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 GENERAL 
Report 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 Duwamish 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 that resources devoted to addressing 

contaminated sediments provide the most effective and efficient solutions for 

reducing the environmental and human health risks posed by this national problem. 

Program offices generally did not use National Sediment Inventory data for 

decision making, even though the inventory represents the most comprehensive 

source of data on contaminated sediments in the United States. EPA did not 

sufficiently coordinate contaminated 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 did not establish cross-program performance 

measures that fully evaluate the effectiveness 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 Strategy to 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 plans 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 Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 

Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy. This report contains findings 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 required to provide a written response to this 

report within 90 days of the date of this report. You should include a corrective 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, Acting 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 GENERAL
i

Table of Contents 

At a Glance 

Chapters 

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 

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

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

Scope and Methodology................................................................................. 4 

2 EPA Has Not Fully Implemented Its Contaminated Sediment Strategy........... 5 

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

Management Strategy Not Fully Implemented ............................................... 6 

 National Sediment Inventory Generally Not Used for 

 Decision Making ............................................................................. 6 

 Activities Not Fully Coordinated Across Program Offices..................... 7 

 National Sediment Quality Criteria Not Established ............................. 8 

 ORD Has Not Completely Met Priority Research Needs and 

 Could Enhance Coordination on Research Needs ........................ 9 

 Performance Measures for Sediment Management Incomplete .......... 11 

Primary Causes for Not Implementing Strategy ............................................. 13 

 Partial Implementation of Strategy May Limit Agency’s Effectiveness .......... 13 

 Other Opportunities Exist to Improve Contaminated Sediment Efforts ......... 14 

 Recommendations ......................................................................................... 15

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation......................................................... 16 

3 EPA Has Not Completely Assessed Extent and 

Severity of Nation’s Sediment Contamination ................................................... 19 

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

Assessment Incomplete Because Adequate Design Not Developed............. 20 

 Recommendations ......................................................................................... 21

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation......................................................... 22 

Appendices 

A Details on Scope and Methodology..................................................................... 24 

B Agency Response to Draft Report....................................................................... 27 

C Map Overlay of Areas of Probable Concern and Fish Advisories .................... 38 

D Distribution ........................................................................................................... 39 
1

Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Purpose 

This report focuses on the U.S. Environmental 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 resources 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 extent 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 that accumulate on the bottom of a water 

body and contain toxic or hazardous materials 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 States, 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 that approximately 10 percent of the 

sediment underlying our Nation’s surface water is sufficiently contaminated with 

toxic pollutants to pose potential 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 consumption advisories or fishing bans in place 

because of high concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, 

dioxin, and other contaminants in sediments. 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. 

In 1998, EPA established the Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy to 

promote and ensure consistent consideration of risks posed by contaminated 
sediments. 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 contaminated sediment from increasing. 

• Reduce the volume of existing contaminated sediment. 

• Ensure that sediment dredging and dredged material disposal are managed in an 

environmentally sound manner. 

• Develop scientifically sound sediment management tools for use in pollution 

prevention, source control, remediation, and dredged material management. 

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 several 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 authority 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 cost to address the contamination will be in 

the billions of dollars. For example: 

• Superfund Records of Decision for 55 Tier 1 contaminated sediment sites 

indicate that approximately $2.9 billion will 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 yet 
been made. As of 2005, there were approximately 60 additional sites without 

Records of Decision that may be classified as Tier 1 sites in the future. 

Although Superfund money is (or will be) required to pay for the remediation 

of some of these sites, responsible parties are (or will be) required to pay for 

remediation for the majority of these sites. 

• EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office 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 sediment 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 the roles of several other Federal 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 Navy 
The 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 these agencies relates to research. In 

addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issues permits for and conducts 

dredging of navigable waters, which can involve contaminated sediment removal. 

Also, the Department of the Navy conducts remedial actions on contaminated 

sediments as a responsible party. Other Federal agencies, such as the Department 

of Energy and Department of the Army, also 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 the United States. We considered the 

findings of prior Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Government 

Accountability Office reports related to contaminated sediment issues. 

To evaluate the effectiveness and outcomes achieved from EPA's Strategy, we

reviewed documents and records related to the management of contaminated 

sediments, including databases and Internet 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 officials from various other Federal agencies, from six 

States and from the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management 

Officials. 

 

Appendix A provides further details on our scope and methodology. 

