U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

DRAFT CONTAMINATED
SEDIMENTS SCIENCE PLAN

Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
by members of the Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Workgroup,
a group of U.S. EPA's Science Policy Council

Principal Authors

Elizabeth Lee Hofmann (Chair),	Thomas Armitage, OW
OSWER

Bonnie Eleder, U.S. EPA Region 5	Steve Ells, OSWER

Patricia Erickson, ORD	Sharon Frey, OSWER

James Rowe, ORD	Marc Tuchman, GLNPO
Randall Wentsel, ORD

Science Policy Council
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460


-------
Page ii	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

DISCLAIMER

This document is an external review draft for review purposes only and does not
constitute U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page iii

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS	Page vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	 Page viii

1.	GOALS AND OBJECTIVES	 Page 1

1.1	Introduction		Page 1

1.2	Goals of the Contaminated Sediments Science Plan		Page 2

1.3	Development of the Contaminated Sediments Science Plan		Page 3

1.4	Linkage of the Science Plan to Agency Planning Processes 		Page 4

1.5	Continuity of the Science Plan with Agency National Strategic Plan Goals	Page 6

1.6	Document Organization		Page 7

2.	CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS 	 Page 9

2.1	Introduction	 Page 9

2.2	Scope, Magnitude, and Impacts of Contaminated Sediments	 Page 9

2.3	Overview of Major Sediment Issues and Needs Across the Agency	Page 11

2.4	Recent U.S. EPA Contaminated Sediment Science Activities

and Products	 Page 15

2.5	Overview of Communication and Collaboration Activities 	 Page 19

2.5.1	Collaborative Efforts Within U.S. EPA	 Page 19

2.5.2	External Collaborative Efforts	 Page 20

2.6	National Research Council (NRC) Report on PCB-Contaminated

Sediments	 Page 22

2.7	National Research Council Report on Contaminated Marine Sediments . Page 22

2.8	Long-term Trends Affecting Contaminated Sediments	 Page 24

3.	ASSESSING THE SCIENCE ON CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS 	 Page 27

3.1	Introduction	 Page 27

3.2	Sediment Site Characterization	 Page 28

3.2.1	Sampling Strategies (temporal and spatial)		Page 29

3.2.2	Physical Parameters		Page 30

3.2.3	Chemical Parameters		Page 32

3.2.4	Key Recommendations for Sediment Site Characterization	Page 34

3.3	Exposure Assessment		Page 34

3.3.1	Bioavailability		Page 35

3.3.2	Bioaccumulation Potential		Page 36

3.3.3	Fate and Transport Modeling		Page 37

3.3.4	Key Recommendations for Exposure Assessment		Page 39


-------
Page iv	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

3.4	Human Health Effects and Risk Assessment	 Page 39

3.4.1 Key Recommendations for Human Health Effects and

Risk Assessment 	 Page 41

3.5	Ecological Effects and Risk Assessment	 Page 41

3.5.1	Ecological Screening Levels 		Page 41

3.5.2	Ecological Indicators		Page 44

3.5.3	Direct Toxicity to Aquatic Biota		Page 46

3.5.4	Ecological Significance and Population Models		Page 47

3.5.5	Key Recommendations for Ecological Effects and

Risk Assessment 	 Page 47

3.6	Sediment Remediation	 Page 48

3.6.1	Natural Recovery/Bioremediation		Page 48

3.6.2	In situ Capping		Page 49

3.6.3	In situ Treatment 		Page 50

3.6.4	Dredging/Removal		Page 52

3.6.5	Ex situ Treatment Technologies		Page 52

3.6.6	Beneficial Use Technologies		Page 54

3.6.7	Disposal Options 		Page 55

3.6.8	Key Recommendations for Sediment Remediation		Page 55

3.7	Baseline, Remediation, and Post-Remediation Monitoring		Page 56

3.7.1	Key Recommendations for Baseline, Remediation, and

Post-Remediation Monitoring	 Page 59

3.8	Risk Communication and Community Involvement	 Page 59

3.8.1 Key Recommendations for Risk Communication and Community

Involvement	 Page 61

3.9	Information Management and Exchange Activities	 Page 62

3.9.1 Key Recommendations for Information Management and Exchange

Activities 	 Page 63

4. LONG-RANGE SCIENCE STRATEGY	 Page 65

4.1	Introduction	 Page 65

4.2	Key Recommendations 	 Page 65

4.2.1	Sediment Site Characterization		Page 66

4.2.2	Exposure Assessment		Page 67

4.2.3	Human Health Effects and Risk Assessment		Page 69

4.2.4	Ecological Effects and Risk Assessment		Page 70

4.2.5	Sediment Remediation		Page 72

4.2.6	Baseline, Remediation, and Post-remediation Monitoring 	Page 74

4.2.7	Risk Communication and Community Involvement		Page 76

4.2.8	Information Management and Exchange Activities		Page 77

4.3	Recommended Approaches to Implement Strategy		Page 79


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page v

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

REFERENCES 	 Page 85

APPENDIX A: Contaminated Sediment Science Activities Database	Page A-l

APPENDIX B: Example of Summary Sheet 	 Page B-l

APPENDIX C: List of Acronyms	 Page C-l


-------
Page vi

Contaminated Sediments Science Plan

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy

June 13, 2002

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Contributors

Elizabeth Beiring, OW

Edward Bender, ORD

David Bennett, OSWER

Scott Cieniawski, GLNPO

Kevin Garrahan, ORD

Scott Ireland, OW

Lorelei Kowalski, ORD

Jennifer Lenz, OSWER


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page vii

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2000, the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA's) Science
Policy Council (SPC) initiated the development of the Science Plan because contamination of
sediments is a multi-faceted, cross-Agency issue which can benefit from a more comprehensive
and higher level of coordination across U.S. EPA program and regional offices than what occurs
at the program level. Extensive resources to address contaminated sediment problems are spent
by a number of Agency program offices, including the Superfund Program (SF), Office of Water
(OW), Office of Solid Waste (OSW), Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), Office of Research and Development
(ORD), and U.S. EPA Regional Offices.

The Contaminated Sediments Science Plan is the first formal example of an Agency
science plan on a specific cross-Agency office- and region-wide activity. However, it follows in
the footsteps of previous U.S. EPA initiatives, such as the Mercury Action Plan (U.S. EPA,
2001c), the Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters (Beach Action Plan) (U.S. EPA,
1999a), and A Multimedia Strategy for Priority Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT)
Pollutants (U.S. EPA, 1998a). These plans and strategies contain elements of both science plans
and management action plans. The result of an effective science plan will be improved
environmental decision-making which conserves both human and financial resources.

The Contaminated Sediments Science Plan has three goals to promote the vision of
providing a strong scientific basis for addressing contaminated sediments:

1.	Development and dissemination of tools and science necessary to address the
management of contaminated sediments.

2.	Enhancement of the level of coordination and communication of science activities
dealing with contaminated sediments across the Agency.

3.	Development of an effective, cost-efficient strategy to promote these scientific
activities, including research.

The Science Plan is organized into four chapters. Chapter One discusses the goals,
objectives, and how the Science Plan relates to the Agency's mandate. Chapter Two provides an
overview of the contaminated sediment problems and issues across the Agency. The brief
description of issues in Chapter Two is meant to provide an introduction to the discussion of
contaminated sediment issues, as well as the overall context for the more detailed discussion of
specific science needs given in Chapter Three.

Chapter Three, along with U.S. EPA's contaminated sediment science activities'
database (Appendix A), is the data collection and analysis section of the Science Plan. It


-------
Page viii	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

documents the current Contaminated Sediment Science Activities ongoing within the Agency,
and places these activities within the context of Agency goals. Significant data gaps and
uncertainties in methodology/assessment procedures are identified. Finally, it proposes science
activities to fill those data gaps and resolve related issues.

Chapter Four provides the key recommendations for future Agency science activities,
including research, based on the discussion in Chapter Three. For each recommendation, critical
U.S. EPA partners and the immediate or long-term nature of the science activity are proposed.
The workgroup did not constrain the recommendations to fit within available resources. Instead,
the recommendations are a comprehensive list that U.S. EPA organizations can consider when
balancing resource allocations across competing high-priority needs.

Key scientific questions, which are given below, were developed for each major topic
in order to focus discussions on scientific needs and to identify recommended science activities
to address these questions.

Key Scientific Questions:

Sediment Site Characterization: What physical, chemical and biological methods best
characterize sediments and assess sediment quality?

Exposure Assessment: What are the primary exposure pathways to humans and wildlife from
contaminants in sediments and how can we reduce uncertainty in quantifying and modeling the
degree of exposure?

Human Health Effects and Risk Assessment: What are the risks associated with exposure to
contaminants in sediments through direct and indirect pathways?

Ecological Effects and Risk Assessment: What are the risks associated with exposure to
contaminants in sediments to wildlife species and aquatic communities?

Sediment Remediation: What sediment remedial technology or combination of technologies is
available to effectively remediate sites?

Baseline, Remediation, and Post-remediation Monitoring: What types of monitoring are
needed to ensure that the implemented remedy meets remedial performance goals and does not
cause unacceptable short-term effects?

Risk Communication and Community Involvement: How can we provide communities with
more meaningful involvement in the contaminated sediments cleanup process?


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page ix

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

Information Management and Exchange Activities: How do we improve information
management and exchange activities on contaminated sediments across the Agency?

Table E-l summarizes the key recommendations, the critical U.S. EPA partners, and
the immediate or long-term nature of the science needs.

Table E-l. Summary of Key Recommendations, Time Frame for Implementation, and
Suggested Critical Partners	

Recommendations

A. Sediment Site Characterization

Immediate Time Frame

A. 1 Conduct a workshop to develop a consistent approach to collecting sediment physical
property data for use in evaluating sediment stability. (OERR, ORD, U.S. EPA Regions)

Longer Time Frame

A.2 Develop more sensitive, low-cost laboratory methods for detecting sediment

contaminants, and real-time or near real-time chemical sensors for use in the field.
(ORD, OERR, GLNPO)

A.3 Develop U.S. EPA-approved methods with lower detection limits for analysis of

bioaccumulative contaminants of concern in fish tissue. (ORD, OERR, OW, U.S. EPA
Regions)

A.4 Develop methods for analyzing emerging endocrine disruptors, including alkylphenol
ethoxylates (APEs) and their metabolites. (ORD)

B. Exposure Assessment

Immediate Time Frame

B. 1 Develop a tiered framework for assessing food web exposures. (ORD, OW, OERR, U.S.
EPA Regions)

B.2 Develop guidance and identify pilots for improving coordination between TMDL and
remedial programs in waterways with contaminated sediments. (OW, OSWER, U.S.
EPA Regions)

B.3 Develop and advise on the use of the most valid contaminant fate and transport models
that allow prediction of site-specific exposures in the future. (ORD, OERR, OW, U.S.
EPA Regions)

B.4 Develop a consistent approach to applying sediment stability data in transport modeling.
(ORD, OERR, OW, U.S. EPA Regions)


-------
Contaminated Sediments Science Plan

Page x

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy

June 13, 2002

C. Human Health Effects and Risk Assessment

Immediate Time Frame

C. 1 Develop guidance for characterizing human health risks on a PCB congener basis.
(ORD, OERR, U.S. EPA Regions)

C.2 Develop sediment guidelines for bioaccumulative contaminants that are protective of
human health via the fish ingestion pathway. (ORD, OERR, OW, U.S. EPA Regions)

Longer Time Frame

C.3 Refine methods for estimating dermal exposures and risk. (ORD, OERR, U.S. EPA
Regions)

C.4	Evaluate the toxicity and reproductive effects of newly recognized contaminants, such as
alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs) and other endocrine disruptors and their metabolites on
human health. (ORD)

D.	Ecological Effects and Risk Assessment

Immediate Time Frame

D.l Develop sediment guidelines to protect wildlife from food chain effects. (ORD, OERR,
OW, U.S. EPA Regions)

D.3 Develop guidance on how to interpret ecological sediment toxicity studies (lab or in situ
caged studies); and how to interpret the significance of the results to site populations and
communities. (OW, ORD, OERR, U.S. EPA Regions)

D.4 Acquire data and develop criteria to use in balancing the long-term benefits from

dredging vs. the shorter term effects on ecological receptors and their habitats. (ORD,
OERR, U.S. EPA Regions)

D.6 Continue developing and refining sediment toxicity testing methods. (ORD, OW, U.S.
EPA Regions)

D.7 Develop whole sediment toxicity identification evaluation procedures for a wide range
of chemicals. (ORD, OW)

Longer Time Frame

D.2 Develop additional tools for characterizing ecological risks. (ORD, U.S. EPA Regions,
OW)

D.5 Conduct field and laboratory studies to further validate and improve chemical-specific
sediment quality guidelines. (OW, ORD)


-------
Contaminated Sediments Science Plan

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy

Page xi

June 13, 2002

E. Sediment Remediation

Immediate Time Frame

E.l Collect the necessary data and develop guidance for determining the conditions under
which natural recovery can be considered a suitable remedial option. Such guidance
would include: measurement protocols to assess the relative contribution of the various
mechanisms for chemical releases from bed sediments (e.g., advection, bioturbation,
diffusion, and resuspension), including mass transport of contaminants by large storm
events; methodologies to quantify the uncertainties associated with natural recovery; and
development of accepted measuring protocols to determine in situ chemical fluxes from
sediments. (ORD, OERR, U.S. EPA Regions, GLNPO)

E.2 Develop performance evaluations of various cap designs and cap placement methods
and conduct post-cap monitoring to document performance. Continue to monitor
ongoing capping projects to monitor performance (e.g., Boston Harbor, Eagle Harbor,
Grasse River). (ORD, U.S. EPA Regions, GLNPO)

E.4 Using the data provided in recommendation E. 1, develop a white paper evaluating the
short-term impacts from dredging relative to natural processes and human activities
(e.g., resuspension from storm events, boat scour, wave action, and anchor drag).

(OERR, U.S. EPA Regions)

Longer Time Frame

E.3 Encourage and promote the development and demonstration of in-situ technologies.
(ORD, GLNPO)

E.5	Support the demonstration of cost-effective ex-situ treatment technologies and
identification of potential beneficial uses of treatment products. (ORD, GLNPO, U.S.
EPA Regions)

F.	Baseline, Remediation, and Post-remediation Monitoring

Immediate Time Frame

F.l Develop monitoring guidance fact sheets for baseline, remediation, and post-remediation
monitoring, and monitoring during remedy implementation. (ORD, OERR, U.S. EPA
Regions, OW)

F.2	Conduct training and hold workshops for project managers regarding monitoring of
contaminated sediment sites. (OERR, ORD, U.S. EPA Regions)

G.	Risk Communication and Community Involvement

Immediate Time Frame

G. 1 Establish a research program on risk communication and community involvement
focusing on developing better methods, models, and tools. (ORD, OERR, U.S. EPA
Regions)


-------
Page xii

Contaminated Sediments Science Plan

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy

June 13, 2002

H. Information Management and Exchange Activities

Immediate Time Frame

H. 1 Establish regional sediment data management systems which can link the regions and
program offices with each other and with the National Sediment Inventory. (U.S. EPA
Regions, OW, OSWER, GLNPO)

H.3 Develop national and regional contaminated sediment sites web sites for sharing
information. (U.S. EPA Regions, OW, OSWER, GLNPO)

H.4 Re-establish and expand the Office of Water-sponsored Sediment Network by including
more regional representation. (OERR, OW, U.S. EPA Regions)

H.5 Promote communication and coordination of science and research among Federal
agencies. (ORD, OSWER, OW, U.S. EPA Regions, NOAA, U.S. Navy, U.S. ACE,
USGS, U.S. FWS)

H.6 Promote the exchange of scientific information via scientific fora (i.e., workshops,
journals, and meetings). (CSMC, OW, OSWER, U.S. EPA Regions, GLNPO)

Longer Time Frame

H.2 Standardize the sediment site data collection/reporting format. Establish minimum
protocols for Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC). (OEI, OW OSWER, U.S.
EPA Regions)

Table E-2 is a list of the Acronyms used in the Executive Summary.


-------
Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page xiii

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002
Table E-2. List of Acronyms in Executive Summary.	

APE

Alkylphenol Ethoxylate

CSMC

Contaminated Sediment Management Committee

GLNPO

Great Lakes National Program Office

NOAA

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OEI

Office of Environmental Information

OERR

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response

OPPTS

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances

ORD

Office of Research and Development

OSW

Office of Solid Waste

OSWER

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

OW

Office of Water

PBT

Persistent, Bio accumulative, and Toxic

QA/QC

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

SF

Superfund Program

SPC

Science Policy Council

TMDL

Total Maximum Daily Load

U.S. ACE

United States Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. EPA

United States Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. FWS

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS

United States Geological Survey


-------
Page xiv	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


-------
Contaminated Sediments Science Plan

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy

Page xv

June 13, 2002

Suggested Uses of This Science Plan

This Science Plan is designed to satisfy a number of different perspectives and needs. Here
are three suggested approaches to its use:

1.	For those within or outside the Agency seeking a general understanding of the purposes
and goals of the Contaminated Sediments Science Plan (what is it and why is it needed?) and
some understanding of its history and Agency activities and products, the reader is referred to
Chapter One and Two, Goals and Objectives and Current Understanding of Contaminated
Sediments, respectively.

2.	Those who understand the contaminated sediments issues in general, but desire to analyze
and assess the validity of the scientific basis for the science recommendations, should refer to
Chapter Three, Assessing the Science on Contaminated Sediments, in conjunction with
Section 4.2, Key Recommendations.

3.	Knowledgeable risk assessors, risk managers, and program managers who desire to see
how the science plan directly impacts their programs will find a quick overview, the key
recommendations, and the recommended approach for implementation of the science plan in
Chapter Four, Long Range Science Strategy.


-------
Page xvi	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 1

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

1. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

1.1 Introduction

The Contaminated Sediments Science Plan (Science Plan) is a mechanism for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to develop and coordinate Agency office- and
region-wide science activities in the contaminated sediments area. Along with U.S. EPA's
contaminated sediment science activities' database (Appendix A), this plan provides an analysis
of the current Agency science activities in this area, identifies and evaluates the science gaps, and
provides a strategy for filling these gaps.

In 2000, U.S. EPA's Science Policy Council (SPC) initiated the development of the
Science Plan because contamination of sediments is a multi-faceted, high profile issue which can
benefit from a more comprehensive and higher level of coordination across the Agency.

Extensive resources are spent by a number of Agency program offices to address contaminated
sediment problems. Program offices addressing this problem include: the Superfund Program
(SF), Office of Water (OW), Office of Solid Waste (OSW), Great Lakes National Program
Office (GLNPO), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), Office of
Research and Development (ORD), and U.S. EPA Regional Offices.

U.S. EPA's mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment
- air, water, and land - upon which life depends. Sediments are an integral component of aquatic
ecosystems providing habitats for many aquatic organisms. Many sediment-dwelling organisms
at the base of the food chain are eaten by organisms at higher trophic levels. Contaminants in
sediments1 pose a threat to human health, aquatic life, and the environment. Chemicals released
to surface waters from industrial and municipal discharges, atmospheric deposition, and polluted
runoff from urban and agricultural areas can accumulate to environmentally harmful levels in
sediment. Humans, aquatic organisms, and other wildlife are at risk through direct exposure to
pollutants or through consumption of contaminated fish and wildlife. Exposure to these
contaminants is linked to cancer, birth defects, neurological defects, immune dysfunction, and
liver and kidney ailments. Contaminated sediments may also cause economic impacts, at both
the local and regional level, on the transportation, fishing, tourism, and development industries.

Sediment contamination is an issue that cuts across offices and jurisdictions throughout
the Agency, other Federal agencies (e.g., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S.
ACE)), state agencies, and tribes. U.S. EPA programs with the authority to address sediment

Contaminated sediments are defined as soils, sand, and organic matter, orminerals that accumulate on the bottom of
a water body and contain toxic or hazardous materials that may adversely affect human health or the environment
(U.S. EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy (U.S. EPA-823-R-98-001).


-------
Page 2	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

contamination operate under the mandate of
many statutory provisions including the
Comprehensive Emergency Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Oil
Pollution Act (OPA), the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), and the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA). Other Federal agencies having
authorities that may be used to address
contaminated sediments include: U.S. ACE,
through the statutory provisions of the Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA), Clean
Water Act (CWA), and the Marine Protection,

Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA); and
U.S. FWS andNOAA, through Natural
Resources Damages (NRD) authority.

The Contaminated Sediments Science
Plan is the first formal example of an Agency
science plan on a specific cross-Agency
activity, i.e., contaminated sediment activities
shared across U.S. EPA offices and regions.

However, it follows in the footsteps of
previous U.S. EPA initiatives, such as the
Mercury Action Plan (U.S. EPA, 2001c), the Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters
(Beach Action Plan) (U.S. EPA, 1999a), and A Multimedia Strategy for Priority Persistent,
Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) Pollutants (U.S. EPA, 1998a). These plans and strategies
contain elements of both science plans and management action plans.

1.2 Goals of the Contaminated Sediments Science Plan

The Contaminated Sediments Science Plan has three goals which are highlighted in
Figure 1-1. The first goal is the development and dissemination of tools and science necessary to
address the management of contaminated sediments. The second goal is to enhance the level of
coordination and communication of science activities dealing with contaminated sediments
across Agency program and regional offices. The third goal is to develop an effective, cost-
efficient strategy to promote these scientific activities, including research. These goals promote
the vision of providing a strong scientific basis for addressing contaminated sediments. The
result will be a more effective science plan with improved environmental decision-making which
conserves both human and financial resources.

	

Figure 1-1.

Contaminated Sediments Science Plan: Goals

•	Development and dissemination of tools and
science necessary to address the management of
contaminated sediments.

•	Enhancement of the level of coordination and
communication of science activities across the
Agency.

•	Development of an effective, cost-efficient
strategy to promote these scientific activities
and research.

Contaminated Sediments Science Plan:

Expected Results

•	Improved environmental decision-making
which is more informed and has a sound
science basis.

•	More efficient and appropriate expenditure of
resources.

•	Prevention of duplication of efforts.


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 3

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

The goals of the Science Plan are based upon the strategic guiding principles proposed in
the Strategic Framework for U.S. EPA Science (U.S. EPA, 2000e) to unify science activities
across the Agency. First, this Science Plan uses the Sediment Science Inventory to assemble and
evaluate the current contaminated sediment science activities and research across the Agency.
Second, it uses effective planning ("doing the right science") to insure that the most appropriate
science activities are being conducted. Third, it uses sound scientific practices and approaches
("doing the science right"), such as Agency and public consultation and external peer review, in
its development (Figure 1-2).

1.3 Development of the Contaminated Sediments Science Plan

The Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Workgroup has been responsible for the
development of this Science Plan, although it has also received wide input from staff from U.S.
EPA's regional and program offices. The development process is described below.

A cross-Agency workgroup of key staff working in the contaminated sediments area, the
Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Workgroup, was charged by the SPC with developing a
Contaminated Sediments Science Plan (2000). The Workgroup went through the following
action steps to develop this Science Plan:

•	Collected information on contaminated sediments research and science activities across
the Agency.

•	Incorporated the identified science activities into U.S. EPA Science Inventory.

•	Identified key contaminated sediments issues and data gaps.

•	Identified areas for better coordination of contaminated sediments research and science
activities.

•	Developed a strategy for future contaminated sediments research and science activities.

•	Provided for a broad consultative review of the Science Plan both internal and external to
the Agency, and a Science Advisory Board (SAB) peer review.

•	Developed a strategy to implement the Science Plan and evaluate its performance (see
Section 4.3 for details).

Weekly conference calls and a two-day meeting in June 2001 resulted in a draft of the
Science Plan which was then circulated for internal review to ensure both accuracy and
completeness of the document. External review included other Federal agencies, states, tribes,
and others, in addition to a formal peer review by the Agency's Science Advisory Board. The
review process is outlined in Figure 1-2.

Other important inputs to the development of the Science Plan were recommendations
contained in the Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy (U.S. EPA, 1998b), A Risk
Management Strategy for PCB-Contaminated Sediments (NRC, 2001a), and Contaminated
Sediments in Ports and Waterways (NRC, 1997).


-------
Page 4

Contaminated Sediments Science Plan

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy
Figure 1-2. Peer Consultation Process for the Science Plan

June 13, 2002

1.4 Linkage of the Science Plan to Agency Planning Processes

Organizations within U.S. EPA use various planning processes to ensure that they meet
the Agency '.v National Strategic Plan goals. For planning cross-program work, three tools are
available. Two of these tools are management strategies and action plans, which describe
commitments by all of the relevant organizations within U.S. EPA to meet specified goals.
Examples of these documents are thq Mercury Management Strategy (U.S. EPA, 2001c) and the
Beaches Action Plan (U.S. EPA, 1999a). These types of documents usually focus on statutory
authorities and implementation by the program offices and regions; research needs are usually
considered. The third and newest tool is the science plan. The Contaminated Sediments Science
Plan is the first formal example of an agency science plan on a specific cross-Agency activity. A
science plan is developed to ensure that science is at the foundation of U.S. EPA activities when
multiple offices are addressing complex environmental management issues.

