2,3,3',4,4',5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB 158
2,3,3',4,4',6-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB 163
2,3,3',4',5,6-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB 164
2,3,3',4',5',6-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB 167
2,3',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB 169
3,3',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB 170
2,2',3,3',4,4',5-heptachlorobiphenyl
PCB 171
2,2',3,3',4,4',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
PCB 172
2,2',3,3',4,5,5'-heptachlorobiphenyl
PCB 174
2,2',3,3',4,5,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl
PCB 176
2,2',3,3',4,6,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl
PCB 177
2,2',3,3',4',5,6-heptachlorobiphenyl
PCB 178
2,2',3,3',5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
PCB 179
2,2',3,3',5,6,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl
PCB 180
2,2',3,4,4',5,5'-heptachlorobiphenyl
PCB 183
2,2',3,4,4',5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
PCB 184
2,2',3,4,4',6,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl
PCB 185
2,2',3,4,5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
PCB 187
2,2',3,4',5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
PCB 189
2,3,3',4,4',5,5'-heptachlorobiphenyl
PCB 190
2,3,3',4,4',5,6-heptachlorobiphenyl
PCB 193
2,3,3',4',5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
PCB 194
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5'-octachlorobiphenyl
PCB 195
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6-octachlorobiphenyl
PCB 201 (BZ)/ 199 (IUPAC)
2,2',3,3',4,5,5',6'-octachlorobiphenyl
PCB 199 (BZ)/ 200 (IUPAC)
2,2',3,3',4,5,6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl
PCB 200 (BZ)/ 201 (IUPAC)
2,2',3,3',4,5',6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl
PCB 202
2,2',3,3',5,5',6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl
PCB 203
2,2',3,4,4',5,5',6-octachlorobiphenyl
PCB 205
2,3,3',4,4',5,5',6-octachlorobiphenyl
PCB 206
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6-nonachlorobiphenyl
PCB 207
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6,6'-nonachlorobiphenyl
PCB 208
2,2',3,3',4,5,5',6,6'-nonachlorobiphenyl
PCB 209
decachlorobiphenyl
17
-------
Table 3-4. List of PAHs that Comprise the 16 PPAHs and 18 Alkylated PAHs.
16 Priority PAHs
18 Alkylated PAHs
Naphthalene
CI-Naphthalenes
Acenaphthylene
C2-Naphthalenes
Acenaphthene
C3 -Naphthalenes
Fluorene
C4-Naphthalenes
Anthracene
Cl-Fluorenes
Phenanthrene
C2-Fluorenes
Fluoranthene
C3-Fluorenes
Pyrene
C1 -Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes
Benzo(a)anthracene
C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes
Chrysene
C3 -Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
C4-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
C1 -Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes
Benzo(a)pyrene
C2-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes
Indeno( 1,2,3 -cd)pyrene
C3 -Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Cl-Chrysenes
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
C2-Chrysenes
C3-Chrysenes
C4-Chrysenes
• Standard operating procedures (SOPs) were implemented for all applicable field and
laboratory activities to ensure consistency in the collection of samples, operation of
environmental technologies, and generation of environmental data in the field and in the
laboratory.
• Appropriate training was provided for staff to ensure that quality-related responsibilities
and requirements as defined in the QAPPs were understood, and that SOPs were
implemented for all applicable activities. This practice ensured that research activities are
conducted in a consistent and reproducible manner, with the intent that the research data
produced would meet project data quality objectives and/or acceptance criteria for usability
to achieve project objectives.
• Data were reviewed and verified by research staff after collection and audited by the
Battelle QA staff to ensure that the type, quantity, and quality were sufficient to reach
conclusions stated in this report and ultimately to achieve project objectives.
The data review process identified exceedances of acceptance criteria and applied appropriate
qualifiers to the data to indicate limitations to the data that could affect data usability and the ability
to reach conclusions with respect to project objectives. The laboratory data qualifiers used for the
Ottawa River project are defined below. Limitations to the data are identified in the relevant
subsections of this report.
18
-------
Qiinliricr Definition
Denotes blank contamination: the analyte was detected at greater than five times the MDL
B in the procedural blank or was detected in a field sample at a concentration that was less
than five times the concentration measured in the procedural blank.
D
E
ME
n
N
Denotes that the initial analytical run was outside the linear range of the instrument, and
the flagged value is the analytical result of a subsequent analysis of a diluted sample.
Denotes that the value is an estimate, and that the result is greater than the highest
concentration level in the calibration.
Denotes that the analyte was positively identified above the MDL but was less than the
sample-specific Reporting Limit (RL). The RL is the minimum concentration of an
analyte that can be reliably identified, measured, and reported with complete confidence
that the analyte concentration is greater than zero.
Denotes significant matrix interference with detection of the analyte, resulting in an
estimated value.
Denotes that the quality control (QC) value is outside the accuracy or precision data
quality objective (DQO), but meets the contingency criteria.
Denotes that the QC value is outside the accuracy or precision DQO.
NA Not applicable.
T
Denotes that the holding time of the sample was exceeded. The QAPP lists the holding
times for each of the analyses.
Denotes that the analyte was undetected at the MDL, which is the minimum concentration
of a substance measurable with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater
U than zero. For non-detected analytes, the sample-specific MDL (adjusted for sample size
and dilutions) was inserted into the value field. When calculating sums (tPCBs and total
PAHs), one-half the MDL was used for non-detected analytes.
Furthermore, it is a requirement that all U.S. EPA quality system elements "flow down" to the
contractor support entities. U.S. EPA quality system specifications are incorporated into all
applicable U.S. EPA-funded agreements and are defined in 48 CFR 46. An important element of
this system for contracted analytical services is certification by an independent accrediting
organization, such as the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference. This
certification ensures that data are collected according to SOPs and methodologies under a quality
system that is equivalent to American National Standards Institute/American Society of Quality
Control E4, which is the basis of the U.S. EPA quality system.
19
-------
ta Results
A summary of the analytical results for the 2012 post-remedy study is presented in this section.
Tables and figures in this section summarize results by LOEs. Appendix C includes the laboratory
analytical data and the QA/QC summaries for analysis of sediment samples, tissue samples,
surrogate biological samples, and water samples.
•! 1 Pitysical Lines ¦->(" I • i-.i "nee
4.1.1 Ecological Assessment
Physical habitat information collected using the Ohio EPA Ecological Assessment field form are
summarized in Table 4-1. A hydrological component of the physical habitat where aquatic
invertebrate samples were collected was deep and slow turbid flow. Two sites (RM 5.5 and 7.3)
had notable amounts of rip rap rubble along the wetted margins, but bed sediments were
predominantly fines (silt and muck). Narrow strips of woody riparian vegetation were noted along
both backs at most sites and the downstream sites also had emergent wetland grasses (mainly
Typha, Phragmites, and Phalaris) (Table 4-1).