4
5

Chapter 2 

EPA Has Not Fully Implemented Its 

Contaminated Sediment Strategy 

Although EPA made some progress in managing 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 Resources Development Act. The conditions 

primarily occurred because no program office assumed responsibility for 

oversight and overall coordination of the 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 reducing the environmental 

and human health risks posed by this national problem. 

EPA Has Made Progress in Managing 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 guidance documents regarding sediment 

assessments. 

• OSWER established the Contaminated Sediments Technical Advisory Group 

to oversee work at complex Superfund sediment sites, and the Superfund 

Sediment Resource Center to assist EPA staff on technical issues regarding 

sediment site cleanup. OSWER provided 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 consistent risk management decisions. 

OSWER also sponsored or co-sponsored several national meetings on 
characterizing and managing contaminated sediment. In addition, OSWER 

provided Federal and State officials training on Sediment Remediation: 

Technical Considerations for Evaluating and Implementing Dredging and 

Capping Remedies. 

• ORD conducted research on issues such as site characterization, ecological 

and human health risk, and remedy development 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 surface waters, or accumulate in sediment. 

Management Strategy Not Fully Implemented 

Although EPA made some progress in managing and addressing contaminated 

sediments, it did not fully implement its Strategy. Areas where EPA did not 

sufficiently implement the Strategy include: (1) using National Sediment 

Inventory data for decision making, (2) coordinating activities, (3) developing 

sediment quality criteria, (4) meeting 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 assessment, pollution prevention, and remediation 

activities as outlined in the Strategy. Under 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 Water Quality Inventory reports or possible 

Total Maximum Daily Load development. 

• Select industries for effluent guidelines development. 

• Identify chemicals of concern for sediment 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 in 
the 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 analysis of data in the National Sediment Inventory. 

These areas represented watersheds where sampling data indicated contamination 

levels that may pose threats to organisms at the bottom of waterbodies and 

resident fish. EPA reported the results of these analyses in its 1997 and 2004 

NSQS reports. Both NSQS reports disclosed that further analysis should be 

conducted to determine the extent of contamination and appropriate and costeffective actions. 

According to OW and OSWER officials, their offices generally have not used the 

National Sediment Inventory and NSQS reports as part of assessment, pollution 

prevention, and/or remediation activities and decisions for contaminated 

sediments. The Strategy indicates the inventory 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 human health and ecological risks within 

these areas of probable concern may not have considered data available from 

other sources included in the National 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 NSQS reports, as appropriate, should 

complement other sources of information used by EPA program offices for 

making decisions. For example, we overlaid the data for the 96 areas of probable 

concern identified in the 2004 NSQS report 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 either 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 ecological risks in 

surface waters across the country. 

7

Activities Not Fully Coordinated 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 enhance cross-program coordination and 

collaboration in addressing contaminated sediments. The Strategy notes that 

implementation of statutory requirements has created inconsistencies in 

addressing contaminated sediments. However, EPA’s program offices did not 
coordinate most of their contaminated sediment activities, and the Agency’s 

primary focus has been limited to remediation activities. 

Our interviews with OW, OSWER, and OPPTS officials disclosed that the offices 

generally did not collaborate and coordinate on the majority 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 through Superfund remedial actions. EPA has 

placed little emphasis on the prevention 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 collaborate and coordinate on some activities related to 

contaminated sediments. For example, 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 collaborated 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 collaboration between program offices. 

EPA planned to begin the Pilot in the fall of 2002 and facilitate cross-program 

coordination between remedial investigation/feasibility study evaluations and 

Total Maximum Daily Load modeling. However, EPA stopped the project after 

OW staff selected potential sites for the 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 requirements when overlapping programs 

perform work at contaminated sediment sites. 

8

National Sediment Quality Criteria Not Established 

EPA did not develop and implement numerical sediment quality criteria as 

specified by the Strategy. EPA established 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 assessment, target hot spots within an area 

for remediation, and serve as a partial basis for the development of State sediment 

quality standards. 

The Strategy assigned OW the responsibility 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 benchmark 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 comparable criteria and are consistent. 

 

Although EPA has not developed and implemented criteria, the Agency could 

develop standards or guidelines as one State and Canada have done. Washington 

represents the only State that has developed legally enforceable water and 

sediment quality marine standards. According to a Washington State official, the 

standards have helped in the Superfund process because they provide authority 

and consistency for remedy decisions. Likewise, Canada developed 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 Officials, and three States said they 

believed that some form of national sediment standards or screening criteria could 

help to speed projects toward cleanup. Officials from OSWER and the 

Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials said 

criteria would make assessment and cleanup easier, faster, and less expensive. 