The Science Plan is an important tool that will be used by U.S. EPA regional and
program offices in annual budget formulation and work planning processes. Implementation of
the Science Plan will help identify the highest priority contaminated sediment needs, coordinate
ongoing work across the Agency, avoid duplication of effort, and promote complementary
endeavors. Workload requirements to implement Science Plan recommendations need to be
evaluated to determine if new budget initiatives will be needed. The Contaminated Sediments
Science Plan will receive the same analysis and accountability reviews as any other Agency
science/technical assessment priority. Agency annual planning cycles and annual performance
measures should be examined by lead offices and regions to see how U.S. EPA is addressing
Science Plan recommendations (please refer to Section 4.3 on Science Plan implementation).

The Contaminated Sediments Science Plan encompasses more than research, but where
research needs are identified, it will inform the Office of Research and Development (ORD) of
the most important contaminated sediment needs to consider during the ORD annual planning


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 5

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

cycle. ORD plans its research through Multi-Year Plans (MYPs) to provide a long-term view of
the research direction. Research Coordination Teams (RCTs), comprised of representatives from
ORD and U.S. EPA regions and program offices, participate in developing MYPs and
determining research priorities. The National Regional Science Council (NRSC), formed in
1997, helps the regions to focus their research needs for ORD's consideration. The multi-year
plans and annual resource planning describe how ORD will address recommendations in the
Science Plan.

Figure 1-3: Schematic illustration of the relationship of the Contaminated Sediments
Science Plan to U.S. EPA GPRA Goals, program and regional office plans, and ORD's
multi-year plans.

Figure 1-3 is a schematic illustration of the relationship of the Contaminated Sediments
Science Plan to U.S. EPA Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Goals and program
and regional office plans and ORD's multi-year plans. The Science Plan reflects the Agency's
integrated efforts to achieve the GPRA goals and objectives, e.g., Goal 5, Objective 1 discussed
below in Section 1.5, for contaminated sediments. This effort is accomplished through
cooperation among the critical partners, OSWER, OW, ORD and the regional offices, within
U.S. EPA.


-------
Page 6	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

1.5 Continuity of the Science Plan with Agency National Strategic Plan Goals

The relevance of addressing the problem of contaminated sediments to the Agency's
mission is reflected in the linkages with U.S. EPA's National Strategic Plan goals, as discussed
below. The GPRA requires all Federal agencies to develop a five-year strategic plan that
establishes clear goals, objectives, and annual performance measures. The strategic plan is
updated every three years, and agencies must report back to Congress annually on the results
achieved. U.S. EPA's Strategic Plan establishes ten goals that identify the environmental results
that U.S. EPA is working to attain. Contaminated sediments is a significant multi-media issue
related to the desired results for many of the goals (Table 1-1). Addressing contaminated
sediment problems significantly helps the Agency achieve identified environmental outcomes.

Table 1-1.

GPRA Goal 2 - Clean and Safe Waters

OBJECTIVE(S)

POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS

Objective 1 - Reduce consumption
of contaminated fish.

• Objective 2 - Increase the
percentage of waters meeting
standards that support healthy
aquatic ecosystems.

Pollutants can bind to organic particles in the water column,
sediments and soils. Contaminants in sediments can enter the
aquatic food chain, thus contaminating aquatic organisms and
ultimately placing humans at risk of adverse health effects from
consumption of these organisms. U.S. EPA is addressing
contaminants in sediments in order to prevent contaminant
movement through the food chain.

Contaminated sediments can cause impairment, threatening healthy
aquatic communities.

GPRA Goal 5 - Better Waste Management, Restoration of Contaminated Sites, and
Emergency Response

OBJECTIVE(S)

POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS

Objective 1 - Reduce or control
risks to human health and the
environment.

Toxic substances in sediments, such as PCBs and mercury, can enter
the aquatic food chain, contaminate fish, and place wildlife and
humans at risk through their consumption. U.S. EPA is working to
clean up contaminated sediment sites to prevent harm to human
health and the environment.

GPRA Goal 6 - Reduction of Global and Cross-Border Environmental Risks

OBJECTIVE(S)

POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS

Objective 1 - Reduce transboundary
threats: North American
ecosystems.

Sediments contaminated with toxics such as mercury represent
transboundary threats to ecosystems and human health via water or
via global dispersion of air emissions.


-------
Contaminated Sediments Science Plan

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy

Page 7

June 13, 2002

- Sub-objective 1.4 - Restore
and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological
integrity of the Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem, particularly
by reducing the level of toxic
substances, protecting human
health, and restoring vital
habitats.

Toxic substances such as PCBs and mercury in sediments can enter
the aquatic food chain and cause toxic effects. As a result, the
presence of toxic substances impacts the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Great Lakes and connecting tributaries.

• Objective 5 - Application of cleaner
and cost-effective environmental
practices and technologies.

Development of treatment, recycling, or dredging technologies
within the United States and abroad will enhance cost-effective
practices which strengthen the economy and protect the
environment.

GPRA Goal 8 - Sound Science

OB JECTIVE(S)

POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS

• Objective 2 - Improve models that
integrate exposures from multiple
pathways.

Contaminated sediments may cause unwanted, adverse consequences
to human life, health, and the environment, and U.S. EPA is
committed to using the best available science to reduce the risk.

1.6 Document Organization

The Science Plan is organized into four chapters. Chapter One discusses the goals,
objectives, and how the Science Plan relates to the Agency's mandate. Chapter Two provides an
overview of the contaminated sediment issues across the Agency. The brief description of issues
in Chapter Two is intended to provide an introduction to the discussion of contaminated
sediment issues, as well as providing the overall context for the more detailed discussion of
specific research and science needs given in Chapter Three.

Chapter Three, along with U.S. EPA's contaminated sediment science activities database
(Appendix A), is the data collection and analysis section of the Science Plan. It documents the
current contaminated sediment science activities ongoing within the Agency, and places these
activities within the context of Agency goals. Significant data gaps and uncertainties in
methodology/assessment procedures are identified. Finally, it proposes research and science
activities to fill those data gaps and resolve related issues.

Chapter Four provides the key recommendations for future Agency science activities,
including research, based on the discussion in Chapter Three. For each recommendation, critical
U.S. EPA partners and the immediate or long-term nature of the science activity are proposed.


-------
Page 8	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 9

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

2. CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS

2.1	Introduction

Chapter Two provides an overview of the contaminated sediment problems and issues
across U.S. EPA. The brief description of issues in this chapter is meant to provide an
introduction to the discussion of contaminated sediment issues, as well as providing the overall
context for the more detailed discussion of specific research and science needs given in Chapter
Three of this Science Plan.

2.2	Scope, Magnitude, and Impacts of Contaminated Sediments

U.S. EPA defines contaminated sediments as soils, sand, and organic matter or minerals
that accumulate on the bottom of a water body and contain toxic or hazardous materials that may
adversely affect human health or the environment (U.S. EPA, 1998d). In 1997, U.S. EPA
published its first National Sediment Quality Survey Report to Congress, The Incidence and
Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States (U.S. EPA, 1997a).
This report describes areas where sediment maybe contaminated at levels that may adversely
affect aquatic life, wildlife, and human health. To evaluate sediment quality nationwide, U.S.
EPA developed the National Sediment Inventory (NSI) database, which is a compilation of
existing sediment quality data and protocols used to evaluate the data. The NSI was used to
produce the first biennial Report to Congress on sediment quality in the United States as required
under the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (U.S. EPA, 1997a). These data were
generated from 1980 to 1993, and represent information collected from 1,363 out of 2,111
watersheds in the United States. U.S. EPA's evaluation of the data shows that sediment
contamination exists in every region and state of the country and that various waters throughout
the United States contain sediment sufficiently contaminated with toxic pollutants to pose
potential risks to sediment-dwelling organisms, fish, and humans and wildlife that eat fish.

Figure 2-1 shows the locations of ninety-six (96) watersheds identified by U.S. EPA as "areas of
probable concern" for potential adverse effects of sediment contamination on human health or
the environment. These areas are on the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, and Pacific
coasts, as well as in inland waterways, in regions affected by urban and agricultural runoff,
municipal and industrial waste discharges, and other pollution sources. U.S. EPA is currently
developing the next Report to Congress to be available in 2002.

Sediments act as both a repository and a source of pollutants. Many of these pollutants
adsorb onto sediment particles which eventually settle to the bottom of water bodies. Over time
these pollutants may be buried under layers of cleaner sediments. But sediments are subject to
erosion and resuspension, which may result in the pollutants being released and dispersed


-------
Contaminated Sediments Science Plan

Page 10

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy

June 13, 2002

96 Watersheds identified that contain
Areas of Probable Concern (A PCs)

Figure 2-1.

through the water column for transport downstream, uptake through the food chain, or release to
the atmosphere via volatilization, for transport through the air and re-deposition into lakes and
other waterways.

The bioaccumulative, persistent, and toxic contaminants in sediment affect aquatic life
and wildlife through direct contact, ingestion, and food chain effects. These impacts include
reproductive effects, developmental effects, birth defects, cancer, tumors, and other deformities.
Humans are also at risk through direct exposure to pollutants or through consumption of
contaminated fish and wildlife. Exposure to these contaminants is linked to cancer, birth defects,
neurological defects (e.g., in infants and children), immune dysfunction, and liver and kidney
ailments. Research is currently underway studying the potential for endocrine disruption effects
due to contaminants in sediments.

In addition, contaminated sediments can impose costs on society through lost recreational
opportunities and revenues. For example, fish consumption advisories can have a significant
impact on the use of our natural resources. Approximately twenty-three percent of the nation's
lake acreage and nine-point-three percent (9.3%) of the nation's river miles are under advisory


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 11

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

for fish consumption. Many of these advisories can be linked to contaminated sediments.
Contaminated sediments may also cause severe economic impacts at both the local and regional
level. Economic risk may be felt by the transportation, fishing, tourism, and development
industries. In one Great Lakes harbor, the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal, contaminated sediments
are imposing an annual cost of eleven to seventeen million dollars (Peck et al., 1994).

2.3 Overview of Major Sediment Issues and Needs Across the Agency

The management of contaminated sediments is a multi-faceted challenge for the Agency.
As a multi-media issue, aspects of contaminated sediment management fall under different parts
of U.S. EPA. This section provides an overview of the major contaminated sediment issues from
across the Agency. This discussion is meant to provide the overall context for the discussion of
the specific research and science needs that follow in Chapter Three.

Water Quality Standards

The Clean Water Act (CWA) was established to restore and maintain the quality of
waters in the United States (U.S.). Sediment underlying surface water is recognized as a
significant source of, and sink for, toxic pollutants in the aquatic environment. Therefore,
addressing sediment quality is an integral component of water quality standards programs. It is
necessary to incorporate appropriate sediment quality protection policies and procedures to
protect and maintain designated water uses. At a minimum, states and authorized tribes must
provide water quality for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and
provide for recreation in and on the water, where attainable (CWA Section 101(a)). Sediment
quality can affect the attainment of designated uses. It is therefore both necessary and
appropriate to assess and protect sediment quality as an essential component of the total aquatic
environment in order to achieve and maintain designated uses.

Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)

Section 303(d) of the CWA and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 130.7) require
states and authorized tribes to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of pollutant
discharge at levels necessary to achieve applicable water quality standards. TMDLs identify the
loading capacity of the water body, wasteload allocations for point sources, and load allocations
(LA) for nonpoint sources and natural background. About 40,000 TMDLs are required for about
20,000 impaired water bodies in U.S., based on U.S. EPA's 1998 list of impaired waters. About
twenty-four percent of the TMDLs (based on 1998 data from the TMDL tracking system) are for
pollutants that are also found in contaminated sediments. These TMDLs will require some
analysis for the contribution of pollutants from contaminated sediments.


-------
Page 12	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

Developing a TMDL is a mass balance exercise that considers contaminant loads
(particulate and dissolved) from all sources, incorporates dilution and downstream fate and
transport, includes a margin of safety, and allocates the permissible pollutant load among point
sources, nonpoint sources, and natural/background sources. A TMDL is a written analysis and
plan established to ensure that a water body or group of water bodies within a watershed will
attain and maintain water quality standards throughout the year. A TMDL identifies the
wasteload allocations and load allocations that together, along with a consideration of a margin
of safety and seasonal variations, will achieve water quality standards.

Fish Advisories

The states, U.S. territories, and Native American tribes have primary responsibility for
protecting their residents from the health risks of consuming contaminated, non-commercially
caught fish and wildlife. They do this by issuing consumption advisories for chemicals such as
mercury or PCBs for the general population as well as for sensitive subpopulations (e.g.,
pregnant women, nursing mothers, and children). These advisories inform the public when high
concentrations of chemical contaminants have been found in local fish and wildlife and include
recommendations to limit or avoid consumption of certain fish and wildlife species from specific
water bodies or water body types. Approximately twenty-three percent of the nation's lake
acreage and over nine percent (9.3%) of the nation's river miles are under advisory for fish
consumption. Many of these advisories can be linked to contaminated sediments. One hundred
percent of the Great Lakes and their connecting waters and seventy-one percent of coastal waters
of the contiguous forty-eight states were under advisories in 2000. It is expected that addressing
sediment quality issues will reduce the need for issuance of such consumption advisories.

Management ofDredged Material from Navigational Dredging

Several hundred million cubic yards of sediment are dredged from United States ports,
harbors, and waterways each year to maintain and improve the nation's navigation system for
commercial, national defense, and recreational purposes. Of the total sediment volume dredged,
approximately one-fifth is disposed of in the ocean (i.e., waters outside the baseline) at
designated sites in accordance with Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). Most of the remaining dredged material is discharged into inland
waters of the United States (i.e., waters inside the baseline), placed in confined disposal facilities
with a return flow to waters of the U.S. (i.e., inland waters and waters out to three miles from the
baseline), or used for beneficial purposes (including as fill) in waters of the U.S., all of which are
regulated under Section 404 of the CWA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. ACE), the Federal agency designated to maintain
navigable waters, conducts a majority of this dredging and disposal under its Congressionally
authorized civil works program. The balance of the dredging and disposal is conducted by a
number of local public and private entities. In either case, the disposal is subject to a regulatory


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 13

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

program administered by U.S. ACE and U.S. EPA under the above statutes. U.S. EPA shares the
responsibility of managing dredged material, principally in the development of the environmental
criteria by which proposed discharges are evaluated and disposal sites are selected, and in the
exercise of its environmental oversight authority. Estimates by U. S. ACE indicate that only a
small percentage of the total annual volume of dredged material disposed (approximately three
million to twelve million cubic yards) is contaminated such that special handling and/or
treatment is required.

Superfund Sites

Superfund is the Federal government's program to clean up the nation's uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites. The National Priorities List (NPL) is a published list of priority hazardous
waste sites in the country that are being addressed by the Superfund program. The regions have
identified about four hundred NPL sites potentially having contaminated sediments. These
include a number of very large contaminated sediment sites where remedies may cost up to
several hundreds of millions of dollars. The major issues associated with contaminated
sediments include risks to human health and the environment, limited disposal space, high costs,
and the uncertainties related to risk management options.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Sites

Like the Superfund program, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
sites/facilities are remediated to support current and reasonably anticipated uses. RCRA
authority for Corrective Action is to clean up releases from a specific facility; therefore it is less
amenable to an area-wide approach than Superfund. The number of RCRA sites with
contaminated sediment issues is smaller than the number of Comprehensive Emergency
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) contaminated sediment sites. In March
1999, the regions and states identified seventeen RCRA Corrective Action sites with sediment
contamination problems. The major issues associated with contaminated sediments related to
RCRA sites include uncertainties regarding risks to human health and the environment and
uncertainties related to risk management options.

Deposition of Contaminants via Long-Range Air Transport

Over the past thirty years, scientists have collected a large amount of data indicating that
air pollutants can be redeposited on land and water, sometimes at great distances from their
original sources. These data demonstrate that air transport of contaminants can be an important
contributor to declining water quality. These air pollutants can have undesirable health and
environmental impacts: contributing to fish body burdens of toxic chemicals, causing harmful
algal blooms through deposition of nutrients, and impacting water quality, resulting in unsafe
drinking water.


-------
Page 14	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

In response to mounting evidence indicating that air pollution contributes significantly to
water pollution, Congress added the Great Waters Program (Section 112(m)) when it amended
the Clean Air Act in 1990. The Great Waters Program, a joint program including U.S. EPA and
NOAA, is designed to study and address the effects of air pollution on the water quality and
ecosystems of the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain, the Chesapeake Bay, and estuaries that are part
of the National Estuary Program or the National Estuarine Research Reserve System.

Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Pollutants (PBTs)

PBTs often accumulate in sediments. The Agency has three major efforts related to
PBTs: a PBT Initiative, the Binalional Strategy to Reduce Toxics, and Testing Requirements
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) for Pesticides and Toxic Substances use.

PBT Initiative

U.S. EPA has developed and is implementing a national multi-media strategy for the
reduction of persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic chemicals (PBTs), entitled the PBT Initiative.
The goal of this strategy is to reduce risks to human health and the environment from existing
and future exposure to priority pollutants. The four main elements of the PBT Initiative are:

1.	Develop and implement national action plans to reduce priority PBT pollutants,
utilizing the full range of U.S. EPA tools.

2.	Continue to screen and select more priority pollutants for action.

3.	Prevent new PBTs from entering the marketplace.

4.	Measure progress of these actions against U.S. EPA's Government Performance
Results Act (GPRA) goals and national commitments.

U.S. EPA's challenge in reducing risks from PBTs stems from the pollutants' ability to
travel long distances, to transfer rather easily among air, water, and land, and to linger for
generations in people and the environment. Although much work has been done over the years
to reduce the risk associated with these chemicals, they frequently occur at levels of concern in
fish tissue. All of the substances that are causing the fish consumption advisories are PBTs.


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 15

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

The Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy provides a framework for actions to reduce
or eliminate persistent, toxic substances from the Great Lakes Basin, especially those that
bioaccumulate. The Strategy was developed jointly by Canada and the United States in 1996 and
1997 and was signed April 7, 1997. The Strategy establishes reduction challenges for an initial
list of persistent, toxic substances targeted for virtual elimination ('Level One' substances) which
are synonymous with the first twelve priority pollutants identified through the PBT Initiative.
These substances have been associated with widespread long-term adverse effects on wildlife in
the Great Lakes, and, through their bioaccumulation, are of concern for human health. The
Strategy provides a framework for action to achieve specific quantifiable reduction "challenges"
in the 1997 to 2006 time frame for specific toxic substances.

Testing Pesticides and Toxic Substances for Registration and Use

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) provide U.S. EPA the authority to ban or restrict the use of
pesticides and toxic chemicals that have the potential to contaminate sediment. These actions
can be taken if environmental or human health risks are determined to be unacceptable.

Sediment toxicity testing can be required to assess the risks of sediment contamination posed by
pesticides and other chemicals. These tests must be applied under the authority of FIFRA and
TSCA in a strategy to systematically evaluate the risks of sediment contamination.

2.4 Recent U.S. EPA Contaminated Sediment Science Activities and Products

To address the contaminated sediment issues discussed above, U.S. EPA produces
scientific products such as guidance documents and risk assessments. Various scientific
activities, internal and external to U.S. EPA, support the development of these scientific
products. Figures 2-2 through 2-4 summarize the major recent science products and activities in
contaminated sediments by OW, OERR, ORD, and U.S. EPA Regions. The information has
been separated into effects and assessment, sediment characterization and fate and transport, and
remediation monitoring and managing contaminated sediments. Cross-Agency relationships
have resulted in focused scientific activities to more directly support science products and
program office or regional decisions. A detailed listing of U.S. EPA's contaminated sediment
science activities database, including program and regional office activities, is contained in
Appendix A. It presents recent projects that include scientific areas on program implementation,
human health and ecological effects and assessment, exposure and modeling, and remediation
and risk management. Collaboration among U.S. EPA scientists and engineers enhances the use
of quality scientific information in risk management decision-making.


-------
Page 16

Contaminated Sediments Science Plan

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate or copy

April 19, 2002

Figure 2-2. CURRENT AGENCY SCIENCE ACT IVJT IE S AND PRODUCTS REGARDING
CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT EFFECTS AND RISK ASSESSMENT

* Draft Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guideline Documents.

Integrated Water Quality Criteria for Ambient Waters.

¦	Use of S ediment Quality Guidelines to Predict Toxicity in Great Lakes Sediments.
Site Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment.

¦	Site Assessment Framework Document.

Improved Site Assessment.

t

%

ORD SCIENCE ACTIVITIES

OW SCIENCE ACTIVITIES

REGIONAL SCIENCE ACTIVITIES

¦ Toxicity Identification Evaluation
Sediments.

¦ Field Valuation Sediment Toxicity
Tests (ORD and USGS).

Miniaturize d S edi me nt Toxic ity
Tests on Marine and Freshwater

Sediment Toxicity Test Met tods
(acute, chronic, toxicity
correlation with field data, criteria
development issues).

Development of Methods to Test
Chronic Toxicity of Marine
Sediments.

Amphipods and Fish (U.S. EPA
Region 2 and U.S. EP A Region 6).

S e dime nt Q uality Ass ess me nt.

¦ Sediment Toxicity Test Methods.

Jra situ Real-time System to
Assess PAH Contaminated
Sediments (GLNPO and
OERR).

Human Health and Ecological
Risk Assessment.

Sediment Toxicity Assessment

Methods with OW and USGS.

¦ STAR Grants Basic Research
(ecological sjfstem assessment

effects of contaminated sediments

on biota).


-------
Contaminated Sediments Science Plan

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate or copy

Page 17

April 19, 2002

Figure 2-3. CURRENT AGENCY SCIENCE ACTIVITIES AND PRODUCTS REGARDING CONTAMINATED
SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND TRANSPORT

SC1INCI PRODUCTS

¦	Daft Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guideline Documents.

¦	Integrated Water Quality C nteria for A mb ient Waters.

¦	U se of S e diment Quality Guide lines to Predict Toxicity in G reat Lakes S ediments.

¦	Site Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment.

¦	Site Assessment Frame work Document.

¦	N atiorial S edime nt Inve ntory.

¦	Summary of Available Fate and Trans port M odels.

ORD SCIENCE ACTIVITIES

STAR Granls Basic Research
(fate, transport, and bioaccumulation
of contaminated sediments; physical
and chemical sediment parameter
impacts; watershed and ecological
sjfstem studies and trophic transfer;
bioavailability of contaminants;
mechanisms of contaminated release
from re-suspended sediments during
dredging).

Fate and Transport Methods

(e.g., bioac cumulation, distribution of

contaminants, uptake into biota).

Indicators of Ecosystem
Susta inability.

OW SCIENCE ACTIVITIES

¦	Sediment Bioavailability

¦	Bioac cumulation Testing
and Interpretation for the
Purpose of Sediment Quality
Assessment: Status and
Needs.

¦	Sediment Fate Transport
Model.

Tiering Classification for
the National Sediment
Inventory.

¦	Me tluods fo r C olle ction,
Storage, and Manipulation.

OSWER
SCIENCE
ACTIVITIES

Site

C haracterization.

Risk Assessment
Guidance
D ere lopment.

Co-sponsoring a
conference on
Using Chemical
Fate and

Transport Models
at Contaminated
Sediment S ites.

REGIONAL SCIENCE
ACTIVITIES

¦	Site Characterization.

Risk Assessment.

R/V Mudpuppy
Sediment Assessments
in the Great Lakes
Basin (GLNPO).

¦	Fully Integrated
Environmental
Location Decision
Support (FIELDS)
Software Package.


-------
Contaminated Sediments Science Plan

Page 18

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate or copy

April 19, 2002

Figure 2-4. CURRENT AGENCY SCIENCE ACTIVITIES AND PRODUCTS REGARDING
REMEDIATION, MONITORING, AND MANAGING CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS

OED SCIENCE ACTIVITIES

¦	Reme diation Te c hnolog y
Performance (dredging and
capping).

¦	Site Specific Technical
Support.

Monitored Natural Re c overy
Research.

¦	Ex situ Management and
Treatment Technologies.

¦	Site Demonstrations of
Innovative Technologies.

Innovative In situ Treatment
Technologies.

OW SCIENCE
ACTIVITIES

Ocean-
Dredged
Material
Disposal.

OSWER SCIENCE
ACTIVITIES

Rule-making Applicable
to Contaminated
Sediments (OSW).

Contaminated Sediment
Technical Advisory
Group review of large
and complex Superfund
Sites (OERR and
P.egions).

Evaluatio n o f Re medial
Effectiveness at
Superfiird Sites (OERR).

