Science Policy Council
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
 

SCIENCE PRIORITIES
 

December 2004
 

Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 

by members of the Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Workgroup,
 

a workgroup under U.S. EPA’s Science Policy Council
 

Principal Authors
 

Elizabeth Lee Hofmann (Chair), Thomas Armitage, OW 

OSWER 

Edward Bender, ORD Bonnie L. Eleder, U.S. EPA Region 

5 

Steve Ells, OSWER Patricia Erickson, ORD 

Sharon Frey, OSWER Dale Matey, OSWER 

James Rowe, ORD Marc Tuchman, GLNPO 

Randall Wentsel, ORD 

Science Policy Council 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, DC 20460 
Page ii Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

DISCLAIMER
 

This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA) policy and approved for publication and distribution. Mention of trade names or commercial 

products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 

This document identifies scientific information and activities that are needed to assess and manage 

the risks of contaminated sediments by U.S. EPA programs and regions. U.S. EPA staff have 

recommended research approaches and other science activities to address gaps and reduce 

uncertainty for risk management decision-making. This document is intended to improve 

coordination, avoid duplication, and inform decision-makers within U.S. EPA. While this 

document does refer to some collaborations with organizations outside U.S. EPA, this document is 

not intended to describe the science and research activities of those collaborators or other parties 

outside U.S. EPA. 

The science priorities do not necessarily reflect management priorities nor do they represent 

commitments to fund these science activities. Rather, these science needs will be reconsidered 

from time to time as resources and collaboration opportunities may arise in the future. U.S. EPA 

and other decision-makers retain the discretion to address these or any other science needs for 

contaminated sediments on a case-by-case basis and in a manner that may differ from the 

approaches discussed in this document. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................. .. . Page vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................ .. . Page viii

1. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ........................................ .. . Page 1

1.1 Introduction ................................................. .. . Page 1

1.2 Goals of the Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Document ....... .. . Page 2

1.3 Development of the Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Document . .. . Page 4

1.4	 Linkage of the CSSP Document to Agency Planning Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5

1.5	 Relationship of the Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Document to EPA’s
 

National Strategic Plan Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6

1.6	 Document Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8

2.	 OVERVIEW OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT SCIENCE ISSUES ACROSS THE
 

AGENCY’S REGULATORY PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9

2.1 Introduction ................................................. .. . Page 9

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

2.3 Overview of Major Sediment Issues and Needs Across the Agency ...... .. . Page 12

2.4 Recent U.S. EPA Contaminated Sediment Science Activities and Products . .. . Page 16

2.5 Overview of Communication and Collaboration Activities ............. .. . Page 20

2.5.1 Collaborative Efforts Within U.S. EPA .................. .. . Page 20

2.5.2 External Collaborative Efforts ......................... .. . Page 22

2.6 National Research Council Report on PCB-Contaminated Sediments ..... .. . Page 23

2.7 National Research Council Report on Contaminated Marine Sediments ... .. . Page 24

2.8 Long-term Trends Affecting Contaminated Sediments ................ .. . Page 26

3. ASSESSING THE SCIENCE ON CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS ........ .. . Page 27

3.1 Introduction ................................................ .. . Page 28

3.2 Sediment Site Characterization .................................. .. . Page 32

3.2.1 Sampling Strategies (Temporal and Spatial) .............. .. . Page 32

3.2.2 Physical Parameters ................................ .. . Page 34

3.2.3 Chemical Parameters ................................ .. . Page 35

3.2.4 Emerging Potential Sediment Contaminants .............. .. . Page 38

3.2.5 Key Recommendations for Sediment Site Characterization ... .. . Page 39

3.3 Exposure Assessment ......................................... .. . Page 40

3.3.1 Bioavailability ..................................... .. . Page 41

3.3.2 Bioaccumulation Potential ............................ .. . Page 42

3.3.3 Fate and Transport Modeling ......................... .. . Page 44

3.3.4 Key Recommendations for Exposure Assessment .......... .. . Page 45

3.4 Human Health Toxicity and Risk Characterization ................... .. . Page 47
Page iv	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