20
-------
Table 4-1. 2012 Physical Habitat Data from the Ecological Assessment Field Form
Collected at the Planned Remediated (R) and Non-remediated (N) Stations along the Lower
Ottawa River that were Sampled for the Lacustuary Invertebrate Community Index
(LICI).
Station
2A
2B
3A
3B
4A
4D
River mile
3.5
4.6
5.5
6.2
6.8
7.3
Reach
2
2
3
3
4
4
R/N1
N
R
R
N
N
R
Date
8/22
8/22
8/23
8/23
8/22
8/22
Width (m)
140
100
30
30
30
30
Depth (m)
0.65
2.00
1.25
2.50
0.60
1.05
Velocity (m/s)
0
0
0
0.01
0
0
Channel morphology
Natural
Natural
Channelized
Channelized
Channelized
Channelized
Bank erosion
None
None
None
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Riffle development
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Clarity
Turbid
Turbid
Turbid
Turbid
Turbid
Turbid
Color
Brown
Brown
Brown
Brown
Brown
Brown
Riparian canopy
Open
(0%)
Open
(0%)
Open
(0%)
Open
(6.25 %)
Open
(6.25%)
75%
(ND)
% Bedrock
0
0
0
0
0
0
% Boulder
0
0
0
0
0
0
% Rubble
0
0
60
0
0
33
% Coarse gravel
0
0
0
0
0
33
% Fine gravel
0
0
0
0
0
33
% Sand
0
0
0
0
0
0
% Silt
100
100
40
50
90
0
% Clay
0
0
0
0
0
0
% Detritus
0
0
0
0
10
0
% Peat
0
0
0
0
0
0
% Muck
0
0
0
50
0
0
% Other
0
0
0
0
0
0
% Macrophyte
0
0
0
0
0
0
% Algae
0
0
0
0
0
0
% Artifacts
0
0
0
0
0
0
Compaction
Soft
Moderate
Soft
Soft
Soft
Firm
Land use*
1(B), W(B)
1(B), W(B)
1(B)
1(B)
1(B)
1(B)
Left bank large trees (m)
0
0
0
10
5
10
Left bank small trees (m)
10
10
5
10
5
10
Left bank shrubs (m)
0
0
0
0
0
10
Left bank grass (m)
35
20
0
0
5
0
Left bank none (m)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Right bank large trees (m)
0
0
10
10
5
10
Right bank small trees (m)
0
0
10
10
5
10
Right bank shrubs (m)
0
0
0
0
0
10
Right bank grass (m)
20
30
10
5
0
0
Right bank none (m)
0
0
20
0
0
0
Margin habitats
Grass, RR
Grass
RR, BH
Grass, silt,
muck
RR, root mats
RR
Margin quality
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
* I = Industrial, W = Wetland, (B) = Both Banks, (L) = Left Bank, (R) = Right Bank; RR = Rip Rap; HP = Hardpan
1 R/N = Remediated/Non-remediated
21
-------
4.2 Biological Lines of Evidence
4.2.1 LICI Macroinvertebrate Data
The overall 2012 mean LICI score across the six study sites was 18 (±1.79 standard error [SE]),
16 LICI units below the restoration target for the degraded benthos BUI and falling within the Poor
narrative class as used by Ohio EPA. The LICI scores from remediated and non-remediated sites
did not differ significantly (Figure 4-1, t-test, p = 0.34). All six sites scored individually within the
Poor narrative class (Figure 4-2; Table 4-2). Dipterans represented more than half of the taxa
present at all the sites (Table 4-2). The numerically dominant taxa included the tolerant
chironomids Glyptotendipes (G.) sp. and Dicrotendipes spp. and oligochaete segmented worms,
collectively representing between 82.4% and 96.2% of the taxa collected at a site. Out of a total
of 38 taxa and 33,455 individuals collected from the multi-plate samples across six sites in 2012,
only two taxa are considered by Ohio EPA to be sensitive to stressors. These taxa included Caenis
(Ephemeroptera: Caenidae) and earlier instar mayflies (Ephemeroptera). The mayfly Caenis had
not been collected from Ottawa River since 2002.
40
30
c/)
CD
O
co 20
O
10
0
Lacustuary BUI Restoration Target (LICI = 34)
Non-remediated
i i Remediated
T
1
Figure 4-1. Mean Lacustuary Invertebrate Community Index (LICI) Scores (±1 SE) at
Remediated and Non-remediated Sites in 2012. The Number of Sites within each
Treatment is Shown in the Bars. The Dashed Line Identifies the Lacustuary Restoration
Target for the Degraded Benthos Beneficial Use Impairment (BUI).
22
-------
Exceptional
Good
Lacustuary BUI Restoration Target
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
9 8
Upstream
7 6 5
River mile
Downstream
Figure 4-2. Lacustuary Invertebrate Community Index (LICI) Scores from 2012 along the
Lower Ottawa River. Dashed Horizontal Lines Delineate the Ohio EPA Narrative Classes,
and the Dotted Horizontal Line Delineates the Degraded Benthos Beneficial Use
Impairment (BUI) Restoration Target LICI Score.
23
-------
Table 4-2. Lacustuary Invertebrate Community Index (LICI) Metrics and Scores from
2012 Across the Remediated (R) and Non-remediated (N) Sites along the Lower Ottawa
River.
2012
Station
2A
2B
3A
3B
4A
4D
River mile
3.5
4.6
5.5
6.2
6.8
7.3
Reach
2
2
3
3
4
4
R/N
N
R
R
N
N
R
% Lacustuary
42.2
68.9
68.9
75.6.
81.1
81.1
Deployment date
7/10
7/10
7/11
7/9
7/9
7/10
Retrieval date
8/21
8/22
8/21
8/20
8/20
8/22
Total taxa
14
18
17
12
18
22
Diptera taxa
9
10
10
7
10
14
Sensitive taxa
1
0
1
0
0
1
% predominant
taxon
27.7
35.1
40.5
41.9
42.8
55.5
% other Diptera
100
100
100
100
100
99.6
% mayfly &
caddisfly taxa
7.90
1.14
12.31
0.10
0.04
0.02
% sensitive taxa
1.94
0
12.22
0
0
0.02
% collector-
gatherers
93.6
95.5
94.9
97.5
97.9
96.7
Diptera density
993.8
732.6
498.5
648.8
784.9
411.4
Qualitative EPT
0
0
0
0
0
0
LICI score
18
16
24
16
16
18
Narrative class
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Total density
(#/ft2)
1464.3
1010.0
1062.0
1122.1
1018.1
940.9
Total biomass
(mg AFDM)
812.2
723.2
193.4
557.4
609.1
237.8
4.2.2 Toxicity Testing
Sediments were obtained by compositing surface sediment samples (top 6- in. core composites).