REGIONAL SCIENCE ACTIVITIES

Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Program
(U.S. EPA Regions 2,3,5, andGLMPO).

Demonstration of Sediment
Dec ontaminatio n Te c hnolog y
Development with Beneficial Use
Applications (U.S . EPA Region 2 and
GL-NPQ).

Sediment Capping and Natural Re cowry
Project (U .S. EPA Region 3).

Multi-Media Initiative for Calcasieu
Estuary (U .S. EPA Region 6).

Sediment Information Management
S ystem (GLNPO and U.S . EPA
Region 5).

Sediment Environmental Priority
Initiatives (U.S. EPA Region5).

Great Lakes Contaminated Sediments
Initiative (U.S. EPA Region 5).


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 19

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

2.5 Overview of Communication and Collaboration Activities

Management of contaminated sediments requires a coordinated effort which surpasses
any single legislative authority or media. Comprehensive, multi-media responses that combine
multiple programs, agencies, and resources with public and private support can result in
resolution of the contaminated sediments problem. This section will provide an overview of how
such coordinated multi-media efforts occur within and outside of U.S. EPA.

2.5.1 Collaborative Efforts Within U.S. EPA

Several key collaborative efforts within the Agency are relevant to the Science Plan and
include the Contaminated Sediment Management Committee (CSMC), publication of the
Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy (CSMS) (U.S. EPA, 1998d), development of the
National Sediment Inventory, the Agency-wide Science Inventory, and cross-media teams such
as U.S. EPA Region 5 Sediment Team that focus their efforts on the contaminated sediments
issue. These are briefly discussed below. In addition, there has been enhanced Headquarters
collaboration with the regions and coordination across media programs in the regions.

•	U.S. EPA published the Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy (CSMS) in April
1998. The CSMS summarizes U.S. EPA's understanding of the extent and severity of
sediment contamination; describes the cross-program policy framework in which U.S.
EPA intends to promote consideration and reduction of ecological and human health risks
posed by sediment contamination; and identifies actions U.S. EPA believes are needed to
bring about consideration and reduction of risks posed by contaminated sediments (see
Figure 2-5 for goals).

•	The Contaminated Sediment Management Committee (CSMC) was established to
coordinate all the appropriate programs and their associated regulatory authorities
involved in the management of contaminated sediments. CSMC includes representation
at the Office Director and Regional Division Director level from OSWER, OW, ORD,
OECA, and many of the regions. To deal with the management of contaminated
sediments across Agency programs and regions, a plan has been developed outlining the
next steps for the Agency in the management of contaminated sediments, and describing
the commitments from U.S. EPA program offices to develop and apply sound science in
managing contaminated sediments. The plan shows how U.S. EPA is coordinating
activities and utilizing multiple authorities to achieve overall environmental goals. The
CSMC will have an overarching role in ensuring the implementation of this plan.

•	The National Sediment Inventory is a national database and repository of data regarding
sediment quality in the United States. In accordance with the requirements of Title V of
the Water Resources Development Act, U.S. EPA's Office of Water (OW) developed the


-------
Page 20	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

first comprehensive national survey of data regarding sediment quality and compiled all
available information in a national database. The database includes information
regarding quantity, chemical and physical composition, and geographic location of
pollutants in sediments. This
information was summarized in a
report to Congress entitled, The
Incidence and Severity of Sediment
Contamination in Surface Waters of
the United States {U.S. EPA, 1997a).

The National Sediment Inventoiy is
being updated on a regular basis and
will be used to assess trends in
sediment quality.

•	U.S. EPA's Science Inventory is a
database under development of
Agency research and science activities
for a number of different topics, one oi
which is contaminated sediments. The
Office of Science Policy is
coordinating development of the
Science Inventory for the Agency.

The portion on contaminated sediments identifies the current scientific activities and
research efforts in the contaminated sediments area from across the Agency.

•	Contaminated sediments were designated as an U.S. EPA Region 5 Environmental
Priority in 1995 due to both the extent and severity of the problem across the region.
Because a coordinated, multi-media effort would be required to address the problem, a
Regional Team was formed with members representing regional programs and the Great
Lakes National Program Office. The Team helped develop a strategy to implement a
coordinated approach to program and office efforts to address contaminated sediments
sites and provide technical expertise to the region, state agencies, and others.

2.5.2 External Collaborative Efforts

The Agency recognizes the importance of an open dialogue and active collaboration with
Federal and state agencies and other stakeholders who are concerned with the contaminated
sediment issue. U.S. EPA is participating in, is sponsoring, or has sponsored a number of multi-
stakeholder collaborations concerned with the various aspects of this issue. These efforts have

	

Figure 2-5. The Goals of the Contaminated
Sediment Management Strategy
(CSMS)

•	Prevent the volume of contaminated
sediment from increasing.

•	Reduce the volume of existing contaminated
sediment.

Ensure that sediment dredging and dredged
material disposal are managed in an
environmentally sound manner.

•	Develop scientifically sound sediment
management tools for use in pollution
prevention, source control, remediation, and
dredged material management.


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 21

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

been diverse. For example, the National
and Regional Dredging Teams, co-
chaired by U.S. EPA and U.S. ACE,
were formed in response to the final
report of the Interagency Working
Group on the Dredging Process in order
to provide a mechanism for timely
resolution of conflicts over navigational
dredging by involving all agencies and
maximizing interagency coordination.

U.S. EPA is working with the
National Environmental Policy Institute
(NEPI) through participation on the
National Sediment Dialogue to develop
a white paper with insights and expertise
on all aspects of risk management of
contaminated sediments. OSWER's
Technology Innovation Office (TIO) and
ORD's NRMRL are co-sponsors of the
Remedial Technologies Development
Forum (RTDF) Sediment Action Team,
a public- and private-sector partnership
created to undertake the research,
development, demonstration, and
evaluation efforts needed to achieve
common cleanup goals (See Figure 2-6).

It is anticipated that these collaborations
will continue and expand through the implementation of the Science Plan.

In addition to these direct collaborative efforts with other agencies, the RAND
Corporation, in cooperation with the National Science Foundation (NSF), was funded by the
Federal government to develop a database called RaDiUS (Research and Development in the
United States). This database tracks government resources and research and development
activities. RaDiUS helps the research community understand the research being conducted by
the Federal government in order to eliminate duplication of effort and promote collaboration.
The database was searched using the term "sediment" and identified more than 650 projects in
eight agencies: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Commerce (DOC),
Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Interior (DOI), U.S.
EPA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and National Science Foundation

	

Figure 2-6. Examples of External Collaborative Efforts

•	Contaminated Aquatic Sediment Remedial Guidance
Workgroup: developing Superfund Contaminated
Sediments Remediation Guidance; involves ORD,
OW, and the regions, as well as inter-agency
participation from NOAA, USGS, U.S. FWS, and U.S.
ACE.

•	National Dredging Team (NDT): includes members
from U.S. EPA, U.S. ACE, NOAA (OCRM and
NMFS), USCG, USGS, and MARAD.

•	RaDiUS database of Federally-funded research.

•	Great Lakes Dredging Team: Comprised of Great
Lakes states, Great Lakes Commission and six Federal
agencies, including U.S. EPA.

•	Inter-state Technology and Regulatory Cooperation
(ITRC) Sediment Remediation Team.

•	U.S. EPA Region 5U.S. EPA/State Superfund
Conference Calls.

•	NEPI National Sediments Dialogue.

•	Ashtabula River Partnership.

•	Remedial Technologies Development Forum (RTDF).


-------
Page 22	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

(NSF). The results of this search were considered in the development of this plan and will be
revisited as the plan develops and is implemented.

2.6 National Research Council (NRC) Report on PCB-Contaminated Sediments

In an effort to address the controversial issues related to the management of PCB-
contaminated sediments, the U.S. Congress directed U.S. EPA to "enter into an arrangement with
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a review which evaluates the availability,
effectiveness, costs, and effects of technologies for the remediation of sediments contaminated
with polychlorinated biphenyls, including dredging and disposal." In response to this
Congressional request, the National Research Council (NRC) published^ Risk-Management
Strategy for PCB-Contaminated Sediments, which was released in March, 2001 (NRC, 2001a).
Among the eleven major conclusions and recommendations made by the committee, one was
directed at the research areas shown in Figure 2-7.

	

Figure 2-7. Recommendations for Further Research on PCB-Contaminated Sediments (NRC, 2001a)

•	A better assessment of human health and ecological risks associated with mixtures of individual
chlorobiphenyls present in specific environmental compartments.

•	The impact of co -contaminants on PCB risk assessments and risk management strategies.

•	Processes governing the fate of PCBs in sediments, including erosion, suspension, transport of fine
cohesive sediments, pore water diffusion, biodegradation, and bioavailability.

•	Improvement of ex situ and in situ technologies associated with removal or containment ofPCB-
contaminated sediments, treatment of PCB-contaminated material, and disposal of such sediments.

•	Pilot scale testing of innovative technologies, such as biodegradation and in situ active treatment caps, to
assess their effectiveness and applicability to various sites.

•	The impact of continuing PCBs releases and global environmental cycling on site-specific risk
assessments.

2.7 National Research Council Report on Contaminated Marine Sediments

The National Research Council established the Committee on Contaminated Marine
Sediments to "assess the nation's ability for remediating contaminated sediments and to chart a
course for the development of management strategies." The Committee published the results of
their findings in Contaminated Sediments in Ports and Waterways (NRC, 1997). In general, the
report concluded that there is no need to delay sediment remediation projects in anticipation of a
ground-breaking remediation technology, since no such technology is on the horizon. The


-------
Contaminated Sediments Science Plan

Page 23

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy

June 13, 2002

recommendations are organized into three areas: decision-making, remediation technologies,
and project implementation. A summary of the recommendations is given in Figure 2-8.

Figure 2-8. National Research Council Recommendations on Contaminated Marine
Sediments (NRC, 1997)

DECISION-MAKING

•	U.S. EPA and U.S. ACE should continue to develop uniform/parallel procedures for environmental/human health
risks associated with freshwater, marine, and land-based disposal, containment, or beneficial reuse of contaminated
sediments.

Because consensus building is essential for project success, Federal, state, and local agencies should work together
with appropriate private-sector stakeholders to interpret statutes, policies, and regulations in a constructive manner
so that negotiations can move forward and sound solutions are not blocked or obstructed.

•	To facilitate the application of decision-making tools, U.S. EPA and U.S. ACE should: (1) develop and disseminate
information to stakeholders concerning the available tools; (2) use appropriate risk analysis techniques throughout
the management process, including the selection and evaluation of remediation strategies; and (3) demonstrate the
appropriate use of decision analysis in an actual contaminated sediments case.

•	U.S. ACE should modify the cost-benefit analysis guidelines and practices it uses to ensure the comprehensive,
uniform treatment of issues involved in the management of contaminated sediments.

•	U.S. ACE should revise its policies to allow for the implementation of placement strategies that involve the
beneficial use of contaminated sediments even ifthey are not lowest cost alternatives. In addition, regulatory
agencies involved in contaminated sediments disposal should develop incentives for and encourage implementation
of beneficial use alternatives.

•	Federal and state regulators, as well as ports, should investigate the use of appropriate legal and enforcement tools
to require upstream contributors to sediment contamination to bear a fair share of cleanup costs.

TECHNOLOGIES

U.S. EPA and U.S. ACE should develop a program to support research and development and to demonstrate
innovative technologies specifically focused on the placement, treatment, and dredging of contaminated marine
sediments. Innovative technologies should be demonstrated side-by-side with the current state-ofthe-art
technologies to ensure direct comparisons. The results of this program should be published in peer-reviewed
publications so the effectiveness, feasibility, practicality, and cost of various technologies can be evaluated
independently. The program should span the full range of research and development, from the concept stage to field
implementation.

U.S. ACE and U.S. EPA should develop guidelines for calculating the costs of remediation systems, including
technologies and management methods, and should maintain data on the costs of systems that have actually been
used. The objective should be to collect and maintain data for making fair comparisons of remediation technologies
and managemait methods based on relative costs, as well as their effectiveness in reducing risks to human health
and ecosystems.

•	U.S. EPA and U.S. ACE should support research and development to reduce contaminant losses from confined
disposal facilities and confined aquatic disposal, to promote the reuse of existing confined disposal facilities, and to
improve tools forthe design of confined disposal facilities and confined aquatic disposal systems and for the
evaluation of long-term stability and effectiveness.


-------
Page 24	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

	

NRC Recommendations on Contaminated Marine Sediments (NRC, 1997) (continued)

•	U.S. EPA and U.S. ACE should sponsor research to develop quantitative relationships between the availability of
contaminants and the corresponding risks to humans and ecosystems. The overall goal should be to enable project
evaluation using performance-based standards, specifically the risk reduction from in-place sediments; disturbed
sediments; capped sediments; confined disposal facilities and confined aquatic disposal; and sediments released
following physical, chemical, thermal, and biological treatments.

•	U.S. EPA and U.S. ACE should support the development of monitoring tools to assess the long-term performance
of technologies that involve leaving contaminants in or near aquatic environments. Monitoring programs should
be demonstrated with the goal of ensuring that risks have been reduced through contaminant isolation.

•	Funding should continue for research and development of innovative baieficial uses for contaminated sediments
and the development of technical guidelines and procedures for environmentally acceptable, beneficial reuse

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

•	U.S. EPA and U.S. ACE should conduct joint research and development projects to advance the state of the ait in site
assessment technologies. Objectives should include the identification and development of advanced survey approaches
and new and improved chemical sensors for both surveying and monitoring.

•	U.S. ACE should support demonstrations of innovative site assessment technologies. Remote sensing technologies
should be demonstrated in an integrated survey operation at amajor contaminated sediment site The project should
demonstrate the capability of accurately defining a hot spot or larger critical area that requires either in situ treatment or
accurate removal for ex situ treatment or placement.

2.8 Long-term Trends Affecting Contaminated Sediments

The purpose of this Science Plan is to capture
not only immediate and intermediate scientific needs
for contaminated sediment management, but also
longer term trends or impacts which may be "outside
the box of regulatory focus," yet are of critical
environmental concern. In many cases, these
scientific concerns encompass more than the area of
contaminated sediments. A listing of some of these
concerns is given in Figure 2-9.

The sources and activities that lead to
sediment contamination are likely to increase with the
growth in world population and economic
development. Atmospheric loadings are likely to
increase as well. Under most current projections of
future conditions here and abroad, societal and
governmental pressure will increase to maintain
navigation channels, protect food and water supplies,
and develop housing, business, and recreation along

	

Figure 2-9. Environmental Trends
Relevant to Contaminated Sediments

•	More development around waterfront.

•	Long-range transport of contaminants.
TMDL challenge.

•	Nonpoint sourc e controls.

•	Extensive sites with multiple
communities.

Large/complex sites ("mega" sites).

•	Limited disp osal capacity.

•	High costs of remediation vs. shrinking
resources.


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 25

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

waterways and coastlines. While it is extremely important to develop the capability to detect and
manage contaminated sediments, that strategy alone is unlikely to achieve the desired levels of
environmental protection. Extensive scientific information should also be obtained and analyzed
to understand environmental loadings, develop measures and management strategies to prevent
additional loadings to sediments and develop alternative uses, promote recycling, and minimize
the generation of waste to reduce future loadings. Such approaches (e.g., conceptual models of
the sources and pathways that lead to contaminated sediments and global budgets of metals and
persistent and bioaccumulative organics) should be integrated with other U.S. EPA programs,
Federal agencies and states, industrial trade groups, stakeholders, and foreign countries.
Consideration of these broader scientific/societal issues in this kind of strategy will require
national and international collaboration.


-------
Page 26	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 27

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

3. ASSESSING THE SCIENCE ON CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS

3.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses current contaminated sediment science activities within the
Agency and identifies science needs within eight major topic areas. The major topics are:
sediment site characterization; exposure assessment; health effects and risk assessment;
ecological effects and risk assessment; sediment remediation; baseline, remediation, and post-
remediation monitoring; risk communication and community involvement; and information
management and exchange activities. Key scientific questions were developed for each major
topic in order to focus discussions on scientific needs and to identify recommended science
activities to address these questions. Future updates to the Contaminated Sediments Science
Plan will re-evaluate the current state of the science and identify any new and emerging science
issues and needs.

Key Scientific Questions:

Sediment Site Characterization: What physical, chemical and biological methods best
characterize sediments and assess sediment quality?

Exposure Assessment: What are the primary exposure pathways to humans and wildlife from
contaminants in sediments and how can we reduce uncertainty in quantifying and modeling the
degree of exposure?

Health Effects and Risk Assessment: What are the risks associated with exposure to
contaminants in sediments through direct and indirect pathways?

Ecological Effects and Risk Assessment: What are the risks associated with exposure to
contaminants in sediments to wildlife species and aquatic communities?

Sediment Remediation: What sediment remedial technology or combination of technologies is
available to effectively remediate sites?

Baseline, Remediation, and Post-remediation Monitoring: What types of monitoring are
needed to ensure that the implemented remedy meets remedial performance goals and does not
cause unacceptable short-term effects?

Risk Communication and Community Involvement: How can we provide communities with
more meaningful involvement in the contaminated sediments cleanup process?


-------
Page 28	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

Information Management and Exchange Activities: How do we improve information
management and exchange activities on contaminated sediments across the Agency?

U.S. EPA science activities on contaminated sediments are primarily contained in
OSWER, OW, ORD, GLNPO, and the regions. The contaminated sediment science activities
database contained in Appendix A presents recent projects on various scientific topics of concern
in the assessment and management of contaminated sediments. Areas addressed in the table are
divided into major science areas. Program implementation projects include remediation,
monitoring, pilot studies, and initiatives. Human health and ecological effects and assessment
projects include productive cross-Agency efforts on equilibrium partitioning of contaminants,
ecotoxicological method development, risk assessments, and characterization studies. Exposure
and modeling tasks are also presented and they address tasks such as Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs), bioavailability, and modeling. Remediation and risk management projects
include guidance development, technology development and evaluation, site specific efforts,
field demonstration of technologies, and information management systems.

3.2 Sediment Site Characterization

U.S. EPA has evaluated sediment quality data collected from more than 21,000 sampling
stations nationwide (U.S. EPA, 1997a). This evaluation has indicated that contaminated
sediment sites occur in different types of water bodies in every state. The water bodies affected
include streams, lakes, harbors, near shore areas, and oceans. U.S. EPA has recognized that in
different water body types, many factors can affect the kinds and magnitude of impacts that
contaminated sediments have on the environment (U.S. EPA, 1992b). These factors include
hydrology, physical and chemical characteristics of the sediment, types of contaminants present
and their associated human health or ecological effects, and synergistic or antagonistic effects of
contaminants. Sediment characterization and assessment tools vary in their suitability and
sensitivity for detecting different endpoints and effects. For example, the most appropriate
method for conducting screening level assessments may not provide adequate information for
definitive risk assessments. Similarly, methods providing information about food chain exposure
may not answer questions about direct toxicity. It is, therefore, necessary to match the
assessment method used with the site or program-specific objectives of a study being conducted.
For this reason, multiple complementary characterization or assessment methods are used to
assess sediment quality. Assessments of sediment quality have commonly involved: use of
various spatial and temporal sampling strategies, analyses of physical parameters, analyses of
chemical parameters, biological testing (both laboratory and in situ testing for toxicity and
bioaccumulation of contaminants), and evaluation of ecological indicators such as benthic
community structure.


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 29

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

3.2.1 Sampling Strategies (temporal and spatial)

Selection of an appropriate sampling design is one of the most critical steps in assessment
and characterization studies. The sampling design chosen will depend upon the study objectives.
U.S. EPA (2001b) describes the factors to consider in designing a sampling study. The study
design should control extraneous sources of variability and error so that data are representative
for the objectives being addressed. Sampling designs for spatially distributed variables fall into
two major categories: 1) random or probabilistic, and 2) targeted designs. Probability-based
designs avoid bias in the results of sampling by randomly assigning and selecting sampling
locations. In targeted, judgmental, or model-based designs, sampling locations are selected on
the basis of prior knowledge or variables such as estimated loading, depth, salinity, and substrate
type. Because targeted sampling designs can often be quickly implemented at a relatively low
cost, this type of sampling is often used to meet schedule and budgetary restraints that cannot be
met by implementing a statistical design. A comprehensive review of site-specific factors that
may influence the location of sampling stations, particularly for large-scale monitoring studies, is
provided by Mudroch and MacKnight (1994). U.S. EPA has also developed a computerized
sampling design program called the Fully Integrated Environmental Location Decision Support
(FIELDS) system This system is a set of software modules designed to simplify sophisticated
site and contamination analysis. Each module is a self contained unit that can be applied to a
variety of scenarios. When used together, either working through the FIELDS process, or being
applied according to a different schedule, the modules offer power and efficiency in the
characterization, analysis, and discrete sampling data points to be interpolated into a surface.
Important uses of these interpolated surfaces include delineating hot spots, calculating average
concentrations, estimating contamination mass and volumes, and developing post-remediation
scenarios.

It should be noted that, regardless of the appropriateness of a sampling plan, its ultimate
effectiveness will be dependent upon the ability to retrieve the samples. Recovering a complete
sediment core representing the desired vertical interval can prove to be infeasible.
Representativeness of a sample may be affected by such problems as: core shortening or
compression, sample loss during retrieval, sample washout, and inability to determine the
sediment surface. The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program has
conducted studies to evaluate the capability of samplers to collect representative sediment
samples (U.S. EPA, 2000d).

Science Needs

The National Research Council (1997) discusses the complex factors that must be
understood to develop a sediment sampling plan. The distribution of sediment contaminants is
determined by complex interactions among meteorological, hydrodynamic, biological,
geological, and geochemical factors. Interactions among these factors result in a transport system


-------
Page 30	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

with wide variations, both spatial and temporal. These interactions must be understood in order
to specify sampling frequency and location. Sediment transport time scales ranging from hours
to months, sometimes disturbed by high-energy storms, must be considered in developing
sampling designs. As NRC (1997) notes, designs of sediment sampling strategies increasingly
rely on computer-based numerical models. These models fall into four categories:
hydrodynamic, sediment and chemical transport, biological toxicity, and ecosystem response.
Improved numerical models will facilitate the design of optimal sediment sampling strategies.
However, accurate simulations of sediment and chemical transport will also require the
development of site-specific formulations.

3.2.2 Physical Parameters

Analysis of physical characteristics of sediment provides information that can be used to
assess the effects of contaminants on the benthic environment and the water column. Physical
analysis of the sediment is generally the first step in the characterization and assessment process.
Information describing physical parameters of the sediment is required to understand
bioavailability, fate, and transport of sediment contaminants at any site. Physical analysis often
includes measurement of parameters such as particle size distribution, total solids, and specific
gravity. Methods for measuring sediment physical characteristics have been published and
widely used for a number of years. Many of these methods are based on analytical techniques
originally developed for soils.

Particle size distribution analysis defines the frequency distribution of size ranges of the
mineral particles that make up the sediment (Plumb, 1981; Folk, 1980). Sediment particle size
influences both chemical and biological characteristics of the sediment. It is used to normalize
chemical concentrations and account for some of the variability found in biological assemblages
(U.S. EPA, 1998c) or in laboratory toxicity testing (U.S. EPA, 2000d; Hoss et al., 1999). Particle
size is frequently described in percentages of gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Each of these size
fractions, however, can be subdivided further so that a more complete characterization of
particle sizes can be determined (Puget Sound Estuary Program, 1986). Commonly used
sediment particle size methods include: wet sieving (U.S. EPA, 1979; Plumb, 1981; Puget
Sound Estuary Program, 1986; Singer et al., 1988), hydrometer method (Day, 1965; Patrick,
1958), pipette method (Guy, 1969; Rukavina and Duncan, 1970), settling techniques (Sandford
and Swift, 1971), and X-ray absorption (Duncan and Lattaie, 1979; Rukavina and Dunkan,

1970).

Total solids is a gravimetric determination of the organic and inorganic material
remaining in a sample after it has been dried at a specific temperature. The total solids values are
used to convert concentrations of contaminants from a wet weight to a dry weight basis. Water
content of sediment provides useful information for assessments of sediment quality. Methods
for determining water content of a sediment are described by Plumb (1981) and Vecchi (1999).


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 31

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

Specific gravity of a sediment sample is the ratio of the mass of a given volume of
material to an equal volume of distilled water at the same temperature (Plumb, 1981). The
specific gravity of a sediment sample can be used to predict the behavior (i.e., dispersal and
settling characteristics) of sediments. Methods for determining specific gravity are described by
Plumb (1981) and Blake and Hartge (1986).

Science Needs

As noted above, reliable methods are available for measuring the physical parameters of a
sediment. Sediment must be collected to measure these parameters. The National Research
Council (1997) describes a variety of mechanical methods available to collect vertical sediment
column samples for evaluation of physical parameters. Depending on the objectives of a study,
sediment samples can be mixed to provide composite samples. This provides an indication of
average physical parameter measurements at a site. However, high-resolution spatial data are
often needed to fully characterize physical sediment parameters at heterogeneous sites.