3.4.1	 Science Needs ..................................... .. . Page 48

3.4.2 Key Recommendations for Human Health Toxicity and Risk
 

Characterization ............................................. .. . Page 49

3.5 Ecological Effects and Risk Assessment ........................... .. . Page 50

3.5.1	 Ecological Screening Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 50

3.5.2	 Ecological Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 53

3.5.3	 Direct Toxicity to Aquatic Biota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 57

3.5.4	 Ecological Significance and Population Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 58

3.5.5	 Selection of Ecologically Protective Remedial Options . . . . . . . . . Page 59

3.5.6	 Key Recommendations for Selection of Ecologically Protective Remedial
 

Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 59

3.6 Sediment Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 61

3.6.1	 Natural Recovery/Bioremediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 62

3.6.2	 In situ Capping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 63

3.6.3	 In situ Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 64

3.6.4	 Dredging/Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 65

3.6.5	 Ex situ Treatment Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 66

3.6.6	 Beneficial Use Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 67

3.6.7	 Disposal Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 68

3.6.8	 Key Recommendations for Sediment Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 69

3.7 Baseline, Remediation, and Post-Remediation Monitoring ............. .. . Page 71

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

Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 74

3.8 Risk Communication and Community Involvement ................... .. . Page 75

3.8.1	 Key Recommendations for Risk Communication and Community
 

Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 77

3.9 Information Management and Exchange Activities ................... .. . Page 78

3.9.1	 Key Recommendations for Information Management and Exchange
 

Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 79

4. MEETING SCIENCE NEEDS ..................................... .. . Page 83

4.1 Introduction ................................................ .. . Page 83

4.2 Recommended Approaches to Implement Strategy ................... .. . Page 83

REFERENCES .................................................... .. . Page 89

APPENDIX A: Contaminated Sediment Science Activities Database ........... .. . Page A-1

APPENDIX B: Example of Summary Sheet .............................. .. . Page B-1

APPENDIX C: List of Acronyms ...................................... .. . Page C-1
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page v 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Contributors 

Elizabeth Beiring, OW David Bennett, OSWER 

Scott Cieniawski, GLNPO Kevin Garrahan, ORD 

Marc Greenberg, OSWER Scott Ireland, OW 

Lorelei Kowalski, ORD Jennifer Lenz, OSWER 
Page vi Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page vii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 

In 2000, the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Science Policy Council (SPC) 

initiated the development of a Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities (CSSP) document (formerly 

titled “Draft Contaminated Sediments Science Plan” because contamination of sediments is a multifaceted, cross-Agency issue which can benefit from a more comprehensive and higher level of 

coordination across EPA program and regional offices. Extensive resources to address contaminated 

sediment problems are spent by a number of Agency program offices, including the Superfund 

Program, Office of Water (OW), Office of Solid Waste (OSW), Great Lakes National Program Office 

(GLNPO), Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), Office of Research and 

Development (ORD), and EPA regional offices. As a complement to EPA’s Science Inventory, the 

CSSP Document intended to analyze and summarize the Agency’s contaminated sediment science 

activities and thus serves as both an informational and planning tool to EPA’s programs and regions. 

The CSSP Document provides an analysis of the Agency’s contaminated sediment scientific activities, 

identifies and evaluates science needs, and provides key recommendations for filling those needs 

The CSSP Document has four goals to promote the vision of providing a strong scientific basis for 

addressing contaminated sediments: 

1.	 Identify the science necessary to address the assessment and management of contaminated 

sediments. 

2.	 Identify the science gaps and tools that are important in reducing uncertainty in contaminated 

sediment risk management decision-making. 

3.	 Recommend approaches to promote necessary scientific activities and research. 

4.	 Enhance the level of coordination and communication of contaminated sediment science activities 

across Agency program and regional offices. 