Two liters of sediment were collected at each station at the times of deployment (Round 1) and
retrieval (Round 2) of the body-burden macroinvertebrate samplers. These samples were returned
to NERL-Cincinnati, and 10-day static-renewal bulk-sediment toxicity tests using Chironomus
tentans and Hyalella azteca were conducted for each round. The toxicity endpoints measured were
percent survival and growth, with physical/chemical parameters (i.e., ammonia, pH, dissolved
24
-------
oxygen, conductivity, and temperature). Further details on the toxicity testing method is described
in U.S. EPA (2017).
Chironomus tentans
Table 4-3 contains the results from the C. tentans 10-day sediment toxicity tests conducted in
October 2012 using Ottawa River sediment samples. The October 2012 toxicity test passed with
survival of the control organisms at 73.33%, which met the minimum established survival criteria
of 70% (U.S. EPA, 2000). The bioassay determined no samples were toxic based on midge
survival data, while growth data yielded two (11.1 %) adverse growth effects.
During the C. tentans bioassay, none of the samples were characterized as toxic based on t-test
results versus control survival (Table 4-3). The survival rate in any one sample ranged from 60.00
to 93.33%). The growth endpoint reveals two (Stations 3A and 3F) of the 18 samples had an
adverse effect on C. tentans development.
Bench-top chemistries for Round 1 suggest the water quality of the associated samples was within
expected ranges. Day 0 conductivity ranges were between 543 to 653 |iS, while Day 10 ranged
from 436 to 483 |iS. Day 0 pH values ranged from 7.24 to 7.45, while Day 10 ranges were between
7.00 and 7.33. Daily temperatures overwhelmingly were 23.0° C +/- 1° C, with the exception of
Days 1 through 4 (15.1 0 C to 18.8 0 C) due to incubator failure. The dissolved oxygen (DO) of
Day 0 samples varied from 6.7 to 8.5 mg/L, while Day 10 DO values were between 5.9 and 6.9
mg/L.
Ammonia sediment values for each sample were derived from a l:l(v/v) ratio of sediment to
reformulated moderately hard reconstituted water (RMHRW) slurry as depicted in Table 4-4,
while ammonia water column values are based from measurements taken on water overlying
sediment. Un-ionized sediment ammonia concentrations ranged from 0.7 to 14.5 mg/L, while un-
ionized water column ammonia concentrations ranged from 0.00 to 0.58 mg/L.
None of the toxicity values noted are thought to be attributed to the common water quality
parameters associated with sediment samples (pH, conductivity, temperature, and DO). However,
all observed growth toxicity (Stations 3A and 3F) may be attributable to un-ionized sediment
ammonia concentrations since all affected samples exhibited levels above the assumed toxic
threshold of 0.4 mg/L. Un-ionized ammonia slurry concentrations were derived via normalization,
assuming a pH of 8.0 at a temperature of 25°C from total ammonia measurements. Un-ionized
ammonia concentrations in the water column were generally below the toxic threshold. The 2012
Ottawa River sediment samples exhibited two samples (Stations 3C and 3F) exceeding the
threshold, of which only Station 3F exhibited any adverse (growth) affects in the bioassay. Un-
ionized ammonia water column concentrations were derived via normalization, assuming a pH of
8.0 at a temperature of 23°C from total ammonia measurements.
25
-------
Table 4-3. Results from the C. tentans 10-day Sediment Toxicity Tests using Sediment Collected from the Ottawa River.
Year/Round
Sample ID
Site ID
Col. Date
Test Date
Percent
Survival
S.D.
CV
P-value
Wt (mg)
S.D.
CV
P-value
2012/1
100% sand
n/a
n/a
10/5/2012
73.3
20.7
28.2
n/a
0.730
0.16
22.3
n/a
2012/1
MAH-201
2A
8/21/12
10/5/12
73.3
20.7
28.2
0.50
0.708
0.25
35.4
0.43
2012/1
MAH-202
2B
8/22/12
10/5/12
60.0
21.9
36.5
0.15
0.670
0.30
44.5
0.34
2012/1
MAH-203
2C
8/21/12
10/5/12
70.0
16.7
23.9
0.38
0.668
0.12
18.3
0.24
2012/1
MAH-204
2D
8/22/12
10/5/12
73.3
20.7
28.2
0.50
0.873
0.13
15.0
0.06
2012/1
MAH-205
2E
8/21/12
10/5/12
83.3
19.7
23.6
0.21
0.887
0.26
29.8
0.12
2012/1
MAH-206
2F
8/22/12
10/5/12
66.7
32.7
49.0
0.34
0.686
0.49
72.2
0.42
2012/1
MAH-301
3A
8/21/12
10/5/12
93.3
10.3
11.1
0.03
0.403
0.13
32.3
0.00
2012/1
MAH-302
3B
8/20/12
10/5/12
86.7
10.3
11.9
0.10
0.687
0.12
17.7
0.31
2012/1
MAH-303
3C
8/21/12
10/5/12
69.4
21.3
30.7
0.38
0.693
0.24
35.1
0.38
2012/1
MAH-304
3D
8/21/12
10/5/12
93.3
10.3
11.1
0.03
0.648
0.10
15.3
0.16
2012/1
MAH-305
3E
8/21/12
10/5/12
93.3
10.3
11.1
0.03
0.918
0.26
27.8
0.08
2012/1
MAH-306
3F
8/20/12
10/5/12
73.3
27.3
37.3
0.50
0.094
0.06
61.7
0.00
2012/1
MAH-401
4A
8/20/12
10/5/12
86.7
16.3
18.8
0.12
0.712
0.33
45.9
0.45
2012/1
MAH-402
4B
8/20/12
10/5/12
80.0
12.7
15.8
0.26
1.06
0.25
24.0
0.01
2012/1
MAH-403
4C
8/22/12
10/5/12
90.0
11.0
12.2
0.06
1.06
0.17
16.3
0.00
2012/1
MAH-404
4D
8/22/12
10/5/12
80.0
17.9
22.4
0.28
0.743
0.16
21.7
0.45
2012/1
MAH-405
4E
8/22/12
10/5/12
76.7
19.7
25.7
0.39
0.939
0.21
22.0
0.04
2012/1
MAH-406
4F
8/22/12
10/5/12
76.7
8.2
10.7
0.36
1.02
0.19
18.3
0.01
Note: Orange shading indicates the control sample run for each batch of toxicity tests. Percent survival for a valid test is 70%.
