Catalyst for Improving the Environment


## Evaluation Report



# EPA Can Better Implement Its Strategy for Managing Contaminated Sediments

Report No. 2006-P-00016

March 15, 2006 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERALReport Contributors: Carolyn Copper Patrick Milligan Alicia Mariscal Madeline Mullen Michael Owen

Abbreviations

EPA Environmental Protection Agency NSQS National Sediment Quality Survey OIG Office of Inspector General OPPTS Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances ORD Office of Research and Development OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response OW Office of Water PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Cover photo: Fish advisory posted next to Duwami sh River where tribal salmon fishermen are in a boat, Seattle, Washington (EPA OIG photo)U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2006-P-00016 March 15, 2006 Office of Inspector General 

# At a Glance

Catalyst for Improving the Environment

Why We Did This Review

We sought to determine the effectiveness and outcomes achieved from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy

. In particular, we evaluated whether Federal authorities and resources provided effective solutions, and how well EPA measured Strategy effectiveness and assessed contamination.

Background

Although the extent of sediment contamination remains uncertain, EPA estimates that approximately 10 percent of the sediment underlying the Nation’s surface water poses potential risks to fish, as well as to humans and wildlife that eat fish. As of 2004, there were 3,221 fish consumption advisories in place in the United States covering 24 percent of the Nation’s river miles and 35 percent of its lake acres.

For further information, contact our Office of Congressional and Public Liaison at (202) 566-2391.

To view the full report, click on the following link: www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2006 /20060315-2006-P-00016.pdf 

## EPA Can Better Implement Its Strategy for Managing Contaminated Sediments

What We Found

EPA needs to better manage its efforts to clean up contaminated sediments on a nationwide basis. Contaminated sediments are the soils, sands, organic matter, and other minerals that accumulate at the bottom of a water body and contain toxic or hazardous materials that may adversely affect human health and the environment. EPA made some progress with its Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy

. However, the Agency cannot assure th at resources devoted to addressing contaminated sediments provide the most effective and efficient solutions for reducing the environmental and human healthrisks posed by this national problem.

Program offices generally did not use National Sediment Inventory data for decision making, even though the invent ory represents the most comprehensive source of data on contaminated sediments in the United States. EPA did not sufficiently coordinate contaminat ed sediment activities performed by various EPA program offices. The Agency did not develop sediment quality criteria to ensure the comparability of data gathered to assess sediment contamination and its effects. EPA contaminated sediment research efforts did not fully meet the Agency’s needs, and EPA can improve coordination of its research efforts with those of other Federal agencies. The Agency also di d not establish cross-program performance measures that fully evaluate the effectiv eness of its Strategy and enable EPA to determine its progress. Many of these issues occurred because no program office within EPA has responsibility for overseeing contaminated sediments.

EPA’s 2004 National Sediment Quality Survey report did not provide a complete assessment of the extent and severity of sediment contamination across the Nation, nor fully meet the requirements of the Water Resources Development Act.

What We Recommend

We recommend that EPA assign responsibility for the oversight and evaluation of the Agency’s Contaminated Sediment Management Strategyto a committee or an office. We also recommend that EPA: develop and implement comprehensive performance measures; evaluate the need to develop sediment quality criteria; continue to improve research coordination; develop and implement a plan for using National Sediment Quality Survey reports; and develop and implement a plan to provide a comprehensive national assessment of contaminated sediments. EPA generally agreed with the recommendations in the draft report. The Agency will need to provide further details on its pl ans to address Office of Inspector General recommendations within 90 days.MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: EPA Can Better Implement Its Strategy for Managing Contaminated Sediments Report No. 2006-P-00016

TO: Marcus Peacock Deputy Administrator

Susan Bodine Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Benjamin Grumbles Assistant Administrator for Water

George Gray, Ph.D. Assistant Administrator for Research and Development

This is the final report on our evaluation of the Environmen tal Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy . This report contains fi ndings that describe the problems the Office of Inspector General (OIG ) identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and the findings in this report do not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determination on matters in the report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established resolution procedures. We received EPA’s written comments on our draft report on January 9, 2006, and a revised response to one recommendation on February 10, 2006.

Action Required

In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are require d to provide a written response to this report within 90 days of the date of this report . You should include a co rrective action plan for agreed upon actions, including milestone dates. We have no objections to the further release of this report to the public. If you or your staff have questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 566-0847 or Carolyn Copper, Actin g Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation, at (202) 566-0829.

Sincerely,

Bill A. Roderick Acting Inspector General UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

March 15, 2006 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERALi 

# Table of Contents

At a Glanc e 

## Chapters

1 Introduction

........................................................................................................... 1
Purpose

.......................................................................................................... 1 Background

.................................................................................................... 1 Scope and Methodology

................................................................................. 4

2 EPA Has Not Full yIm plemented Its Contaminated Sediment Strate g y

........... 5
EPA Has Made Progress in Managing Contaminated Sediments

.................. 5 Managemen t Strategy Not Fully Implemented

............................................... 6

Natio nal Sedim e n t Inventory Generally Not Used for D e cision Making

............................................................................. 6 Activit i es Not Fully Coordinated Across Pr ogra m Offices

..................... 7 Natio nal Sedim e n t Quality Crit eria Not Established

............................. 8 ORD Has Not Co mpletely Met Priority Research Needs and Cou l d Enhance Coordination on Research Needs

........................ 9 Perform ance Measures for Sedi m ent Manage m e nt Incom p lete

.......... 11 Primary Cau s es for Not I m plementin g Strategy

............................................. 13 Partial Implementation of Strategy May Limit Age n cy’s Effectiveness

.......... 13 Other Opportunities Exist to Improve Contaminated Sediment Efforts

......... 14 Recommen dations

......................................................................................... 15 Agency Co mments and OIG Evalua tion

......................................................... 16

3 EPA Has Not Completel yAssess ed Extent and Severityof Nation’s Sediment Contamination

................................................... 19
National Assessment Not Complete

............................................................... 19 Assessment Incomplete Because Adequate Design Not Deve loped

............. 20 Recommen dations

......................................................................................... 21 Agency Co mments and OIG Evalua tion

......................................................... 22


## Appendices

A Details on Scope and Methodolo g y

..................................................................... 24

B Agenc y Re sponse to Draft Report

....................................................................... 27

C Map Overla yof Areas of Probable Concern and Fish Advisories

.................... 38

D Distributio n

........................................................................................................... 391 

# Chapter 1
Introduction

Purpose

This report focuses on the U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) efforts to manage and address contaminated sediments. Overall, we sought to determine the effectiveness and outcomes achieved from EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy . We addressed three specific questions:

• Do available Federal authorities and re sources provide effective solutions to the challenges of contaminated sediments?

• How does EPA measure the effectiveness of its management strategy for contaminated sediments and what outcomes have been achieved?

• Has EPA completely assessed the ex tent and severity of sediment contamination in the United States?


### Background

Contaminated sediments are a national problem with serious implications for human health and the environment. EPA defines contaminated sediments as the soils, sand, organic matter, or minerals th at accumulate on th e bottom of a water body and contain toxic or hazardous materi als that may adversely affect human health or the environment. EPA has studied data from 1,372 of the 2,111 watersheds in the continental United Stat es, and has identified 96 watersheds that contain “areas of probable concern.” These represent areas where probable adverse effects of sediment contamination are more likely to be found.

EPA has not fully assessed the extent and severity of sediment contamination in the United States. Although the extent of sediment contamination remains uncertain, the Agency has estimated th at approximately 10 percent of the sediment underlying our Nation’s surface wate r is sufficiently contaminated with toxic pollutants to pose pote ntial risks to fish through the aquatic food chain, as well as humans and wildlife that eat fish. Fish consumption represents the most significant route of human exposure to many metals and organic compounds. Many surface waters have fish consumpti on advisories or fishing bans in place because of high concentrations of pol ychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, dioxin, and other contaminants in sedime nts. As of 2004, there were 3,221 fish consumption advisories in place in the United States covering 24 percent of the Nation’s river miles and 35 per cent of its lake acres.

In 1998, EPA established the Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy to promote and ensure consistent consider ation of risks posed by contaminatedsediments. The Strategy summarizes EPA’s understanding of the extent and severity of sediment contamination in the Nation's watersheds and establishes four strategic goals:

2 Table 1.1: Goals for Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy

• Prevent the volume of contami nated 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, remedi ation, and dredged material management.

In addition, the Strategy establishes a cross-program policy framework. The Strategy emphasizes the importance of coordination among EPA program offices and with other agencies for successful implementation.

EPA has authority under severa l statutes to address contaminated sediment issues. The primary statutes include:

Table 1.2: Statutes and Authorities
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and The “Superfund” Act provides EPA authority to conduct or compel remedial actions for Liability Act contaminated sediments.

Clean Water Act Provides EPA aut hority to address sources of contaminated sediments through regulation of water pollutant discharges.
Water Resources Development Requires EPA to conduct a comprehensive and Act continuing program to assess aquatic sediment quality in the United States.
Great Lakes Legacy Act Provides EPA specific authority to remediate contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes.

EPA does not have sufficient information to provide accurate national estimates on the volume of contaminated sediments and their remediation costs. However, where data exist for specific sites, the co st to address the contamination will be in the billions of dollars. For example:

• Superfund Records of Decision for 55 Ti er 1 contaminated sediment sites indicate that approximately $2.9 billion w ill be required to remediate the sites. These sites have a minimum of 10, 000 cubic yards, or 5 acres, of contamination. The estimate does not include sites with contaminated sediments on the National Priorities List where cleanup decisions have not yetbeen made. As of 2005, there were appr oximately 60 additional sites without Records of Decision that may be classified as Tier 1 sites in the future. Although Superfund money is (o r will be) required to pay for the remediation of some of these sites, responsible parties are (or will be) re quired to pay for remediation for the majority of these sites.

• EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Offi ce estimates that a total volume of 76,505,439 cubic yards of contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes require remediation at an approximate cost of $1.6 to $4.4 billion. The Great Lakes Legacy Act provides EPA $270 million over 5 years, beginning in Fiscal Year 2004, to address contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes.

The Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy established roles for several EPA offices involved with contaminated sediments, including:

3 Table 1.3: Primary EPA Program Offices Involved

with Contaminated Sediments and Their Roles
Office of Water (OW) Coordinate implementation of the Strategy and prevent and control s ediment contamination through the Clean Water Act.

Office of Solid Waste and Remediate contaminated sediments that Emergency Response (OSWER) adversely affect the Nation’s waterbodies in order to limit serious risks to human health and the environment.

Office of Prevention, Pesticides, Use new and existing chemical registration and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) programs to reduce the potential of sediment contamination from pesticides and toxic substances.

Office of Research and Conduct comprehensive and coordinated Development (ORD) research on contaminated sediment, and support EPA program offices.

The Strategy also outlines th e roles of several other Fe deral agencies in managing contaminated sediments, including:

Table 1.4: Other Federal Agencies Involved with Contaminated Sediments

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• U.S. Geological Survey

• Department of the NavyThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, and Department of the Navy provided estimated information indicating that they budgeted approximately $69 million for contaminated sediment activities during Fiscal Years 2002 through 2005. (Budget information was not available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.) Some of the funding occurred through interagency agreements with EPA. Most of the budget information provided by thes e agencies relates to research. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engin eers issues permits for and conducts dredging of navigable waters, which can i nvolve contaminated sediment removal. Also, the Department of the Navy conduc ts remedial actions on contaminated sediments as a responsible party. Other Fe deral agencies, such as the Department of Energy and Department of the Army, al so devote resources to contaminated sediments.


### Scope and Methodology

We conducted our evaluation from September 2004 to August 2005. We performed our evaluation in accordance with Government Auditing Standards

, issued by the Comptroller General of th e United States. We considered the findings of prior Office of Inspect or General (OIG) and Government Accountability Office reports related to contaminated sediment issues.