The CSSP Document is organized into four chapters. Chapter One discusses the goals, objectives, 

and how the CSSP Document relates to the Agency’s mandate. The process used to develop the 

CSSP Document is also included. Chapter Two provides an overview of the contaminated sediment 

problems and issues across the Agency. The brief description of issues in Chapter Two is meant to 

provide an introduction to the discussion of contaminated sediment issues, as well as the overall 

context for the more detailed discussion of specific science needs and recommendations given in 

Chapter Three. 

Chapter Three, along with U.S. EPA’s Contaminated Sediment Science Activities’ Database 

(Appendix A), is the data collection and analysis section of the CSSP Document. It documents the 

current contaminated sediment science activities ongoing within the Agency, and places these activities 

within the context of Agency goals. Significant data gaps and uncertainties in 
Page viii Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

methodology/assessment procedures are identified. Finally, it discusses science needs and provides 

the key recommendations for future Agency science activities. 

Chapter Four provides guidance on how to meet the science needs identified in Chapter Three. Critical 

U.S. EPA partners and the immediate or long-term nature of the science activity are proposed. The 

Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Workgroup (Workgroup) did not constrain the 

recommendations to fit within available resources. Instead, the recommendations are a comprehensive 

list that U.S. EPA organizations can consider when balancing resource allocations across competing 

high-priority needs. 

Key scientific questions, which are given below, were developed for each major topic in order to focus 

discussions on scientific needs and to identify recommended science activities to address these 

questions. 

Key Scientific Questions: 

Sediment Site Characterization: What physical, chemical and biological methods best characterize 

sediments and assess sediment quality? 

Exposure Assessment: What are the primary exposure pathways to humans and wildlife from 

contaminants in sediments and how can we reduce uncertainty in quantifying and modeling the degree 

of exposure? 

Human Health Toxicity and Risk Characterization: What are the risks associated with exposure 

to contaminants in sediments through direct and indirect pathways? 

Ecological Effects and Risk Assessment: What are the risks associated with exposure to 

contaminants in sediments to wildlife species and aquatic communities? 

Sediment Remediation: What sediment remedial technology or combination of technologies is 

available to effectively remediate sites? 

Baseline, Remediation, and Post-Remediation Monitoring: What types of monitoring are needed 

to ensure that the implemented remedy meets remedial performance goals and does not cause 

unacceptable short-term effects? 

Risk Communication and Community Involvement: How can we provide communities with more 

meaningful involvement in the contaminated sediments cleanup process? 

Information Management and Exchange Activities: How do we improve information management 

and exchange activities on contaminated sediments across the Agency? 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page ix 

Table E-1 summarizes the key recommendations, the critical U.S. EPA partners, and the immediate 

or long-term nature of the science needs. 

Table E-1. Summary of Key Recommendations, Time Frame for Implementation, and 

Suggested Critical Partners 

Recommendations 

Immediate Time Frame 

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

property data for use in evaluating sediment stability. (OSRTI, ORD, U.S. EPA Regions) 

Longer Time Frame 

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

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

OSRTI, GLNPO) 

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

bioaccumulative contaminants of concern in fish tissue. (ORD, OSRTI, OW, U.S. EPA 

Regions) 

A.4	 Develop methods for analyzing emerging endocrine disruptors, including alkylphenol 

ethoxylates (APEs) and their metabolites. (ORD) 

Immediate Time Frame 

B.1	 Develop a tiered framework for assessing food web exposures. (ORD, OW, OSRTI, U.S. 