Red shading indicates which samples were acutely toxic based on t-test results compared to the control sample.
-------
Table 4-4. C. tentans Ammonia Sediment Values for Each Sample Derived from the 1:1 (Volume/Volume) Ratio of Sediment
to RMHRW Slurry.
Year/
Round
Sample
ID
Site ID
Collection
Date
Test Date
Total Ammonia
Sediment
(mg/L)
Un-ionized
Ammonia
Sediment (mg/L)
Total Ammonia in
Water Column
(mg/L)
Un-ionized
Ammonia in Water
Column (mg/L)
2012/1
100% sand
n/a
n/a
10/5/2012
0.027
0.00
0.104
0.00
2012/1
MAH-201
2A
8/21/12
10/5/12
220
11.84
3.42
0.16
2012/1
MAH-202
2B
8/22/12
10/5/12
184
9.88
2.40
0.11
2012/1
MAH-203
2C
8/21/12
10/5/12
270
14.53
5.76
0.27
2012/1
MAH-204
2D
8/22/12
10/5/12
92.4
4.97
0.942
0.04
2012/1
MAH-205
2E
8/21/12
10/5/12
170.
9.16
2.10
0.10
2012/1
MAH-206
2F
8/22/12
10/5/12
139
7.46
2.11
0.10
2012/1
MAH-301
3A
8/21/12
10/5/12
69.0
3.71
0.816
0.04
2012/1
MAH-302
3B
8/20/12
10/5/12
36.6
1.97
0.608
0.03
2012/1
MAH-303
3C
8/21/12
10/5/12
196
10.56
12.3
0.58
2012/1
MAH-304
3D
8/21/12
10/5/12
27.4
1.47
0.987
0.05
2012/1
MAH-305
3E
8/21/12
10/5/12
234
12.59
5.67
0.27
2012/1
MAH-306
3F
8/20/12
10/5/12
261
14.03
10.9
0.51
2012/1
MAH-401
4A
8/20/12
10/5/12
51.8
2.79
0.706
0.03
2012/1
MAH-402
4B
8/20/12
10/5/12
82.2
4.42
1.53
0.07
2012/1
MAH-403
4C
8/22/12
10/5/12
24.6
1.32
0.130
0.00
2012/1
MAH-404
4D
8/22/12
10/5/12
74.8
4.03
1.03
0.05
2012/1
MAH-405
4E
8/22/12
10/5/12
13.6
0.73
0.278
0.01
2012/1
MAH-406
4F
8/22/12
10/5/12
63.4
3.41
1.37
0.06
Note: Orange shading indicates the control sample run for each batch of toxicity tests.
Red shading indicates samples at or above toxic un-ionized ammonia threshold of 0.4 mg/L.
Blue shading indicates samples below toxic un-ionized ammonia threshold of 0.4 mg/L.
Yellow shading indicates samples determined toxic for at least one endpoint.
-------
Hyalella azteca
Table 4-5 contains results from the H. azteca 10-day sediment toxicity tests conducted in
September 2012 using sediment samples received from the Ottawa River. The September 2012
toxicity tests exceeded minimum control survival criteria (80%) with survival rates of 100%.
During this bioassay, none of the 18 samples (Table 4-5) were characterized as toxic based on t-
test results versus control survival. The survival rate in any one sample ranged from 81.67 to
98.33%). The growth endpoint revealed 10 of the 18 samples had an adverse effect on Hyalella
azteca development when compared to control growth.
Bench-top water chemistries were within the expected ranges. Day 0 conductivity ranges were
between 434 and 536 |iS, while Day 10 ranged from 407 to 504 |iS. Day 0 pH values ranged from
6.67 to 7.42, while Day 10 ranges were between 6.98 and 8.73. Daily temperatures consistently
were at 23.0° C +/- 1° C. The DO of Day 0 samples varied from 6.9 to 7.9 mg/L, while Day 10
DO values were between 5.2 and 6.8 mg/L.
Ammonia sediment values were derived from a l:l(v/v) ratio of sediment to RMHRW (slurry),
while ammonia water column values are based from measurements taken on water overlying
sediment as depicted in Table 4-6. Un-ionized sediment ammonia concentrations ranged from
0.73 to 14.53 mg/L. Water column un-ionized ammonia concentrations ranged from 0.01 to 0.56
mg/L.
The 2012 H. azteca bioassay indicates none of the Ottawa River samples were toxic based on
mortality endpoints specifically used to characterize toxicity since all samples met minimum
survival criteria of >80%>. Conversely, adverse growth effects were recorded in 10 of the 18
samples (55.6%>).
None of the toxicity values noted are thought to be attributed to the common water quality
parameters associated with sediment samples (pH, conductivity, temperature, and DO). However,
all observed growth toxicity may be attributable to un-ionized sediment ammonia concentrations
since all affected samples exhibited levels above the assumed toxic threshold of 0.4 mg/L. Un-
ionized ammonia slurry concentrations were derived via normalization, assuming a pH of 8.0 at a
temperature of 25°C from total ammonia measurements. Un-ionized ammonia concentrations in
the water column were generally below the toxic threshold. H. azteca overlying water had two
samples (Stations 3C and 3F) exceeding the threshold, during which both exhibited growth
endpoint toxicity. Un-ionized ammonia water column concentrations were derived via
normalization, assuming a pH of 8.0 at a temperature of 23°C from total ammonia measurements.
28
-------
Table 4-5. Results from thzHyalella azteca 10-Day Sediment Toxicity Tests from Sediment Collected from the Ottawa River.
Year/Round
Sample ID
Site ID
Collection
Date
Test Date
Percent
Survival
S.D.
CV
P-value
Wt (mg)
S.D.