To evaluate the effectiveness and out comes achieved from EPA's Strategy, we reviewed documents and r ecords related to the mana gement of contaminated sediments, including databases and Inte rnet Web sites, and interviewed EPA officials from OSWER, OW, OPPTS, and ORD. We also interviewed EPA officials from the Great Lakes National Program Office and four regions. In addition, we interviewed offi cials from various other Fe deral agencies, from six States and from the Association of Stat e and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials.

Appendix A provides further details on our scope and methodology.

45 

# Chapter 2 EPA Has Not Fully Implemented Its

Contaminated Sediment Strategy

Although EPA made some progress in mana ging contaminated sediments, it did not fully implement its Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy . Program offices involved with addressing contaminated sediments did not:

• Use National Sediment Inventory data for decision making;

• Fully coordinate their activities;

• Develop sediment quality criteria;

• Fully meet research needs or coordinate research with other Federal agencies; and/or

• Establish adequate performance measures.

Also, EPA could enhance remediation efforts by increasing the use of the watershed approach and the Water Resour ces Development Act. The conditions primarily occurred because no program office assumed responsibility for oversight and overall coordination of th e Strategy, and EPA has not updated the Strategy since implementation. Due to incomplete Strategy implementation, EPA cannot assure that resources devoted to addressing contaminated sediments provide the most effective and efficient solutions for reducin g the environmental and human health risks posed by this national problem.


### EPA Has Made Progress in Mana ging Contaminated Sediments

Various EPA program offices made some progress regarding the Strategy’s goals and the management of contaminated sediments. For example:

• OW published the 1997 and 2004 National Sediment Quality Survey (NSQS) reports for Congress and issued guida nce documents regarding sediment
assessments.

• OSWER established the Contaminated Sediments Technical Advisory Group to oversee work at complex Superf und sediment sites, and the Superfund Sediment Resource Center to assist EPA staff on technical issues regarding sediment site cleanup. OSWER provid ed two important guidance documents - the Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Risks at Hazardous Waste Sites (2002), and the Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites (2005) - to help remedial project managers make scientifically sound and nationally cons istent risk management decisions. OSWER also sponsored or co-sponsor ed several national meetings oncharacterizing and managing contaminat ed sediment. In addition, OSWER provided Federal and Stat e officials training on Sediment Remediation: Technical Considerations for Evaluating and Implementing Dredging and Capping Remedies

.

• ORD conducted research on issues suchas site characterization, ecological and human health risk, and remedy de velopment and evaluation. ORD also held national meetings and workshops on the management and treatment of contaminated sediments.

• OPPTS created a Draft National Action Plan in 2000 with links to fish advisories for Level 1 Pesticides and a 1998 Multimedia Strategy for Priority Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Pollutants . In addition, OPPTS developed technical guidance documents on pesticides to evaluate their potential to run off or leach into su rface waters, or accumulate in sediment.


### Management Strategy Not Fully Implemented

Although EPA made some progress in ma naging and addressing contaminated sediments, it did not fully implement its Strategy. Areas where EPA did not sufficiently implement the Strategy in clude: (1) using National Sediment Inventory data for decision making, (2) coordinating activities, (3) developing sediment quality criteria, (4) meetin g research needs, and (5) measuring performance. Details follow.

6 National Sediment Inventory Generally Not Used for Decision Making

EPA program offices generally did not use National Sediment Inventory data as part of the decision process for assess ment, pollution prevention, and remediation activities as outlined in the Strategy. U nder the Strategy, the Agency intended to use the inventory for several purposes , including those noted in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Purposes for National Sediment Inventory

• Identify sediment sites for consideration for assessment under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

• Identify problem pesticides and toxic substances that may require further regulation or evaluation for possible enforcement action.

• Identify impaired waters for National Wate r Quality Inventory reports or possible Total Maximum Daily Load development.

• Select industries for effluent guidelines development.

• Identify chemicals of concern for sedime nt criteria development and evaluate the effectiveness of technology-based effluent guidelines, water quality-based permit limits, and Total Maximum Daily Loads.

The National Sediment Inventory, most recently updated in 2004, is the most comprehensive source of information on the extent of contaminated sediments inthe United States. The inventory includes 4.6 million records of sediment chemistry, tissue residue, and toxicity data, for more than 50,000 monitoring stations across the country. EPA obtained this information from various data storage systems and monitoring programs of the Agency and other entities. In 1997 and again in 2004, OW identified 96 watersheds containing areas of probable concern through an an alysis of data in the National Sediment Inventory. These areas represented watersheds wher e sampling data indicated contamination levels that may pose threats to organi sms at the bottom of waterbodies and resident fish. EPA reported the result s of these analyses in its 1997 and 2004 NSQS reports. Both NSQS reports disc losed that further analysis should be conducted to determine the extent of c ontamination and appropriate and costeffective actions.

According to OW and OSWER officials, th eir offices generally have not used the National Sediment Inventory and NSQS re ports as part of assessment, pollution prevention, and/or remediation activiti es and decisions for contaminated sediments. The Strategy indicates the i nventory and NSQS reports should be used to assist EPA program offices with making regulatory decisions for contaminated sediment issues. However, OW and OSWER based their decisions primarily on data specific to their individual programs. As a result, most of the Agency’s decisions for managing and addressing huma n health and ecologi cal risks within these areas of probable concern may not have considered data available from other sources included in the Nationa l Sediment Inventory. In 2004, OW did consider using National Sediment Inventory data in its plan for determining the industrial categories for which to develop effluent guidelines.

The National Sediment Inventory and NS QS reports, as appropriate, should complement other sources of information used by EPA program offices for making decisions. For example, we overlai d the data for the 96 areas of probable concern identified in the 2004 NSQS repor t with the data in OW's 2004 National Listing of Fish Advisories, using Geographic Information System software. We provide the overlay of the two data sets in Appendix C. The overlay shows that most of the areas of probable concern eith er had fish advisories or were adjacent to waterbodies with them. Using the NSQS data in this way provides additional, although qualified, information on potential human health and ec ological risks in surface waters across the country.

7 Activities Not Fully Coordina ted Across Program Offices

The Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy , as well as EPA’s Contaminated Sediments Action Plan that supplements the Strategy, established a framework and actions intended to en hance cross-program coordination and collaboration in addressing contaminatedsediments. The Strategy notes that implementation of statutory requireme nts has created inconsistencies in addressing contaminated sediments. Ho wever, EPA’s program offices did notcoordinate most of their contaminated sediment activities, and the Agency’s primary focus has been limited to remediation activities.

Our interviews with OW, OSWER, and OPPT S officials disclose d that the offices generally did not collaborat e and coordinate on the majo rity of their activities involving the assessment, prevention, control, and remediation of contaminated sediments. Since at least 2002, EPA has primarily focused on addressing contaminated sediment issues throug h Superfund remedial actions. EPA has placed little emphasis on the preventi on and source control aspects of contaminated sediments. Further, EPA’ s activities have been fragmented and “stovepiped” within program offices. For example, OW has not coordinated source control programs, such as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting, with OSWER’s remediation activities for sites with contaminated sediments at the national level.

Although EPA generally did not coordinate activities across programs, OW, OSWER, and ORD did collabo rate and coordinate on so me activities related to contaminated sediments. For exampl e, these offices coordinated in the development and release of the Contaminated Sediments Action Plan in 2002. This plan reflected the goals of the Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy and served as a tool for EPA senior managers to clearly coordinate cross-program contaminated sediment activities. OW , OSWER, ORD, and the Great Lakes National Program Office also collaborate d in 2004 on the development of the Agency’s Contaminated Sediment Science Priorities , which establish Agencywide science activities that affect contaminated sediments.

EPA’s inability to complete the Contaminated Sediment Assessment Pilot as outlined by the Contaminated Sediments Action Plan further illustrates the need for improvements in coordination and co llaboration between program offices. EPA planned to begin the Pilot in the fall of 2002 and facilitate cross-program coordination between remedial investig ation/feasibility study evaluations and Total Maximum Daily Load modeling. Ho wever, EPA stopped the project after OW staff selected potential sites for th e Pilot because OSWER and OW were not able to successfully coordinate and collaborate on the project design.

Officials from two States also said EPA could improve its coordination between its program offices as well as with States . For example, one State official said that some EPA Regional Superfund Program remedial project managers do not consider various Clean Water Act re quirements when overlapping programs perform work at contaminated sediment sites.

8 National Sediment Quality Criteria Not Established

EPA did not develop and implement nume rical sediment qua lity criteria as specified by the Strategy. EPA establis hed this requirement to ensure the comparability of data gathered to assess sediment contamination and its effects.Although not intended as mandatory standards, EPA expected the criteria to assist in the ranking of sites needing further a ssessment, target hot spots within an area for remediation, and serve as a partial basi s for the development of State sediment quality standards.

The Strategy assigned OW the responsibil ity for developing the criteria. OW officials said that they did not develop criteria because of scientific and policy disagreements within and outside the Agency. Instead, the Agency produced equilibrium partitioning sediment benchm ark documents – for dieldrin, endrin, metal mixtures, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures – for voluntary use by its program offices. The Agency presented these benchmarks as complements to numerous existing sediment assessment tools developed by EPA and others. As a result, EPA has no assurance that regulatory decisions made within and outside the Agency are based on compar able criteria and are consistent.

Although EPA has not developed and impl emented criteria, the Agency could develop standards or guidelines as one State and Canada have done. Washington represents the only State that has de veloped legally enforceable water and sediment quality marine standards. Acco rding to a Washington State official, the standards have helped in the Superfund process because they provide authority and consistency for remedy decisions. Likewise, Canada de veloped Sediment Quality Guidelines based on scientifically derived sediment quality targets, and EPA could also consider that approach. Canada’s guidelines are not regarded as blanket values for national sediment quality and may be modified according to local conditions. Interviewed officials from OSWER, the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management O fficials, and three States said they believed that some form of national sedime nt standards or scre ening criteria could help to speed projects toward clean up. Officials fr om OSWER and the Association of State and Territorial So lid Waste Management Officials said criteria would make assessment and cleanup easier, faster, and less expensive.

9 ORD Has Not Completely Met Prio rity Research Needs and Could Enhance Coordination on Research Needs

ORD has not fully addressed OSWER’s high priority research needs for contaminated sediments. OS WER officials said that one of their highest priorities for research on contaminated sediments is remediation alternatives for the top three remedies (dredging, capping, and monitored natural recovery). OSWER officials said this research is importa nt to better understand where and how each type of approach can be most effective. However, for Fiscal Years 2002-2005, only about 10 percent of ORD’s contamin ated sediment publications focused on remediation alternatives; the majority of completed research addressed contaminant characteristics. Accordi ng to OSWER officials, they could not determine whether ORD met its priorities prior to 2005 because OSWER and ORD had not established an effective communication process. In 2005, OSWERand ORD formed the Contaminated Se diment Regional Research Advisory Workgroup to enhance communi cation on research needs.

Opportunities also exist for ORD to make its completed research more readily accessible to OSWER and the regions. For example, until recently, OSWER officials could not obtain a monitored na tural recovery docum ent from ORD even though ORD completed the document a year earlier. ORD usually informs OSWER of completed research products through periodic distri bution of research lists and e-mails, and ORD posts most of these research products in different formats on ORD’s main Web page and three laboratory Web sites. This does not provide adequate visibility; OSWER officials said ORD could improve access by developing a set of easily accessible, me dia-specific Web sites. However, OSWER and ORD expect the recently formed Contaminated Sediment Regional Research Advisory Workgroup to improve communications about completed ORD research.