9

ORD Has Not Completely Met Priority Research Needs and Could 

Enhance Coordination on Research Needs

ORD has not fully addressed OSWER’s high priority research needs for 

contaminated sediments. OSWER 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 important 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 contaminated sediment publications focused on 

remediation alternatives; the majority of completed research addressed 

contaminant characteristics. According 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, OSWER 
and ORD formed the Contaminated Sediment Regional Research Advisory 

Workgroup to enhance communication 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 natural recovery document from ORD even 

though ORD completed the document a year earlier. ORD usually informs 

OSWER of completed research products through periodic distribution 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, media-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 better 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 disclosed 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 Board cited the absence 

of information on research conducted on sediments outside of the Agency as a 

critical weakness. In 2004, EPA revised the 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 research and did not consider all their research 

addressing contaminated sediments. 

Our review of research for contaminated sediments completed by ORD and 

selected other Federal agencies during Fiscal Years 2002 through 2005 showed 

that the other agencies conducted a substantial 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 Atmospheric 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 could enhance Federally-funded research 

through improved coordination and collaboration. For example, EPA and the 

other agencies may achieve cost efficiencies through specialization on research 

topics. 

10
Figure 2.1: Contaminated sediment research publication totals by topic 

Publications

EPA & Selected Other Federal Agency Contaminated

Sediment Research FY2002-2005

100

75

EPA

50 Other

Selected

Agencies

25

0

t

y

ss

s

s

g

it

ls

rk

rt

s

k

e

n

e

e

y

ls

cs

en

l

o

i

in

u

a

o

is

it

t

m

r

ve

a

nc

i

gi

u

c

ta

s

u

sp

eo

R

at

lo

q

i

to

m

xi

r

Le

h

n

h

ida

ni

e

ge

i

Q

ul

Me

n

t 

/

d

c

ra

an

lt

no

ll

a

m

ch

To

ts

ct

na

n

n

en

e

e

Gu

u

ch

e

n

a

a

Mo

me

u

/B

c

e

ar

M

is

 H

ks/

cc

ro

di

s

e & T

n

r

a

n T

me

d

e

kg

e

M

o

o

e T

io

le

 Ch

e

c

in

at

w

iv

t

/S

F

ma

e

Bi

t

iat

E

n

dg

r

el

u

a

a

e

Ba

d

H

v

de

n

re

t

i

i

u

am

o

D

& 

n

m

Wa

 G

al 

Fr

In

e

tam

ty

R

n

li

ic

a

g lo

Co

Qu

co E

Topics

According to EPA and other Federal agency officials, EPA recently made some 

progress collaborating with other Federal agencies on research. They cited as an 

example a research collaboration meeting 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 performance 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 and achieving program results. The Act 

requires agencies to develop plans for what they intend to accomplish, measure 

how well they do, make appropriate decisions 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. However, OW, OSWER, and other program 

offices with responsibilities for contaminated sediments have not adequately 

established performance measures for activities conducted under the Strategy’s 
four goals. EPA’s 2003-2008 Strategic Plan 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 preventing 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 cover Agency activities outside the Great 

Lakes. 

However, these measures do not address the Strategy’s other two goals of 

(1) dredging and dredged material disposal and (2) scientifically sound sediment 

management. 

OSWER has recognized the need for better measures for contaminated sediment 

remediation activities to help measure overall remedy effectiveness. As a result, 

OSWER has taken three important steps toward establishing performance 

measures for the remediation of contaminated sediments at Superfund sites. 

• OSWER’s Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Risks at 

Hazardous Waste Sites (2002) specifies the use of post-remediation 

monitoring data to measure ecological outcomes from remediation activities. 

The principles state that although it is generally more practical to use 

measures such as contaminant concentrations 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 fish is suggested as the most relevant 

means of measuring exposure to PCBs in contaminated sediments. 

• OSWER’s Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous 

Waste Sites (2005) provides additional guidance to help remedial project 

managers develop meaningful measures based on outcomes. The guidance 

includes steps such as identifying monitoring objectives and designing the 

monitoring plan while considering a combination of physical, chemical, and 

biological methods to determine potential concerns. 