EPA Regions) 

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

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

Regions) 

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

models that allow prediction of exposures in the future. (ORD, OSRTI, OW, U.S. EPA 

Regions) 

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

(ORD, OSRTI, OW, U.S. EPA Regions) 

A. Sediment Site Characterization 

B. Exposure Assessment 
Page x	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Immediate Time Frame 

C.1	 Develop guidance for characterizing human health risks on a PCB congener basis. (ORD, 

OSRTI, OW, U.S. EPA Regions) 

C.2	 Develop sediment guidelines for bioaccumulative contaminants that are protective of 

human health via the fish ingestion pathway. (ORD, OSRTI, OW, U.S. EPA Regions) 

Longer Time Frame 

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

Regions) 

C.4	 Evaluate the toxicity and reproductive effects of newly recognized contaminants, such as 

APEs and other endocrine disruptors and their metabolites on human health. (ORD, 

OPPT) 

Immediate Time Frame 

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

OW, U.S. EPA Regions) 

D.3	 Develop guidance on how to interpret ecological sediment toxicity studies (lab or in situ 

caged studies) and how to interpret the significance of the results in relation to site 

populations and communities. (OW, ORD, OSRTI, U.S. EPA Regions) 

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

dredging vs. the shorter term adverse effects on ecological receptors and their habitats. 

(ORD, OSRTI, U.S. EPA Regions) 

D.6	 Continue developing and refining both chronic and sub-chronic sediment toxicity testing 

methods. (ORD, OW, U.S. EPA Regions) 

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

chemicals. (ORD, OW) 

Longer Time Frame 

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

OPPTS, OW) 

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

sediment quality guidelines. (OW, ORD) 

C. Human Health Toxicity and Risk Characterization 

D. Ecological Effects and Risk Assessment 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page xi 

Immediate Time Frame 

E.1	 Collect the necessary data and develop guidance for determining the conditions under 

would include: measurement protocols to assess the relative contribution of the various 

mechanisms for chemical releases from bed sediments (e.g., advection, bioturbation, 

diffusion, and resuspension), including mass transport of contaminants by large storm 

events; approaches to assess the vertical extent of the bioavailable zone in different 

environmental settings; methodologies to quantify the uncertainties associated with 

natural recovery; and development of accepted measuring protocols to determine in situ 

chemical fluxes from sediments. (ORD, OSRTI, U.S. EPA Regions, GLNPO) 

E.2	 Develop performance evaluations of various cap designs and cap placement methods and 

monitor ongoing capping projects to monitor performance (e.g., Boston Harbor, Eagle 

Harbor, Grasse River). (ORD, U.S. EPA Regions, GLNPO) 

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

short-term and long-term impacts from dredging relative to natural processes and human 

activities (e.g., resuspension from storm events, boat scour, wave action, and anchor 

drag). (OSRTI, U.S. EPA Regions) 

Longer Time Frame 

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

(ORD, GLNPO) 

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

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

EPA Regions) 

Immediate Time Frame 

F.1	 Develop monitoring guidance fact sheets for baseline, remediation, and post-remediation 

monitoring, and monitoring during remedy implementation. (ORD, OSRTI, U.S. EPA 

Regions, OW) 

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

contaminated sediment sites. (OSRTI, ORD, U.S. EPA Regions) 

E. Sediment Remediation 

which natural recovery can be considered a suitable remedial option. Such guidance 

conduct cap placement and post-cap monitoring to document performance. Continue to 

F. Baseline, Remediation, and Post-remediation Monitoring 
Page xii	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Immediate Time Frame 

G.1	 Establish a research program on risk communication and community involvement focusing 

on developing better methods, models, and tools. (ORD, OSRTI, U.S. EPA Regions) 

Immediate Time Frame 

H.1	 Establish regional sediment data management systems which can link the regions and 

program offices with each other and with the National Sediment Inventory. (U.S. EPA 

Regions, OW, OSWER, GLNPO) 

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

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

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

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

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

agencies. (ORD, OSWER, OW, U.S. EPA Regions, NOAA, U.S. Navy, U.S. ACE, 

USGS, U.S. FWS) 

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

journals, and meetings). (CSMC, OW, OSWER, U.S. EPA Regions, GLNPO) 

Longer Time Frame 

H.2	 

s Quality 

System for Environmental Data and Technology. (OEI, OW, OSWER, U.S. EPA 

Regions) 