Obtaining such data requires conducting detailed site surveys with dense sampling. This is a
very slow and expensive process that, even with dense sampling, can provide limited spatial
resolution.

Sampling is currently conducted using two main types of devices: grab samplers and core
samplers. Various grab and core samplers have limitations that can affect cost and time required
for sampling. Grab sampler limitations can include: boats, winches, and lines required for
operation; limited sampling depth and volume; loss of sample due to incomplete device closure;
and sample contamination from metal frame. Core sampler limitations can include: equipment
required for operation and lifting, difficulty of deployment and handling, repetitive and time
consuming operation and removal of liners, and risk of metal contamination. Improved sampling
and data collection techniques could reduce cost and provide improved spatial resolution.

The National Research Council (1997) notes that sediment physical parameters and
contaminant concentrations are often interpolated horizontally, resulting in an overestimation of
the mass or volume of a contaminated sediment. However, interpolation could also result in an
underestimation of the mass or volume of a sediment. Thus, it is important to develop and
implement more cost effective assessment technologies to replace coring. The National Research
Council further notes that a promising technique for measurement of physical sediment
parameters is acoustic sub-bottom profiling. Development of acoustic sub-bottom profiling
technology could permit high resolution mapping of acoustic reflectivity, and determination of
physical sediment parameters such as porosity, bulk density, and grain size. This technology has
the potential to reduce overall sediment assessment costs and increase the spatial resolution of
field surveys. In addition to improved field methods for measuring physical sediment
parameters, research is needed in two other important areas. Work should also be completed to
better understand the effect of geomorphological and physical sediment parameters such as


-------
Page 32	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

sediment texture on the response of benthic organisms exposed to contaminants. Work is also
needed to better understand the relationships between bioturbation and physical sediment
parameters (such as surface roughness, internal porosity, and physical strength), and the resultant
modification of sediment erodability and contaminant transport pathways.

It is recommended that U.S. EPA hold a workshop to identify work necessary to develop
methods that could reduce the cost and increase the efficiency and accuracy with which physical
parameters can be evaluated at contaminated sediment sites.

3.2.3 Chemical Parameters

Chemical analysis of sediment provides information about chemicals that, if bioavailable,
can cause toxicity or bioaccumulate to levels of concern. In addition, chemical parameters such
as pH, total organic carbon, and redox potential furnish information to assess bioavailability and
contaminant exposure.

U.S. EPA and other agencies have developed analytical methods capable of identifying
and quantifying these chemical parameters. However, techniques for analysis of chemical
constituents in sediment have some inherent limitations. Interferences encountered as part of the
sediment matrix, particularly in samples from heavily contaminated areas, may limit the ability of
a method to detect or quantify some analytes. The most selective methods using gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) techniques are often used for nonchlorinated
organic compounds because such analysis can avoid problems due to matrix interferences. Gas
chromatography/electron capture detection methods are frequently used as the analytical tool for
PCB and pesticide analyses because these methods result in lower detection limits. Methods for
collection of sediment and interstitial water samples and for analysis of chemical parameters are
described in a number of publications (U.S. EPA, 1998c, 1995b, and 2001b).

Many chemical contaminants can persist for relatively long periods of time in sediments
where bottom-dwelling animals can accumulate and pass them up the food chain to fish.
Therefore, methods are needed for analysis of chemical contaminants in fish tissue. U.S. EPA
has published interim procedures for sampling and analysis of priority pollutants in fish tissue
(U.S. EPA, 1981); however, official U.S. EPA-approved methods are available only for the
analysis of low parts-per-billion concentrations of some metals in fish and shellfish tissues (U.S.
EPA, 1991b). Although the U.S. EPA-approved methods for many analytes have not been
published, states and regions have developed specific analytical methods for various target
analytes (U.S. EPA, 2000c).


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 33

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

Science Needs

Although published methods for sampling sediment and quantifying chemical parameters
are available, the National Research Council (NRC, 1997) notes that there is growing interest in
the use of real-time or near real-time chemical sensors for use in the field. NRC (1997) remarks
that these sensors can provide both point measurements and long-term, time-series observations.
Development of these technologies is needed for more cost-effective site assessment. Although
sensors that measure pH, Eh, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and ammonia are currently available, these
sensors are not capable of measuring contaminants of concern in sediments. NRC (1997)
identifies fiber-optic sensors as a technology that holds promise for assessment of sediment
chemistry. These sensors make use of optical measurements down a fiber, or immobilized
membranes or reagents at the fiber tip that reversibly or irreversibly bind with specific analytes,
producing a response that can be sensed optically. NRC identifies development of these kinds of
technologies as a scientific advancement that would contribute significantly to the development
of improved management protocols for contaminated sediment sites.

In addition to the development of field methods for real-time detection of sediment
chemical parameters, work is needed to develop more sensitive, low-cost laboratory methods to
detect sediment contaminants and chemical parameters that control bioavailability of
contaminants. Interferences encountered as part of the sediment matrix, particularly in samples
from heavily contaminated areas, may limit the ability of available methods to detect or quantify
some analytes. Methods should be developed that minimize the use of hazardous solvents and
reagents thereby reducing the exposure of laboratory workers to these chemicals and minimizing
the waste which must be disposed of in accordance with Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) regulations. Methods must also be developed for sediment contaminants of
emerging concern, such as endocrine disruptors, including alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs) and
their metabolites. Work is also needed to develop faster and less expensive methods for analysis
of interstitial water. Interstitial water analysis is particularly useful for assessing sediment
contaminant levels and associated toxicity. Isolated interstitial water can provide a matrix for
both toxicity testing and an indication of partitioning of contaminants within the sediment
matrix. In addition to improved laboratory methods for detection of sediment contaminants,
improved methods for analysis of chemical contaminants in fish tissue are also needed.

In order to address these science needs, it is recommended that U.S. EPA: 1) develop
more sensitive, low-cost laboratory methods for detecting sediment contaminants and real-time
or near real-time chemical sensors for use in the field, 2) develop U.S. EPA-approved methods
with lower detection limits for analysis of bioaccumulative contaminants of concern in fish
tissue, and 3) develop methods for analyzing emerging endocrine disruptors, including
alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs) and their metabolites.


-------
Page 34	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

3.2.4 Key Recommendations for Sediment Site Characterization

A. 1 Conduct a workshop to develop a consistent approach to collecting sediment physical

property data for use in evaluating sediment stability. (OERR, ORD, U.S. EPA Regions)
A.2 Develop more sensitive, low-cost laboratory methods for detecting sediment

contaminants, and real-time or near real-time chemical sensors for use in the field. (ORD,
OERR, GLNPO)

A.3 Develop U.S. EPA-approved methods with lower detection limits for analysis of

bioaccumulative contaminants of concern in fish tissue. (ORD, OERR, OW, U.S. EPA
Regions)

A.4 Develop methods for analyzing emerging endocrine disruptors, including alkylphenol
ethoxylates (APEs) and their metabolites. (ORD)

3.3 Exposure Assessment

The major human health exposure pathway for contaminated sediments is through the
food chain. Body burdens in humans can be measured directly for past exposures from all
sources. However, it is more common to measure contaminant concentrations in food fish to
estimate human exposure from the dietary pathway. Areas of uncertainty in exposure estimates
from this pathway include:

•	Fish consumption by sub-populations, such as subsistence fishers, and fish preparation,
such as whole fish versus fillet and cooking method.

•	Effects of contaminant mixtures, such as weathered PCB mixtures rather than Aroclor
mixtures.

•	Predictions of the rate and extent of reductions in contaminant concentrations in fish in
response to metabolism and natural processes or remedial actions.

•	Degree and duration of exposure.

Other potential pathways of human exposure include dermal contact and inhalation
exposures from in-place sediments and contact with sediments during removal and ex situ
management. These pathways have not received as much attention as the food pathway. Science
needs include the development of better estimates of dermal exposures and better assessment of
circumstances when contaminant volatilization needs to be considered in decision-making.

Ecological receptors can have both direct and food chain exposure to contaminated
sediments. Benthic infauna and bottom-feeding fish receive direct exposures to contaminants in
sediment interstitial water and overlying water. The thickness of the sediment layer in contact
with the biota and the bioavailability of contaminants affect the level of direct exposure to
sediment contamination. A better understanding of the thickness of this zone will improve initial


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 35

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

risk characterization and help in assessing the potential risk reduction achieved by alternative
management options.

Higher trophic level fish are exposed to contaminants in the water column, which may
derive from the sediment compartment; they are also exposed to bioaccumulative contaminants
via their food. Fish-eating avian and terrestrial species are exposed through their food chain.
Surrogate measures and models are often used to assess exposures through the bioaccumulation
pathway described in Section 3.3.3. Bioaccumulation tools are intended to link simple chemical
measurements in the sediment and water column to a resulting body burden in ecological
receptors and humans, with an understanding of the acute and chronic risks that the resulting
exposure would induce.

3.3.1 Bioavailability

The bioavailability of a contaminant relates total concentration in the sediment, overlying
water column, or ambient air to the concentration that affects the ecological or human receptor.
Bioavailability depends on the exact chemical speciation of the toxic constituent; the
contaminant binding phases in the sediment (e.g., organic carbon for nonionic organic
contaminants and acid volatile sulfides for metals); the degree to which the receptor is in contact
with it; and the degree to which it is absorbed by the receptor.

Several tools are available to assess bioavailability. Acute and chronic toxicity testing are
direct measures of whether or not a contaminated sediment contains enough of the toxicant in an
available form to exert a toxic effect. Research by the Office of Research and Development
(ORD), in cooperation with the Office of Water (OW), has led to development of a range of
toxicity tests described in an earlier section of this plan. Such tests are used in assessing
contaminated sediments and in managing dredged material disposal under the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) and Clean Water Act (CWA). These tests can be used
to determine whether sediment is toxic, but they do not provide an indication of the chemicals
causing the effect.

When unacceptable exposures to toxicants are determined from sediment concentrations,
the simplest assumption used is that 100% of the contaminant is available to receptors. This is a
conservative assumption appropriate for screening levels.

More realistic and site-specific estimates of bioavailability can be developed using
field-measured biota sediment accumulation factors, which relate contaminant concentrations to
tissue concentrations to determine what residual sediment concentration will not pose a threat of
acute or chronic toxicity.


-------
Page 36	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

An alternative indirect approach is the use of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment
Guidelines (ESGs). This approach uses contaminant concentrations in sediment and other
sediment properties to estimate the pore water concentration of contaminants at chemical
equilibrium. The pore water concentration is then correlated with the concentration available to
the aquatic organism and can be compared to various reference values for acute or chronic
toxicity. ESGs can be used to determine which contaminants in sediment might be exerting a
toxic effect demonstrated in whole sediment toxicity tests. They can also be used to help
establish unacceptable levels of toxic contaminants in sediment.

3.3.2 Bioaccumulation Potential

Some sediment contaminants exert toxic effects by being accumulated to greater degrees
in successively higher trophic levels. Thus, a sediment contaminant concentration that poses no
direct acute or chronic toxicity to aquatic biota or humans via direct exposure maybe magnified
through the food chain so that species eating fish or aquatic wildlife are exposed to an
unacceptable toxicant dose.

The most direct measure of
bioaccumulation is measurement of the
toxicant in the tissues of the receptor
(Figure 3-1). Direct measurement is ideal
because it includes all sources of exposure
and accounts for elimination and
metabolism. Bioaccumulation test method
protocols have been developed for
freshwater oligochaetes and marine
polychaetes and bivalves (U.S. EPA,

2000d; Lee et al., 1989). The National
Research Council (2001a) recommends this
method for PCBs: An assessment of
present exposure is best addressed through
direct measurement of PCBs in specific organisms or in their diet.

The direct measurement method is referred to as a field-measured bioaccumulation factor
(BAF) for water/organism interactions and a field-measured biota-sediment accumulation factor
(BSAF) for sediment/organism interactions. The BAF is appropriate for all chemical stressors,
while the BSAF is appropriate for nonionic organic compounds and ionic organics that partition
to lipids and organic carbon in similar ways. Although direct measurement can be expensive and
difficult, it is commonly used in assessments of contaminated sediment sites. There are
uncertainties if bioaccumulation is measured in food sources because consumption rates by
higher trophic levels are not always well-known for ecological predators and humans,

Figure 3-1. Methods for Estimating
Bioaccumulation

•	Field-measured bioaccumulation factor - direct
measurement of the relationship between water
concentrations and tissue concentrations of the
toxicant.

•	Field-measured biota-sediment accumulation
factor - direct measurement of the relationship
between sediment concentrations and tissue
concentrations of the toxicant.


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 37

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

particularly human sub-populations from fishing cultures. Therefore, OW and ORD have
collaborated on extensive research to provide alternative estimates that relate contaminant
concentrations in sediments and water to the concentrations that would consequently occur in
various species.

Laboratory tests can be used to assess bioaccumulation by freshwater and marine benthic
invertebrates. Methods are available for freshwater Diporeia spp., Lumbriculus variegatus, and
mollusks and marine species. OW has published a compendium of methods for measuring
bioaccumulation of sediment-borne toxicants in freshwater (U.S. EPA, 2000d).

Deployed organisms also can be used to measure current exposures to sediment-borne
toxicants. These measures are very useful in determining baseline exposures and responses to
remedial actions. However, the linkage between caged organism uptake and dietary exposure of
higher trophic levels is uncertain. A further confounding factor exists for persistent and
bioaccumulative toxicants such as PCBs and PAHs. These complex mixtures change over time
through weathering and are found in different mixtures in source sediments and receptor tissues.

The current state-of-the-practice is to use direct testing and models to estimate the direct
dose delivered to the lowest trophic level in a food web and the food-delivered dose to
successively higher tropic levels. Models range from simple to complex. Empirical models use
partitioning coefficients (BAFs or BSAFs) to link sediment concentrations with tissue levels in
organisms. More complex models use mechanistic models of uptake, metabolism, and excretion,
along with feeding patterns to estimate the tissue burdens for fish, birds, and mammals.

The approaches described above provide several different ways to assess exposure of
ecological and human receptors to sediment-borne contaminants. Each of the estimation
approaches can cause disagreements among affected parties, ranging from the theoretical
soundness of alternative approaches to the values selected for exposure duration and dietary
composition. Even with the direct measurement of contaminants in receptor tissues, arguments
can be made about the relative importance of sediment contamination relative to other sources.
Validation of models is hindered by a paucity of data sets that overcome the natural variability of
ecological receptors. Research on monitoring may provide additional tools to measure
bioaccumulation in receptors.

3.3.3 Fate and Transport Modeling

Aquatic sediments are a sink for contaminants from a wide range of point and nonpoint
sources. But the "sink" is connected to ecological and human receptors through a variety of
mechanisms: partitioning to the overlying water column and air; uptake by organisms and
accumulation or magnification in the food chain; chemical and biological alteration; dilution and
dispersion; bulk sediment transport; and burial by fresh sediments. For non-degradalive


-------
Page 38	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

processes, it maybe necessary to evaluate the transport and fate of the contaminant in the short-
term and the long-term. For example, a persistent and bioaccumulative toxicant that is diluted
and dispersed in a river over the short-term may become part of a longer-term biogeochemical
cycle over a much larger region. The National Research Council (NRC, 2001a) made two
recommendations for research specifically related to PCB-contaminated sediments:

1.	A better understanding of the contribution of PCB-contaminated sediments to the
total global burden is needed.

2.	The role of global cycling of PCBs in assessing the PCB problem at a specific site
should be considered.

Although the NRC report specifically addressed PCBs, these recommendations are also
applicable to other persistent and bioaccumulative toxicants such as mercury and some
pesticides.

The current state-of-the-practice is to apply one or morc of a suite of mathematical
models to simulate the important processes. Fate and transport modeling can be highly
controversial because various models, assumptions used in the models, and selection of input
parameters can lead to very different conclusions about present risk and how protective various
remedial alternatives will be.

The fate of organic contaminants in sediments may include degradation via chemical and
biologically-mediated pathways. The mechanisms, rates, and endpoints of degradation processes
need to be better understood to assess both natural recovery and active remedies that are intended
to enhance contaminant degradation. NRC (2001a) noted that anaerobic dechlorination may
have a threshold value. This implies that degradation may proceed from higher concentrations
toward the threshold value and then become negligible; models need to account for such non-
linear behavior.

Contaminant transport in sediments and overlying waters is critical to assessing both
present risk and the performance of all remedies. Contaminants can be transported by diffusion
and dispersion within bed sediments, advection from upward groundwater movement, bulk
sediment movement, movement of suspended sediments, and dissolution into the overlying
water. Contaminants can enter and leave the system through landscape erosion, atmospheric
deposition, and volatilization. All of these processes are active in sediment systems and
determine how biotic exposure changes over time. The wide range of transport mechanisms
contributes to uncertainty in the characterization of sediment sites as well as estimates of present
risk. Active capping and the natural process of burial by cleaner sediments can only be effective
over the long-term if contaminant transport by diffusion, advection, and bioturbation are slow
enough that sediments and the overlying water column remain at safe levels. These remedies
also depend on the long-term stability of the system with respect to bulk sediment movement by


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 39

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

natural hydrodynamics and human intervention, such as dam removal, navigation dredging, boat
traffic, and so on.

The role of uncertainty in fate and transport modeling needs to be addressed so that
stakeholders understand how sure we are of existing risks and the risk reduction achievable by
remediation. It is critical that the contaminant transport models link smoothly with biological
uptake and trophic transfer models to obtain an accurate assessment of present risks and risk
reductions achievable by management alternatives.

Science Needs

The science needs associated with exposure assessment relate to refining our
understanding of the important pathways of exposure and improving the tools used to measure
and model how contaminants cycle within the system. The complexity of the tools applied to
specific sites should be commensurate with the risks and costs of proposed decision-making and
consistent with the National Research Council recommendation (NRC, 2001a). The use of
different tools at different sites or under different authorities should be integrated so that
consistent decisions can be made to protect the environment and potential ecological or human
receptors. Because contaminated sediment is a mobile medium and contaminants within
sediment can migrate into other media, understanding all the important fate and transport
processes is a key step in assessing the risk and estimating the potential effectiveness of various
remedial actions.

3.3.4 Key Recommendations for Exposure Assessment

B.l Develop a tiered framework for assessing food web exposures. (ORD, OW, OERR, U.S.
EPA Regions)

B.2 Develop guidance and identify pilots for improving coordination between TMDL and

remedial programs in waterways with contaminated sediments. (OW, OSWER, U.S. EPA
Regions)

B.3 Develop and advise on the use of the most valid contaminant fate and transport models
that allow prediction of site-specific exposures in the future. (ORD, OERR, OW, U.S.
EPA Regions)

B.4 Develop a consistent approach to applying sediment stability data in transport modeling.
(ORD, OERR, OW, U.S. EPA Regions)

3.4 Human Health Effects and Risk Assessment

Contaminants in sediments can present risks to humans through direct contact with the
sediment (inhalation of particulates or gases, ingestion, dermal contact) or indirect exposure
pathways (ingestion of fish, wildlife, or plants which have accumulated contaminants from


-------
Page 40	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

sediments). Health effects may occur at the point of contact, e.g., skin or lung, but will most
often occur in response to contaminants or their metabolites circulating internally (the internal
dose). The FIELDS software tools contain a human health module for analyzing the human
health impact of contaminated sediments via dermal, ingestion, and inhalation pathways. Further
improvements underway on this module for FY02 include refinements of existing exposure
pathway models.

Sediments are often environmental sinks for multiple contaminants and can act as a
source of exposure to multiple contaminants, some of which may act by a common mechanism
of toxicity. PCBs exist as a mixture whose components, individual PCB congeners, change in
concentration over time. Risk assessments should consider the additive or cumulative effects of
all contaminants. Some contaminants may pass through the placenta to the developing fetus or
may be passed to nursing infants. Therefore, risk assessments should consider sensitive and
highly exposed subpopulations, particularly children, and focus on neurological and
developmental effects.

Health risk assessments need to evaluate the mode of action for contaminants and all
detailed mechanistic data which may be available. Cancer risk assessment for dioxins, furans,
and 'dioxin-like' PCB congeners focuses on the chemical's binding to a particular cellular
receptor (Ah) and subsequent responses. Likewise, many contaminants bind to the endocrine
receptor, raising assessment concerns for endocrine disruption in both humans and wildlife.

Some exposures to sediments may be intermittent or of limited duration. Risk
assessments should match these exposure data with subchronic toxicity data. These data are
rarely available. More information is needed on the toxicity of newly recognized contaminants
such as potential endocrine disrupters.

Science Needs

Advances in any of the above subjects would result in an improved understanding of the
health effects of exposure to contaminated sediments. Several of these areas are extremely
important for assessing other environmental problems as well. Needs particularly important to
sediments include:

•	Speciation and characterization of individual contaminants in sediment or biological
samples to evaluate mode of action and individual chemical contributions to risk.
Examples include distribution of individual PCB congeners (NRC, 2001a); dioxins,
furans, and dioxin-like PCBs; PAHs; and mercury species.

•	Determining interactions among multiple contaminants found in sediments and the
resulting impacts on site-specific risk assessment (NRC, 2001a).


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 41

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

•	Relating the results of bioaccumulation studies in animals or other models to doses in
humans.

•	Studies of mode- and mechanism-of-action for species and mixtures most often found in
sediments, particularly focusing on chronic or sub-chronic systemic effects.

•	Developing biomarkers of effect (toxicity) and relating these to measurable toxic
endpoints.

•	Evaluating the reproductive toxicity of endocrine disruptors and other newly emerging
contaminants of concern such as APEs.

•	Revise methods for estimating dermal exposures and risk from sediments.

3.4.1 Key Recommendations for Human Health Effects and Risk Assessment

C.l Develop guidance for characterizing human health risks on a PCB congener basis. (ORD,

OERR, U.S. EPA Regions)

C.2 Develop sediment guidelines for bioaccumulative contaminants that are protective of
human health via the fish ingestion pathway. (ORD, OERR, OW, U.S. EPA Regions)
C.3 Refine methods for estimating dermal exposures and risk (ORD, OERR, U.S. EPA
Regions)

C.4 Evaluate the toxicity and reproductive effects of newly recognized contaminants, such as
alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs) and other endocrine disruptors and their metabolites on
human health. (ORD)

3.5 Ecological Effects and Risk Assessment

3.5.1 Ecological Screening Levels

Numerical screening levels or sediment quality guidelines based upon concentrations of
contaminants in sediment that are associated with potential adverse effects have been proposed
by a number of investigators and jurisdictions around the world (Chapman, 1989; Long and
Morgan, 1991; Long, 1992; MacDonald et al., 1996; U.S. EPA 1992b, 1996b, and 1997a;
Macdonald et al., 2000; Field et al., 1999). Screening values are needed by U.S. EPA, states and
tribes, and other Federal agencies to: 1) help prioritize sites and areas for further investigation,
2) help identify causative contaminants when toxicity is indicated bybioassays or other tools;
and 3) develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)s and National Pollution Elimination
Discharge System (NPDES) permit limitations.

One approach to the derivation of numerical values has focused on evaluation of the
available toxicity data to establish associations between individual chemical concentrations in
sediments and adverse biological effects. This empirical or correlative approach was originally
developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) using sediment
chemistry data collected under the National Status and Trends Program (Long and Morgan, 1991;


-------
Page 42	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

Long, 1992). The empirical guidelines approach was adopted, with some modifications, by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (MacDonald, 1994; MacDonald et al., 1996)
and the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME, 1995; Smith et al., 1996) to
support the development of guidelines in the State of Florida and in Canada. Additional data
available in the published literature and collected through U.S. EPA's Assessment and
Remediation of Contaminated Sediment (ARCS) program have been used to further refine the
empirically derived guidelines (Ingersoll et al., 1996). Although empirically derived sediment
quality guidelines have in many cases accurately predicted sediment toxicity, a number of
limitations have been associated with this approach (MacDonald et al., 1996). The correlative
approach does not support the quantitative evaluation of cause and effects relationships between
contaminant concentrations and biological responses. Because the approach is based on
associations between contaminant concentrations and biological responses, various factors other
than the concentrations of the contaminant under consideration could have influenced the actual
response observed in any investigation. In addition, the guidelines developed using this approach
do not address either the potential for bioaccumulation or the associated adverse effects of
bioaccumulation on higher trophic levels. The recent National Research Council report on
PCB-contaminated sediments (NRC, 2001a) stated that, at least for PCBs, "ERM [effects range
median] and ERL [effects range low] values are not deemed to be reliable and should not be used
for ERAs [ecological risk assessments]."