• OSWER implemented the Contaminated Sediment Site Tracking Tool to 

evaluate the overall effectiveness of remedies for long-term risk reduction. 

OSWER developed the tool to facilitate evaluation of remedy effectiveness at 

Superfund contaminated sediment sites. Although OSWER implemented the 

tool in 2004, data is missing for many sites. OSWER is working to obtain 

12
complete performance data, and OSWER officials said they plan to evaluate 

effectiveness of remedial actions at contaminated sediment sites after the tool 

includes the necessary data. The analysis should assist the Agency with 

measuring the effectiveness of its activities 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 Science 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 the Sediment Steering Committee stopped 

their coordination and oversight activities. OW officials said the Office of 

Science and Technology stopped its oversight 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, officials 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 the roles and responsibilities of the 

Contaminated Sediment Technical Advisory Group and Superfund Sediment 

Resource Center; (2) reflect the remediation approach outlined by OSWER’s 

Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Risks at Hazardous Waste Sites

document, and (3) consider additional actions 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 does not completely update the Strategy 

because it primarily focuses on remediation activities and provides minimal 

coverage for contaminated sediment prevention 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 coordination among program offices will not 

enable it to sufficiently address the contaminated sediments problem. 

Contaminated sediments are multi-media, cross-program, issues. EPA cannot 

13
assure that resources it expends on contaminated sediments provide the most 

effective and efficient solutions for reducing the environmental and human health 

risks posed by this national problem. Currently, EPA cannot assure that it bases 

decisions for managing and remediating contaminated sediments on all available 

information because program offices have not used the National Sediment 

Inventory and NSQS reports. Without cross-program coordination and prescribed 

national sediment criteria, the Agency has limited assurance that it consistently 

and effectively assesses risks posed by contaminated sediments. EPA’s primary 

focus on addressing contaminated sediments through the Superfund Program, 

rather than a more comprehensive and integrated 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 Improve Contaminated Sediment Efforts 

EPA could enhance its contaminated sediments efforts through the watershed 

approach, which the Agency has already used at 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-program coordination, targeting 

priority problems, promoting stakeholder 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. OSWER expects the eight pilot projects to result in less 

duplication of effort; faster and cheaper assessment and cleanup; leveraging and 

more effective use of funds; and better targeted, holistic remedies. However, 

although EPA has used the watershed approach 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 sediment efforts by increasing the use of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Water Resources Development 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 additional funding and added a mechanism for 

more comprehensive evaluation and resolution of sediment issues. The Act has 

been used to remove contaminated sediments adjacent to two sites on the National 

Priorities List. According to OSWER officials, a number of other sediment sites 

could potentially benefit from the Act’s funding, but liability and funding issues 

14
have 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 contaminated 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 responsibilities 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 sediments and incorporate additional 

actions that Agency program offices should take. 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water and the Assistant 

Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response: 

2-2 Collaborate with other program offices with responsibilities 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 Assistant Administrator for Water: 

2-3 Evaluate and report on the need to develop numerical sediment quality 

criteria to assist in the ranking of sites needing further assessment, target 

hot spots within an area for remediation, and serve as a partial basis for the 

development of State sediment quality standards. 

We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response: 

2-4 Use the watershed approach, including concepts from the Urban Rivers 

Restoration Initiative, at contaminated sediment National Priorities List 

sites in high priority watersheds. 

15
2-5 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 Administrator 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 products. In addition, develop a system 

that provides OSWER and other potential users with easy access to all 

completed contaminated sediment research projects. 

2-7 Continue to enhance collaboration and coordination between EPA and 

other Federal agencies on research activities. At a minimum, the 

coordinated activities should ensure that research is not duplicated by the 

agencies and that Federal resources are leveraged through coordinated 

research efforts that meet the needs of multiple agencies. 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

EPA generally agreed with the recommendations 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 said it 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 human 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 Sediment Inventory as part of its decision 

making processes, as suggested by the recommendation. 

 

The Agency’s planned action appears to generally meet the intent of 

Recommendation 2-1. In the Agency’s response 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 Agency uses the National Sediment Inventory 

as part of EPA’s decision-making, contaminated sediment issues are managed and 

addressed through a cross-program approach, and the Strategy is updated. In 

addition, the Agency needs to provide milestones for completing each of these 

actions. 