G. Risk Communication and Community Involvement 

H. Information Management and Exchange Activities 

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

protocols for quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) using the Agency’

Table E-2 is a list of the Acronyms used in the Executive Summary. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page xiii 

Table E-2. List of Acronyms in Executive Summary 

APE Alkylphenol Ethoxylate 

CSMC Contaminated Sediment Management Committee 

CSSP Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

OEI Office of Environmental Information 

OSRTI Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation 

OPPT Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

OPPTS Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 

ORD Office of Research and Development 

OSW Office of Solid Waste 

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

OW Office of Water 

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl 

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

SPC Science Policy Council 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

U.S. ACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 
Page xiv Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Suggested Uses of This Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Document 

This CSSP Document is designed to satisfy a number of different perspectives and needs. 

Here are three suggested approaches for its use: 

1. For those within or outside the Agency seeking a general understanding of the purposes 

and goals of the Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Document (what is it and why is it 

needed?) and some understanding of its history and Agency activities and products, the reader 

is referred to Chapters One and Two, Goals and Objectives and Overview of Contaminated 

Sediment Science Issues Across the Agency’s Regulatory Programs, respectively. 

2. Those who understand the contaminated sediments issues in general, but desire to analyze 

and assess the validity of the scientific basis for the science recommendations, should refer to 

Chapter Three, Assessing the Science on Contaminated Sediments and the Key 

Recommendations therein. 

3. Knowledgeable risk assessors, risk managers, and program managers who desire to see 

how the science priorities directly impact their programs will find a quick overview, the key 

recommendations, and the recommended approach for implementation of the science priorities 

in Chapter Four, Meeting Science Needs. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 1 

1. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

1.1 Introduction 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) mission is to protect human health and to safeguard 

the natural environment – air, water, and land – upon which life depends. Sediments are an integral 

component of aquatic ecosystems providing habitats for many aquatic organisms. Many sedimentdwelling organisms at the base of the food chain are eaten by organisms at higher trophic levels. 

Contaminants in sediments1 pose a threat to human health, aquatic life, and the environment. 

Chemicals released to surface waters from industrial and municipal discharges, atmospheric deposition, 

and polluted runoff from urban and agricultural areas can accumulate to environmentally harmful levels 

in sediment. Humans, aquatic organisms, and other wildlife are at risk through direct exposure to 

pollutants or through consumption of contaminated fish and wildlife. Exposure to these contaminants 

is linked to cancer, birth defects, neurological defects, immune dysfunction, and liver and kidney 

ailments. Contaminated sediments may also cause economic impacts, at both the local and regional 

level, on the transportation, fishing, tourism, and development industries. 

Sediment contamination is an issue that cuts across offices and jurisdictions throughout the Agency, 

other Federal agencies (e.g., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. ACE)), state agencies, and 

tribes. U.S. EPA programs with the authority to address sediment contamination operate under the 

mandate of many statutory provisions including the Comprehensive Emergency Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 

the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 

and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). Other Federal agencies having 

authorities that may be used to address contaminated sediments include: U.S. ACE, through the 

statutory provisions of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), CWA, and MPRSA; and 

U.S. FWS and NOAA, through Natural Resources Damages (NRD) authority.

In 2000, U.S. EPA’s Science Policy Council (SPC) initiated the development of a Contaminated 

Sediments Science Priorities (CSSP) Document (formerly titled “Draft Contaminated Sediments 

Science Plan”) because effective management of contaminated sediments is a multi-faceted, high 

profile issue that requires comprehensive and a heightened level of coordination across the Agency. 

Extensive resources are spent by a number of Agency program offices to address contaminated 

sediment problems. Program offices addressing this problem include: the Superfund Program, Office 

of Water (OW), Office of Solid Waste (OSW), Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), 

Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), Office of Research and Development 

(ORD), and U.S. EPA regional Offices. 