CV
P-value
2012/1
100% sand
n/a
n/a
09/07/12
100
0.00
0.00
n/a
0.205
0.02
11.86
n/a
2012/1
MAH-201
2A
8/21/12
9/7/12
98.3
4.08
4.15
0.18
0.161
0.01
5.75
<0.01
2012/1
MAH-202
2B
8/22/12
9/7/12
90.0
11.0
12.2
0.04
0.187
0.01
3.06
0.07
2012/1
MAH-203
2C
8/21/12
9/7/12
90.0
12.7
14.1
0.06
0.168
0.02
11.0
<0.01
2012/1
MAH-204
2D
8/22/12
9/7/12
90.0
15.5
17.2
0.09
0.184
0.02
8.79
0.06
2012/1
MAH-205
2E
8/21/12
9/7/12
88.3
7.53
8.52
0.01
0.197
0.02
9.51
0.28
2012/1
MAH-206
2F
8/22/12
9/7/12
96.7
5.16
5.34
0.09
0.171
0.03
15.7
0.03
2012/1
MAH-301
3A
8/21/12
9/7/12
96.7
5.16
5.34
0.09
0.132
0.01
9.49
<0.01
2012/1
MAH-302
3B
8/20/12
9/7/12
81.7
27.9
34.1
0.08
0.186
0.03
13.7
0.11
2012/1
MAH-303
3C
8/21/12
9/7/12
98.3
4.08
4.15
0.18
0.167
0.02
13.8
0.01
2012/1
MAH-304
3D
8/21/12
9/7/12
93.3
8.16
8.75
0.05
0.160
0.02
10.6
<0.01
2012/1
MAH-305
3E
8/21/12
9/7/12
91.7
7.53
8.21
0.02
0.190
0.02
8.75
0.13
2012/1
MAH-306
3F
8/20/12
9/7/12
83.3
13.7
16.4
0.02
0.138
0.02
12.6
<0.01
2012/1
MAH-401
4A
8/20/12
9/7/12
93.3
8.16
8.75
0.05
0.160
0.02
15.1
<0.01
2012/1
MAH-402
4B
8/20/12
9/7/12
90.0
12.7
14.1
0.06
0.196
0.05
23.3
0.34
2012/1
MAH-403
4C
8/22/12
9/7/12
91.7
7.53
8.21
0.02
0.210
0.02
7.85
0.33
2012/1
MAH-404
4D
8/22/12
9/7/12
90.0
10.95
12.2
0.04
0.144
0.04
24.5
<0.01
2009/ 1
MAH-405
4E
8/22/12
9/7/12
95.0
8.37
8.81
0.10
0.231
0.02
8.45
0.03
2009/ 1
MAH-406
4F
8/22/12
9/7/12
96.7
5.16
5.34
0.09
0.176
0.01
7.27
0.02
Note: Orange shading indicates the control sample run for each batch of toxicity tests. Percent survival for a valid test is 70%.
Red shading indicates which samples were acutely toxic based on t-test results comparing to the control sample.
-------
Table 4-6. H. azteca Ammonia Sediment Values for Each Sample Derived from the 1:1 (Volume/Volume) Ratio of Sediment to
RMHRW Slurry.
Year/Round
Sample ID
Site ID
Collection
Date
Test Date
Total
Ammonia
Sediment
(mg/L)
Un-ionized
Ammonia
Sediment (mg/L)
Total Ammonia
Water Column
(mg/L)
Un-ionized Ammonia
Water Column (mg/L)
2012/1
100% sand
n/a
n/a
09/07/12
0.027
0.00
0.048
0.00
2012/1
MAH-201
2A
8/21/12
9/7/12
220
11.8
3.95
0.19
2012/1
MAH-202
2B
8/22/12
9/7/12
184
9.88
2.81
0.13
2012/1
MAH-203
2C
8/21/12
9/7/12
270
14.5
4.65
0.22
2012/1
MAH-204
2D
8/22/12
9/7/12
92.4
4.97
2.29
0.11
2012/1
MAH-205
2E
8/21/12
9/7/12
170
9.16
3.27
0.15
2012/1
MAH-206
2F
8/22/12
9/7/12
139
7.46
3.05
0.14
2012/1
MAH-301
3A
8/21/12
9/7/12
69.0
3.71
1.04
0.05
2012/1
MAH-302
3B
8/20/12
9/7/12
36.6
1.97
0.610
0.03
2012/1
MAH-303
3C
8/21/12
9/7/12
196
10.6
12.0
0.56
2012/1
MAH-304
3D
8/21/12
9/7/12
27.4
1.47
0.768
0.04
2012/1
MAH-305
3E
8/21/12
9/7/12
234
12.6
5.95
0.28
2012/1
MAH-306
3F
8/20/12
9/7/12
261
14.0
10.7
0.50
2012/1
MAH-401
4A
8/20/12
9/7/12
51.8
2.79
0.775
0.04
2012/1
MAH-402
4B
8/20/12
9/7/12
82.2
4.42
1.73
0.08
2012/1
MAH-403
4C
8/22/12
9/7/12
24.6
1.32
0.521
0.02
2012/1
MAH-404
4D
8/22/12
9/7/12
74.8
4.03
0.977
0.05
2012/1
MAH-405
4E
8/22/12
9/7/12
13.6
0.73
0.281
0.01
Note: Orange shading indicates the control sample run for each batch of toxicity tests.
Red shading indicates samples at or above toxic un-ionized ammonia threshold of 0.4 mg/L.
Blue shading indicates samples below toxic un-ionized ammonia threshold of 0.4 mg/L.
Yellow shading indicates samples determined toxic for at least one endpoint.
-------
4.3 Chemical Lines of Evidence
This section presents the contaminant concentrations (PAHs and PCBs) in sediment, whole water,
and tissue samples; sediment characteristics (i.e., bulk density, TOC, total solids); and PSD values
for the 11 ORD sampling stations. Appendix C contains the analytical data packages and QA/QC
summaries for all data. Stations located within the remediation footprint are identified with an
asterisk (*) on the graphs.
4.3.1 Contaminant Concentrations in Surface Sediment
Total PPAH and total alkylated PAH concentrations (both standard and TOC-normalized) for the
composite surficial sediment samples collected for the 18 ORD stations during the Phase 4-1
August 2012 deployment are shown in Figure 4-3. Figure 4-4 presents the tPCB data for the
August 2012 deployment. The concentration data are shown in the top figures, and the
concentration data normalized to organic carbon are shown in the bottom figures. Homolog data
are presented in Figure 4-5.
Appendix C contains the analytical data packages and QA/QC summaries for PCB and PAH
analyses of all sediment samples.
31
-------
80
70
A
~ Priority PAHs
¦ Alkylated PAHs
¦c 60
g>
¦o
"5>
-E 40
50
O
-------
2A 2F 2E* 2E* 2D 2B* 2C* 3D 3D 3C* 3A* 3E* 3F 3B 4B* 4A 4D* 4C 4F* 4E*
-Dup -Dup
Station Ordered by River Mile
2A 2F 2E* 2E* 2D 2B* 2C* 3D 3D 3C* 3A* 3E* 3F 3B 4B* 4A 4D* 4C 4F* 4E*
-Dup -Dup
Station Ordered by River Mile
Figure 4-4. tPCB Concentrations (A - Dry Weight and B - Organic Carbon Normalized)
in Surface Sediment (August 2012 - Deployment). Stations with an * are within the
Remediation Footprint.