Further, opportunities exist for ORD to be tter coordinate its research activities with other Federal agencies that conduct research addressing contaminated sediment issues. EPA’s Science Advisory Board, officials from other Federal agencies, and our own review disclose d that ORD needs to enhance such coordination. In its review of the 2002 Draft Contaminated Sediments Science Plan to establish research priorities, the Science Advisory Boar d cited the absence of information on research conducted on sediments outside of the Agency as a critical weakness. In 2004, EPA revised th e plan and disclosed that it considered research by other Federal agencies as part of the plan’s development. However, officials from the other agencies we interviewed said ORD did not routinely coordinate with their agencies on researchand did not considerall their research addressing contaminated sediments.

Our review of research for contamin ated sediments completed by ORD and selected other Federal agencies du ring Fiscal Years 2002 through 2005 showed that the other agencies conducted a substa ntial amount of the research (as shown in Figure 2.1 below). The other agencies included the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmos pheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Department of the Navy. The combined research products of the selected Federal agencies for most topics on contaminated sediments exceeded EPA’s research on the topics. This clearly suggests that EPA and other agencies c ould enhance Federally-funded research through improved coordination and collabo ration. For example, EPA and the other agencies may achieve cost effici encies through special ization on research topics.

10Figure 2.1: Contaminate d sedim ent re search pu blica t ion totals by topicPublications E P A & S e l e c t ed O t h e rF e d e ral A g en cy C o n t am i n at ed S e d i m e n t R e s ear c h F Y 200 2- 200 5

100

75

EPA 50

Ot h e r Se l e c t e d Ag e n c i e s 25

0

t y s s s s g it l s r k rt s k e n e e y ls cs en l o i i n u a o is it t ve a nc i gi u c ta s m r u sp eo R at l o q i t o m xi r Le h n h i da ni e ge i Q ul Me n t / d c ra an lt no l l a m ch To ts ct na n n en e e Gu u ch e n a a Mo u c e me / B ar i s H ks/ cc M ro di s e & T
n r a n T me d e kg e M o o e T i o le Ch e c i n at w i v t / S F ma e Bi t i at E n dg r el u a a e Ba d d H v e n re t i i u am o D & n m Wa G l Fr e am a In t t y R n l i ic a g lo Co Qu co E

To p i c s

According to EPA and other Federal agen cy officials, EPA recently made some progress collaborating with other Federal ag encies on research. They cited as an example a research collaboration mee ting that took place in September 2005 in Rhode Island with participation by EPA, Department of the Navy, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officials.

11 Performance Measures for Sediment Management Incomplete

EPA did not establish cross-program perfor mance measures that fully evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken as part of the Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy

.
The Government Performance and Results Act holds Federal agencies accountable for using resources wisely a nd achieving program results. The Act requires agencies to develop plans for what they intend to accomplish, measure how well they do, make appropriate deci sions based on that information, and communicate performance information to Congress and the public.

As discussed in Chapters 1 through 3, EPA has devoted resources toward managing contaminated sediments. Ho wever, OW, OSWER, and other program offices with responsibilities for contaminated sediments have not adequately established performance measures for activities conducted un der the Strategy’sfour goals. EPA’s 2003-2008 Strategic Pl an includes measures related to contaminated sediments that partially cover two of the four goals:

• Subobjective 2.1.2, “Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat,” provides partial coverage of the Strategy’s goals for preventin g and reducing the volume of existing contaminated sediment by measuring reductions in the number of fish advisories.

• Subobjective 4.3.3, “Improve the Health of Great Lakes Ecosystems,” provides some coverage of the Strategy’ s goals of preventing an increase and reducing the volume of existing contaminated sediment by measuring the reduction of PCBs in fish and the volume of contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes. This measure does not c over Agency activities outside the Great Lakes.

However, these measures do not addre ss the Strategy’s other two goals of (1) dredging and dredged material dispos al and (2) scientifically sound sediment management.

OSWER has recognized the need for better measures for contaminated sediment remediation activities to help measure ove rall remedy effectiveness. As a result, OSWER has taken three important step s toward establishing performance measures for the remediation of contaminated sediments at Superfund sites.

• OSWER’s Principles for Managing Contam inated Sediment Risks at Hazardous Waste Sites (2002) specifies the use of post-remediation monitoring data to measure ecological out comes from remediation activities. The principles state that although it is generally more practical to use measures such as contaminant concentrati ons in sediment to identify areas to be remediated, other measures should be used to assess whether human health and/or ecological risk reduction goals are being met. For example, using measured concentrations of PCBs in fi sh is suggested as the most relevant means of measuring exposure to PCBs in contaminated sediments.

• OSWER’s Contaminated Sediment Remedi ation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites (2005) provides additional guida nce to help remedial project managers develop meaningful measures based on outcomes. The guidance includes steps such as identifying m onitoring objectives and designing the monitoring plan while considering a co mbination of physical, chemical, and biological methods to determine potential concerns.

• OSWER implemented the Contaminated Sediment Site Tracking Tool to evaluate the overall effec tiveness of remedies for long-term risk reduction. OSWER developed the tool to facilitate evaluation of reme dy effectiveness at Superfund contaminated sediment sites. Although OSWER implemented the tool in 2004, data is missing for many sites. OSWER is working to obtain

12complete performance data, and OSWER of ficials said they plan to evaluate effectiveness of remedial actions at cont aminated sediment sites after the tool includes the necessary data. The anal ysis should assist the Agency with measuring the effectiveness of its activ ities under the Strategy’s remediation goal.


### Primary Causes for Not Implementing Strategy

We noted two primary causes for EPA’s program offices not implementing the Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy : (1) no program office has assumed responsibility for oversight and overall coordination of the Strategy; and (2) EPA has not updated the Strategy since implementation.

There has been no overall oversight of the Strategy since at least 2002. EPA’s Strategy specifies that OW’s Office of Sc ience and Technology has responsibility for coordinating the implementation of the Strategy and that the Agency-wide Sediment Steering Committee provides oversight. However, as of 2002, the Office of Science and Technology and th e Sediment Steering Committee stopped their coordination and oversight activiti es. OW officials said the Office of Science and Technology stopped its oversi ght because OW made a decision to focus on other higher priority issues. Although the Strategy required OW and OSWER to participate in the Sediment Steering Committee, o fficials from these offices could not explain why the Committee has not continued to perform its oversight role.

EPA has not updated the Strategy since implementing it in 1998. Although EPA has made some progress toward managing contaminated sediments, the Agency did not revise the Strategy to reflect these accomplishments or establish additional actions that may be necessary based on lessons learned since 1998. For example, the 1998 Strategy does not: (1) include th e roles and respons ibilities of the Contaminated Sediment Technical A dvisory Group and Superfund Sediment Resource Center; (2) reflect the reme diation approach outlined by OSWER’s Principles for Managing Contaminated Se diment Risks at Hazardous Waste Sites document, and (3) consider additional ac tions necessary to prevent and control contaminated sediments. In 2002, the Agency issued the Contaminated Sediments Action Plan that outlines additional actions consistent with the intent of the Strategy. However, the Action Plan doe s not completely update the Strategy because it primarily focuses on remediation activities and provides minimal coverage for contaminated sedimentprevention and control activities.


### Partial Implementation of Strategy May Limit Agency’s Effectiveness

EPA’s current focus on addressing contaminated sediments through the Superfund Program and the lack of coor dination among program offices will not enable it to sufficiently address th e contaminated sediments problem. Contaminated sediments are multi-media, cross-program, issues. EPA cannot

13assure that resources it expends on cont aminated sediments provide the most effective and efficient solutions for reduc ing the environmental and human health risks posed by this national problem. Currently, EPA ca nnot assure that it bases decisions for managing and remediating co ntaminated sediments on all available information because program offices have not used the National Sediment Inventory and NSQS reports. Without cr oss-program coordination and prescribed national sediment criteria, the Agency ha s limited assurance that it consistently and effectively assesses risks posed by c ontaminated sediments. EPA’s primary focus on addressing contaminated se diments through the Superfund Program, rather than a more comprehensive and in tegrated approach, limits the Agency’s ability to prevent future sites and to ensure the application of consistent assessment standards. EPA also needs to improve its internal research efforts and better coordinate research efforts with other Federal agencies to avoid duplication and gain the maximum benefit from research dollars.


### Other Opportunities Exist to Impro ve Contaminated Sediment Efforts

EPA could enhance its contaminated se diments efforts through the watershed approach, which the Agency has already usedat selected sites. The premise of the watershed approach is that EPA can best solve many water quality and ecosystem problems at the watershed level rather than the individual waterbody or discharger level. This approach requires cross-pr ogram coordination, targeting priority problems, promoting stakehol der involvement, integrating multiple agencies' expertise and authority, and measuring success.

OSWER’s Urban Rivers Restoration Initiative uses the watershed approach to address contaminated sediments at eight pilot sites, including two on the National Priorities List. The initiative intends to bring about increased coordination and cooperation within EPA and with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to restore degraded urban rivers. OS WER expects the eight pilot projects to result in less duplication of effort; faster and cheape r assessment and cleanup; leveraging and more effective use of funds; and better targeted, holistic remedies. However, although EPA has used the watershed appr oach for selected sites involving contaminated sediments, it has not yet pursued the approach to deal with contaminated sediment issues on a national scale.

EPA can also enhance contaminated sedime nt efforts by increasing the use of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Water Resources Developmen t Act authority. The Act authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to remove contaminated sediments adjacent to navigation channels, but these removal actions require specific appropriations from Congress and funding matches by State or local sponsors. The Act authorizes additio nal funding and added a mechanism for more comprehensive evaluation and resolu tion of sediment issues. The Act has been used to remove contaminated sedi ments adjacent to two sites on the National Priorities List. According to OSWER offi cials, a number of other sediment sites could potentially benefit from the Act’ s funding, but liability and funding issues

14have prevented further use of the authority. OSWER recently held a meeting with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and formed a workgroup to resolve those issues and consider increased use of the Water Resources Development Act authority at more contamin ated sediment sites.



### Recommendations

We recommend that the Deputy Administrator:

2-1 Establish a committee or designate an office to assume responsibility for the oversight and evaluation of the Agency’s Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy . The designated office or committee should:

a. Ensure program offices with re sponsibilities for managing and addressing contaminated sediment issues use the National Sediment Inventory as part of their decision making processes.

b. Ensure contaminated sediment issues are managed and addressed through a cross-program approach, as intended by the Strategy, that places emphasis on prevention and control of contaminated sediments.

c. Update the Strategy to reflect accomplishments made on managing and addressing contaminated sedi ments and incorporate additional actions that Agency progr am offices should take.

We recommend that the Assistant Admi nistrator for Water and the Assistant Administrator for Solid Wast e and Emergency Response:

2-2 Collaborate with other program offi ces with responsib ilities under the Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy to develop and implement comprehensive and coordinated performance measures for preventing, assessing, and remediating contaminated sediment issues.

We recommend that the Assist ant Administrator for Water:

2-3 Evaluate and report on the need to develop numerical sediment quality criteria to assist in th e ranking of sites needing fu rther assessment, target hot spots within an area for remediati on, and serve as a partial basis for the development of State sediment quality standards.

We recommend that the Acting Assistan t Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response:

2-4 Use the watershed approach, including concepts from the Urban Rivers Restoration Initiative, atcontaminated sediment National Priorities List sites in high priority watersheds.

152-5 Continue working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to expand the use of Water Resources Development Act funding for additional contaminated sediments adjacent to National Priorities List sites to provide more comprehensive evaluations and resolutions of contaminated sediment issues.

We recommend that the Assistant Admini strator for Research and Development:

2-6 Work with the Assistant Administrator for OSWER to continue improving communication between the offices on contaminated sediment research priorities and status of research pr oducts. In addition, develop a system that provides OSWER and other poten tial users with easy access to all completed contaminated sediment research projects.