1

Contaminated sediments are defined as soils, sand, and organic matter, or minerals that accumulate on the bottom 

of a water body and contain toxic or hazardous materials that may adversely affect human health or the environment 

(U.S. EPA’s Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy, EPA-823-R-98-001). 
Page 2	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

The CSSP Document is a mechanism 

for the U.S. EPA to develop and 

coordinate Agency office- and regionwide science activities that affect 

contaminated sediments. Along with 

U.S. EPA’s Contaminated Sediment 

Science Activities’Database (Appendix 

A), the CSSP Document analyzes 

current Agency science activities that 

concern contaminated sediments, 

identifies and evaluates the science 

gaps, and makes recommendations to 

fill those gaps. 

The CSSP Document follows in the 

footsteps of previous U.S. EPA 

initiatives, such as the Mercury Action 

Plan	 (U.S. EPA, 2001c), the Action 

Plan for Beaches and Recreational 

Waters (Beach Action Plan) (U.S. EPA, 

1999a), and A Multimedia Strategy for 

Priority Persistent, Bioaccumulative, 

and Toxic (PBT) Pollutants (U.S. EPA, 

1998a). These plans and strategies 

contain elements of both science plans 

and management action plans. 

1.2	 Goals of the Contaminated 

CSSP Document: Goals 

•	 Identify the science necessary to address the assessment 

and management of contaminated sediments. 

•	 Identify the science gaps and tools that are important in 

reducing uncertainty in contaminated sediment risk 

management decision-making. 

•	 Recommend approaches to promote necessary scientific 

•	 Enhance the level of coordination and communication of 

activities and research. 

contaminated sediment science activities across Agency 

program and regional offices. 

•	 More focused, better directed contaminated sediment 

research. 

•	 Improved coordination of contaminated sediment 

activities within EPA. 

•	 Better informed contaminated sediment decision-making 

based on sound science. 

•	 Efficient and appropriate expenditure of resources. 

Figure 1-1. Goals and Expected Results of CSSP Document 

CSSP Document: Expected Results for EPA 

Sediments Science Priorities 

Document 

The CSSP Document has four goals which are highlighted in Figure 1-1. The first goal is the 

identification of the science necessary to address the assessment and management of contaminated 

sediments. The second goal is to identify the science gaps and tools that are important in reducing 

uncertainty in contaminated sediment risk management decision-making. The third goal is to 

recommend approaches to promote necessary scientific activities and research to fill the gaps, 

including development and dissemination of contaminated sediment management tools. The last goal 

is to enhance the level of coordination and communication of science activities dealing with 

contaminated sediments across Agency program and regional offices. Taken together, these goals 

promote the vision of providing a strong and scientifically sound basis for addressing contaminated 

sediments. The result will be a better informed decision-making process which conserves both human 

and financial resources. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 3 

The goals of the CSSP Document are based upon the strategic guidance proposed in the Strategic 

Framework for U.S. EPA Science (U.S. EPA, 2000e) to unify science activities across the Agency. 

First, the CSSP Document uses the Science Inventory to assemble and evaluate the current 

contaminated sediment science activities and research across the Agency. Second, it uses effective 

planning (“doing the right science”) to insure that the most appropriate science activities are being 

conducted. Third, it uses sound scientific practices and approaches (“doing the science right”), such 

as Agency and public consultation and external peer review, in its development (see Figure 1-2). 

Figure 1-2. Peer Consultation in Development of the CSSP Document 
Page 4	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

1.3 Development of the Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Document 

The Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Workgroup (Workgroup) has been responsible for the 

development of the CSSP Document, although it has also received wide input from staff from U.S. 

EPA’s regional and program offices. The development process is described below. 

A cross-Agency workgroup of key staff working in the contaminated sediments area, the 

Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Workgroup, was charged by the U.S. EPA Science Policy 

Council with developing a Contaminated Sediments Science Plan (now renamed the Contaminated 

Sediments Science Priorities Document). The Workgroup went through the following action steps 

to develop the Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Document: 

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

Agency. 

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

•	 Identified key contaminated sediments issues and data gaps. 