Another approach used by U.S. EPA is the equilibrium partitioning (EqP) approach to
develop draft Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Quality Guidelines (ESGs). This approach
focuses on predicting the chemical interaction among sediments, interstitial water, and the
contaminants. Studies have indicated that interstitial water concentrations of contaminants
appear to be better predictors of biological effects than bulk sediment concentrations. U.S. EPA
based the ESGs on EqP theory, which is a conceptual approach for predicting the bioavailability
of sediment-associated chemicals and their toxicity. The theory assumes that sediment-
associated chemicals partition to a state approximating equilibrium between three phases: the
interstitial (pore) water, the binding phases in sediment which limit bioavailability (i.e., organic
carbon for nonionic organic chemicals and acid volatile sulfides for divalent metals), and the
biota. Under this assumption, the pathway of chemical exposure (i.e., respiration of interstitial
water or ingestion of sediment) is not important, because the activity of the chemical is the same
in each equilibrated phase. If the chemical concentration in anyone phase is known, then the
concentration in the others can be predicted. Thus, EqP theory, enabling prediction of interstitial
water concentration from the total sediment concentration and the relevant sediment properties
(i.e., organic carbon), can be used to quantify the exposure concentration for an organism.
However, U.S. EPA also notes that equilibrium partitioning theory does not address potential
food chain effects of bioaccumulative sediment pollutants. Details on the ESG methodologies
and chemical-specific ESGs can be found in the following documents:


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 43

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

•	Eco Update. Intermittent Bulletin Volume 3, Number 2 -Ecotox Thresholds. U.S. EPA
540/F-95/038 (U.S. EPA, 1996b).

•	Draft - Technical Basis for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment
Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection ofBenthic Organisms: Nonionic Organics (U.S.
EPA, 2000b).

•	Draft - Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of
Benthic Organisms: Metal Mixtures (Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc)
(U.S. EPA, 2000a).

Although theoretically derived screening levels (e.g., those based on the EqP approach)
can be used to predict levels that are safe, they are less accurate in predicting when these
concentrations in the field will result in unacceptable risks to exposed aquatic organisms. This is
not an issue at Superfund and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective
Action sites, because site-specific sediment toxicity tests or bioassessments can be performed on-
site or using site-collected sediments to empirically determine levels of effects. It is not clear,
however, what the relationship is between mortality rate in a sediment test with Hyallela or
reduction in species diversity and expected significant impacts on ecosystem function or structure
in the contaminated waterbody. Additional work should be undertaken to improve existing
screening values and develop new ones for bioaccumulative contaminants.

The FIELDS software tools contain an ecological risk module, peer reviewed by U.S.
EPA Ecological Risk Assessors Forum, which includes screening values and can be used for
analyzing the impact of contaminated sediments on ecological receptors. Further refinements
underway on this module for FY02 include the addition of wildlife exposure models and the
ability to evaluate risks based on tissue concentrations.

Science Needs

U.S. EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) and others have identified a number of
science needs to further support regulatory use of the Agency's ESGs and other chemical-specific
screening values and sediment quality guidelines (SAB, 1992 and 1996). These science needs
include:

•	Field and laboratory studies to evaluate the accuracy of chemical-specific sediment
quality guidelines. These could include new studies and the use of existing data from
contaminated sites where both contaminants and benthic community data are available.
Sublethal sediment toxicity tests (in situ studies, laboratory studies of field-collected
sediment, and spiked-sediment laboratory studies) using a range of species including
benthic fish and algae, long-term studies of population dynamics, and colonization
studies are examples of sensitive tests that could be used to further validate sediment
quality guidelines. Additional work should be undertaken to evaluate the range of


-------
Page 44	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

sediment types to which sediment guidelines can be applied. Field validation of these
guidelines in different sediment types would help define the appropriate conditions for
applying the guidelines.

•	Studies of chemical concentrations in interstitial water from natural sediment samples are
needed. These values can be compared to predicted ESG values for the same sediments.

•	For ESGs, additional research can evaluate the relative significance of binding factors
other than organic carbon and acid volatile sulfides that may affect bioavailability of
contaminants.

•	Bioaccumulation from food and kinetic limitations on contaminant bioaccumulation
should be further evaluated to determine their relevance for both equilibrium and non-
equilibrium conditions. Additional work should be conducted to determine whether
metals guidelines can be used to define conditions where sediment sorbed metals can be
bioaccumulated by benthic organisms. These investigations can provide additional
insight into the contributions of adsorbed or digested material to total exposure.

•	In addition to diet, habitat requirements of benthic infaunal and other sediment-dwelling
organisms may cause them to be exposed to higher concentrations of contaminants than
those measured in bulk sediments. Investigations should be undertaken to determine the
importance of contaminant exposure routes that are not now explicitly considered. For
example, preferential sorting of particulates during tube building maybe a route of
exposure to contaminants that could be considered in applying sediment quality
guidelines.

There has been considerable discussion about whether sediment quality guidelines should
comprise a range of values reflecting uncertainty, or the current point estimates. Recent
modeling work has attempted to address this by using the probability of effects to define
sediment quality guidelines. The use of a range of values or the development of
improved estimates of uncertainty could be considered.

•	Although U.S. EPA has conducted research to develop mixtures guidelines for PAHs and
metals, additional work should be completed to understand how mixtures of contaminants
in sediments should be handled.

•	Work is needed to develop a better understanding of the time and space scales over which
sediment quality guidelines or other assessment tools are valid. Organisms are major
contributors to sediment spatial heterogeneity and may affect oxygen penetration depth
across spatial gradients. Sediment mixing affects redox regimes, which can affect the
bioavailability of redox-sensitive chemicals. It is necessary to understand how sediment
biogeochemistry could affect the application of sediment quality guidelines.

3.5.2 Ecological Indicators

Historically, sediment monitoring programs have used benthic community studies as
indicators of the effects of sediment contaminants on aquatic ecosystems. An assessment of
benthic community structure typically involves a field survey that includes sorting and


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 45

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

identification of organisms and analysis of the numbers of taxa, individuals, and biomass in each
sample. At many sites, the objective of the benthic community survey is to determine if there are
unacceptable risks to the communities of organisms that inhabit those sediments. Many different
benthic community measures have been used as ecological indicators such as: species diversity
indices; biotic indices; indicator organisms; species richness measures; enumeration of specific
abundances of taxa present; indices measuring similarity between benthic communities at
reference and study sites; community function measurements based on habitat; trophic structure
and other ecological measures; and statistical approaches applied to determine whether the
benthic community at a study site varies from reference or other sites. The major limitation
associated with the use of these indicators is difficulty relating them to the presence of individual
chemicals or other stressors.

Science Needs

The development of new indicator methods for measuring risks from sediment
contaminants will lead to more effective assessment and characterization of contaminated sites.
Additional research should be conducted to develop new indicator methods at all levels of
biological organization (molecular, cellular, organismal, population, and community). It is
important that these biological responses can be linked to known chemical stressors. Cellular
and biochemical measurements can be used to indicate the bioavailability of sediment
contaminants to establish levels of exposure, and to facilitate fate and transport modeling of the
contaminants. A number of specific science needs have been identified to link sediment
contaminants and other stressors with biological impairment. These include:

•	Development and assessment of statistical techniques to associate sediment contaminants
with community-level responses.

•	Development of methods to characterize exposure to individual stressors and predict
exposure to contaminant mixtures.

•	Development of whole sediment toxicity identification methods.

•	Development of tools to determine genetic impairment caused by contaminants in
sediment.

•	Development of diagnostic indicators for emerging chemicals such as endocrine
disruptors.

•	Development of mechanistic ecosystem models and a better understanding of benthic
community structure and function.

•	Development of methods to measure spatial and temporal variation in structural and
functional properties of benthic communities, and an understanding of how this variation
affects prediction and detection of impacts.

•	Determination of the cause-effect connection between sediment contamination and of
behavioral responses, and the relevance of behavioral responses.


-------
Page 46	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

3.5.3 Direct Toxicity to Aquatic Biota

Studies at contaminated sediment sites have demonstrated that high concentrations of
contaminants have resulted in direct toxicity to benthic invertebrates and to reductions in fish and
wildlife populations. At some sites that are heavily contaminated from past mining operations,
heavy rain events have resulted in acute lethality of salmonids due to short-term pH-induced
increases in metal solubility in the water column.

Biological sediment testing has become an effective assessment tool that provides direct,
quantifiable evidence of biological consequences of sediment contamination. Sediment tests can
be used to: 1) determine the relationship between toxic effects and bioavailability, 2) investigate
interactions among chemicals, 3) compare the sensitivities of different organisms, 4) determine
spatial and temporal distribution of contamination, 5) evaluate dredged material, 6) rank areas for
cleanup, and 7) set cleanup goals.

A variety of standard biological test methods have been developed for assessing the short-
term and long-term toxicity of contaminants associated with freshwater and marine sediments
using amphipods, midges, polychaetes, oligochaetes, mayflies, and cladocerans. These toxicity
tests provide measures of several different endpoints including survival, growth, behavior, and
reproduction. Sediment toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) procedures have also been used
to identify toxic compounds in sediment samples containing mixtures of chemicals.

Science Needs

Although a number of sediment toxicity test methods have been standardized, protocols
using new test species should be developed to provide tests of greater sensitivity. It will also be
necessary to standardize test methods using species that inhabit different geographic ranges and
habitat types. Additional work will be necessary to:

•	Develop a better understanding of how sediment can be manipulated before, during and
after tests without inappropriately affecting test results.

Establish appropriate physical test conditions, feeding regimes, test duration, and test
initiation or termination procedures.

•	Develop a better understanding of how geophysical properties of sediment affect test
results.

•	Complete additional work to understand the sensitivity of test species to major classes of
contaminants. This information can aid in species selection and test interpretation.

•	Conduct additional verification and validation studies of toxicity test methods.

Validation studies could be conducted by evaluating bioassay response to sediments
collected along a natural pollution gradient and comparing results to benthic community
studies and in situ test results.


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 47

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

•	Identify and standardize formulated sediment and sediment spiking techniques;

•	Develop tests with amphibians and reptiles.

•	Develop and standardize higher level tests (e.g., microcosms and mesocosms).

•	Develop better understanding of exposure-time relationships in chronic whole sediment
toxicity tests.

•	Develop field-based methods to assess biological effects of contaminated sediments.

3.5.4	Ecological Significance and Population Models

In an ecological risk assessment, it is important to clearly define and describe ecological
significance and to determine what levels of population and community effects are generally
acceptable; e.g., will a twenty percent reduction in a specific endpoint still sustain a functioning,
healthy ecosystem? How does U.S. EPA determine that: 1) the observed or predicted adverse
effects on a structural or functional component of the site's ecosystem is of sufficient type,
magnitude, areal extent, and duration that irreversible effects have occurred or are likely to occur,
and 2) these effects appear to exceed the normal changes in the structural or functional
components typical of similar unimpacted ecosystems?

Science Needs

•	Develop predictive models for determining the potential population level effects; e.g.,
how much sediment toxicity is needed before one can predict that there will be significant
effects on the population of concern. How many bass or mink or kingfishers can be
affected before there will be an impact on the ability of the population of biota to sustain
itself at a healthy level in the area impacted by the site?

•	Develop a method for estimating depth of bioturbation for benthic macro-invertebrates.
Certain benthic macro-invertebrates that colonize on caps build or live in burrows or
tunnels in the sand/sediment cap environment. In order to evaluate the potential impact
on these aquatic food chain organisms, we need to identify the depth and extent of
benthic bioturbation impacts in a cap.

•	Potential benthic macro-invertebrate cap attraction.

Caps often are of a non-indigenous fill material or sand or are anchored with stone. Will
use of different materials reduce colonization times? Will it attract other, less desirable
organisms and non-native communities?

3.5.5	Key Recommendations for Ecological Effects and Risk Assessment

D. 1 Develop sediment guidelines to protect wildlife from food chain effects. (ORD, OERR,

OW, U.S. EPA Regions)

D.2 Develop additional tools for characterizing ecological risks. (ORD, U.S. EPA Regions,
OW)


-------
Page 48	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

D.3 Develop guidance on how to interpret ecological sediment toxicity studies (lab or in situ
caged studies); and how to interpret the significance of the results in relation to site
populations and communities. (OW, ORD, OERR, U.S. EPA Regions)

D.4 Acquire data and develop criteria to use in balancing the long-term benefits from

dredging vs. the shorter term adverse effects on ecological receptors and their habitats.
(ORD, OERR, U.S. EPA Regions)

D.5 Conduct field and laboratory studies to further validate and improve chemical-specific

sediment quality guidelines. (OW, ORD)

D.6 Continue developing and refining sediment toxicity testing methods. (ORD, OW, U.S.
EPA Regions)

D.7 Develop whole sediment toxicity identification evaluation procedures for a wide range of
chemicals. (ORD, OW)

3.6 Sediment Remediation

A sediment remedial alternative is a technology or combination of technologies used to
reduce the impact of contaminated sediments on human health and the environment.

Alternatives can span a wide range of complexity and technological ingenuity. The simplest
alternatives might employ only a single component (i.e., in situ capping). However, more
complex alternatives may involve several different technologies and various project components
(U.S. EPA, 1994). For the more complex alternatives, it is important to match complementary
components in order to obtain an efficient remedial design (e.g., hydraulic dredging may not be
the best choice for sediments that will be disposed of in a landfill due to the "no water in
landfills" rule).

Due to all the confounding factors involved in sediment remediation, it is difficult to
capture all the complexities of the state of the science in sediment remediation in only a few short
pages. However, the subsections below provide a summary of the current state of sediment
remediation technology, identification of problems, and a discussion of key research gaps.

3.6.1 Natural Recovery/Bioremediation

Natural recovery involves leaving contaminated sediments in place and allowing ongoing
chemical, physical, and biological aquatic processes to contain, destroy, or otherwise reduce the
bioavailability of contaminants. No actions are required to initiate or continue the natural
recovery process (NRC, 1997). Although natural recovery has been the strategy of choice at only
a few contaminated sediments sites, the absence of timely remedial activities at many sites has
made natural recovery the tie facto remediation of choice at these sites. Case studies are
identified in the National Research Council (1997) document.


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 49

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

There are a plethora of resources available that provide more information on the natural
recovery and bioremediation of contaminated sediments. However, there is still an ongoing
debate regaining the viability of using natural processes or engineered biological processes to
remediate contaminated sediments, especially those contaminated with heavy metals and
chlorinated organics: "Using bioremediation to treat in-place [contaminated] sediments,
although theoretically possible, requires further research and development because it raises a
number of significant microbial, geochemical, and hydrological issues [including transport by
large-scale storm events] that have yet to be resolved" (NRC, 1997).

Additionally, while the "natural capping" and resulting sequestration of sediment
contaminants from natural deposition may occur at a faster "average" rate than the ongoing
biological breakdown, large scale storm events may result in the unfortunate circumstance, as
seen at the Saginaw River, Michigan, of hot-spot contamination being dispersed over a large area
where it would be difficult to remove or remediate.

The NRC (1997) document offers the following science needs for further research.

Science Needs

•	Develop scientific principles to describe the process of natural recovery.

•	Perform a literature survey to determine the level of effectiveness at natural recovery
sites.

•	Develop accepted measuring protocols to determine in situ chemical fluxes from bed
sediments into the overlying water column.

•	Develop protocols for assessing the relative contribution of the five or more mechanisms
for chemical releases from bed sediments (including mass transport of sediments and
contaminants by large-scale storm events).

•	Determine the mechanisms for measuring the bioavailability of sorbed contaminants and
the effect of sediment aging.

•	Determine the rate and/or presence of anaerobic degradation processes in near-shore,
mostly anoxic sediments.

•	Conduct additional laboratory, pilot-scale, and field-scale demonstrations of the
effectiveness of biological treatments.

•	Explore the possibility of combining in situ bioremediation with in situ capping.

3.6.2 In situ Capping

"In situ capping is the controlled, accurate placement of a clean, isolating material cover,
or cap, over contaminated sediments without relocating the sediments or causing a major
disruption of the original bed" (NRC, 1997). U.S. EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office
and U.S. EPA Region 5 have coordinated with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S.


-------
Page 50	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

Geological Survey in the production of two guidance documents on in situ capping (U.S. EPA,
1998d, and in prep.). Capping attempts to limit the adverse impacts of sediment contamination
by providing a barrier to prevent contact between aquatic organisms and the contaminated
sediments. Capping may also prevent downstream transport of sediments and their associated
contaminants.

The design and installation of conventional sediment caps is fairly straight-forward and
well understood, including the numerous cap placement technologies (tremie tube, submerged
diffuses, and others) described by U.S. EPA (1998d). However, the long-term effectiveness of
this alternative has not been well researched, although the National Research Council (NRC,
2001a) documents in situ capping case studies that have been completed in Hamilton Harbor,
Canada and the St. Paul Waterway in Tacoma, Washington. Reports documenting results of
these operations can be found in Zeman and Patterson (1997) and Parametrix (1999),
respectively. Additionally, many entities are now beginning to discuss more complex sediment
cap designs, including the use of zero-valent iron or biological treatment mechanisms in the cap
design.

Science Needs

•	Analyze data from historical and ongoing field applications to determine capping
effectiveness (NRC, 1997).

•	Research and/or develop technologies to control contaminant releases during cap
placement (NRC, 1997).

•	Testing to simulate and evaluate the consequences of episodic mixing (e.g., anchor
penetration and major flood/storm events) (NRC, 1997).

•	Determine the impacts of advective transport (i.e., groundwater flow) on the transport of
contaminants through the cap.

•	Develop and evaluate the use of innovative cap designs that incorporate chemical and/or
biological treatment technologies.

•	Assess the uncertainties associated with cap performance predictions.

3.6.3 In situ Treatment

In situ treatment involves the active manipulation of in-place sediments to enhance the
breakdown or prevent the transport (e.g., immobilization) of contaminants. Potential
technologies include: in situ immobilization, in situ chemical treatment, in situ freezing, in situ
geo-oxidation, and in situ vitrification (NRC, 1997).

Immobilization technologies are likely to be based on the concepts of solidification and
immobilization. The applicability of these processes to fine-grained sediments with high water
content has yet to be demonstrated. Potential problems include: inaccuracies of in situ


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 51

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

placement, erosion, temperature increases during curing, and increases in sediment volume
(NRC, 1997).

Researchers at the Canadian National Water Research Institute have developed and
demonstrated equipment capable of injecting chemical solutions into sediments at a controlled
rate (U.S. EPA, 1994). However, the applicability of in situ chemical treatment appears to be
limited because of interference between various classes of contaminants and the possibility of
mobilizing metals in the process of oxidizing organics (NRC, 1997). The National Research
Council (NRC, 2001) states that "no effective in situ delivery system has yet been developed for
[delivering required nutrients, substrates, or reagents to] contaminated sediments."

The use of in situ freezing and in situ vitrification can be quickly dismissed based on high
cost and limited effectiveness. Freezing by injection of molten sulfur has the same limitation as
in situ solidification. In situ vitrification has been demonstrated on soils, but the high water
content of sediments would require local site dewatering and the construction of a vapor recovery
system (NRC, 1997). The NRC (2001a) documents the difficulties encountered on an in situ
treatment project in Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin. There are many difficulties associated with
the application of in situ technologies to contaminated sediment deposits. Many of these
problems are based upon the application of known processes to the high volumes of low-
concentration sediment generally found in the field. In addition, many sediment deposits are
both heterogeneous and fine-grained, making the uniform application of treatment amendments
difficult.

The use of Electrochemical Geoxidation (ECGOx) is being considered for apilot-scale
demonstration in Pugct Sound, Washington. Two additional ex situ pilot-scale sediment
treatment projects using ECGOx are also in the planning stages. The ECGOx process uses low-
voltage, low-amperage, alternating current/direct current to sustain a reduction-oxidation reaction
between two electrodes placed in the sediments. This redox reaction results in the mineralization
of organic compounds. Target compounds for this treatment include PAHs, PCBs, and other
organics (CDM, 1986). Additionally, by making adjustments to the current applied to the
system, ECGOx can mobilize inorganic contaminants and plate them to the cathode and anode
ends of the electrodes. Unconfirmed data provided by the vendor indicate the success of ECGOx
in addressing PAHs, PCBs, and mercury contamination in soils.

Science Needs

•	Additional extensive research of most in situ treatment would be required and is probably
not justified based on the limited applicability and effectiveness of current technologies
(NRC, 1997).

•	U.S. EPA should oversee and critically evaluate the three in situ and ex situ ECGOx
pilot-scale demonstrations planned for the U.S. in 2001 and 2002 to determine if


-------
Page 52	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

additional studies are justified (The Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, several private companies, U.S. EPA's Superfund Innovative
Technologies Evaluation Program, U.S. EPA Region 2, and U.S. EPA Region 10 are
involved in the evaluation and demonstrations currently being discussed).

•	Continue an open dialogue with international agencies and technology vendors and
perform literature reviews to keep abreast of any advances in in situ treatment
technologies.

3.6.4	Dredging/Removal

"Efficient hydraulic and mechanical methods are [readily] available for the removal and
transport of sediments for ex situ remediation or confinement" (NRC, 1997). Additionally,
promising technologies for precision control include electronically positioned dredge-heads and
bottom-crawling hydraulic dredges. The latter may offer the capability of dredging in depths
beyond the standard maximum operating capacity of conventional dredges (NRC, 1997). Finally,
many innovative mechanical (e.g., environmental clamshell) and hydraulic pumps (e.g., Eddy
pump, PNEUMA pump) are available that advertise reduced sediment resuspension, increased
solids content of dredged material, and/or other performance enhancements. Adequate research
and data are not available to evaluate all of these claims. Hayes (1989) noted that the operation
of the dredge and experience of the dredge operator have a profound effect on the rate of
sediment re-suspension. Furthermore, recent monitoring at dredging sites has focused on the
short-term impacts and contaminant losses associated with dredging operations. U.S. EPA
(1996a) presents a good general framework for estimating contaminant losses from all
components of the dredging and disposal process. Additionally, the USGS (Steuer, 2000)
presents a case study for monitoring short-term impacts for a dredging project on the Fox River,
Wisconsin.

Science Needs

•	Performance evaluation for innovative dredging equipment.

•	Evaluate the performance of low re-suspension dredges capable of removing sediments at
near in situ densities (NRC, 1997).

•	Enhanced capabilities for precision removal of sediments (NRC, 1997).

•	Increased monitoring before, during, and after dredging to determine short-term impacts
and long-term improvements due to dredging projects.

3.6.5	Ex situ Treatment Technologies

Numerous ex situ treatment technologies have undergone bench- and pilot-scale
demonstrations. The results of these studies are documented in numerous reports including U.S.
EPA's Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) program reports


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 53

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

(http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/arcs/), International Navigation Association (PIANC) proceedings,
Superfund's Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) programs

(http://www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE/), and other documents. Ex situ treatment is generally more
promising than using the same technology in situ, because conditions can be more tightly
controlled in contained facilities. Chemical separation, thermal desorption, and immobilization
technologies have been employed successfully but are expensive, complicated, and limited to
treating certain types of sediments and/or contaminants. Because of the high unit costs, thermal
and chemical destruction techniques do not appear to be cost-effective, near-term approaches for
remediating large volumes of contaminated dredged material (NRC, 1997).

Following up on the work conducted under the ARCS Program, U.S. EPA Region 2
coordinated a five-year study on sediment treatment technologies, the goal of which was to
examine alternative methods to address and manage contaminated sediments in New York/New
Jersey Harbor. A particular focus of U.S. EPA Region 2 work was to evaluate treatment
technologies that both decontaminate sediments and produce a marketable final product This
study has resulted in a completed pilot-scale demonstration: a sediment washing process
whereby a manufactured topsoil and bricks are produced as marketable end-products. Two
additional thermal treatment demonstrations are planned for 2002/2003: a process that produces
a blended cement product; and a process that produces a lightweight aggregate product (Stern et
al., 1998; Jones et al., 2001).

Utilizing the information generated by U.S. EPA Region 2 in its New York/New Jersey
Harbor decontamination program and in an effort to identify treatment technologies with a unit
cost (dollars per cubic yard) of less than one hundred dollars (SI00), the Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO) has teamed with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) for bench-scale testing and evaluation of sediment treatment technologies with
beneficial end products (SEG, 1999). MDEQ and GLNPO selected the most promising of these
technologies, the thermal destruction Cement-Lock technology, for a pilot-scale demonstration
scheduled for 2002. Additionally, GLNPO, U.S. EPA-SITE, the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, and Minergy Corporation are coordinating the pilot-scale demonstration and
evaluation of Minergy's technology which destroys organic contaminants and encapsulates
inorganic contaminants while producing a glass aggregate by-product that can be used for
construction fill. Additional demonstrations are planned.

Science Needs

•	Research and development of ex situ treatment technologies to search for reasonable
possibilities for cost effective treatment of large volumes of sediments (NRC, 1997).

•	Additional full-scale demonstrations of promising treatment options to determine
effectiveness of technology on a larger scale and to identify the pathways for contaminant
losses and risk associated with contaminant losses during treatment.