2-7 Continue to enhance collaborati on and coordination between EPA and other Federal agencies on researchactivities. At a minimum, the coordinated activitie s should ensure that resear ch is not duplicated by the agencies and that Federal resource s are leveraged through coordinated research efforts that meet the needs of multiple agencies.



### Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

EPA generally agreed with the recommenda tions in the draft report. The Agency will need to provide further details on its plans to address OIG recommendations within 90 days. The Agency also provided suggested revisions to some details in the report and the recommendations, and we made revisions as appropriate.

Regarding Recommendation 2-1, the Agency agreed to establish an OW-led intraagency committee by March 17, 2006 to determine the next steps and develop an initial workplan. Also, the Agency saidit would revisit the 1998 Strategy to assess the degree to which EPA’s actions achieved the Strategy’s goals. The Agency also believes that it should focus attention on emerging contaminants due to their potential to adversely affect hu man health and the environment. The Agency did not comment on whether it agreed with the cross-program approach or whether it would use the National Sedi ment Inventory as part of its decision making processes, as sugges ted by the recommendation.

The Agency’s planned action appears to generally meet the intent of Recommendation 2-1. In the Agency’s respon se to our final report, it will need to specify the office or committee that will assume responsibility for oversight and evaluation of the Strategy. The Agency will also need to describe the actions taken or planned to ensure that the Agen cy uses the National Sediment Inventory as part of EPA’s decision-making, contaminated sediment issues are managed and addressed through a cross-program approac h, and the Strategy is updated. In addition, the Agency needs to provide milestones for completing each of these actions.

16Regarding Recommendation 2-2, the Agen cy agreed to look at performance measures as part of developing a new Stra tegic Plan, but stated that it already has indicators reflecting the in tegration of all stressors, including sediments. The Agency cited Subobjective 2.2.1 from EPA’s cu rrent Strategic Plan as an example of an indicator meeting the overall go al of preventing ecological and human health impairment by increasing the numb er of watersheds where water quality standards are met. We acknowledge that EPA has some indicators that partially cover contaminated sediment activities. However, Subobjective 2.2.1 and the other measures evaluated do not provide comprehensive measures that assess the effectiveness of all Agency program activities under the Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy , and such comprehensive meas ures are needed. In its response to the final report, the Agency mu st describe actions taken or planned to develop and implement comprehensive pe rformance measures for managing and addressing contaminated sediments. Also, the Agency will need to provide milestones for completing these actions.

In responding to Recommendation 2-3 the Agency provided formal written comments followed up by clarifying remarks that generally meet the intent of our recommendation. Specifically, we were told that the Agency published several chemical-specific sediment benchmarks to provide guidance to regions, States and the regulated community in assessing risk to aquatic organisms from sediment contamination. We were told EPA supports the use of these benchmarks by the States and Tribes and will continue to evaluate the need for additional sediment management tools such as these within the context of its review of the achievements of the 1998 Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy . In its 90-day response, the Agency will need to describe specific actions taken or planned to evaluate and report on the need for numerical sediment quality criteria. Also, the Agency needs to provide milestones for completing these actions.

The Agency suggested that we make Recommendation 2-4 more specific and address National Priorities List sites with contaminated sediments in priority watersheds. The Agency said it endo rses the cross-programmatic watershed approach at selected high pr iority sites. The Agency also said it has drafted the guidance, Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds and intends to train regional sta ff on using the guidance. We agree that the watershed approach should focus on priority watersheds and, as a result, revised Recommendation 2-4 to reflect this fo cus. While EPA agreed to provide guidance and training on watershed approach es, the Agency will need to describe in its response to the final report the sp ecific actions taken or planned to apply the watershed approach at contaminated sedi ment National Priorities List sites in priority watersheds. Also, the Agency must provide milestones for completing these actions.

The Agency generally agreed with Recomme ndation 2-5 and said it convened a workgroup to resolve some of the issues associated with the use of the Water Resources Development Act at contaminat ed sediment sites. However, the

17response did not disclose whether the workgroup intended to resolve all major issues associated with use of the Act. The Agency will need to describe in its response to the final report how it plans to resolve all the majo r issues to increase the use of the Water Resources Deve lopment Act funding for contaminated sediments adjacent to National Priorities Li st sites. Also, the Agency needs to provide a milestone for completing this action.

EPA partially agreed with Recommendati on 2-6, and asserted that ORD has an effective process in place for OSWER to communicate research priorities. The Agency indicated ORD has created av enues for OSWER to communicate its research needs through teams, progress reviews, and meetings. The Agency agreed that communicating on research products specific to contaminated sediments and providing access to those produc ts is important, and will attempt to improve communications and access. Wemodified Recommendation 2-6 to reflect recent communication enhancements . We are pleased that the Agency plans to enhance communication on the status of research projects and access to completed research projects. In the Agen cy’s response to the final report, it will need to describe specific actions it plans to take to improve communication between ORD and OSWER regarding contamin ated sediment research priorities and status of research products. Also, th e Agency will need to describe specific actions taken or planned to improve access to research products. The Agency will also need to provide milestones for completing these actions.

The Agency requested that we revise Recommendation 2-7 to recognize ongoing collaboration activities with other Federal agencies. The Agency also described recent actions taken and planned that meet the intent of the recommendation. These actions include working with OSWER on a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Navy, and workgroup and task force activitie s with various Federal agencies. We revised Recommendation 2-7 to reflectORD’s ongoing coordination activities. The Agency’s taken and planned actions m eet the intent of our recommendation. However, in its response to the final re port, the Agency will need to provide milestones for completing these actions.

The Agency’s complete response is in Appendix B.

1819 

# Chapter 3 EPA Has Not Completely Assessed Extent and

Severity of Nation’s Sediment Contamination

EPA’s 2004 NSQS report did not provide a co mplete assessment of the extent and severity of sediment contamination across the Nation, nor did it fully meet the requirements of the Water Resources De velopment Act. This reporting issue occurred because OW relied on known da ta sources and did not design a method to acquire and compile data and address data limitation issues. As a result, EPA cannot accurately estimate the volume a nd risks posed by contaminated sediments on a national scale. Such a national assessment would better enable EPA to ensure that it devotes res ources to contaminated sedi ment issues that pose the greatest risks to human healthand the environment.


### National Assessment Not Complete

EPA spent over $600,000 to acquire, compile , and assess the data in the 2004 NSQS report. OW issued the NSQS re port primarily to address requirements under Section 503 of the Water Resources Development Act and assist EPA program offices, States, and tribes withdecision making. The report identified locations where available sampling data indi cated a high probability that direct or indirect exposure to sediments could be a ssociated with adverse effects to aquatic and/or human health. OW based the re port on contaminated sediment sampling data obtained from OW’s National Sedime nt Inventory, which was comprised of readily available sampling data principally obtained from othe r Federal agencies and States covering the 10-year period from 1990 through 1999.

Despite EPA’s efforts, the 2004 report did not provide a complete assessment of the extent and severity of sediment c ontamination across the Nation. Also, it did not fully meet the requirements of Section 503 of the Water Resources Development Act, which requires EPA to: (1) work with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a comprehensive national survey of existing sediment data; (2) bi ennially report to Congress on findings, conclusions, a nd recommendations; and (3) conduct a comprehensive and continuing program to assess sediment quality.

Although the Water Resources Developm ent Act required a comprehensive national survey of existing contaminatedsediment data and a comprehensive monitoring program, the 2004 NSQS report di d not include all available sampling data nor provide national coverage of cont aminated sediments. For example, the report did not include contaminated sedime nt data from the Great Lakes and from Superfund sites. In addition, approximatel y 68 percent of the data in the NSQS report only covered 10 States (Washington, Vi rginia, California, Illinois, Florida,Wisconsin, New York, Texas, Oregon, and S outh Carolina), or 20 percent, of the 50 States. Further, the NSQS did not cover approximately 91 percent of river reaches (the length between two major tri butaries ranging from 1 to 10 miles) in the contiguous United States and about 46 percent of watersheds nationally. EPA recognized these data limitations and de signated the NSQS report as a screeninglevel assessment of contaminated sediments.

The 2004 NSQS report also did not meet the biennial reporting requirement specified by the Water Resources Devel opment Act. The 2004 report represents an update to the NSQS report EPA issu ed in 1997. EPA issued the 2004 NSQS report approximately 5 years overdue, si nce the Water Resources Development Act required EPA to update the 1997 report in 2 years time.


### Assessment Incomplete Because Adequate Design Not Developed

After interviewing OW officials a nd reviewing a development document supporting the National Sediment Invent ory and 2004 NSQS report, we found the report incomplete because OW had not developed and implemented a methodology and plan for acquiring and compiling data necessary for a national assessment. Instead, OW acquired most of the data from databases previously known to OW. OW did not establish a fo rmal coordination process for acquiring data from all major sources within and out side EPA. In addition, the lack of a methodology and plan led to the conti nued existence of the following key limitations from the 1997 NSQS report:



### • Non-random design. OW collected a majority of the data based on a biased sampling design. OW collected the data through monitoring programs targeting contaminated or potentially contaminated ar eas. Without the use of a statistical sampling methodology, th ere is no assurance that both contaminated and uncontaminated sedime nts are accurately represented in a national assessment of the extent and severity of the contamination. A statistical sampling methodology such as EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program would provide OW with an unbiased national assessment of sediment contamination th at would help provide identifiable trends. OW could use this program to develop the tools necessary to monitor and assess the status and trends of na tional ecological resources. OW may also integrate random sampling results with existing data, thus reducing the cost. For example, existing sediment data generated by statistical approaches, such as the recent Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program National Coastal Assessment , would reduce the amount of additional statistically valid data necessary for the national assessment. The 2005 version of this report includes results from over 50,000 samples taken from over 1,500 randomly selected sites.



### • Critical Data Lacking. Data lacked sample location information (metadata), quality assurance/quality c ontrol information, and key assessment parameters.

20Although sample location data is critical, some of this data was not included in the NSQS report because the data wa s missing or incomplete. Also, key assessment parameters, such as Tota l Organic Carbon and Acid-Volatile Sulfide data, were not always available; these parameters are critical to predict bioavailability of sediment contamin ants. The NSQS report also excluded quality assurance/quality control data because information was limited; this information is critical because it provides detectio n limits and other parameters necessary for determin ing the quality of the data.

• Hard Copy Data Excluded. Large amounts of data were maintained in paper format and thus excluded from the National Sediment Inventory. OW officials said this data was not readily available in computerized format and it would have been labor-intensive to input manually.

According to OW, it is working on revisions for the next NSQS report. OW plans to perform a data gap analysis betwee n statistically-needed sampling locations and existing data as part of the metho dology. In addition, OW plans to broadly advertise its data needs by conducting national meetings, workshops, and outreach to improve national coverage and data quality. However, at the time we completed our field work, OW did not have a written plan for the next NSQS report, and we could not assess whethe r OW preliminary planning will provide a more complete national assessment.

OW officials also said that they do not plan on issuing the NSQS report every 2 years as required by the Water Resources Development Act. They cited two primary reasons: (1) sediment contaminati on does not change that frequently; and (2) the public comment and Agency revi ew processes for the report make it impossible to meet the timeframe. Even if OW’s position has merit, the reporting requirement is mandatory, so the Agency should disclose to Congress that the reporting frequency cannot be met and is too fr equent to evaluate trends if that is the case. EPA has not made such a disclo sure. Further, if EPA believes a change in reporting frequency is needed, it s hould indicate the re porting frequency it believes is appropriate.