33
-------
100%
90%
80%
70%
m
o
£ 60%
o
0)
Q.
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2A 2F 2E* 2E* 2D 2B* 2C* 3D 3D 3C* 3A* 3E* 3F 3B 4B* 4A 4D* 4C 4F* 4E*
-Dup -Dup
Station Ordered by River M ile
¦ Mono ~ Di sTri aTetra nPenta nHexa ¦ Hepta ~ Octa ¦ Nona s Deca
Figure 4-51. Contribution of PCB Homologs in Percent tPCB in Surface Sediment
(August 2012 - Deployment). Stations with an * are within the Remediation Footprint.
34
-------
4.3.1.1 Sediment Characteristics
Surface sediment characteristics (percent moisture and TOC) in the 18 ORD stations (0 to 0.5 ft
deep) for the August 2012 deployment period (plus duplicate samples) sampled following
remediation activities are presented in Table 4-7.
Table 4-7. Surface Sediment Characteristics of 18 ORD Station Sediments Collected
in August 2012.
Sample ID
Percent
Moisture
TOC
(%)
(%)
2A
45.5
4.38
2F
46.8
3.2
2E
45.8
3.55
2E-Dup
48.7
3.52
2D
42.3
3.37
2B
43.9
2.89
2C
44.4
5.68
3D
25.9
2.63
3D-Dup
24.3
3.24
3C
36.3
3.32
3A
28.5
1.36
3E
47.3
3.99
3F
37.7
3.23
3B
28.2
0.972
4B
28.5
2.07
4A
25.9
2.96
4F
28.0
3.22
4C
18.5
2.58
4F
29.5
1.61
4E
14.0
1.95
35
-------
4.3.1.2 Particle Size Distribution (PSD) Data
PSD data from the 18 ORD stations collected following remediation activities in 2012 are
presented graphically in Figure 4-6.
H% Gravel H%Sand ¦ % Silt a%Clay
H
I
2A 2F 2E* 2E* 2D 2B* 2C* 3D 3D 3C* 3A* 3E* 3F 3B 4B* 4A 4D* 4C 4F* 4E*
-Dup -Dup
Station Ordered by River M ile
Figure 4-6. PSD Data from Surface Sediments (August 2012 - Deployment). Stations with
an * are within the Remediation Footprint.
36
-------
4.3.2 Water Samples
Whole water samples were collected and analyzed in 2012. Appendix C contains the complete
laboratory data sets for analyses performed on all water samples plus the analytical data packages
and QA/QC summaries for PCB and PAH analyses carried out on all water samples.
Table 4-8 presents the TOC (micrograms per liter [jxg/L]) and total suspended solids (TSS) (fig/L)
results for water samples collected from the 18 ORD stations. The PAH, tPCB, and PCB homolog
results for the water samples are shown in Figures 4-7 through 4-9, respectively.
Table 4-8. Characteristics of Whole Water Samples (August 2012).
Station
ID
Total Organic
Carbon
Total
Suspended
Solids
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
2A
5800
102000
2F
5270
193000
2E
4960
64000
2E-Dup
4860
59000
2D
5210
30500
2B
5090
33500
2C
5070
28500
3D
4660
44000
3D-Dup
4590
65000
3C
4660
61000
3A
4800
34500
3E
4840
45500
3F
4420
32500
3B
4620
30500
4B
4780
35000
4A
4860
17000
4D
6210
21000
4C
5640
65500
4F
5390
31000
4E
5340
22500
37
-------
C
d)
o
c
o
o
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
~ Priority PAHs
¦Alkylated PAHs
ll
I
I
I
I
I
111
2A 2F 2E* 2E* 2D 2B* 2C* 3D 3D 3C* 3A* 3E* 3F 3B 4B* 4A 4D* 4C 4F* 4E*
-Dup -Dup
Station Ordered by River M ile
Figure 4-7. Total PAH Concentrations in Whole Water Samples (August 2012). Stations
with an * are within the Remediation Footprint.
0.6
0.3
O
o
CO
9 0.2
0.1
0.0
2A 2F 2E* 2E* 2D 2B* 2C* 3D 3D 3C* 3A* 3E* 3F 3B 4B* 4A 4D* 4C 4F* 4E*
-Dup -Dup
Station Ordered by River Mile
Figure 4-8. tPCB Concentrations in Whole Water Samples (August 2012). Stations with
an * are within the Remediation Footprint.
38
-------
100%
2A 2F 2E* 2E* 2D 2B* 2C* 3D 3D 3C* 3A* 3E* 3F 3B 4B* 4A 4D* 4C 4F* 4E*
-Dup -Dup
Station Ordered by River Mile
¦ Mono h Di sTri sTetra mPenta ~ Hexa ¦ Hepta aOcta ¦ Nona sDeca
Figure 4-9. Percent of tPCB as Homolog Contributions in Whole Water Samples
(August 2012). Stations with an * are within the Remediation Footprint.
4,3.2.1 Passive Sampler Concentration Data, for PEDs Suspended in the Water Column
The total PAH, tPCB, and PCB homolog results for PEDs suspended in the water column are
summarized in Figures 4-10 through 4-12, respectively.
39
-------
140,000
120,000
~ Priority PAHs
¦ Alkylated PAHs
100.000
80,000
60.000
40.000
20.000
2A 2A 2F 2E* 2D 2B* 2C* 3D 3C* 3A* 3E* 3F 3B 4B* 4A 4D* 4D* 4C 4F* 4E*
-Dup -Dup
Station Ordered by River Mile
Figure 4-10. Total PAH Concentrations per PED Suspended in the Water Column (August
2012). Stations with an * are within the Remediation Footprint.
60,000
50,000
Q
LU
O)
£
40,000
£ 30,000
0)
u
£
o
o
g 20,000
Q.
10,000
2A 2A 2F 2E* 2D 2B* 2C* 3D 3C* 3A* 3E* 3F 3B 4B* 4A 4D* 4D* 4C 4F* 4E*
-Dup -Dup
Station Ordered by River Mile
Figure 4-11. tPCB Concentration per PED Suspended in the Water Column (August
2012). Stations with an * are within the Remediation Footprint.
40
-------
100%
2A 2A 2F 2E* 2D 2B* 2C* 3D 3C* 3A* 3E* 3F 3B 4B* 4A 4D* 4D* 4C 4F* 4E*
-Dup -Dup
Station Ordered by River M ile
¦ Mono h Di sTri sTetra mPenta ~ Hexa ¦ Hepta aOcta ¦ Nona sDeca
Figure 4-12. Percent of tPCB as Homolog Contribution for Water Column PED Samples
(August 2012). Stations with an * are within the Remediation Footprint.