16
Regarding Recommendation 2-2, the Agency agreed to look at performance 

measures as part of developing a new Strategic Plan, but stated that it already has 

indicators reflecting the integration of all stressors, including sediments. The 

Agency cited Subobjective 2.2.1 from EPA’s current Strategic Plan as an example 

of an indicator meeting the overall goal of preventing ecological and human 

health impairment by increasing the number 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 measures are needed. In its 

response to the final report, the Agency must describe actions taken or planned to 

develop and implement comprehensive performance 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 endorses the cross-programmatic watershed 

approach at selected high priority sites. The Agency also said it has drafted the 

guidance, Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds and 

intends to train regional staff 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 focus. While EPA agreed to provide 

guidance and training on watershed approaches, the Agency will need to describe 

in its response to the final report the specific actions taken or planned to apply the 

watershed approach at contaminated sediment National Priorities List sites in 

priority watersheds. Also, the Agency must provide milestones for completing 

these actions. 

The Agency generally agreed with Recommendation 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 contaminated sediment sites. However, the 

17
response 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 major issues to increase 

the use of the Water Resources Development Act funding for contaminated 

sediments adjacent to National Priorities List sites. Also, the Agency needs to 

provide a milestone for completing this action. 

EPA partially agreed with Recommendation 2-6, and asserted that ORD has an 

effective process in place for OSWER to communicate research priorities. The 

Agency indicated ORD has created avenues 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 products is important, and will attempt to 

improve communications and access. We modified 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 Agency’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 contaminated sediment research priorities 

and status of research products. Also, the 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 activities with various Federal agencies. We 

revised Recommendation 2-7 to reflect ORD’s ongoing coordination activities. 

The Agency’s taken and planned actions meet the intent of our recommendation. 

However, in its response to the final report, the Agency will need to provide 

milestones for completing these actions. 

The Agency’s complete response is in Appendix B. 

18
19

Chapter 3 

EPA Has Not Completely Assessed Extent and 

Severity of Nation’s Sediment Contamination 

EPA’s 2004 NSQS report did not provide a complete assessment of the extent and 

severity of sediment contamination across the Nation, nor did it fully meet the 

requirements of the Water Resources Development Act. This reporting issue 

occurred because OW relied on known data 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 and risks posed by contaminated sediments 

on a national scale. Such a national assessment would better enable EPA to 

ensure that it devotes resources to contaminated sediment issues that pose the 

greatest risks to human health and 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 report primarily to address requirements 

under Section 503 of the Water Resources Development Act and assist EPA 

program offices, States, and tribes with decision making. The report identified 

locations where available sampling data indicated a high probability that direct or 

indirect exposure to sediments could be associated with adverse effects to aquatic 

and/or human health. OW based the report on contaminated sediment sampling 

data obtained from OW’s National Sediment Inventory, which was comprised of 

readily available sampling data principally obtained from other 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 contamination 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) biennially report to 

Congress on findings, conclusions, and recommendations; and (3) conduct a 

comprehensive and continuing program to assess sediment quality. 

Although the Water Resources Development Act required a comprehensive 

national survey of existing contaminated sediment data and a comprehensive 

monitoring program, the 2004 NSQS report did not include all available sampling 

data nor provide national coverage of contaminated sediments. For example, the 

report did not include contaminated sediment data from the Great Lakes and from 

Superfund sites. In addition, approximately 68 percent of the data in the NSQS 

report only covered 10 States (Washington, Virginia, California, Illinois, Florida, 
Wisconsin, New York, Texas, Oregon, and South 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 tributaries ranging from 1 to 10 miles) in 

the contiguous United States and about 46 percent of watersheds nationally. EPA 

recognized these data limitations and designated 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 Development Act. The 2004 report represents 

an update to the NSQS report EPA issued in 1997. EPA issued the 2004 NSQS 

report approximately 5 years overdue, since 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 and reviewing a development document 

supporting the National Sediment Inventory 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 formal coordination process for acquiring 

data from all major sources within and outside EPA. In addition, the lack of a 

methodology and plan led to the continued 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 areas. Without the use of 

a statistical sampling methodology, there is no assurance that both 

contaminated and uncontaminated sediments 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 that would help provide identifiable 

trends. OW could use this program to develop the tools necessary to monitor 

and assess the status and trends of national 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 control information, and key assessment parameters. 