-------
Page 54	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

•	Significant coordination between U.S. EPA, Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. ACE), and
technology vendors to identify cost-effective treatment options and potential end uses of
treatment products to offset the cost of treatment.

3.6.6 Beneficial Use Technologies

"Dredged sediments traditionally have been viewed as waste [material]. However,
dredged material is often used for beneficial purposes [such as], fill for urban development (such
as the construction of National Airport in Washington, DC), beach nourishment, the creation of
wetlands and wildlife habitat, for improving farmland [as a soil amendment], as fill for general
construction, and for establishing coastal islands where many species of birds nest" (NRC, 1997).
The statutory underpinning for the beneficial use of dredged material is provided by the Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1992 (P.L. 102-580), which contains provisions for using
dredged material for such things as the protection, restoration, and creation of aquatic habitat
(NRC, 1997). In addition, both the MPRSA and CWA dredged material disposal regulatory
programs help foster beneficial uses by requiring consideration of alternatives (such as beneficial
use) to dredged material disposal.

Most beneficial use projects completed to date have used "clean" dredged material, but
the National Research Council (1997) contains an extensive list of completed beneficial use
projects that used both "clean" and "contaminated" dredged materials. The NRC document also
contains references to numerous scientific studies to assess the effectiveness of these beneficial
use projects and to determine if there were any environmental impacts from the contaminants
associated with the dredged sediments. U.S. ACE, GLNPO, and associated state and local
organizations have coordinated on several beneficial use pilot projects within the Great Lakes
watershed (mined land reclamation and construction fill projects in Duluth, Minnesota, top soil
creation at Toledo, Ohio, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Green Bay, Wisconsin). Additionally, the
Michigan DEQ realized significant cost saving on a sediment remediation project for Newburgh
Lake when the dredged sediments were used as daily cover at a nearby landfill (GLNPO, 2000).

Although there is significant information on research studies and pilot- and full-scale
demonstrations of beneficial use, most of the reuse projects are isolated, one-time studies and are
not consistently incorporated into long-term management strategies on dredge material
management. This is unfortunate since increases in beneficial use could conserve valuable
disposal space at Confined Disposal Facilities (CDFs) and landfills.

Science Needs

•	Development of technical guidelines for the beneficial use of dredged material, similar to
the guidelines for the use of biosolids.


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 55

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

•	Literature review and analysis of beneficial use projects and studies to determine the
associated environmental impacts.

3.6.7	Disposal Options

The National Research Council (1997) contains an excellent discussion of disposal
options for contaminated sediments and a figure for visualizing each alternative. The three major
options for contaminated sediment disposal include:

•	Landfilling - the placement of sediments into a licensed solid waste facility.

•	Confined Disposal Facilities (CDFs) - placement of sediments into a diked in-water, near-
shore, or land-based facility specifically designed for containing sediments.

•	Contained Aquatic Disposal (CAD) - controlled, open-water placement of contaminated
material followed by covering (capping) with clean material. (NRC, 1997).

Both CDFs and landfills have a long history of use, and the state of research and study of these
facilities is fairly well advanced. In contrast, fewer actual case studies exist for CAD projects,
and therefore, there exists only a limited amount of research on this disposal option. Sumeri
(1984) and Truitt (1986) document theresults of a CAD project in the Duwamish Waterway in
Seattle, Washington (NRC, 1997). In 1992, U.S. EPA and U.S. ACE published a document
describing techniques for evaluating releases resulting for various disposal options (U.S.
EPA/US. ACE, 1992).

Science Needs

•	Improved methods for evaluation of potential release pathways for each disposal option.

•	Literature review and evaluation of releases for current disposal facilities, particularly
CDFs.

•	Improved design criteria for designing and building CADs.

•	Investigation of long-term effectiveness and releases for each disposal alternative.

•	Better models to predict loss of contaminants via volatilization.

3.6.8	Key Recommendations for Sediment Remediation

E.l Collect the necessary data and develop guidance for determining the conditions under
which natural recovery can be considered a suitable remedial option. Such guidance
would include: measurement protocols to assess the relative contribution of the various
mechanisms for chemical releases from bed sediments (e.g., advection, bioturbation,
diffusion, and resuspension), including mass transport of contaminants by large storm
events; methodologies to quantify the uncertainties associated with natural recovery; and


-------
Page 56	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

development of accepted measuring protocols to determine in situ chemical fluxes from
sediments. (ORD, OERR, U.S. EPA Regions, GLNPO)

E.2 Develop performance evaluations of various cap designs and cap placement methods and
conduct post-cap monitoring to document performance. Continue to monitor ongoing
capping projects to monitor performance (e.g., Boston Harbor, Eagle Harbor, Grasse
River). (ORD, U.S. EPA Regions, GLNPO)

E.3 Encourage and promote the development and demonstration of in-situ technologies.
(ORD, GLNPO)

E.4 Using the data provided in recommendation E. 1, develop a white paper evaluating the

short-term impacts from dredging relative to natural processes and human activities (e.g.,
resuspension from storm events, boat scour, wave action and anchor drag). (OERR, U.S.
EPA Regions)

E.5 Support the demonstration of cost-effective ex-situ treatment technologies and

identification of potential beneficial uses of treatment products. (ORD, GLNPO, U.S.
EPA Regions)

3.7 Baseline, Remediation, and Post-Remediation Monitoring

A sediment monitoring program is required for all types of sediment remedies, both
during remedy implementation and over the long-term to ensure that all sediment risk and
exposure pathways at a site have been adequately managed by the remedy. Long-term
monitoring should continue until all remedial action objectives have been met. In some
instances, this may take many decades. A sediment monitoring program encompasses baseline
monitoring, monitoring during remedial action implementation, and post-remediation, or long-
term monitoring.

Baseline monitoring encompasses the monitoring of those indicators of environmental
change (i.e., fish or other biota, sediment chemistry, pore water chemistry, toxicity testing, and
benthic community structure) which is conducted prior to the initiation of the remedial action. It
is typically conducted during the remedial investigation or site characterization stage. Baseline
monitoring should be consistent with the planned long-term or post-remediation monitoring, and
to provide a baseline for comparison with the post-remediation monitoring data in order to detect
and evaluate environmental trends.

In contrast, post-remediation, or long-term, monitoring is initiated once the remedial
action is completed. It involves multiple measurements made over time to assess the success of
the remedy in meeting remedial performance goals. The data are used to evaluate the long-term
effectiveness of the selected remedial action in protecting human health and the environment,
engineering/construction performance and structural integrity of any containment or stabilization
structures, the recovery of areas impacted by the remedial action, and the success of mitigation
projects built to offset environmental impacts caused by the remedial action; the data can also be


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 57

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

used to evaluate restoration of the ecosystem. Post-remediation monitoring typically consists of
the monitoring of fish or other biota, toxicity testing, and benthic community structure
evaluations.

Monitoring during implementation of the remedial action is used to evaluate the short-
term effects of the conductance of the remedial action, whether the remedial action project meets
design requirements, whether clean-up levels are met, and whether other remedial action
objectives are met. In some cases where the implementation of the remedial action spans a
significant length of time, the length of time of monitoring during implementation may span
several years, if not decades. Natural recovery sites and large dredging projects encompassing
millions of cubic yards of sediment are examples of sites where such monitoring may run for
decades. Monitoring during remedial action implementation may contain some of the same
indicators, but will likely include monitoring of others such as turbidity, dissolved oxygen,
sediment chemistry, water chemistry, and air monitoring.

Monitoring is a standard component at a contaminated sediment project, beginning prior
to the site investigation when project managers are trying to determine whether there is a
problem, and running through post-remediation monitoring. These various types of monitoring
programs are being implemented at a number of contaminated sediment sites, and plans are in
place to initiate monitoring at others. A few examples of sites where post-remediation
monitoring is underway or planned to be initiated are:

1.	Cannelton Industries Superfund site on the St. Mary's River, Michigan.

2.	Black River, Ohio.

3.	River Raisin (Ford Outfalls Superfund removal action site), Michigan.

4.	Manistique River and Harbor, Michigan (Superfund removal action site).

5.	LCP Superfund site in Brunswick, Georgia.

Monitoring during remedy implementation is underway on the Pine River, Michigan
(Velsicol Superfund site). The Sediment Inventory maybe referred to for additional information.

	

Figure 3-2.

Examples of Other Science Activities Related to Monitoring

•	FIELDS software tools have been developed to support the monitoring of remedy implementation and
remediation effectiveness (U.S. EPA Region 5 Superfund).

•	A Contaminated Sediments Monitoring Workshop will be held.

•	Development ofmonitoring guidance and fact sheets (OSWER and regions), targeted for completion
over 2002/2004.

•	Development of tools to be used in monitoring (ORD/OW).


-------
Page 58	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

Questions arise regarding the short-term impacts and long-term effectiveness of dredging,
capping and other in situ remedies. A look at sediment sites across the nation shows
inconsistencies in the kinds of monitoring performed. Impediments to the implementation of
monitoring may be due to limited knowledge on how to develop and implement monitoring
plans.

There is an ongoing debate regarding the short-term impacts and long-term effectiveness
of dredging and capping remedies, with some claiming that dredging (and possibly capping)
cause greater harm through destruction of habitat and release of contaminants. Others argue that
while there are short-term impacts, they can be minimized through technology and operational
and other controls, and that these remedies will prove to be more protective over the long-term
because of the permanent removal of the contaminants or through limitations on bioavailability.
Other questions include: Will dredging or capping result in newly created or increased direct
toxicity to biota from increases in dissolved or suspended contaminant concentrations in the
water column? Will they result in an increase in the bioavailability of contaminants and
increased tissue concentrations in fish and other biota? How long does it take for the habitat of a
dredged or capped area to become suitable for aquatic life and for re-colonization to take place?
Will caps provide attractive habitat for desirable biota, or will they attract less desirable
organisms and non-native communities? Information from the monitoring of both remedy
implementation and post-remediation is necessary in order to address and resolve these issues.

Science Needs

The NRC Report (2001a) recommends that "[l]ong-term monitoring and evaluation of
[...] contaminated sediment sites should be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the
management approach and to ensure adequate, continuous protection of humans and the
environment." This is consistent with the issues discussed above - more and better monitoring
data are needed. To ensure that such data are collected, guidance and information with regard to
available protocols and tests are needed for the remediation project manager's reference. In
addition, to ensure that such monitoring is implemented, a cross-program policy may also be
needed. Such a policy may direct the programs and offices to ensure that monitoring is included
as a component of remedial alternatives in the Feasibility Study and Record of Decision, and
included in settlements with Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs). For cleanups funded with
Federal dollars, sufficient funds would need to be included to cover the cost of the monitoring, or
agreements made with state or Federal partners to conduct such monitoring.

Some specific areas that need to be addressed include: an evaluation of the existing
protocols and tests performed to identify those which are appropriate for monitoring and any
additional needs. For example, U.S. EPA's Office of Water has published protocols for sampling
and analysis of fish and shellfish in order to determine human health risks associated with tissue
contaminants (U.S. EPA, 2000c). U.S. EPA has also published guidance on collection, storage,


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 59

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

and manipulation of sediments (U.S. EPA, 2001b), and existing Agency protocols are available
for dredged material testing and assessment (U.S. EPA, 1998c and 1991a). These protocols are
available for use in monitoring contaminated sediment sites. However, monitoring guidance
needs to be developed to provide remediation project managers with a consistent approach to
developing monitoring plans and implementing such monitoring. Monitoring guidance should
also address how monitoring plans are developed, what protocols and tests are available for use
with recommendations for the use for each, how to develop indicators and measures, how to
evaluate monitoring data, minimum Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) protocols, and
specifics regarding which biota and which media should be used for specific situations (i.e.,
number of, species, and age of fish for bioaccumulative chemicals of concern).

Monitoring data should also be made available to provide information for decision-
making at other sediment sites. Please refer to Section 3.9 for additional details with regard to
monitoring data management and exchange.

3.7.1 Key Recommendations for Baseline, Remediation, and Post-Remediation
Monitoring

F. 1 Develop monitoring guidance fact sheets for baseline, remediation, and post-remediation
monitoring, and monitoring during remedy implementation. (ORD, OERR, U.S. EPA
Regions, OW)

F.2 Conduct training and hold workshops for project managers regarding monitoring of
contaminated sediment sites. (OERR, ORD, U.S. EPA Regions)

3.8 Risk Communication and Community Involvement

The National Research Council's report, A Risk-Management Strategy for PCB-
Contaminated Sediments (NRC, 2001a) highlighted the many benefits of involving communities
in the cleanup process. "Participation makes the process more democratic, lends legitimacy to
the process, educates and empowers the affected communities, and generally leads to decisions
that are more accepted by the community (Fiorino, 1990; Folk, 1991; NRC, 1996). The affected
community members can contribute essential community-based knowledge, information, and
insight that is often lacking in expert-driven risk processes (Ashford and Rest, 1999).

Community involvement can also assist in dealing with perceptions of risk and helping
community members to understand the differences between types and degrees of risk." Although
the benefits of early, active, and continuous community involvement have been widely
recognized by U.S. EPA and others, the NRC found that there still remains much progress that
needs to be made to more effectively involve communities.

U.S. EPA's two major programs with responsibilities for protecting and cleaning-up
contaminated sediments, Superfund and the Office of Water, have both expanded efforts to more


-------
Page 60	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

greatly involve communities in their programs. For example, the Superfund program published a
report identifying useful lessons that were learned on how to provide communities greater
involvement (U.S. EPA, 1999b). Superfund has developed a number of general guidance
documents and tools for use at Superfund sites. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
(RAGS): Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplement to Part A: Community
Involvement in Superfund Risk Assessments (U.S. EPA, 1999c) explains how Superfund staff and
community members can work together especially during the risk assessment. A video,
Superfund Risk Assessment - What It's All About and How You Can Help, describes (in lay
terms) the Superfund risk assessment process and how communities can help (U.S. EPA, 1999d).
Other fact sheets and Community Advisory Group Toolkits have been developed (U.S. EPA,
1998a, 1995b, 1999b, and 1996b). Additionally, the Office of Water's National Fish and
Wildlife Contamination Program is developing an updated (second) edition of its Guidance for
Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume IV: Risk
Communication (U.S. EPA, 1995a). This new edition, expected to be completed in Spring 2003,
will provide greater emphasis on ensuring that risk communication is culturally appropriate for
diverse communities and that all communities should be involved early and throughout the
program.

Risk communication provides the means for communities to have a greater role in the
evaluation and decision-making process. Risk communication research develops the methods,
models, and tools for U.S. EPA to more effectively reach out to communities, earn their trust,
and build an effective working partnership. This partnership will allow communities to become
more fully engaged in the entire cleanup process - not just as passive listeners, but as important
decision-makers. The NRC (2001b) report recognized that U.S. EPA's community involvement
program has been advocating greater involvement of affected communities into the cleanup
process.

An important component of risk communication and community involvement is ensuring
that all the technical information provided to the communities is understandable. Too often
communities are either inundated with too much extraneous information that cannot be
understood, or they are presented with summaries that contain too little data. Research is needed
on both how to effectively extract the appropriate amount of information and determine the best
vehicles (e.g., formal presentations, newsletters, informal meetings, videos, infomercials, web
sites) for presenting the data to communities. In addition to developing more effective tools for
the sender of messages, research is needed to develop better listening skills for all the receivers
of messages.

Communities have first-hand knowledge of the site and their own activities (such as
catching and consuming fish) that would be very helpful to U.S. EPA's evaluation of the site and
its possible impacts on nearby communities. The development of site-specific exposure factors


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 61

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

based on the measurements of the habits of the local community could reduce reliance on the use
of national default assumptions that may not reflect local habits or conditions.

Communities at contaminated sediment sites are diverse and often have conflicting
interests that are hard to articulate and quantify Measurement methods that might be suitable
include public opinion survey instruments, randomly selected focus groups, and computer-based
methods such as "virtual" town meetings. This is particularly important for sediment sites
because they can cover large geographic areas.

Because the effectiveness of risk communication and community involvement are rarely
measured in application, there is considerable disagreement about the effectiveness of current
public participation activities. Measuring the performance of existing tools and newly developed
tools would focus improvements in necessary areas.

Science Needs

•	Develop better methods and tools to measure the preferences of individuals, sub-
populations, and communities throughout the entire sediment cleanup process.

•	Develop more effective methods and tools to describe, summarize, and present complex
technical data to communities.

•	Develop better methods and tools to extract and utilize community-based knowledge.

•	Develop ways to determine how various societal and cultural values and practices are
impacted by contaminated sediments or cleanup activities. For example, the inability of
native tribes to harvest fish and then barter them for other valuables is a cultural impact
that is not often considered.

•	Develop community outreach methods and tools that can be applied to large geographic
sites with multiple diverse communities. Because some contaminated sediment sites,
especially river sites, can span tens or even hundreds of miles, they present difficult
challenges to community involvement staff.

•	Develop and apply methods and tools that measure the effectiveness of environmental
public participation programs.

3.8.1 Key Recommendations for Risk Communication and Community
Involvement

G. 1 Establish a research program on risk communication and community involvement
focusing on developing better methods, models, and tools. (ORD, OERR, U.S. EPA
Regions)


-------
Page 62	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

3.9 Information Management and Exchange Activities

Information, or data, management is a key component of the characterization, assessment,
and monitoring activities conducted at contaminated sediment sites. A data management system
provides one point of access for all data and simplifies assessment, QA/QC evaluation, modeling,
mapping, querying, trends analysis and other activities that may be conducted using the data.
Information communication and exchange are critical components of a contaminated sediment
project and would be simplified by the establishment of a quality data management system.
Outreach and information-sharing with the public is key to not only their understanding of the
ecological and health risks associated with a site, but also of the possible solutions to address
those risks. An informed public would be better able to contribute to the decision-making
process in a knowledgeable manner.

Some examples of the types of information/data management activities that are underway
are shown in Figure 3-3.

	

Figure 3-3.

Types of Information/Data Management Activities Currently Underway

•	GLNPO's sediment database.

•	OW's Sediment Inventory.

OERR's Superfund sediment sites database.

•	U.S. EPA Region 5/GLNPO Sediment Information Management System

Other information communication and exchange activities are identified in Figure 3-4.

	

Figure 3-4.

Information Communication and Exchange Activities

Sediment Network (OW).

Superfund Sediment Forum (OERR).

•	Participation on external fora such as the National Sediment Dialogue and Great Lakes and
other regional Dredging Teams.

•	Great Lakes sediment web page (GLNPO).

Public Outreach Tools: Sediment pamphlet and poster (OW) and a dredging video (OERR).
U.S. EPA Region 5/GLNPO Sediment Information Management System (SIMS).

•	U.S. EPA Region 5 Superfund's Fully Integrated Environmental Locational Decision Support
(FIELDS) system.

U.S. EPA Region 5's sedimentweb page.


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 63

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

Science Needs

Environmental data need to be appropriately housed in data management systems. Such
data management systems should be consistent and able to link across the regions and offices.
Environmental information regarding these sites needs to be placed onto regional contaminated
sediment web sites which are updated on a regular basis. They should link across the regions so
that information on sites in other regions is available to the viewer. Networks should be formed
so that information about contaminated sediment sites and issues can be exchanged and
discussed. Workshops and other fora should be held periodically for a range of audiences as
additional means of communicating and exchanging information, and increasing the science
knowledge of stakeholders and others.

There is a need for more timely information exchange, improved access to environmental
information and data, both internally across the Agency and with external stakeholders and other
interested parties. One of the recommendations in the National Research Council Report (2001b)
is that there be "early, active, and continuous involvement of all affected parties and
communities as partners." One of the many keys to the success of such involvement is the
availability of, and access to, environmental information and data about the site(s) of concern. In
addition, stakeholders may also need some basic science knowledge (or someone to explain it) so
as to be able to comprehend what the data and information means and be better able to contribute
to the decision-making process in an informative manner.

3.9.1 Key Recommendations for Information Management and Exchange
Activities

H.l Establish regional sediment data management systems which can link the regions and
program offices with each other and with the National Sediment Inventory. (U.S. EPA
Regions, OW, OSWER, GLNPO)

H.2 Standardize the sediment site data collection/reporting format. Establish minimum

protocols for quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC). (OEI, OW OSWER, U.S. EPA
Regions)

H.3 Develop national and regional contaminated sediment sites web sites for sharing

information. (U.S. EPA Regions, OW, OSWER, GLNPO)

H.4 Re-establish and expand the Office of Water-sponsored Sediment Network by including

more regional representation. (OERR, OW, U.S. EPA Regions)

H.5 Promote communication and coordination of science and research among Federal
agencies. (ORD, OSWER, OW, U.S. EPA Regions, NOAA, U.S. Navy, U.S. ACE,
USGS, U.S. FWS)

H.6 Promote the exchange of scientific information via scientific fora (i.e., workshops,
journals, and meetings). (CSMC, OW, OSWER, U.S. EPA Regions, GLNPO)


-------
Page 64	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 65

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

4. LONG-RANGE SCIENCE STRATEGY

4.1	Introduction

There are many scientific uncertainties associated with assessing and managing
contaminated sediments. Multiple offices and regions have overlapping science needs; some
have individual, program-specific requirements. Realistically, it will take a long-term program to
develop, implement, and verify the science. Planning across all U.S. EPA organizations, with
recognition of important work being conducted by other organizations, is essential to advancing
the science and managing risks from contaminated sediments in the most cost-effective ways.

4.2	Key Recommendations

In the presentation of each major topic in Chapter Three, the authors discussed the state
of the science and science needs. Science needs were developed to provide guidance on what
scientific tasks are needed to address the topics' key scientific question. These needs address a
wide array of data gaps, method development, guidance requirements, and communication
issues.

The Contaminated Sediments Science Plan science needs for the major topics were
focused through the generation of key recommendations. In the development of key
recommendations for the Contaminated Sediments Science Plan, the Workgroup members
reviewed Chapter Three science needs for each major topic. As each major topic was discussed,
science needs were evaluated for their high priority, critical nature to address data gaps in the
topic, ability to reduce uncertainty, and identification of state-of-the-science guidance or tools.
Key recommendations for each major topic were agreed to by the Workgroup members using the
evaluation criteria, professional judgement, comment or input from Agency review, and a group
consensus process. The Workgroup did not constrain the recommendations to fit within
available resources. Instead, the recommendations are a comprehensive list that U.S. EPA
organizations can consider when balancing resource allocations across competing high priority
needs.

The thirty-three (33) key recommendations described in this section address the
contaminated sediment issues and data gaps, as well as areas for better coordination of
contaminated sediment science activities, including research, across the Agency that are
identified as highest priority by the Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Workgroup and have
undergone cross-Agency review. The recommendations are listed by science area and include:
sediment site characterization; exposure assessment research; health effects research; ecological


-------
Page 66	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

effects research; sediment remediation; baseline, remediation, and post-remediation monitoring;
risk communication and community involvement; and information management and exchange
activities.

4.2.1 Sediment Site Characterization

Accurate sediment site characterization is of great importance to scientists, risk managers,
and others involved in the decision-making process. Because of the complexity of chemical fate
and transport processes in sediment, water, and biota, many factors can affect the kinds and
magnitude of impacts that contaminated sediment has on the environment. These factors include
hydrology, the physical and chemical characteristics of the sediment, the types of contaminants
present and their associated human health or ecological effects, and synergistic or antagonistic
effects of contaminants. Better tools and methods for analysis of physical and chemical
parameters, biological testing, evaluation of ecological effects, and sediment sampling will result
in sound science to support decision-making.

Physical Parameters

A.l Conduct a workshop to develop a consistent approach to collecting sediment

physical property data for use in evaluating sediment stability.

A workshop is needed to identify research necessary to develop better, faster, and more
cost-effective methods for high resolution determination of physical sediment parameters. Such
methods are needed for evaluating remedial options (e.g., natural attenuation, capping, or
dredging). When evaluating remedial options, risk managers must obtain information on key
physical sediment parameters including the erosional and depositional properties of sites to be
remediated. High resolution spatial data are needed to characterize freshwater sites where
sediment is often heterogeneous. Improved spatial resolution of field survey data will enable
more accurate determination of the volume or mass of contaminated sediment. It is
recommended that U.S. EPA consult with U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and U.S. Navy on their progress in developing these techniques. An improved
understanding of the relationships between geomorphological and physical sediment parameters
and contaminant transport, fate, and effects will enable decision-makers to more effectively
evaluate site management alternatives.


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 67

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

Chemical Parameters

A.2 Develop more sensitive, low-cost laboratory methods for detecting sediment

contaminants, and real-time or near real-time chemical sensors for use in the field.

Interferences encountered as part of the sediment matrix, particularly in samples from
heavily contaminated areas, may limit the ability of available methods to detect or quantify some
analytes. More sensitive, low-cost methods are needed to detect sediment contaminants and the
chemical parameters that control bioavailability of contaminants such as PCBs, dioxin, PAHs,
metals, and pesticides. Real-time or near real-time sensors are also needed to provide both point
measurements and long-term, time-series observations of sediment contaminants of concern.
Real-time chemical sensors will enable better, faster, and more cost-effective site assessment and
the immediate targeting of hot spots for potential remediation.