4.3.3 Contaminant Concentrations in Tissue Samples
4,3.3.1 Contaminant Concentrations in Macroinvertebrates
Figures 4-13 through 4-15 summarize total PAHs, tPCBs, and PCB homologs for the BB
macroinvertebrates harvested from each H-D sampler deployed at each station. The concentration
data are shown in the top figures, and the concentration data normalized to lipid tissue
concentrations are shown in the bottom figures. Duplicate samples were collected at each station.
Appendix C contains the complete analytical data packages and QA/QC summaries for all tissue
samples.
41
-------
4,500
4,000
3,500
| 3,000
0)
£
2,500
O 2,000
£
o
o
1,000
500
A
~ Priority PAHs
¦ Alkylated PAHs
fife tk :W W W W: fii: ^ w W W: ft!: & :W W W
2A 2F 2E* 2D 2B* 2C* 3D 3C* 3A* 3E* 3F 3B 4B* 4A 4D* 4C 4F* 4E*
Station Ordered by River Mile
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
¦o
a
U)
O)
g 200,000
g 150,000
£
o
o
100,000
50,000
B
~ Priority PAHs
¦ Alkylated PAHs
R): m m m m m m m m m m m m m- «¦ «¦ «¦
2A 2F 2E* 2D 2B* 2C* 3D 3C* 3A* 3E* 3F 3B 4B* 4A 4D* 4C 4F* 4E*
Station Ordered by River Mile
Note: The numbers of samples analyzed per station are shown within the data bar of the graph in parentheses
Figure 4-13. Total Priority Pollutant PAHs and Total Alkylated PAH Concentrations (A -
Wet Weight and B - Lipid-Normalized) with Error Estimates (±1 SE) in
Macroinvertebrates Samples from the Ottawa River (August 2012). Stations with an * are
within the Remediation Footprint.
42
-------
2,500
A
2,000
O)
'o>
5
0)
£ 1,500
U)
£
o
2 1,000
>
£
0)
u
£
o
o
m
O 500
Q.
2 ¦ 2 ¦ 2 ¦ 2 ¦ 2 ¦ 2 ¦ 2 ¦ 2 ¦ 2 ¦ 2 ¦ 2 ¦ 2
2 ¦ 2
2 ¦ 2
2A 2F 2E 2D 2B* 2C* 3D 3C* 3A* 3E* 3F 3B 4B* 4A 4D* 4C 4F* 4E
Station Ordered by River Mile
160,000
140,000
-v 120,000
•a
'5.
100,000
£
0)
u
£
o
o
m
o
a.
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
B
(2) ¦ (2)
(2) ¦ (2) ¦ (2) ¦ (2) ¦ (2) ¦ (2) ¦ (2) ¦ (2) ¦ (2) ¦ (2) ¦ (2) ¦ (2) ¦ (2)
2A 2F 2E* 2D 2B* 2C* 3D 3C* 3A* 3E* 3F 3B 4B* 4A 4D* 4C 4F* 4E*
Station Ordered by River Mile
Note: The numbers of samples analyzed per station are shown within the data bar of the graph in parentheses
Figure 4-14. Mean tPCB Concentrations (A - Wet Weight and B - Lipid-Normalized) with
Error Estimates (±1 SE) in Macroinvertebrates Samples from the Ottawa River (August
2012). Stations with an * are within the Remediation Footprint.
43
-------
100%
90%
80%
70%
m
o
£ 60%
o
C
g 50%
L_
0)
Q.
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2A 2F 2E* 2D 2B* 2C* 3D 3C* 3A* 3E* 3F 3B 4B* 4A 4D* 4C 4F* 4E*
Station Ordered by River M ile
¦ Mono ~ Di sTri s Tetra mPenta ~ Hexa ¦ Hepta aOcta ¦ Nona s Deca
Figure 4-15. Contributions of PCB Homologs in Percent tPCB in Macroinvertebrates
(August 2012). Stations with an * are within the Remediation Footprint.
4,3,3.2 Contaminant Concentrations in Fish Tissue Samples
Figures 4-16 and 4-17 present the total PPAH, total alkylated PAH, and tPCB concentrations in
fish collected in July and August 2012. The concentration data are shown in the top figures, and
the concentration data normalized to lipid tissue concentrations are shown in the bottom figures.
Figure 4-18 depicts the contribution of PCB homologs to the tPCB concentrations. Appendix C
contains the complete analytical data packages and QA/QC summaries for all tissue samples.
44
-------
500
450
400
O) 350
'5
5
2 300
O) 250
C
o
¦x 200
(3
C
a,
o 150
c
o
o
100
50
~ Priority PAHs
Alkylated PAHs
*:W:
Bluntnose Minnow
Emerald Shiner
River Reach
Brown Bullhead
9,000
8,000
2
iS- 6,000
~ Priority PAHs
Alkylated PAHs
7.000
5.000
4.000
O 3.000
2.000
1.000
Bluntnose Minnow
Emerald Shiner
River Reach
Brown Bullhead
Note: Number offish analyzed within each reach is shown within the data bar of the graph.
Figure 4-16. Mean Total PAH Concentrations (A - Wet Weight and B - Lipid Normalized)
with Error Estimates (±1 SE) in Fish Collected from Each of the Reaches of the Ottawa
River.
45
-------
A
^ 8,000
2:
O)
I 7,000
a>
5
O) 6,000
C 5,000
o
C 4,000
a>
o
c
o
O 3,000
CO
O
CL
~ 2,000
Gizzard
Shad
Bluntnose
Minnow
Emerald
Shiner
White Redhorse
Sucker Sucker
River Reach
Brown
Bullhead
Pumpkinseed
Sunfish
Largemouth
Bass
B
9*140,000
a
£ 100,000
(0
d)
C 80,000
o
o
CO
y 60,000
Gizzard
Shad
Bluntnose
Minnow
Emerald
Shiner
White Redhorse
Sucker Sucker
River Reach
Brown
Bullhead
Pumpkinseed
Sunfish
Largemouth
Bass
Note: Number offish analyzed within each reach is shown within the data bar of the graph
Figure 4-17. Mean tPCB Concentrations (A - Wet Weight and B - Lipid Normalized) with
Error Estimates (±1 SE) in Fish Collected from the Ottawa River.