20
Although sample location data is critical, some of this data was not included 

in the NSQS report because the data was missing or incomplete. Also, key 

assessment parameters, such as Total Organic Carbon and Acid-Volatile 

Sulfide data, were not always available; these parameters are critical to predict 

bioavailability of sediment contaminants. The NSQS report also excluded 

quality assurance/quality control data because information was limited; this 

information is critical because it provides detection limits and other 

parameters necessary for determining 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 between statistically-needed sampling locations 

and existing data as part of the methodology. 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 whether 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 contamination does not change that frequently; and 

(2) the public comment and Agency review 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 frequent to evaluate trends if that is 

the case. EPA has not made such a disclosure. Further, if EPA believes a change 

in reporting frequency is needed, it should indicate the reporting frequency it 

believes is appropriate. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water: 

3-1 Develop and implement a plan for future NSQS reports that, consistent 

with the Water Resources Development Act, provides a comprehensive 

national assessment of the extent and severity 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, 

21
consider using statistical sampling in conjunction with existing data 

for the national assessment. Improve the completeness and availability 

of sample location information (metadata), 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 EPA. 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 for 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 recommendations. 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 Recommendation 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 data to an electronic format. The Agency 

also suggested that we revise Recommendation 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 determine 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) does 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 

22
based on a statistical sampling approach. 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 recommendation requires that EPA develop and 

implement a plan that uses a statistical sampling approach for acquiring the data 

necessary to assess the Nation's sediment quality. We revised the 

recommendation to clarify that EPA is not required to sample sediments, but 

should develop and implement a plan consistent with the Water Resources 

Development Act. 

In the Agency’s response to the final report, 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 and other sources, to resolve data quality 

issues, and to ensure that contaminated sediment data from all major sources are 

included. The Agency’s description should 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 comprehensive national assessment that is based 

on a statistical sampling methodology, it should 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 program activities. The Agency also will 

need to provide in its response milestones 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 reporting frequency that is 

more consistent with anticipated changes in sediment contaminant levels. The 

Agency’s planned actions meet the intent 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. 

23
Appendix 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 activities performed by EPA, other Federal agencies, 

and selected States. Early in our review, we determined the EPA offices and Federal agencies 

involved in the universe of contaminated 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 obtained from Agency sources, but obtained input on 

the accuracy from Agency officials. 

We evaluated management controls covering Fiscal Year 2002 through 2005 (second quarter). 

We generally considered whether the organization, policies, and procedures 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 and timely information was obtained, maintained, 

reported, and used for decision making. We focused 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 based on recommendations from OSWER and the 
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. The following table lists 

the EPA offices and other entities from 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 effective solutions to the 

challenges of contaminated sediments, we: 

• Interviewed EPA officials to gain an understanding of national and regional office 

activities regarding contaminated sediments; and contacted other Federal agencies, the 

Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste 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 Risks at Hazardous Waste Sites (2002), and 

ORD’s Contaminated Sites Multi-Year Research Plan. 

• Reviewed interagency agreements, research lists, 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 also 
conducted an online Web site search for research projects by the same agencies. We then 

compiled and categorized a list of contaminated 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 contaminated sediment activities to determine their 

knowledge of the Strategy and their application of Agency guidance. 

• Overlaid Geographic Information System shapefiles 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 understanding of measures used to evaluate the 

effectiveness of contaminated sediment work. 

• Reviewed EPA’s Strategic Plan and Performance Reports. 

• Obtained EPA’s Contaminated Sediment Site Tracking Tool database and spreadsheets 

and evaluated the information for completeness and potential to evaluate remedy 

effectiveness. 

To evaluate whether EPA has completely assessed 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 causes 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 National Sediment Inventory and NSQS reports. 

Our focus was to determine causes for reported coverage 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 responsibilities for 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 takeEPA 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

27
water 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. 

28
UNITED 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 fh respansibili 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 

29
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 other program 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 postreport 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. 

33
We 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 04dfac tor1 .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.

36
On 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. 

37 
38

2005

nd

.

ber o

 NSI a

.

 Oct

04

srie

PA OIG in

 20

viso

 the

Ad

m fro

 E Map compiled by

ed

f Fish o

tain obta

Listingal 

from da

tionNa

Legend

e Concernl Probabofeas rA

iesisorvFish Ad

essoridvi ide Fish A atewtS

0 600 Miles 300

Appendix C

Map Overlay of Areas of Probable Concern

and Fish Advisories
Appendix D 

Distribution

Office of the Administrator 

Deputy Administrator 

Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste 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 Congressional 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, Office of Research and Development 

Acting Inspector General 

39