A.3 Develop U.S. EPA approved methods with lower detection limits for analysis of
bioaccumulative contaminants of concern in fish tissue.

Many chemical contaminants can persist for relatively long periods of time in sediments
where bottom-dwelling animals can accumulate and pass them up the food chain to fish and
wildlife. Therefore, improved methods are needed for analysis of chemical contaminants such as
PCBs, dioxin, metals and pesticides in fish tissue. U.S. EPA has published interim procedures
for sampling and analysis of priority pollutants in fish tissue (U.S. EPA, 1981). However,
official U.S. EPA-approved methods are available only for the analysis of low parts-per-billion
concentrations of some metals in fish and shellfish tissues (U.S. EPA, 1991b). Although U.S.
EPA-approved methods for many analytes have not been published, states and regions have
developed specific analytical methods for various target analytes (U.S. EPA, 2000d).

A.4	Develop methods for analyzing emerging endocrine disruptors, including
alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs) and their metabolites.

Present methods for analyzing emerging endocrine disrupting chemicals are inadequate.
Methods for analyzing endocrine disruptors, including APEs and their metabolites, should be
developed to support regulatory decision-making.

4.2.2 Exposure Assessment

B.l	Develop a tiered framework for assessing food web exposures.

The National Research Council (2001a) recommended a tiered approach to risk
assessment for PCB-contaminated sediment sites that would work well for any sediment
contaminated by bioaccumulative compounds. The screening tier would apply conservative


-------
Page 68	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

assumptions and rely on existing data in the literature to easily distinguish sediments that do not
pose an unacceptable risk from those that may. The middle tier would use a combination of
some site-specific data and interpretive tools to produce a more refined assessment of the level of
risk. At many sites, this approach would be sufficient to determine whether or not remediation
was warranted and would provide some insight into the potential benefits of alternative remedies.
The highest tier of exposure assessment would rely heavily on site-specific data and would
include model tailoring and model calibration to site conditions. This most sophisticated
assessment would be applied only at selected sites where the combination of site complexity,
resource values, affected party interests, and potential costs warrant a detailed investigation of
existing and potential future exposures.

ORD's research and program applications are presently focused at the middle tier;
funding is being sought to expand the research to the lower and higher tiers. This
recommendation is to provide program guidance for implementing the screening tier and to
conduct research and model validation for the highest tier.

B.2 Develop guidance and identify pilots for improving coordination between TMDL

and remedial programs in waterways with contaminated sediments.

In many of the country's water bodies, there are multiple legal authorities to address both
existing contaminated sediments and continued contaminant loading. Pilot projects need to be
developed to identify the most effective ways to integrate environmental management to control
sources and achieve water quality goals. Integrated management models need to be improved
and communicated within U.S. EPA and to partners in state programs. Results of the TMDL
pilot projects in waterways with contaminated sediments should be made available to the states
as potential models for the development of complex TMDLs involving multiple toxic pollutants
and media (i.e., water, sediment, and fish tissue).

B.3 Develop and advise on the use of the most valid contaminant fate and transport

models that allow prediction of exposures in the future.

Numerous models exist for contaminant fate and transport, including both public domain
and proprietary codes. Some models have not been peer-reviewed in the open literature and there
are very few long-term data sets that can be used to judge predictive capability. The existing
public domain and commercial models need to be evaluated to determine their mechanistic and
mathematical foundations and robustness, and to determine the extent to which they are accepted
by the scientific community. One or more models need to be further developed to improve any
weaknesses determined from the evaluation; the Office of Research and Development (ORD) has
begun this work. The models need to be validated with high quality data sets, which will be
developed via other recommendations in this plan.


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 69

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

The fate and transport models also need to link with models that predict direct and food
web exposures for the purpose of assessing risks and comparing remediation alternatives. The
bioavailability of the contaminants within portions of the system has to be considered to provide
input from the transport models to the exposure/effects models.

B.4	Develop a consistent approach to applying sediment stability data in transport
modeling.

Current approaches to evaluating sediment stability in transport modeling vary across the
Agency and the larger stakeholder community. While a single model is probably not appropriate
for all sites, a consistent approach is needed to ensure that important factors are being considered.
Data sets developed by the regions and other organizations can help identify the key factors that
the transport models need to include for realistic predictions. In addition, a workshop was held
in January 2002 to conduct a comparative evaluation of the models for hydrogeological
conditions in terms of the reliability of predictions.

4.2.3 Human Health Effects and Risk Assessment

C.l	Develop guidance for characterizing human health risks on a PCB congener basis.

Improved methods are needed to assess the risks associated with exposure to aged PCBs
in sediment. For example, although it is recognized that measurement of PCB Aroclors in
sediment can underestimate exposure to PCBs, this method of chemical analysis continues to be
used in risk assessments because a toxicity equivalence approach for evaluating PCB congeners
has not been fully developed.

C.2 Develop sediment guidelines for bioaccumulative contaminants that are protective
of human health via the fish ingestion pathway.

Contaminant-specific sediment guidelines to protect recreational and subsistence anglers
should be developed. This will conserve resources by efficiently eliminating sites or parts of
sites and chemicals from further study, and will help focus site investigations on the most
important areas. Fish tissue contaminant guidelines have been developed for a range of
chemicals (U.S. EPA, 2000a), but corresponding levels of contaminants in sediments must be
developed. Guidelines for bioaccumulative contaminants such as DDT and metabolites, PCBs,
methyl mercury, dieldrin, and high molecular weight PAHs should be developed.

C.3 Refine methods for estimating dermal exposures and risk.

Although the greatest human health risk is generally from ingestion of contaminated fish,
there is a need to develop better methods, models, and exposure factors that will enable risk


-------
Page 70	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

assessors to estimate the exposure from direct skin contact with contaminated sediments.
Research is needed to determine the amount of sediment that might come into contact with the
skin from various activities. Research is also needed to develop a model that accurately predicts
how much of the sediment-borne contaminants actually crosses the dermal barrier and is
available to cause a toxicological effect. Current dermal absorption models are either water or
soil-based and it is not clear which might be more applicable for sediments.

C.4	Evaluate the toxidty and reproductive effects of newly recognized contaminants,
such as alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs) and other endocrine disruptors and their
metabolites on human health.

Additional long-term toxicity data are needed on APEs and other similar chemicals to
further understand their long-term effects on reproductive and other systems.

4.2.4 Ecological Effects and Risk Assessment

D.l	Develop sediment guidelines to protect wildlife from food chain effects.

Sediment quality guidelines are needed to protect piscivorous birds and wildlife from
food chain effects. The contaminants should be bioaccumulative chemicals such as PCB, DDT,
and methyl mercury. This effort would include a consistent method for estimating the site-
specific bioavailability of contaminants.

D.2 Develop additional tools for characterizing ecological risks.

Benthic community studies and single-species sediment toxicity tests are often used to
evaluate the baseline risks to ecological receptors and the risks after remediation. Additional
methods to assess long-term risks, especially for persistent bioaccumulating compounds, should
be developed and validated. This includes the use of smaller, short-lived fish to predict the long-
term food chain effects on game fish, and the use of molecular or genetic indicators to predict
endocrine disruptor impacts.

D.3 Develop guidance on how to interpret ecological sediment toxicity studies (lab or in
situ caged studies); and how to interpret the significance of the results in relation to
site populations and communities.

A more consistent process is needed to allow risk managers to determine: 1) if the
observed or predicted adverse effects on a structural or functional component of the site's
ecosystem is of sufficient type, magnitude, areal extent, and duration that irreversible effects
have occurred or are likely to occur; and 2) if these effects appear to exceed the normal changes
in the structural or functional components typical of unimpacted ecosystems. Interpretive


-------
Contaminated Sediments Science Plan

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy

Page 71

June 13, 2002

guidance for ecological sediment toxicity studies, and the significance of the results to site
populations and communities needs to be developed to better evaluate the need to protect an
ecological resource. For bioassay endpoints such as survival, growth, and reproduction,
population models should be developed to provide further insight into interpretation of test
results.

D.4 Acquire data and develop criteria to use in balancing the long-term benefits from
remedial dredging vs. the shorter term adverse effects on ecological receptors and
their habitats.

The process of remedial dredging can result in a short-term increase in the water column
level of suspended or dissolved contaminants as well as the removal of existing biota and a
severe disruption of their habitats. Quantitative or qualitative criteria are needed that can be used
to determine when there is more benefit to the existing ecosystem from leaving the
contamination in place and preserving the impacted biota and habitat versus a destructive remedy
that removes the contamination but causes short-term impacts. This analysis would also include
predicting recovery times for all scenarios considered.

It is recommended that U.S. EPA collaborate with appropriate Federal agencies to study
the short- and long-term impacts from environmental dredging. At least two locations should be
monitored thoroughly to quantitatively determine all contaminant losses during remedial
dredging. At these projects, all currently accepted management practices (e.g., silt curtains,
covered clamshell buckets, state-of-the-art cutter heads for hydraulic dredging) will be employed
to ensure minimal resuspension. All losses quantified as part of the remedial dredging operation
would then have to be measured against overall benefits to the site by evaluating ecological
benefits for at least a ten-year horizon. Such a study could go far towards resolving the argument
that short-term negative impacts from remedial dredging outweigh long-term ecological benefits.

Biological Testing (bioassays and bioaccumulation tests)

D.5 Conduct field and laboratory studies to further validate and improve chemical-
specific sediment quality guidelines.

Chemical-specific sediment quality guidelines have been developed by U.S. EPA foruse
in contaminated sediment assessment, prevention, and remediation programs. Field validation
studies have been conducted on some of these guidelines for these uses. However, additional
field validation studies and laboratory tests using a range of species should be conducted to
further validate the guidelines and understand contaminant exposure routes. Work is also needed
to develop mixtures guidelines for sediment contaminants.


-------
Page 72	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

D.6 Continue developing and refining sediment toxicity testing methods.

Although a number of sediment toxicity test methods have been standardized, protocols
using new freshwater, marine, and estuarine test species must be developed to provide sensitive
tests representing a greater range of species and habitat types. The currently available
Leptocheirus plumidosus chronic test protocol uses an Atlantic Coast species, which may not
adequately represent the sensitivity of species from Pacific Ocean systems. Chronic, sublethal
test protocols are needed for marine species present in the Pacific, such as the amphipod
Grandidierella japonica. Additional freshwater test protocols are needed for burrowing species.
Field-based test methods (e.g., in situ test methods) are needed to assess the biological effects of
contaminated sediments. Some of the currently available test protocols are expensive and
difficult to run. Test protocols should be simplified to reduce costs, and interpretive guidance for
sublethal test methods should be developed. A number of marine and estuarine test protocols for
amphipod species have been developed. Consideration should be given to developing additional
methods for species other than amphipods.

D.7	Develop whole sediment toxicity identification evaluation procedures for a wide
range of chemicals.

Sediment contaminants often occur in mixtures. Whole sediment toxicity identification
evaluation methods are needed in order to determine which contaminants cause observed
toxicity. Currently available toxicity identification evaluation methods are capable of
characterizing the toxicity of a sediment only by identifying classes of toxic contaminants (e.g.,
metals or organic toxicants). Additional work is needed to improve the method so that individual
chemical contaminants can be identified. In addition, work is needed to conduct field validation
studies supporting the method.

4.2.5 Sediment Remediation

Natural Recovery/Bioremediation

E.l	Collect the necessary data and develop guidance for determining the conditions
under which natural recovery can be considered a suitable remedial option. Such
guidance would include: measurement protocols to assess the relative contribution
of the various mechanisms for chemical releases from bed sediments (e.g., advection,
bioturbation, diffusion, and resuspension), including mass transport of
contaminants by large storm events; methodologies to quantify the uncertainties
associated with natural recovery; and development of accepted measuring protocols
to determine in situ chemical fluxes from sediments.


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 73

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

When selecting a remedial option for a particular site, it is critical to determine the
methods by which contaminants are lost or transported, and which mechanisms play significant
roles. In many situations large storm events will be the largest mechanism to move contaminants
from a particular hot spot. In other more quiescent settings, such processes as advection,
diffusion and bioturbation may predominate. In many systems, the predominant method of
contaminant loss will vary over the season, with resuspension by storm events predominating in
spring and other mechanisms dominant over the rest of the year. Knowing the relative
contributions of these mechanisms is critical in determining whether natural recovery or capping
are the most appropriate remedial options for a site.

It is thus recommended that research be continued and increased for examining the
relative contributions of the various mechanisms for contaminant release from sediments.

In Situ Capping

E.2 Develop performance evaluations of various cap designs and cap placement methods
and conduct post-cap monitoring to document performance. Continue to monitor
ongoing capping projects to monitor performance (e.g., Boston Harbor, Eagle
Harbor, Grasse River).

The design and installation of conventional sediment caps is well understood; however,
the long-term effectiveness of this remedial alternative has not been well researched. In addition,
many entities are now beginning to discuss more complex cap designs, including the use of
biological treatment.

With capping becoming a management option being recommended at more sites, it is
critical that evaluations be conducted to document its effectiveness. Capping demonstration
projects should be promoted and long-term monitoring be implemented to document cap
performance. All mechanisms of loss must be quantified during such a study including diffusion,
advection, bioturbation, and storm events.

In Situ Treatment

E.3 Encourage and promote the development and demonstration of in-situ technologies.

In situ technologies, if proven effective, would be the most efficient means for
remediating contaminated sediment sites. Such a technology would avoid the problems and
arguments of whether or not removing sediments via dredging does more harm than good. It
would also navigate around all the difficulties associated with finding a disposal site.


-------
Page 74	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

U.S. EPA should actively identify and work with any vendors who have a viable
technology for treating contaminants in situ. Demonstration proj ects examining in situ
technologies should be conducted and evaluated to determine their efficacy. The testing of one
such technology, electrogeochemical oxidation, is currently being applied at a number of sites
around the country. As part of these projects, the process will be extensively monitored to
evaluate its performance in treating sediments.

Dredging/Removal

E.4 Using the data provided in recommendation E.l, develop a white paper evaluating
the short-term impacts from dredging relative to natural processes and human
activities (e.g., resuspension from storm events, boat scour, wave action and anchor
drag).

Large storm events are known to move large volumes of sediment and their associated
contaminants. Any study examining the impacts from dredging must also be examined in
relation to all mechanisms of contaminant loss ongoing at a particular site. All contaminant
losses that would naturally occur at a site including resuspension from storm events, advection,
diffusion, and bioturbation, must be taken into account when evaluating dredging impacts. Only
when the net losses from these processes are known can the impacts associated with dredging be
adequately evaluated.

Ex Situ Treatment Technologies

E.5 Support the demonstration of cost-effective ex situ treatment technologies and
identification of potential beneficial uses of treatment products.

Much work on ex situ treatment has been conducted by both U.S. EPA Region 2 and The
Great Lakes National Program Office. A number of demonstrations have been successfully
completed to date, and others are planned. We are now confident that tools do exist to
decontaminate sediments. It is apparent, however, that to make treatment a viable, cost effective
option, a marketable end use product must be developed, particularly at sites that have large
volumes of contaminated sediments.

Partnerships need to be developed with industry to conduct joint demonstrations and
examine all options for making treatment cost effective and a viable alternative to landfilling.

4.2.6 Baseline, Remediation, and Post-remediation Monitoring

There is an ongoing national debate regarding the short-term impacts and long-term
effectiveness of dredging and capping remedies, with some claiming that dredging and capping


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 75

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

cause greater harm through destruction of habitat and release of contaminants. Others argue that
while there are short-term impacts, they can be minimized through technology and operational
and other controls, and that these remedies will prove to be more protective over the long-term
because of the permanent removal of the contaminants or through limitations on bioavailability.
A review of sediment sites across the nation show a lack of or limited monitoring data with
which to answer these questions and resolve the debate. In addition, monitoring data needs to be
made available to inform decision-making at contaminated sediment sites.

The NRC Report (2001a) recommends that "[l]ong-term monitoring and evaluation of
[...] contaminated sediment sites should be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the
management approach and to ensure adequate, continuous protection of humans and the
environment." This is consistent with the issues discussed above; more and better monitoring
data are needed of both remedy implementation and post-remediation in order to address and
resolve these issues.

The impediments to monitoring include limited knowledge on how to develop monitoring
plans, including the types of measurements to be performed, how often monitoring should occur
and over how long a period of time, and how they should be implemented.

The following key recommendations are made to address these issues.

F.l Develop monitoring guidance fact sheets for baseline, remediation, and post-

remediation monitoring, and monitoring during remedy implementation.

To ensure that monitoring data will be collected, guidance and a compendium of
available protocols and tests are needed for the project manager's reference. Some specific areas
that need to be addressed, including an evaluation of the existing protocols and tests, should be
performed in order to identify those which are appropriate for monitoring and what additional
needs there may be. Monitoring guidance needs to be developed to provide project managers
with a consistent approach to developing monitoring plans and implementing such monitoring.
Such guidance should also address how monitoring plans are developed, what protocols and tests
are available for use with recommendations for the use for each, how to develop indicators and
measures, how to evaluate monitoring data, minimum Quality Assurance/Quality Control
(QA/QC) protocols, and specifics regarding which biota and which media should be used for
specific situations should be used (i.e., number of, species, and age of fish for bioaccumulative
chemicals of concern).

To meet this need, the Contaminated Sediments Science Plan recommends that the Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), with support from the other program offices and
regions, initiate the development of monitoring guidance fact sheets in FY02/03 with a goal of


-------
Page 76	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

finalizing them by the end of FY03. It is suggested that a workgroup be established with
representation from across the program offices and regions to take on this task.

In addition, areview/evalualion should be conducted of the available protocols and tests
in order to identify those most appropriate for specific types of monitoring and to identify any
gaps which may need to be filled. This information would be compiled into a compendium and
be available as a reference document for the guidance and fact sheets.

F.2 Conduct training and hold workshops for project managers regarding monitoring

of contaminated sediment sites.

Training is needed to teach project managers how to develop and implement monitoring
plans, and evaluate the resulting data with regard to remedy implementation and performance.
Workshops or other fora are needed to share monitoring information and remedy performance.

To begin to meet these needs, a two-day Monitoring Workshop should be held under the
suggested lead(s) of ORD and OERR. The target audience would be U.S. EPA scientists and
project managers of contaminated sediment sites. An advisory group should be formed with
participation from the various program and regional offices to plan the workshop.

The CSSP also recommends that additional sessions be held periodically (whether they be
training workshops or brown bags for the purpose of teaching how to conduct monitoring or
prepare monitoring plans, or fora for the purpose of sharing experiences and results), and at
various levels (i.e., regional, national, U.S. EPA only, or U.S. EPA plus external parties). The
leads for planning such sessions may be at the national or regional level. Use of existing fora is
encouraged, such as the annual National Association of Remedial Project Managers (NARPM)
meeting, or the National Superfund Site Assessment Conference. At the regional level, a
program office may take the lead to sponsor a brown bag on monitoring. The timing of such
regional sessions will be left to the discretion of the regions. It is also recommended that a
national workshop be held in conjunction with the completion of the draft monitoring guidance,
under the sponsorship of OERR, ORD, and OW.

4.2.7 Risk Communication and Community Involvement

Advances in the science of risk communication would result in much more meaningful
community involvement in the contaminated sediments cleanup process. The methods, models,
and tools produced by this research would allow U.S. EPA to more effectively reach out to
communities, earn their trust, and build effective working partnerships - partnerships that
empower communities to become more fully engaged in the entire cleanup decision-making
process. To accomplish this, the following recommendation is made:


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 77

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

G.l	Establish a research program on risk communication and community involvement

focusing on developing better methods, models, and tools.

There are many potential benefits to be gained by conducting research in this area. The
Office of Research and Development should take the lead in developing a solicitation package to
conduct research in one or more of these project areas.

4.2.8 Information Management and Exchange Activities

Information, or data, management is a key component of the characterization, assessment,
and monitoring activities conducted at contaminated sediment sites. A data management system
provides one point of access for all data and simplifies assessment, QA/QC evaluation, modeling,
mapping, querying, trends analysis and other activities that may be conducted using the data.
Information communication and exchange are critical components of a contaminated sediment
project and would be simplified by the establishment of a quality data management system.
Outreach and information sharing with the public is key to their understanding of the ecological
and health risks associated with a site and of the possible solutions to address them.

There is a need for more timely information exchange and improved access to
environmental information and data, both internally across the Agency and with external
stakeholders and other interested parties. A recommendation in the National Research Council
Report (2001b) is that there be "early, active, and continuous involvement of all affected parties
and communities as partners." One of the many keys to the success of such involvement is the
availability of, and access to, environmental information and data about the site(s) of concern. In
addition, stakeholders may also need some basic science knowledge (or someone to explain it) so
as to be able to comprehend what the data and information mean and be better able to contribute
to the decision-making process in an informative manner.

To meet these needs, the following recommendations are made.

H.l	Establish regional sediment data management systems which can link the regions

and program offices with each other and with the National Sediment Inventory.

There is a need for more timely information exchange regarding contaminated sediment
sites, and improved access to environmental information and data. This will allow for improved
decision-making in addition to being able to learn from the experiences of others. The two key
impediments or issues, in addition to the lack of sediment data management systems in general,
are the lack of consistent formats among such systems, and a lack of accessibility between
regional systems and the national program offices.


-------
Page 78	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

To address these issues, it is recommended that the regional information management
programs should take the lead for ensuring regional sediment data management systems are
established, and to provide the technical support that may be needed. The regional program
offices will need to work together to establish roles and responsibilities on how the data
management systems will be set up and maintained. The Office of Environmental Information
(OEI) would also have a key role in this activity. The existing data management systems such as
U.S. EPA's STORage and RETrieval database (STORET) should be evaluated to see if any are
able to meet the needs identified here. It is suggested that a workshop beheld for the regions and
program offices to share information on existing data management systems and how this
recommendation might best be implemented. This work should be initiated in FY02.

H.2 Standardize the sediment site data collection/reporting format. Establish minimum
protocols for quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC).

Because data are collected both by various U.S. EPA programs and offices and by other
agencies, collection and reporting formats and QA/QC protocols vary. This leads to difficulties
in sharing information across programs/offices and between U.S. EPA and other agencies.

To address these issues, it is recommended that U.S. EPA's Environmental Information
Office, with OW and OSWER, take the lead in developing standardized formats and identifying
minimum QA/QC protocols. The regions, state environmental agencies, and other Federal
agencies, as appropriate, should be involved. It is recommended that a workshop be held in the
near future to address these issues, with the protocols being developed from the workshop.

H.3 Develop national and regional contaminated sediment sites web sites for sharing
information.

To also meet the need for more timely information exchange regarding contaminated
sediment sites, the CSSP recommends that a national sediment web site be established. The
proposed sediment web site under consideration in OW should be considered for use as a
centralized web site to meet this need. OW is suggested to take the lead, with support from OEI,
OERR, and other offices and regions as appropriate. Web sites developed by the regions and
programs should link with the national sediment web site. GLNPO, OW, OERR, and some of
the regions are developing or have developed contaminated sediment web sites containing
information on sediment sites, and also provide links to guidance and other information
regarding the contaminated sediment problem. Where they do not exist, and are found to be
needed, it is recommended that regional remedial and water programs, working with their
regional information management programs, jointly develop contaminated sediment sites web
sites. It is recommended that these web sites be in place in 2003.


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 79

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

H.4 Re-establish and expand the Office of Water-sponsored Sediment Network by
including more regional representation.

The CSSP recommends that the Sediment Network be re-established in 2002 under the
co-lead of OW and OERR. Key representatives from appropriate national and regional program
offices should be the targeted participants. The suggested purpose of the Network would be to
resolve issues and to share information (each representative would then share the information
through their own organizations). Regular teleconferences should be scheduled. It is also
suggested that an OW/OSWER memorandum be prepared and sent to the program offices and
regional offices announcing the Sediment Network and inviting their participation.

A sediment list server is also recommended as an additional means of sharing information
and resolving issues for a larger audience. Responsibility for maintenance of such a list server
should be jointly shared between OW and OSWER.

H.5 Promote communication and coordination of science and research among Federal
agencies.

Many other Federal agencies and departments also sponsor research on many of the same
sediment research topics. The CSSP recommends that coordination and communication of
science and research among Federal agencies be promoted in order to avoid duplication of
efforts, encourage partnering between researchers working on similar projects, and facilitate the
timely sharing of interim and final results. Agencies that might participate include U.S. EPA,
NOAA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.

H.6 Promote the exchange of scientific information via scientific fora (i.e., workshops,
journals, and meetings).

The CSSP recommends that national and regional program offices encourage their
managers and staff to share scientific information via workshops, conferences, publication in
journals, and presentations. Other options for sharing scientific information should be explored
at the regional level.