### Recommendations

We recommend that the Assist ant Administrator for Water:

3-1 Develop and implement a plan for futu re NSQS reports that, consistent with the Water Resources Developmen t Act, provides a comprehensive national assessment of the extent and se verity of contaminated sediments. At a minimum the design should:

a. Use a statistical sampling approach as the basis for collecting data from EPA and other sources and assessing the national extent and severity of contaminated sediments. As a cost savings alternative,

21consider using statistical sampling in conjunction with existing data for the national assessment. Improve the completeness and availability of sample location information (m etadata), quality assurance/quality control information, and assessment parameters for future NSQS reports.

b. Ensure that the National Sediment Inventory and future NSQS reports include contaminated sediment data from all major sources, including the Great Lakes National Program Office and Superfund program. At a minimum, establish a formal coordination process for acquiring contaminated sediment data from EPA program offices and applicable agencies and organizations outside EP A. Also, consider cost-effective options for acquiring and compiling contaminated sediment data maintained in paper format.

3-2 Determine a reporting frequency for the NSQS report that is both useful for decision makers and achievable fo r EPA, disclose to Congress that EPA cannot meet the current biennial reporting requirement specified by Section 503 of the Water Resources Development Act, and provide Congress an alternative reporting schedule for consideration.



### Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

EPA generally agreed with the recomme ndations. The Agency also provided suggested revisions to some details in the chapter and one of the recommendations, and we made revisions as appropriate.

The Agency generally agreed with Reco mmendation 3-1 and described three projects in OW’s 2006 workplan intended to improve the next NSQS report. OW plans to hold two workshops to get stakeholder input, have an outreach program encouraging other entities to provide data, and work with OSWER on a formal process to convert Superfund datato an electronic format. The Agency also suggested that we revise Recomme ndation 3-1 to reflect data collection rather than sampling because OW does not interpret Section 503(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to require EPA to sample sediments. The Agency does see the merit in developing a statistically-based study design and has agreed to work with ORD to determin e if it can develop such a design.

The Agency’s actions under OW’s 2006 workplan partially address Recommendation 3-1, but the actions will not provide a comprehensive national assessment of the extent and severity of contaminated sediments. We acknowledge that Section 503( b) does not specifically require EPA to conduct sampling. However, Section 503(b) doe s require the Agency to conduct a comprehensive and continuing program to assess sediment quality and establish minimum requirements for the program. The minimum requirements outlined by Section 503(b) do not restrict EPA from establishing a comprehensive program

22based on a statistical sampling appro ach. EPA cannot meet these minimum requirements unless it bases its continuing program to assess sediment quality on a statistical sampling design coordinated with EPA program offices, other Federal agencies, and States. Our recommendation does not specifically require that EPA conduct the sampling (although EPA programs such as Superfund do conduct sediment sampling). Instead, the reco mmendation requires that EPA develop and implement a plan that uses a statistica l sampling approach for acquiring the data necessary to assess the Nation's se diment quality. We revised the recommendation to clarify that EPA is not required to sample sediments, but should develop and implement a plan c onsistent with the Water Resources Development Act.

In the Agency’s response to the final re port, it will need to describe specific actions it has taken or plans to take to develop a statistical sampling approach as the basis for collecting data from EPA a nd other sources, to resolve data quality issues, and to ensure that contaminated sediment data from all major sources are included. The Agency’s description s hould include the results of the three projects in OW’s 2006 workplan intended to improve the next NSQS report. If the Agency cannot complete a comprehens ive national assessme nt that is based on a statistical sampling methodology, it s hould disclose to Congress that the national assessment is not possible and that the funds used to generate this report should be reprogrammed to fund other progr am activities. The Agency also will need to provide in its response mile stones for completing these actions.

The Agency agreed with Recommendation 3-2. The Agency said that OW plans to discuss the factors that affect how fast sediment contaminants change, consult with ORD fate and transport experts, and develop a re porting frequency that is more consistent with anticipated change s in sediment contaminant levels. The Agency’s planned actions meet the in tent of our recommendation. In the Agency’s response to the final report, the Agency will need to specify milestones for completing these actions and provide an alternative reporting schedule to Congress for consideration.

The Agency’s complete response is in Appendix B.

23Appendix A 

## Details on Scope and Methodology

We conducted our evaluation from September 2004 to August 2005 in accordance with Government Auditing Standards , issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.

Our scope included contaminated sediment activi ties performed by EPA, other Federal agencies, and selected States. Early in our review, we determined the EP A offices and Federal agencies involved in the universe of c ontaminated sediments. We determined the universe of contaminated sediment sites through a review of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System and listings provided by OSWER. We did not independently verify the accuracy of data obtai ned from Agency sources , but obtained input on the accuracy from Agency officials.

We evaluated management controls covering Fi scal Year 2002 through 2005 (second quarter). We generally considered whether the organiza tion, policies, and pro cedures ensure that (1) intended results were achieved; (2) resources were used consistent with the Agency mission; (3) programs and resources were protected from waste, fraud, and mismanagement; (4) laws and regulations were followed; and (5) reliable a nd timely information was obtained, maintained, reported, and used for decision making. We fo cused on the effectiveness of EPA's program offices regarding implementation of the Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy

. We found that EPA has not put sufficient effort into implementing the Strategy and had insufficient measures to evaluate the Strategy’s success.

We took into account the findings of a prior EPA OIG report, Water: EPA’s Great Lakes Program (Report No. 99P00212, dated September 1, 1999), and the following Government Accountability Office reports that addressed sediment issues:

24 Report Title Report No. Date

Water Resources - Future Needs for Confining GAO/RCED-92-89 July 1992 Contaminated Sediment in the Great Lakes Region Superfund - Information Regarding EPA's Cleanup GAO/RCED-00-193 September 2000 Decision Process on the Hudson River Site
Great Lakes - EPA Needs to Define Organizational GAO-02-563 May 2002 Responsibilities Better for Effective Oversight and Cleanup of Contaminated Areas
Great Lakes - An Overall Strategy and Indicators for GAO-03-515 April 2003 Measuring Progress Are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration Goals
Great Lakes - Organizational Leadership and GAO-04-1024 September 2004 Restoration Goals Need to Be Better Defined for Monitoring Restoration Progress

We interviewed officials from various EPA offices , other Federal agencies, and six States. We judgmentally selected the six States base d on recommendations from OSWER and theAssociation of State and Territori al Solid Waste Management Offici als. The following table lists the EPA offices and other entities fr om which we interviewed officials.

25 Offices/Agencies/Organizations From Which Officials Were Interviewed During Evaluation

EPA

• Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

• Office of Water

• Office of Research and Development

• Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances

• Great Lakes National Program Office

• Region 2

• Region 5

• Region 9

• Region 10 Other Federal Agencies

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• U.S. Geological Survey

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

• Department of the Navy
States

• California

• Kansas

• New Jersey

• Ohio

• Virginia

• Washington
Other

• Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials

To evaluate whether available Federal authorities and resources provide eff ective solutions to the challenges of contaminated sediments, we:

• Interviewed EPA officials to gain an unde rstanding of national and regional office activities regarding contaminated sediments; and contacted other Federal agencies, the Association of State and Territorial SolidWaste Management Officials, and State officials to gain an understanding of their activities and coordination with EPA.

• Obtained and reviewed the Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy (1998), Contaminated Sediments Action Plan (2002), OSWER’s Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites (2005), OSWER’s Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Ri sks at Hazardous Waste Sites (2002), and ORD’s Contaminated Sites Mult i-Year Research Plan

.

• Reviewed interagency agreements, researchlists, budget spreadsheets, EPA’s National Listing of Fish Advisory database, and Geographic Information System shapefiles.

• Requested and received lists of research project titles completed during Fiscal Years 2002-2005 from EPA and the other Federal agencies included in our review. We alsoconducted an online Web site search for researchprojects by the same agencies. We then compiled and categorized a list of contaminat ed sediment research titles completed by EPA and other Federal agencies during Fiscal Years 2002-2005.

• Judgmentally selected 13 Superfund and Superfund Alternative Sites from the contaminated sediment sites in Regions 2, 5, and 9, and 1 Water Resources Development Act site from each of the 3 regions. For each site, we reviewed site files and interviewed remedial project managers regarding contamin ated sediment activities to determine their knowledge of the Strategy and their application of Agency guidance.

• Overlaid Geographic Information System shap efiles created from the National Sediment Inventory and National Listing of Fish Advisory databases and analyzed the information to determine any visual connections between the data. We did not independently verify the data we obtained from the two databases, and thus did not draw definitive conclusions from the data.

To evaluate how EPA measures the effectiveness of the Strategy and what outcomes EPA has achieved, we:

• Interviewed EPA officials to gain an understa nding of measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of contaminated sediment work.

• Reviewed EPA’s Strategic Pl an and Performance Reports.

• Obtained EPA’s Contaminated Sediment Site Tracking Tool database and spreadsheets and evaluated the information for comple teness and potential to evaluate remedy effectiveness.

To evaluate whether EPA has completely asse ssed the extent and severity of sediment contamination in the United States, we:

• Interviewed OW staff to gain an understanding of processes and procedures used for the National Sediment Inventory and the NSQS reports.

• Reviewed the 1997 and 2004 NSQS reports and the 1994 Framework for the Development of the National Sediment Inventory

.

• Identified major data gaps and the caus es for gaps in the 2004 NSQS report.

• Evaluated the data acquisition process used for the 2004 NSQS report, but did not verify the accuracy of the data used for the Nati onal Sediment Inventory and NSQS reports. Our focus was to determine causes for reported cove rage and quality issues with the data.

• Discussed EPA’s plans to obtain an accurate assessment of the extent and severity of contamination in the United States.

26

### Appendix B 

# Agency 

# Response to 

# Draft Report

UNmD STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASH I NGTON, D.C. 20460