46
-------
[2 3 4 ) | 2 3 4 I [3 4)13 4 ] 1 2 3 1[ 2 3 4 I 2 3 4 1 [2 3 4 |
Gizzard Bluntnose Emerald White Redhorse Brown Pumpkinseed Largemouth
Shad Minnow Shiner Sucker Sucker Bullhead Sunfish Bass
River Reach
¦ Mono h Di sTri sTetra mPenta ~ Hexa ¦ Hepta aOcta ¦ Nona sDeca
Figure 4-18. Contribution of PCB Homologs in Percent tPCB from Fish Collected from the
Ottawa River.
¥.5.3.5 Contaminant Concentrations in Tetragnathidae Spiders
Figures 4-19 and 4-20 summarize tPCB and tPCB by homolog concentrations in spiders of the
family Tetragnathidae from 18 stations along the lower Ottawa River. The concentration data are
shown in the top figures, and the concentration data normalized to lipid tissue concentrations are
shown in the bottom figures.
47
-------
o>
"5
c
o
c
0)
o
c
o
o
CD
o
0.
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
A
45,000
40,000
35,000
"5.
= 30,000
O)
O)
¦jr 25,000
o
2
"£ 20,000
0)
o
c
o
O 15,000
CD
O
0.
~ 10,000
5,000
2A 2F 2E* 2D 2B* 2C* 3D 3C* 3A* 3E* 3F 3B 4B* 4A 4D* 4C 4F* 4E*
Station Ordered by River Mile
(4) I (3) ¦ (4) ¦ (4) ¦ (4)
(4) ¦ (2) ¦ (3) ¦ (4) ¦ (4) ¦ (4) ¦ (4) ¦ (4)
2A 2F 2E* 2D 2B* 2C* 3D 3C* 3A* 3E* 3F 3B 4B* 4A 4D* 4C 4F* 4E*
Station Ordered by River Mile
Note: The numbers of samples analyzed per station are shown in the bars of the graph.
Figure 4-19. Mean (± 1 SE) tPCB Concentrations (A - Wet Weight and B - Lipid-
Normalized) in Tetragnathid Spiders Collected along Three Reaches of the Lower Ottawa
River (August/September 2012). Stations with an * are within the Remediation Footprint.
48
-------
100%
90%
80%
70%
m
o
r 60%
0)
o
0)
Q.
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
i
i
i
i
i
2A 2F 2E* 2D 2B* 2C* 3D 3C* 3A* 3E* 3F 3B 4B* 4A 4D* 4C 4F* 4E*
Station Ordered by River M ile
¦ Mono h Di sTri sTetra mPenta ~ Hexa ¦ Hepta aOcta ¦ Nona sDeca
Figure 4-20. Contribution of PCB Homologs in Percent tPCB in Tetragnathid Spiders
from the Ottawa River (August/September 2012). Stations with an * are within the
Remediation Footprint.
The research project described in this report was focused on the development and evaluation of
methods and metrics along physical, biological, and chemical LOEs to measure the effectiveness
in remediating contaminated sediments within selected segments of the Ottawa River. This report
detailed the first phase of long-term post-remedy monitoring conducted by ORD and its partners.
Subsequent reports will detail the results of the remaining two phases of long-term post-
remediation monitoring (Phases 4-2 and 4-3).
49
-------
5 References
Conestoga Rovers and Associates. 2009. Ottawa River Cleanup Plan Design Report. Prepared
for: The Ottawa River Group. Ref. No. 054000 (6). Originally Issued January; Reissued
August.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 2006. Methods for Assessing Habitat in
Flowing Waters: Using the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI). Division of
Surface Water, Ecological Assessment Section. Columbus, Ohio.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 2007a. Biological and Water Quality Study
of the Ottawa River and Sibley Creek - Dura Avenue Landfill Area, Lucas County.
Division of Surface Water, Ecological Assessment Section, Columbus, Ohio. OEPA
Report EAS/2007-11-9. November.
http://www.epa.state.oh.iis/portals/35/dociiments/OttawaDiiraLandfiH2007TSD.pdf
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 2007b. Biological and Water Quality Study
of the Ottawa River - Lower Nine Miles, Lucas County. Division of Surface Water,
Ecological Assessment Section. Columbus, Ohio. Ohio EPA Report EAS/2007-12-12.
December. http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/dociiments/OttawaR.iver20Q7TSD.pdf
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 2016. Delisting Guidance and Restoration
Targets for Ohio Areas of Concern, Version 2.0 Division of Surface Water, Lake Erie
Program. Columbus, Ohio. http://www.epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/lakeerie/FINAL-
%20Delist%20Guid%20%20Rest%20Targets%20for%200hios%20AOCs_January2016.
pdf.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000. Methods for Measuring the
Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater
Invertebrates. Second Edition. Office of Research and Development, Duluth, Minnesota.
EPA 600/R-99/064. March.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010a. Final Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPP) for Joint U.S. EPA GLNPO/ORD Project for Evaluation of
Environmental Dredging for Remediating Contaminated Sediments in the Ottawa River,
Pre-Dredging Characterization Phase. ORD Applied Research QAPP. Contract No.: EP-
W-09-024, Task Order 0-11. April 28.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010b. Addendum No. 1 for Final
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Joint U.S. EPA GLNPO/ORD Project for
Evaluation of Environmental Dredging for Remediating Contaminated Sediments in the
Ottawa River, Pre-Dredging Characterization Phase (Phase 1). Contract No.: EP-W-09-
024, Task Order 0-11. April 28.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010c. Draft Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPP) for Joint U.S. EPA GLNPO/ORD Project for Evaluation of
Environmental Dredging for Remediating Contaminated Sediments in the Ottawa River,
50
-------
During- and Post-Dredging Characterization Phases 2 and 3. Contract No.: EP-W-09-
024, Task Order 1-11. July 12.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. Draft Addendum No. 2 for
Final Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Joint U.S. EPA GLNPO/ORD Project
for Evaluation of Environmental Dredging for Remediating Contaminated Sediments in
the Ottawa River, Pre-Dredging Characterization Phase (Phase 1). Contract No.: EP-W-
09-024, Task Order 0-11. July 17.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2017. Pre-Remedy Baseline
Characterization of the Ottawa River Using Physical, Biological, and Chemical Lines of
Evidence. EPA/600/R-17/355. September. United States Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA).
Westcott, J., J. Dirgo, J. Brunner, S. Ireland, and S. Cieniawski. 2011. Review of Mechanical and
Hydraulic Dredging at Two Sediment Remediation Sites. Proceedings of the Annual
International Conference on Soils, Sediment, Water and Energy. 16:90-99.
51
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED
STANDARD POSTAGE
& FEES PAID EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and
Development (8101R)
Washington, DC
20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
------- |