4.3 Recommended Approaches to Implement Strategy

In order to achieve the goals of the Contaminated Sediments Science Plan (CSSP), its
implementation should result in the development of tools and scientific methods, enhancement of
agency communication and coordination, and development of effective scientific information
that will support risk management decisions on contaminated sediments problems.


-------
Page 80	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

The CSSP recommends that the Contaminated Sediment Management Committee
(CSMC), comprised of Office and Division directors, has the responsibility for ensuring the
implementation of the key recommendations in the CSSP through their role as a forum for cross-
agency coordination and collaboration on science activities in contaminated sediments. It is
recommended that the CSMC include all U.S. EPA offices and regions that play a key role in
contaminated sediment issues and implementation of the recommendations of the CSSP.

It is recommended that the CSMC do this by holding an annual meeting of U.S. EPA
offices and regions. This meeting should serve to identify the status of science activities on the
key recommendations, to communicate recent results, and to plan future activities. To
accomplish this, the following tasks should be completed at the annual meeting:

•	Reviewing science activities

The lead U.S. EPA offices and regions should present to the CSMC the current science
activities they are conducting pertaining to research topics and key recommendations
identified in the CSSP. In addition, they should identify those additional science
activities, based on the key recommendations in the CSSP, that they would implement
should sufficient resources become available. This information sharing will serve to
initiate closer coordination of science activities related to contaminated sediments across
U.S. EPA.

•	Implementing science activities

Lead U.S. EPA offices and regions who agree to carry out the recommended science
activities should ensure that these activities are considered within their annual planning,
budgeting, and accountability process, and are implemented when resources are
committed. It is recommended that for each recommendation, a brief one-page
description be developed (or updated) which includes the following information: title,
key partners, actions underway, actions planned over next two years, products expected
by (date), and primary contact(s). Please refer to Appendix B for an example. The one-
page recommendation descriptions and a report out on the status of the implementation of
the science activities would be provided at the annual meetings. The CSMC would then
determine whether progress toward the goals is being made and, if necessary, recommend
adjustments to science activities to meet the key recommendations.

•	Identifying areas where science partnerships are needed

The CSMC should recommend to U.S. EPA offices and regions where scientific
collaboration within the Agency, as well as with other Federal agencies, would be
beneficial. These partnerships will hopefully speed the accomplishment of key
recommendations.


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 81

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

•	Coordinating with U.S. EPA offices and regions

The CSMC should contact the lead U.S. EPA office or region identified as a suggested
critical partner from Table 4-1 for each key recommendation to understand how they
intend to implement science activities for the recommendations.

•	Identifying unfunded activities

Resource needs for unfunded or underfunded tasks should be identified. The CSMC
should discuss unfunded science areas and communicate these to the appropriate science
planning staff within U.S. EPA offices and regions in order to identify the appropriate
resources to address them.

•	Updating the CSSP

Periodic reviews of the state of the science on contaminated sediments, a gaps analysis,
and updating of the CSSP are recommended every five years.

Table 4-1 lists the key recommendations by topic area, the time frame for
implementation, and suggested critical partners. Although recommendations are roughly divided
into two time frames, immediate and longer term, some of the recommendations could be viewed
as continuing needs.

Table 4-1. Summary of Key Recommendations, Time Frame for Implementation, and
Suggested Critical Partners	

Recommendations

A. Sediment Site Characterization

Immediate Time Frame

A. 1 Conduct a workshop to develop a consistent approach to collecting sediment physical
property data for use in evaluating sediment stability. (OERR, ORD, U.S. EPA Regions)

Longer Time Frame

A.2 Develop more sensitive, low-cost laboratory methods for detecting sediment

contaminants, and real-time or near real-time chemical sensors for use in the field.
(ORD, OERR, GLNPO)

A.3 Develop U.S. EPA-approved methods with lower detection limits for analysis of

bioaccumulative contaminants of concern in fish tissue. (ORD, OERR, OW, U.S. EPA
Regions)

A.4 Develop methods for analyzing emerging endocrine disruptors, including alkylphenol
ethoxylates (APEs) and their metabolites. (ORD)


-------
Contaminated Sediments Science Plan

Page 82

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy

June 13, 2002

B. Exposure Assessment

Immediate Time Frame

B.l Develop a tiered framework for assessing direct and food web exposures. (ORD, OW,
OERR, U.S. EPA Regions)

B.2 Develop guidance and identify pilots for improving coordination between TMDL and
remedial programs in waterways with contaminated sediments. (OW, OSWER, U.S.
EPA Regions)

B.3 Develop and advise on the use of the most valid contaminant fate and transport models
that allow prediction of site-specific exposures in the future. (ORD, OERR, OW, U.S.
EPA Regions)

B.4	Develop a consistent approach to applying sediment stability data in transport modeling.
(ORD, OERR, OW, U.S. EPA Regions)

C.	Human Health Effects and Risk Assessment

Immediate Time Frame

C. 1 Develop guidance for characterizing human health risks on a PCB congener basis.
(ORD, OERR, U.S. EPA Regions)

C.2 Develop sediment guidelines for bioaccumulative contaminants that are protective of
human health via the fish ingestion pathway. (ORD, OERR, OW, U.S. EPA Regions)

Longer Time Frame

C.3 Refine methods for estimating dermal exposures and risk. (ORD, OERR, U.S. EPA
Regions)

C.4	Evaluate the toxicity and reproductive effects of newly recognized contaminants, such as
alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs) and other endocrine disruptors and their metabolites on
human health. (ORD)

D.	Ecological Effects and Risk Assessment

Immediate Time Frame

D.l Develop sediment guidelines to protect wildlife from food chain effects. (ORD, OERR,
OW, U.S. EPA Regions)

D.3 Develop guidance on how to interpret ecological sediment toxicity studies (lab or in situ
caged studies) and how to interpret the significance of the results to site populations and
communities. (OW, ORD, OERR, U.S. EPA Regions)

D.4 Acquire data and develop criteria to use in balancing the long-term benefits from

dredging vs. the shorter term effects on ecological receptors and their habitats. (ORD,
OERR, U.S. EPA Regions)


-------
Contaminated Sediments Science Plan

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy

Page 83

June 13, 2002

D.6 Continue developing and refining sediment toxicity testing methods. (ORD, OW, U.S.
EPA Regions)

D.7 Develop whole sediment toxicity identification evaluation procedures for a wide range
of chemicals. (ORD, OW)

Longer Time Frame

D.2 Develop additional tools for characterizing ecological risks. (ORD, U.S. EPA Regions,
OW)

D.5	Conduct field and laboratory studies to further validate and improve chemical-specific
sediment quality guidelines. (OW, ORD)

E.	Sediment Remediation

Immediate Time Frame

E.l Collect the necessary data and develop guidance for determining the conditions under
which natural recovery can be considered a suitable remedial option. Such guidance
would include: measurement protocols to assess the relative contribution of the various
mechanisms for chemical releases from bed sediments (e.g., advection, bioturbation,
diffusion, and resuspension), including mass transport of contaminants by large storm
events; methodologies to quantify the uncertainties associated with natural recovery; and
development of accepted measuring protocols to determine in situ chemical fluxes from
sediments. (ORD, OERR, U.S. EPA Regions, GLNPO)

E.2 Develop performance evaluations of various cap designs and cap placement methods
and conduct post-cap monitoring to document performance. Continue to monitor
ongoing capping projects to monitor performance (e.g., Boston Harbor, Eagle Harbor,
Grasse River). (ORD, U.S. EPA Regions, GLNPO)

E.4 Using the data provided in recommendation E.l, develop a white paper evaluating the
short-term impacts from dredging relative to natural processes and human activities
(e.g., resuspension from storm events, boat scour, wave action, and anchor drag).
(OERR, U.S. EPA Regions)

Longer Time Frame

E.3 Encourage and promote the development and demonstration of in-situ technologies.
(ORD, GLNPO)

E.5 Support the demonstration of cost-effective ex-situ treatment technologies and

identification of potential beneficial uses of treatment products. (ORD, GLNPO, U.S.
EPA Regions)


-------
Contaminated Sediments Science Plan

Page 84

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy

June 13, 2002

F. Baseline, Remediation, and Post-remediation Monitoring

Immediate Time Frame

F. 1 Develop monitoring guidance fact sheets for baseline, remediation, and post-remediation
monitoring, and monitoring during remedy implementation. (ORD, OERR, U.S. EPA
Regions, OW)

F.2	Conduct training and hold workshops for project managers regarding monitoring of
contaminated sediment sites. (OERR, ORD, U.S. EPA Regions)

G.	Risk Communication and Community Involvement

Immediate Time Frame

G.	1 Establish a research program on risk communication and community involvement

focusing on developing better methods, models, and tools. (ORD, OERR, U.S. EPA
Regions)

H.	Information Management and Exchange Activities

Immediate Time Frame

H. 1 Establish regional sediment data management systems which can link the regions and
program offices with each other and with the National Sediment Inventory. (U.S. EPA
Regions, OW, OSWER, GLNPO)

H.3 Develop national and regional contaminated sediment sites web sites for sharing
information. (U.S. EPA Regions, OW, OSWER, GLNPO)

H.4 Re-establish and expand the Office of Water-sponsored Sediment Network by including
more regional representation. (OERR, OW, U.S. EPA Regions)

H.5 Promote communication and coordination of science and research among Federal
agencies. (ORD, OSWER, OW, U.S. EPA Regions, NOAA, U.S. Navy, U.S. ACE,
USGS, U.S. FWS)

H.6 Promote the exchange of scientific information via scientific fora (i.e., workshops,
journals, and meetings). (CSMC, OW, OSWER, U.S. EPA Regions, GLNPO)

Longer Time Frame

H.2 Standardize the sediment site data collection/reporting format. Establish minimum

protocols for quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC). (OEI, OW OSWER, U.S. EPA
Regions)


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 85

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

REFERENCES

Abramowicz, D.A. and D.R. Olsen. 1995. Accelerated biodegradation of PCBs. CHEMTECH
24:36-41.

Ashford, N.A. and K.M. Rest. 1999. Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. Rep.
No. U60/CCU/100929-02. Prepared by the Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial
Development, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA.

Bedard, D.L. and R.J. May. 1996. Characterization of the PCBs in Sediments of Woods Pond:
Evidence for Microbial Dechlorination of Aroclors 1260 In Situ. Environmental Science
Technology 30:237-245.

Blake, G.R. and K.H. Hartge. 1986. Methods of Soil Analysis. American S ociety of Agronomy,
Inc. and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI.

Brown, J.F. Jr., R.E. Wagner, H. Feng, D.L. Bedard, M.J. Brennan, J.C. Carnaham, and R.J.
May. 1987. Environmental Dechlorination of PCBs. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry 6:579-593.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 1995. Protocol for the Derivation of

Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection ofAquatic Life. Prepared by the
CCME Task Group on Water Quality Guidelines, Ottawa, ON.

CDM. 1986. Weiss Associates Electrochemical GeoOxidation Pilot Scale Study Work Plan:
Draft Report. Prepared by Camp, Dresser, & McKee for Alcoa, Inc.

Cerniglia, C.E. 1992. Biodegradation of PAHs. Biodegradation 3:351-368.

Chapman, P.M. 1989. Current Approaches to Developing Sediment Quality Criteria.

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 8:589-599.

Chapman, P.M., E.A. Power, and G.A. Burton, Jr. 1982. "Integrative Assessments in Aquatic
Ecosystems." pp. 313-340. In: Sediment Toxicity Assessment. G.A. Burton, Jr. (ed).
Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.

Day, P.R. 1965. "Particle Fractionation and Particle-Size Analysis." pp. 562-566. In:
Hydrometer method of Particle Size Analysis 9. American S ociety of Agronomy,

Madison, WI.


-------
Page 86

Contaminated Sediments Science Plan

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy

June 13, 2002

Duncan, G.A., and G.G. Lattaie. 1979. Size Analysis Procedures Used in Sedimentology

Laboratory, NWR1 Manual. National Water Research Institute, Canada Centre for Inland
Waters, Canada.

Field, L.J., D. M. Macdonald, S. B. Norton, C.G. Severn, and C.G. Ingersoll. 1999. Evaluating
Sediment Chemistry and Toxicity Data using Logistic Regression Modeling.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18(6): 1311-1322.

Fiorino, D.J. 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk - a survey of institutional
mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values 15(2):226-243.

Folk, R.L. 1980. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphill Publishing Co., Austin, TX.

Folk, E. 1991. Public participation in the Superfund cleanup process. Ecology Law Quarterly
18(1): 173-221.

GLNPO. 2000. Realizing Remediation II: An Updated Summary of Contaminated Sediment
Remediation Activities at Great Lakes Areas of Concern. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL.

Guy, Harold P. 1969. "Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the U.S.G.S." p.58.
In: Laboratory Theory and Methods for Sediment Analysis-, Book 5. U.S. Geological
Survey, Arlington, VA.

Hayes, D.F. 1989. Guide to selecting a dredge for minimizing resuspension of sediment,
environmental effects of dredging. Technical Note EEDP-09-1. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Hoss, S. M., Haitzer, W. Traunspurger, and C.E.W. Steinberg. 1999. Growth and Fertility of
Caenorhabditis elegans (Nematoda) in Unpolluted Freshwater Sediments: Response to
Particle Size Distribution and Organic Content. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
18(12):2921-2925.

Ingersoll, C.G., P.S. Haverland, E.L. Brunson, T.J. Canfield, F.J. Dwyer, C.E. Henke, andN.E.
Kemble. 1996. Calculation and Evaluation of Sediment Effect Concentrations. Journal
of Great Lakes Research 22:602-623.

Jones, K.W., Feng, H., Stern, E.A., Lodge, J., and N.L. Clesceri. 2001. Dredged Material
Decontamination Demonstration for the Port of New York/New Jersey. Journal of
Hazardous Materials 85:127-143.


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 87

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

Lee, H. II, B.L. Boese, J. Pelletier, M. Winsor, D.T. Sprecht, and R.C. Randall. 1989. Guidance
Manual Bedded Sediment Bioaccumulation Tests. EPA-600/X-89/302. ERL,

Narragansett, RI.

Long, E.R. 1992. Ranges in chemical concentrations in sediments associated with adverse
biological effect. Marine Pollution Bulletin 24(l):38-45.

Long, E.R., and L.G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed
Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical
Memorandum OMA 52. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA.

MacDonald, D.D. 1994. Approach to the Assessment of Sediment Quality of Florida 1991

Coastal Waters. Volume 1 - Development and Evaluation of Sediment Quality Assessment
Guidelines. Report. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
Tallahassee, FL.

MacDonald, D.D., R.S. Carr, F.D. Calder, E.R. Long, and C.G. Ingersoll. 1996. Development
and Evaluation of Sediment Quality Guidelines for Florida Coastal Waters. Ecotoxicology
5:253-278.

McDonald, D.D., Ingersoll, C.G., and Berger, T.A. 2000. Development and Evaluation of

Consensus-Based Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 39:20-31.

Mudroch, A., and S.D. MacKnight. 1994. CRC Handbook of Techniques for Aquatic Sediment
Sampling. Second Edition. CRD Press, Boca Raton, FL.

National Research Council. 1997. Contaminated Sediments in Ports and Waterways: Cleanup
Strategies and Technologies. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

National Research Council. 2001a. A Risk Management Strategy for PCB-Contaminated
Sediments. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

National Research Council. 2001b. Understanding Risk Informing Decisions in a Democratic
Society. P.C. and H.V. Stineberg (eds). National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Parametrix. 1999. St. Paul Waterway Area Remedial Action and Habitat Restoration Project:
1998 Monitoring Report. Unpublished report to Simpson-Tacoma Kraft Co., Tacoma,
WA, and Champion International, Stanford, CT, for the Washington State Department of
Ecology and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA.


-------
Page 88	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

Patrick, W.H., Jr. 1958. "Modification of Method Particle Size Analyses." In: Proceedings of
the Soil Science Society of America 4:366-367.

Peck, J., Hulsey, B., and Savagian, A. 1994. Clean Lakes, Clean Jobs A Case for Cleaning Up
Contaminated Sediments. Sierra Club Great Lakes Ecoregion Program, Madison, WI.

Plumb, R.H. 1981. Procedure for handling and chemical analysis of sediment and water
samples. Tech. Rep. EPA/CE-81-1. Prepared by Great Lakes Laboratory, State
University College at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY for Environmental Protection Agency and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Technical Committee on Criteria for Dredged and Fill
Material. Published by U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.

Puget Sound Estuary Program. 1986. Recommended Guidelines for Measuring Selected

Environmental Variables in Puget Sound. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region
10, Office of Puget Sound, Seattle, WA, and Puget Sound Water Quality Authority,
Olympia, WA.

Rukavina, N.A., and G.A. Duncan. 1970. "F.A.S.T. - Fast Analysis of Sediment Texture." pp.
274-281. In: Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Great Lakes Research.

Sanford, R.B., and D.J.P. Swift. 1971. Comparisons of Sieving and Settling Techniques for
Size Analysis, Using a Benthos Rapid Sediment Analyzer. Sedimentology 17:257-264.

Seech, A., B. O'Neil, and L.A. Comacchio. 1993. "Bioremediation of Sediments Contaminated
with PAHs." In: Proceedings of the Workshop on the Removal and Treatment of
Contaminated Sediments. Environment Canada's Great Lakes Cleanup Fund.

Wastewater Technology Center, Burlington, Ontario.

SEG. 1999. Trenton Channel Marketability Study, Detroit, Michigan. MERA #820012. Snell
Environmental Group, Lansing, MI.

Shuttleworth, K.L. and C.E. Cerniglia. 1995. Environmental Aspects of PAH Biodegradation.
Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 54:291-302.

Singer, J.K., J.B. Anderson, M.T. Ledbetter, I.N. McCave, K.P.N. Jones, and R. Wright. 1988.
An Assessment of Analytical Techniques for the Size Analysis of Fine-Grained
Sediments. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 58:534-543.


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 89

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate, or copy	June 13, 2002

Smith, S.L., D.D. MacDonald, K.A. Kennleyside, G.G. Ingersoll, and J. Field. 1996. A
Preliminary Evaluation of Sediment Quality Assessment Values for Freshwater
Ecosystems. Journal of Great Lakes Research 22:624-638.

Steuer, Jeffrey J. 2000. A Mass-Balance Approach for Assessing PCB Movement During

Remediation of a PCB-Contaminated Deposit on the Fox River, Wisconsin. USGS Report
00-4245. U.S. Geological Survey, Middleton, WI.

Stern, E.A., K.R.Donato, N.L. Clesceri, and K.W. Jones. 1998. "Integrated Sediment

Decontamination for the New York/New Jersey Harbor." pp. 71-81. In: Proceedings,
National Conference on Management and Treatment of Contaminated Sediments.
EPA/625/R-98/001.

Sumeri, A. 1984. "Capped in-water disposal of contaminated dredged material." pp. 644-653.
In: Dredging '84: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Dredging and
Material Disposal. R.L. Montgomery and J.W. Leach (eds). American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York.

Truitt, C.L. 1986. Engineering Considerations for Capping Subaqueous Dredged Material
Deposits - Design Concepts and Placement Techniques. Environmental Effects of
Dredging. EEDP-01-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.

U.S. EPA. 1979. Chemistry Laboratory Manual for Bottom Sediments and Elutriate Testing.
EPA-905-4-79-014 (NTIS PB 294596). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
V, Chicago, IL.

U.S. EPA. 1981. Interim Methods for the Sampling and Analysis of Priority Pollutants in

Sediment and Fish Tissue. EPA-6 00/4-81-055. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. EPA. 1991a. Evaluation of dredged material proposed for ocean disposal - testing
manual. EPA-503-8-91-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 1991b. Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples. EPA-
600-4-91-010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. EPA. 1992a. Proceedings of EPA's contaminated sediment management forums. EPA
823. Chicago, IL, 21-22 April, and Washington, D.C., 27-28 May and 16 June.


-------
Page 90	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate or copy	June 13, 2002

U.S. EPA. 1992b. Sediment Classification Methods Compendium. EPA-823-R-92-006. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 1994. ARCS Program - Remediation Guidance Document. EPA-905-R-94-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago,

IL.

U.S. EPA. 1995a. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish

Advisories, Volume IV: Risk Communication. EPA/823/R-95/001 U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 1995b. QA/QC Guidance for Sampling and Analysis of Sediments, Water, and

Tissues for Dredged Material Evaluations. Phase I - Chemical Evaluations. EPA-823-B-
95-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 1996a. ARCS Program - Estimating Contaminant Losses from Components of
Remediation Alternatives for Contaminated Sediments. EPA-905-R96-001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL.

U.S. EPA. 1996b. Ecotox Thresholds: Eco Update. EPA-540-F-95-038. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 1997a. Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the
United States. EPA-823-R-96-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C.

U.S. EPA. 1997b. EPA's Strategic Plan. EPA/190-R-97-002. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 1998a. A Multimedia Strategy for Priority Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic
(PBT) Pollutants. Prepared by U.S. EPA Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic
Pollutants (PBT) Plenary Group and U.S. EPA Office Directors Multimedia and Pollution
Prevention Forum U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 1998b. EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy. EPA-823-R-98-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.

U.S. EPA. 1998c. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the
U.S. — Testing Manual. EPA-823-B-98-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.


-------
	Contaminated Sediments Science Plan	Page 91

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate or copy	June 13, 2002

U.S. EPA. 1998d. Guidance for In Situ Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediments.
EPA-905-B96-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 1999a. EPA Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters. EPA/600/R-98/079.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office
of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 1999b. Lessons Learned about Superfund Community Involvement, Features
Partnerships at Waste Inc, Superfund Site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Michigan City, IN.

U.S. EPA. 1999c. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1- Human Health

Evaluation Manual Supplement to Part A: Community Involvement in Superfund Risk
Assessments. EPA -540-R-98-042. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 1999d. Superfund Risk Assessment and How You Can Help (Videotape).

EPA-540-V-99-002 OSWER-9285.7-29A. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 2000a. Draft Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs) for the

Protection ofBenthic Organisms: Metal Mixtures (Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Nickel,

Silver, and Zinc). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington,
D.C.

U.S. EPA. 2000b. Draft Technical Basis for the Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of

Benthic Organisms: Nonionic Organics. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 2000c. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish

Advisories. Third Edition. EPA-823-B-00-007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 2000d. Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-

Associated Contaminants With Freshwater Invertebrates. Second Edition. EPA/600-R-
99-064. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 2000e. Strategic Framework for EPA Science. Office of Science Policy. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.


-------
Page 92

Contaminated Sediments Science Plan

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate or copy

June 13, 2002

U.S. EPA. 2001a. Methods for Assessing the Chronic Toxicity of Marine and Estuarine

Sediment-Associated Contaminants with the Amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus. First
Edition. EPA-823-F-01-008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 2001b. Methods for Collection, Storage, and Manipulation of Sediments for

Chemical and Toxicological Analysis. In press. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 2001c. PBT National Action Plan for Mercury. Final Draft. Prepared by: U.S.
EPA Mercury Task Force, Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Pollutants (PBT)
Mercury Work Group. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. In prep. Appendix to the Capping Guidance Document: Impacts of Advective
Transport of Contaminants through In Situ Caps (working title). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office and Region 5.

U.S. EPA/US. ACE. 1992. Evaluating Environmental Effects of Dredged Material
Management Alternatives - A Technical Framework. EPA-842-B-92-008. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S. GAO. 2000. Report to Congressional Requesters: Superfund Information Regarding

EPA's Decision Process on the Hudson River Superfund Site. GAO/RCED-OO-193. U.S.
General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Science Advisory Board. 1992. An SAB Report: Review of Sediment Criteria

Development Methodology for Non-ionic Organic Contaminants. EPA-SAB-EPEC-93-
002. Prepared by the Sediment Quality Criteria Subcommittee of the Ecological Processes
and Effects Committee. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board,
Washington, D.C.

U.S. Science Advisory Board. 1996. An SAB Report: Review of the Agency's Approach for

Developing Sediment Criteria for Five Metals. EPA-SAB-EPEC-95-020. Prepared by the
Sediment Quality Criteria Subcommittee of the Ecological Processes and Effects
Committee. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board.
Washington, D.C.

Vecci, M., T.B. Reynoldson, A. Pasteris, and G. Bonomi. 1999. Toxicity of Copper-Spiked
Sediments to Tubifex tubifex (Oligochaeta, Tubificidae): Comparison of the 28-day
Reproductive Bioassay With an Early Life Stage Bioassay. Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry 18(6): 1144-1148.


-------
Contaminated Sediments Science Plan

Draft Document - Do not cite, circulate or copy

Page 93

June 13, 2002

Zeman, A.J. and T.S. Patterson. 1997. "Results of in situ capping demonstration project in
Hamilton Harbour, Lake Ontario." In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Engineering Geology and the Environment. Athens, Greece, 23-27 June.


-------