### SUBJECT: Draft Evaluation Report: 

### EPA Can 

### Better 

### Implement Its Strategy 

### for Managing Contaminated 

### Sediments



### FROM: Marcus Peacock



### TO: Carolyn Copper Acting 

### Assistant Inspector General 

### Office 

### of Progm Evaluation Office 

### of Inspector General



### We appreciate the 

### opportunity to 

### further 

### respond do the 

### draft report on 

### the subject evaluation, 

### No. 2004-0 

### 1322. Specifically, we have 

### added to our 

### response to 

### Recommendation 1 

### of the draft 

### report.

Recommendation 1 

### (Report 

### Rmmmendafian 2-1): The DepuQ 

### Administrator establishes a committee or 

### designates 

### an aflce to 

### assume 

### responsibility for the oversight arrd evalun lion 

### ofthe Agency 's 

### contaminated sediment mamgernent strategy. 

### The designated 

### oflice

OF 

### committee should ensure program ofices w i 

### fh responsibilitiesfor 

### managing 

### and 

### addressing contamirtated sediment 

### imes use 

### the 

### National Sediment Inventory as 

### part of their 

### decision making processes, 

### and emwe 

### contaminated sedimen f 

### issues 

### are managed 

### and addressed 

### through a 

### cross-program approach, as 

### intended 

### by 

### the Strategv, 

### thar places emphasis 

### on prevention and 

### contr-01 of 

### contaminated sediments. 

### The designated ofice 

### or committee should 

### update the 

### Stratem fo 

### reflecr accomplishmenrs made on managing 

### ad addressing contaminated 

### sediments and incorporate additional 

### actions that Agenq program 

### ofices should take

### EPA intends to 

### establish an 

### intra-agency committee, by 

### March 17,2006, 

### with 

### the Office 

### af Warn in 

### the lead, to 

### determine next 

### steps 

### on preventing and managing contaminated 

### sediments, and to 

### develop an 

### initial workpIm 

### within two months 

### after the 

### committee's 

### establishment. 

### Further, we 

### agree that it is 

### time to 

### revisit the 1998 

### Contaminated 

### Sediment 

### Management Strategy. The Contaminated Sediment Management Strzttegy 

### Iaid out a 

### process 

### for preventing 

### ecological and human health 

### impairment 

### by abating 

### and controlling sources 

### of sediment contamination and remediating 

### cwently contaminated sediments. 

### Since the 

### time when the Strategy was 

### published, EPA has 

### undestaken 

### n number 

### of actions to 

### measure, control 

### and reduce 

### discharges and 

### emissions 

### of contaminants to the environment. 

### One measure 

### of our

success 

### in addressing 

### this issue 

### is with 

### state-issued 

### fish advisories, 

### The great 

### majority 

### of these advisories 

### are 

### due to 

### either 

### mercury, which we 

### are 

### now regulating both the 

### direct 

### discharge 

### into

27water and the 

### deposition 

### from air sources, 

### or 

### chemicals that we 

### have banned. 

### hother measure 

### is 

### in the tons of 

### toxic pollutants that 

### have 

### been removed From the 

### environment through both technological 

### and water 

### quality-based controls 

### instituted through the 

### NPDES permit program. As a 

### result, we 

### believe we 

### should 

### first assess the 

### degree to 

### which 

### EPA's actions 

### have 

### achieved the goal 

### of 

### the Strategy 

### before restarting 

### activities that 

### were covered 

### under the Strategy. 

### In addition, we 

### believe we 

### should focus attention 

### on emerging contaminants 

### which are now 

### becoming 

### of concern 

### due to 

### their 

### potential to 

### adversely affect 

### human health 

### and the 

### environment. 

### In this way, 

### EPA can work 

### more effectively to 

### prevent 

### new 

### contamination 

### of the 

### environment, 

### including sediments.



### If your staff would 

### Ii 

### ke be 

### discuss these 

### additions, pi ease have 

### them contact 

### Doreen Vetter 

### (202- 564- 1 509) 

### in the 

### Ofice 

### of the 

### Administrator.

2 8UNITED 

### STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460



## JAN 

## 09 

# UDti

SUBJECT: Draft Evaluation 

### Report: EPA Can 

### Better 

### implement Its 

### Strategy for Managing 

### Contaminated 

### Sediments



### FROM: 

### Marcus 

### Peacock 

# &'

TO: 

### Carolyn Copper 

### Acting Assistant 

### Inspector General Office 

### of Program 

### Evaluation Office of 

### Inspector 

### General



### Thank you for your 

### memo dated November 17,2005, 

### transmitting the 

### draft report 

### on the subject 

### evaluation, 

### No, 2004-01 

### 322. We appreciate your 

### careful 

### and thoughtful 

### study of 

### EPA's actions regarding 

### contaminated sediments, specifically 

### with respect 

### to implementing 

### the 1998 Contaminated Sediments Strategy, 

### and we appreciate the opportunity to 

### respond to 

### the draft report's 

### specific recommendations. In 

### addition, we suggest 

### some 

### additional 

### clarifications to 

### the draft report 

### in an 

### attachment to 

### this memo.

Recommendation 

### 1 (Report Recommendation 

### 2-11: Tke Deputy Administrator establishes 

### a commit fee or 

### designafw an 

### ofice to 

### assume responsibility 

### for the oversight 

### and evaluation q

### f

### the 

### Agency 's 

### contaminated sediment 

### management stratep. 

### The designared ofice



### or commirtee 

### should ensure 

### program ofices wi 

### fhrespansibili fies for 

### managing 

### and addressing contaminated sediment issues 

### use 

### the hrarional Sediment 

### Jnventory 

### as purl of 

### rheir decision making processes, 

### und emure 

### contaminated sediment issues 

### are managed and addressed 

### t krough a 

### cross-program 

### approach, as 

### intended by 

### the 

### Srraregv, [ha[ places emphasis on prevention an$ 

### control 

### of contaminated sediments.

We 

### believe that it 

### is 

### time to revisit 

### the1998 Contaminated 

### Sediment Management 

### Strategy. 

### The Contaminated Sediment Management 

### Strategy laid out a 

### process for preventing 

### ecologicd 

### and human health impairment 

### by abating 

### and controlling sources 

### of sediment 

### contamination and 

### remediating currently contaminated sediments. Since the 

### time when the 

### Strategy was 

### pubIished, EPA has 

### undertaken a 

### number of actions 

### to 

### measure, control 

### and reduce discharges 

### and emissions 

### of 

### contaminants to 

### the environment, 

### One measure 

### of our success 

### in addressing 

### this issue is 

### with state-issued 

### fish advisories. The great majority 

### of these 

### advisories



### are due to 

### either mercury, 

### which we 

### are now 

### regulating both the direct 

### discharge 

### into water 

### and the 

### deposition from air sources, or 

### chemicals that 

### we have 

### banned. Another measure is 

### in the 

### tons 

### of toxic pollutants 

### that have been removed 

### from the 

### environment through 

### both technological 

### and water 

### quality-based controls instituted 

### though 

### the NPDES 

### permit program, 

### As a 

### result, we

2

9

### believe we 

### should first 

### assess 

### the degree to 

### which EPA's actions have 

### achieved the 

### goal 

### of the Strategy 

### before restarting 

### activities 

### that were 

### covered under 

### the Strategy. 

### In addition, we 

### believe

we 

### should focus attention 

### on emerging contaminants which 

### are now 

### becoming 

### of concern due to their 

### potential to 

### adversely affect human health 

### and the environment. In 

### this way, 

### EPA 

### can work



### more effectively to 

### prevent new 

### con~amination of the environment, 

### including 

### sediments.

Recommendation 2 (Report 

### Recommendation 

### 2-2): The Assistant 

### Administratorfor Wafer and 

### the 

### Assistan f 

### Administrator for 

### Solid Wasle 

### and 

### Emergency Response coilahorale with 

### otherprogram 

### oflces with 

### responsibiZities 

### under the Contaminated Sediment 

### Managemenf Strategy to 

### develop 

### and implement 

### comprehensive 

### and coordinatedperforma~rce memures 

### for 

### preventing, 

### assessing,and 

### remediating 

### contaminated sediment 

### issues.



### We 

### agree to 

### !oak at 

### our 

### performance measures with respect 

### to 

### contaminated 

### sediments as part 

### of developing 

### a new 

### Agency Strategic 

### Plan. The 

### overall 

### goal 

### of EPA? current 

### strategic 

### plan is to 

### prevent ecological and 

### human health impairment. We 

### do have 

### indicators 

### for meeting 

### this overall goal that 

### reflect 

### the integration 

### of 

### all stressors, 

### including 

### sediments. For example, 

### the current strategic 

### plan includes sub-objective 2.2.1 

### which 

### aligns pollution prevention 

### and restoration approaches 

### to increase 

### the 

### number of 

### watersheds 

### where water 

### quality 

### standards are met 

### in at least 

### 80% 

### of 

### the assessed water 

### segments. 

### To the 

### extent that 

### contaminated sediments impair water 

### quality 

### standards, this sub-objective 

### provides an integrated 

### measure of achieving the 

### overall objective 

### for addressing contaminated sediments, 

### which is preventing ecological and 

### human health impairments.

Recommendation 3 

### (Report Recommendation 2-33; 

### The 

### Assistant Administrator for 

### water 

### ev~luarcs and 

### reports on fhc 

### need to 

### develop 

### numerical sediment qualify criteria 

### to mist in 

### rhe ranking 

### of sires 

### needingfurther assessment, targel 

### hot spots within an ores for 

### remediation, and 

### serve 

### as a 

### pwtiaI basis 

### for the development 

### of State 

### sediment qualiw 

### smndards.

In response to 

### EPAts previous 

### Contaminated Sediments 

### Management Strategy 

### developed in 

### 1994, EPA 

### pubIished several 

### chemical-specific 

### sediment benchmarks to 

### provide guidance to 

### Regions, States 

### and the 

### regulated community 

### in assessing 

### risk to 

### aquatic organisms from 

### sediment contamination. 

### These are 

### called the Equi li 

### brim-partitioning 

### Sediment 

### Benchmarks (ESBs) and are 

### available for the 

### following chemicals 

### or chemical 

### mixtures: 1)

### Non-ionic organics; 2) 

### Dieldrin; 3) 

### Endrin; 4) 

### Metal mixtures 

### (Cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, 

### silver, and zinc); 

### and 5) Polycyclic aromatic 

### hydrocarbon (PAH) 

### mixtures.



### EPA supports 

### the use 

### of these 

### ESBs to 

### characterize the 

### extent 

### of sediment contamination in a 

### particular 

### area. 

### The 1998 Strategy 

### included the development 

### of sediment 

### criteria and EPA 

### will continue to 

### evaluate the 

### need for additional sediment assessment measurements, 

### such as ESBs and criteria, within the context 

### of 

### competing priorities and available resources.

Recommendation 4 (Report 

### Recommendation 2-4): 

### The Assistant Adminisfrator 

### for Solid Waste 

### and Emergency 

### Response uses rhe watershed approach, including concepts

### @om the

30

### Urban Rivers 

### Restoration Initiative, 

### at National 

### Priorilies 

### List sifes with 

### contaminated 

### sediments where 

### appropriate.

We 

### recommend 

### that the 

### recommendation 

### be revised to say 

### "consider using" rather 

### that 'buse.'We 

### endorse the cross-programmatic 

### watershed approach as 

### an effective 

### means to evaluate, 

### remediate 

### and restore 

### impacted watersheds at 

### some selected 

### sites that 

### are 

### of high 

### priority. This 

### approach has 

### not been 

### widely 

### used at 

### NPL sites to 

### date but 

### does show merit at



### some locations. However, 

### due to 

### the resources 

### needed to 

### implement 

### this approach, 

### it 

### cannot be 

### adopted 

### readily at 

### most NPL sites at 

### this 

### time. 

### The Office of Solid Waste 

### and Emergency Response 

### (OSWER) 

### has worked with the 

### Office of 

### Water 

### (OW) and Region 

### 8 to 

### draft a new 

### guidance: Integrating 

### Water and 

### Waste Programs to Restore 

### Watersheds. 

### This manual 

### provides guidance on 

### hew to integrate 

### assessment 

### and cleanup activities across 

### programs in order 

### to optimize 

### available tools 

### and resources that 

### can be used to 

### restore mdor 

### remediate 

### contaminated waterbodies 

### efficiently and effectively. 

### OSWER 

### and OW are also working together to deveIop training 

### for Regional 

### staff that 

### may 

### be involved in watershed cleanups. 

### This training should facilitate the development and use 

### of many of thb 

### approaches and 

### tools described 

### in the 

### manual 

### such as Watershed 

### Cleanup Project 

### Manager and the 

### Comprehensive Preliminary 

### Watershed Assessment. 

### The use 

### of this approach 

### in priority watersheds 

### should result 

### in significant opportunities 

### for streamlining 

### and reducing 

### tlre 

### Final cost 

### of cleanup, 

### restoration, 

### and redevelopment, 

### resulting 

### in cleaner 

### watersheds 

### for beneficial use.



### Recommendation 5 

### (Report Recommendation 2-5): 

### The Assistant 

### Administrator for 

### Solid Waste and Emergency 

### Response con1 inues 

### working w ilh the 

### U. S, Army 

### Corps 

### of Engineers

to 

### expand the 

### use of Water 

### Resources Developmen f Acf 

### funding for 

### additional contarninaied sediment 

### National 

### Priorities List sites to 

### provide 

### more comprehensive 

### evaluations 

### and resolutions of 

### contaminated sediment issues.



### The Ofice 

### of Solid Waste 

### and Emergency 

### Response, the Office 

### of Enforcement and Compliance 

### Assurance, 

### and Region 

### 5 have set up 

### a workgroup 

### to resolve 

### some of the issues concerning 

### the use 

### of Water Resowes 

### Development 

### Act bding to 

### facilitate the 

### evaluation 

### and remediation 

### of contaminated 

### sediments. Workgroup 

### members have 

### met 

### with 

### U. S. Army 

### Corps 

### of Engineers staff several 

### times and 

### will continue to do so 

### until 

### the 

### key issues are 

### resolved.

Recommenda t ton 6 (Report 

### Reco mrnenda tion 

### 3-61: 

### The Assistant Administratorfor 

### Research 

### and Development 

### works with [he Assistant 

### Administrator for Solid Waste 

### and Emergency Response 

### to develop 

### and implement a 

### process that 

### ensures 

### egective communication bemeen 

### the ofices 

### on 

### contarni~ra!ed sediment 

### research priorities 

### and status 

### of 

### research products. 

### in addition, develop a system 

### thar provides the Wce of 

### Solid Wmte 

### and 

### Emergency Response 

### and other

### potenrial users with easy 

### nccess to 

### all completed contaminured sediment 

### research projects.



### We believe that 

### the 

### Office of Research 

### and Development 

### (Om) has an effective process 

### in place for 

### OSWER to communicate research 

### priorities. 

### Through the Land Research 

### Coordination Team activities, 

### annual progress reviews 

### with 

### OSWER, meetings 

### with OSWER 

### staff 

### on specific

31

### research activities, 

### and meetings between 

### ORD md 

### OSWER Deputy Assistant 

### Administraton, 

### ORD has 

### created avenues 

### for 

### 0SWER to 

### communicate its 

### research needs. A 

### recent 

### example 

### of ORD 

### responsiveness to 

### OSWER's highest 

### priority 

### resea~h 

### needs occurred during 2005. 

### ORD received 

### OSWER's research priorities at 

### the March 2005 

### progress 

### review, and input 

### from 

### the regional workgroup 

### was 

### received 

### in September 

### 2005. 

### Five regional workgroups 

### were formed 

### to review research needs 

### and the 

### current ORI3 

### research program. 

### The regional workgroup 

### for sediments, which included an 

### OS WER representative, 

### concluded that 

### ORD is addressing the highest priority research 

### needs identified by the 

### regional workgroup.

The 

### recommendation concerning 

### the 

### communication of research products 

### specific to 

### contaminated 

### sediments is 

### an important point, 

### and we 

### will discuss ways 

### to 

### address this 

### need, 

### The issue 

### of easy access to 

### completed 

### projects 

### is also 

### an important one, for contaminated 

### sediments 

### and other 

### research projects, 

### that is 

### currently being 

### discussed with the 

### ORD communication team.



### Recommendation 7 

### (Report 

### Recommendation 2-71: 

### The 

### Assistant Admirtislralorfor Research and 

### Development, in coordinc~tion with 

### other 

### affected 

### Federal 

### agencies, develops and implements 

### a plan that 

### ensures collaboration 

### and coordination 

### between EPA and orher 

### Federal agencies 

### on 

### research activities. At 

### a minimum, 

### the plan should ensure 

### that research is 

### not duplicated 

### by 

### the agencies 

### and 

### that Federal 

### resources 

### are leveraged through coordinated research eflorts 

### that 

### mest the needs 

### of multiple agencies.



### We request 

### this 

### recommendation 

### be changed 

### as Follows: "Continue 

### collaboration 

### and communication efforts with 

### other federal agencies to ensure: (1) 

### coordination 

### of 

### research activities; 

### (2) research 

### is not duplicated 

### by other agencies; 

### and (3) federal 

### resources are 

### leveraged through coordinated 

### research efforts that 

### meet 

### the needs of muItiple 

### agencies."

These voluntary activities 

### will 

### be accomplished 

### through 

### the following:



## - Collaborate 

### with the 

### Strategic Environmental Research and 

### Development 

### Program (SERDP) Council, Executive Working 

### Group, 

### and various 

### technical panels to identify research 

### needs 

### and evaluate 

### proposals; 

# - Finalize 

### the 

### Memorandum of 

### Understanding 

### with the U.S, 

### Army Corps 

### of Engineers 

### (USACE) and 

### the US. 

### Navy (USN); 

# - Work 

### with the 

### U.S. 

### Geologicat Survey 

### (USGS), the National Oceanic 

### and Atmospheric 

### Administration 

### (NOAA), and the 

### Technical Advisory Committee for 

### National 

### Sediment Inventory on 

### planning 

### and review 

### of inventory-led 

### activities; 

# - Collaborate 

### with 

### USACE, 

### NOAA, U.S. 

### Fish and Wildlife Service 

### (USFW), states, 

### and the 

### Contaminated Aquatic Sediment Remedial Guidance Workgroup 

### to develop 

### EPA guidance;



## - Partner 

### with states, 

### USN, USACE, and the Industry on Interstate 

### Technology and 

### Research Council 

### (ITRC) to 

### develop state 

### guidance; 

### and



## - CoIIaborate 

### with USACE, NOAA, the State 

### of South Carolina, private 

### firms, 

### the Southern 

### California Coastal 

### Water Research Project, 

### and 

### the State 

### of California Sediment

32

### Quality 

### Objective Scientific 

### Steering Committee to advise 

### the state 

### in the 

### development 

### of sediment 

### guide1 

### ines."



### ORD is working 

### with OSWER an a 

### Memorandum 

### of Understanding with 

### the US Army 

### Corps of 

### Engineers and 

### US Navy 

### to address 

### issues in 

### this recommendation. 

### ORD 

### has more 

### than ten 

### workgroup 

### and 

### task force level activities 

### with various 

### Federal 

### agencies on 

### aspects 

### of contaminated sediments. 

### ORD would be interested in 

### further discussions 

### with the 

### Office of Inspector 

### General 

### on their search 

### of federal agency 

### publications 

### on sediments to 

### evaluate agencies 

### involved in 

### research on 

### sediments in 

### addition to those 

### performing 

### biological surveys.

Recommendation 8 (Report 

### Recommendation 3-1): 

### The Assistant 

### Adminisfrator 

### for Wafer 

### develops 

### and implements a 

### plan for 

### future 

### NSQS reports that, consislent 

### with 

### the 

### Water
Resources 

### Development Act, 

### provides 

### a comprehensive nafiottal 

### a.rse.rsmenr offhe extent and severiv 

### of contaminated 

### sediments. 

### At a minimum 

### the design 

### should:

0. 

### Use 

### a slatistical sampling 

### approach 

### as the baris for assessing 

### the 

### national exrent and 

### severity ofconfaminared sediments. Starisrical 

### sampling may be wd in 

### conjunction with existing 

### dola for the 

### na f

### ional 

### assessment as 

### a cost 

### savings alternative. 

### b. 

### Improve f he 

### compIereness and uvaiIahilily 

### of 

### samp!e locafion informnrion 

### (mesadata), q~u/i?y ~ssurance/quali~ 

### control i?formafion,and 

### assessment purumeters 

### for future 

### NSQS reports.

c. Ensure 

### tho? 

### con to 

### minated 

### sediment data 

### from all major 

### sources, including 

### the Great 

### Lakes Na/ional Program 

### Oflce and Superfund program, 

### are included 

### in the Na~ional Sediment 

### Jmntory and used forfufure 

### NSQS reporfs. At 

### a minimum, 

### estahiish a 

### formal 

### coordination process for acquiring conlaminated 

### sediment data from 

### EPA program ofies 

### and 

### applicable agencies 

### ~tnd organizafions 

### ou/side EPA. Also, 

### consider cost-effective options 

### for acquiring 

### and compiling 

### contuminared sediment data that is 

### maintained in 

### paper 

### jbrrnar.



### We appreciate 

### this 

### recommendation. 

### The Office 

### of Water 

### had conducted 

### its own 

### post

### report assessment 

### of the 20Q4 

### National 

### Sediment Quality 

### Survey, 

### and came to 

### similar findings. 

### OW has included three 

### projects in 

### its 2006 work pIan 

### that addresses 

### in part 

### these findings. 

### The first is two 

### workshops to be 

### held to 

### obtain input 

### from stakeholders regarding 

### the 

### 2004 National 

### Sediment Quality 

### Survey. These 

### sessions are 

### designed to 

### gather ideas 

### on how to improve the 

### next National 

### Sediment Inventory 

### data collection 

### and analysis. The second 

### is 

### an outreach

program to 

### encourage other 

### entities with 

### contaminated sediment 

### data to enter 

### that 

### information into 

### STORET, which is 

### Ow's repositmy 

### for water quality and 

### sediment information. 

### STORET is 

### also 

### designed to 

### store 

### the metadata 

### supporting 

### contaminant measurements. By 

### making better

use 

### of STORET, OW 

### will be able to improve 

### the cornplcteness 

### of quality assluance metadata. In 

### addition, the 

### outreach program 

### is designed to 

### obtain more information 

### for 

### the next National Sediment 

### Inventory. 

### The third is to convert 

### data from Superfund paper 

### files into an electronic 

### format 

### for inclusion in the next 

### National Sediment 

### Inventory. 

### Under 

### this project, we 

### will 

### be developing with 

### OSWER a 

### formal process 

### for 

### acquiring Superfund 

### contaminated sediment data.

3 3We suggest, 

### however, that 

### the 

### first sub-bulk 

### in this recommendation 

### be revised to 

### reflect data 

### collection 

### rather than 

### sampling. OW 

### does 

### not interpret section 

### 503(b) of the 

### Water Resources Development 

### Act 

### of 1992 

### (WRDA) to require 

### EPA to 

### sample 

### sediments. 

### The WRDA 

### requires EPA to 

### conduct a 

### comprehensive and continuing program to assess 

### aquatic 

### sediment 

### quality with specific 

### minimum elements, but 

### does not 

### require 

### sampling. We 

### do see 

### the merit 

### in developing a 

### statistically-based 

### study design 

### to identify the 

### waters 

### where EPA should look for available data, 

### and 

### if such data 

### are available, EPA 

### would be able to 

### develop a 

### statistically-based national assessment 

### of sediment 

### contamination. OW 

### will 

### work with 

### ORD to 

### determine 

### if 

### such a 

### design can 

### be developed.

Recommendation 

### 9 (Report Recommendation 3-2): 

### The Assisfant 

### Administ~afor for 

### Water determines 

### a 

### reporting, frequency 

### for f 

### he NSQS reporf 

### !hat is 

### both useful for 

### decision 

### makers 

### and achievahfe for 

### EPA, discloses to 

### Congress 

### that 

## EM cannot meet 

### the current 

### biennial reporting 

### requiremen! speci$ed by 

### Section 

### 503 of 

### the 

### Wafer Resources Development Act, 

### and provides 

### Congress an 

### alternative 

### reporting 

### schedule for 

### comideration.



### We appreciate 

### this recommendation. As part 

### of the 

### workshops described above, 

### OW plans to 

### discuss the factors 

### that 

### affect 

### how fast one 

### might expect sediment 

### contaminants to 

### change given 

### historical 

### pollution abatement controls 

### and natural chemical 

### and physical


### processes. From 

### this 

### information and 

### consultation with 

### ORD fate 

### and transport 

### experts, 

### OW expects 

### to be able to 

### develop a 

### reporting 

### frequency that is 

### more in line with anticipated changes 

### in sediment 

### contaminant 

### levels. With 

### this 

### information, OW will 

### be able to 

### develop an alternative schedule 

### for publishing the next 

### report to 

### Congress 

### on sediment contamination.



### Clarifications



### The draft report 

### covered a 

### range 

### of subjects related to implementation 

### of 

### programs to 

### address 

### contaminated 

### sediments, We identified 

### and attached some 

### clarifications that we 

### ask you to 

### consider 

### before issuing the report 

### in final form. 

### If your staff 

### would 

### like to 

### review 

### or discuss 

### these clarifications, please ask them to contact 

### Jim Pendergast (202/566-0398) 

### in the 

### Office of Science 

### and 

### TechnoIogy, Randy 

### Wentsel(2021564-32 14) 

### in the Office of Research 

### and Development, 

### or Steven 

### Els (703-603-8822) in the 

### Office of 

### Solid Waste 

### and 

### Emergency 

### Response.

Attachment

34

### ATTACHMENT CIarifications to 

### Draft 

### Report

At 

### the bottom 

### of page 

### 2 

### and the top 

### of page 

### 3, the report should state that 

### EPA 

### has issued Records 

### of Decisions 

### (RODS) for 60 

### Tier 1 

### sites, 

### and clarify 

### that we 

### have 

### not estimated the cost 

### for 

### any of the 

### ten Tier 

### 2 sites, 

### as 

### no remedies have 

### been proposed 

### for these sites, There 

### are approximately 

### 50 additional sites without 

### RODS that 

### may be classified 

### as Tier 1 sites 

### in the future. We 

### don't think the 

### report 

### needs to talk 

### specificaIIy about the 

### Tier 

### 2 CSTAG sites; they

are a 

### subset 

### of the 

### other potential 50 

### Tier 

### I sites.

Chapter 2



### The second buIIet 

### on page 

### 5 

### implies that 

### program ofices 

### did not 

### coordinate 

### any of their activities. 

### There has 

### been some coordination, 

### at the 

### headquarters level 

### and substantial coordination in 

### the 

### Regions at some 

### Superfind sites. This 

### statement 

### should be modified to 

### reflect this.



### The last 

### butlet 

### on page 5 

### lists the Drufi Contaminated Sediment 

### Remediation Guidance 

### for Hazardous Waste Sites. 

### The 

### guidance was 

### finalized 

### so ithe 

### text should be 

### changed to 

### reflect the 

### final guidance.



### The following two 

### bullets should be 

### added to 

### the bottom 

### of page 

### 5 to reflect additional efforts that 

### OS WER has 

### taken to 

### make progress 

### in managing 

### contaminated 

### sediments:



### OSWER sponsored 

### or co-sponsored 

### sevml national 

### meetings on characterizing 

### and 

### managing contaminated sediment. 

### OS W 

### ER developed 

### and delivered 

### the 

### training 

### course 

### Sediment Remediation: 

### Technical Considerarians for 

### Evalua f ing 

### and 

### Implerne~tfrlng Dredging and cap pin^ 

### Remedies to 

### Federal and State 

### personnel in 

### four 

### EPA Regional Offices.



### Table 2.1, 

### on page 

### 6, implies that 

### the Superfund program 

### intended to use 

### the 

### National 

### Sediment Inventory 

### (MI) to 

### identify sediment 

### sites 

### for consideration for 

### remedial 

### action. 

### The following 

### is the 

### actual 

### language 

### on page 

### 26 

### of the Strategy:



### OERR [now 

### OSRTI] intends to 

### identify sites with contaminated 

### sediments so that they



### can be 

### added to 

### the NSI, 

### and to review 

### high priority contamination 

### sites 

### identified 

### in the 

### inventory. These 

### sites 

### can become candidates 

### for assessment under 

### CERGLA. This 

### assessment may 

### include 

### evaluation with 

### the Wwardous Ranking 

### System, which is used 

### to identify 

### sites that may warsant 

### long-term 

### clean-up 

### undw the 

### Superfund program."



### The 

### OTG report 

### should be revised 

### to 

### clarify that it was 

### never the 

### Superfund program's 

### intent to

use 

### the NSI data as a 

### stand alone 

### tool to 

### identify those 

### sites that 

### may 

### need to 

### be remediated.

35

### Typically, 

### our state 

### partners 

### identify potential 

### Superfimd sites 

### to EPA for fwther evduation. 

### EPA then screens these sites 

### using 

### the 

### Hazard Ranking System 

### (HRS). The HRS is 

### a National Contingency 

### ?Ian 

### (NCP) regulatory process 

### specifically 

### designed 

### to 

### evaIuate the relative potential 

### of uncontrolled 

### hazardous substances 

### to 

### pose a 

### threat. 

### If the HSR evaluation 

### indicates

a 

### site is 

### eligible 

### for listing, 

### EPA must go though a 

### rule-making to 

### add 

### the 

### site to the 

### NPL. All
these steps 

### in 

### the process are 

### required 

### before a 

### site can 

### be remediated 

### under CERCLA.



### On page 7, 

### first 

### full paragraph, we suggest 

### changing the 

### sentence to state 

### that at least one activity 

### used the 

### National Sediment Inventory. 

### In the 2004 

### Clean Water Act section 

### 304Zm) plan for determining for 

### which industrial categories 

### to develop effluent guidelines, the 

### Office 

### of Water did 

### consider the then 

### draft National Sediment 

### Quality Survey 

### and final 

### 1997 

### NationaI Sediment 

### Contaminant Point 

### Source Inventory. 

### See httu://epa.nov/~uide/3 

### 04dfactor1 .pdf. 

### This 

### is one

use 

### of 

### the contaminated sediment information as envisioned 

### by the Contaminated 

### Sediment Management Strategy.



### On page 

### 8, 

### second paragraph 

### under the "Activities Not Coordinated"' 

### heading, first 

### sentence, we suggest 

### changing the sentence to 

### state that 

### some related activities were 

### collaborated 

### upon or 

### coordinated. 

### For example, 

### OW, ORD and 

### OSWER 

### did coordinate 

### in the deveIopment 

### and release of the 

### Contaminated 

### Sediments Action 

### Plan in 

### June 2002. 

### This plan 

### reflected the 

### goals 

### of the 

### 1998 

### Contaminated Sediments 

### Management Strategy 

### and the 2001 

### National Academy 

### of Sciences recommendations, and laid 

### out 

### how EPA would report 

### on our current 

### activities 

### and accomplishments 

### regarding contaminated sediments, 

### and to serve as a 

### tool 

### for EPA senior


### managers to 

### closely 

### coordinate 

### om cross-program activities 

### in the future. 

### The actions 

### by 

### each
oEce 

### to carryout 

### the 

### Action 

### Plan reflect 

### collaboration 

### and coordination, as 

### did 

### the actions 

### each office took to carryout 

### its part of 

### the Management Strategy.

Also, 

### OW, OSWER 

### and ORD 

### collaborated in 2004 

### on a 

### draft Contaminated 

### Sediments 

### Science Plan to 

### develop 

### and coordinate Agency 

### ofice- and 

### region-wide science'activities that 

### affect contaminated sediments. 

### This draft plan 

### identifies a 

### number of instances where the offices 

### coordinated. 

### This plan is 

### another 

### example of 

### where the 

### offices collaborated and 

### coordinated on

a range 

### of contaminated 

### sediments 

### issues. We suggest that the 

### language 

### on page 8 reflect 

### these activities.



### On page 9, the heading states 

### "ORD Has Not 

### Met High Priority Research 

### Needs or Effectively Coordinated Research." We 

### request 

### the heading 

### be changed to: 

### "Communication and Coordination 

### Can 

### Be Improved." OW 

### believes 

### that it 

### has been responsive 

### to OSWER's 

### highest priority 

### research needs, 

### as described 

### the response to 

### recommendation 2-6.



### On page 9, paragraph 1, the 

### first 

### Iine, the 

### draft report states 

### that 'QORD research activities 

### have
not 

### fully met 

### OSWER's 

### needs for 

### contaminated 

### sediments." We request 

### this sentence 

### be deleted. ORD 

### believes that 

### OS WER's needs 

### have been met, as 

### described the response to 

### recommendation 2-6.

36On 

### page 9, 

### paragraph 1, 

### last line, the 

### draft report states that 

### '"In 

### addition, OSWER 

### officials 

### said they 

### could not 

### determine whether their priorities were 

### being 

### met by 

### ORD [sic J because an 

### effective communication 

### process had not 

### been established between the two 

### offices." We 

### request this 

### sentence be 

### deleted. While perhaps the opinion 

### of some 

### OS WER 

### officials, ORD 

### believes 

### this 

### statement is not 

### supported 

### by 

### fa'actud evidence. Yhoughout the 

### year, 

### OS WER 

### has severaI 

### opportunities 

### to determine whether priorities are 

### being met 

### and to 

### discuss changes in the 

### research
program. 

### Progress on current 

### research 

### occurs through seminars, 

### involvement in 

### laboratory 

### implementation plans, planning meetings 

### at 

### the Eaboratories, 

### and the 

### annual progress review. Additional 

### opportunities 

### for interaction 

### occur 

### through the 

### Land Research Coordination 

### Team and the 

### meeting 

### of the 

### OS WER 

### and ORD Deputy 

### Assistant 

### Administrators.



### On page 

### 9, paragraph 

### 3, first line, 

### the 

### draft report states 

### that 

### "Also, 

### Om's completed research 

### is not readily 

### accessible to 

### OSWER and the 

### regions." We request the following change 

### to this 

### portion of the draft 

### report: "Opportunities exist 

### for 

### ORlD to 

### make its completed research 

### more 

### readily accessible to OSWER and the 

### regions." 

### OORD agrees that improvement opportunities exist 

### for developing 

### a set of easiIy accessible, 

### media-specific web 

### sites. We 

### are already 

### beginning work to 

### make our completed 

### research 

### more accessible.



### On page 9, 

### paragraph 4, 

### first 

### line, 

### the draft report 

### states 

### that "Further, 

### ORD has not 

### fully coordinated 

### its research 

### activities with 

### other 

### Federal agencies 

### that 

### conduct research addressing contaminated sediment 

### issues." We 

### request 

### the following change 

### to this 

### portion 

### of the 

### draft report: "Further, 

### opportunities exist 

### for 

### ORD to 

### bctter 

### coordinate its research activities with other 

### Federal 

### agencies 

### that conduct research 

### addressing contaminated 

### sediment issues." A 

### previous 

### comment describes 

### ongoing coordination and 

### collaboration with 

### other 

### Federal agencies. Development 

### of 

### the 

### Mern~randum of Understanding cited above 

### will make 

### coordination more 

### formal 

### and visible.

On 

### page 

### 12, second 

### paragraph 

### under the "Primary Causes" 

### heading, 

### third sentence, please change the 2001 date to 

### 2001. 

### The last meeting 

### of the Steering 

### Committee 

### occurred in the fall 

### of 

### 2002.



### On page 17, 

### first 

### bullet, paragraph under 

### the 

### "Assessment Incomplete" heading, we 

### suggest 

### changing 

### the characterization OF 

### the bullel to 

### "non-random 

### data collection." 

### OW does not interpret 

### section 

### 503(b) of 

### the Watw 

### Resources Development Act 

### of 1992 

### (WRDA} to require 

### EPA to 

### sample sediments. 

### The WRDA 

### requires EPA 

### to conduct 

### a comprehensive and 

### continuing 

### program to assess 

### aquatic sediment quality 

### with 

### specific 

### minimum elements. As 

### such, we 

### suggest 

### that the text 

### of this bullet be revised to 

### reflcct collection 

### of information rather 

### than sampling.

On 

### pages 17 

### and 18, we suggest 

### changing the 

### statements about excluding metdata to 

### statements that say metadata was 

### not included. OW did 

### not 

### decide to 

### exclude metadata. 

### Rather, 

### OW did
not 

### include metadata because OW 

### was 

### not able to obtain all 

### metadata 

### from 

### all soukes.

3

7382005nd.ber oNSI a.Oct04sriePA OIG in20visotheAdm froEMap compiled byedf Fish otain obtaListingalfrom dationNaLegende Concernl Probabofeas rAiesisorvFish Adessoridviide Fish AatewtS0 600Miles300 Appendix C 

## Map Overlay of Areas of Probable Concern and Fish AdvisoriesAppendix D



## Distribution

Office of the Administrator Deputy Administrator Assistant Administrator for SolidWaste and Emergency Response Assistant Administrator for Water Assistant Administrator for Research and Development Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances Agency Followup Official Agency Followup Coordinator General Counsel Associate Administrator for Congressi onal and Intergovernmental Relations Associate Administrator for Public Affairs Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of the Administrator Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Water Audit Followup Coordinator, Offi ce of Research and Development Acting Inspector General

39