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

activities. 

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

•	 Provided for a broad consultative review of the CSSP Document both internal and external 

to the Agency, and a Science Advisory Board (SAB) peer review. 

•	 Developed a strategy to implement the CSSP Document and evaluate its performance (see 

Section 4.2 for details). 

To manage this process, the Workgroup held weekly conference calls and a two-day meeting in June 

2001. These efforts resulted in the Workgroup preparing a draft of the Contaminated Sediments 

Science Priorities Document which was first circulated for internal review, to ensure both accuracy 

and completeness of the document. The CSSP Document was subsequently reviewed externally by 

the Agency’s Science Advisory Board, relevant Federal agencies, states, tribes, and others.2 

2

An expert panel (Panel) under the Executive Committee of EPA’s Science Advisory Board, met on October 30-31, 

2002, to review the June 13, 2002, draft document, Contaminated Sediments Science Plan (Science Plan). The 

review was conducted at the request of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response in Washington, D.C. at a 

public meeting. The Panel was charged with reviewing the adequacy of the Science Plan in addressing a range of 

contaminated sediments issues, as well as considering the methods exemplified by the Science Plan for crossAgency science planning. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 5 

Other important inputs to the development of the CSSP Document were recommendations contained 

in the Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy (U.S. EPA, 1998b), A Risk Management 

Strategy for PCB-Contaminated Sediments (NRC, 2001a), and Contaminated Sediments in Ports and 

Waterways (NRC, 1997). 

1.4 Linkage of the CSSP Document to Agency Planning Processes 

Organizations within U.S. EPA use various planning processes to ensure that they meet the Agency’s 

National Strategic Plan goals. For planning cross-program work, three tools are available. Two of 

these tools are management strategies and action plans, which describe commitments by all of the 

relevant organizations within U.S. EPA to meet specified goals. Examples of these documents are the 

Mercury Management Strategy (U.S. EPA, 2001c) and the Beaches Action Plan (U.S. EPA, 1999a). 

These types of documents usually focus on statutory authorities and implementation by the program 

offices and regions; research needs are usually considered. The third and newest tool is the CSSP 

Document, which promotes the vision of providing a strong and scientifically sound basis for 

addressing contaminated sediments. 

The CSSP Document is an important tool that will be used by U.S. EPA regional and program offices 

in annual budget formulation and work planning processes. Implementation of CSSP Document 

recommendations will help identify the highest priority contaminated sediment needs, coordinate 

ongoing work across the Agency, avoid duplication of effort, and promote complementary endeavors. 

Workload requirements to implement CSSP Document recommendations need to be evaluated to 

determine if new budget initiatives will be needed. The CSSP Document will receive the same analysis 

and accountability reviews as any other Agency science/technical assessment priority. Agency annual 

planning cycles and annual performance measures may be examined by lead offices and regions to see 

how U.S. EPA is addressing CSSP Document recommendations (please refer to Section 4.2 on 

recommended approaches for strategy implementation). 

The CSSP Document encompasses more than research, but where research needs are identified, it will 

inform ORD of the most important contaminated sediment needs to consider during the ORD annual 

planning cycle. ORD plans its research through Multi-Year Plans (MYPs) to provide a long-term view 

of the research direction. Research Coordination Teams (RCTs), comprising of representatives from 

ORD and U.S. EPA regions and program offices, participate in developing MYPs and determining 

research priorities. The National Regional Science Council (NRSC), formed in 1997, helps the regions 

to focus their research needs for ORD’s consideration. The multi-year plans and annual resource 

planning describe how ORD will address recommendations in the CSSP Document. 

Figure 1-3 is a schematic illustration of the relationship of the CSSP Document to U.S. EPA 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Goals and program and regional office plans and 

ORD’s multi-year plans. The CSSP Document reflects the Agency’s integrated efforts to achieve the 

GPRA goals and objectives, e.g., Goal 2 - Clean and Safe Water, Objective 2.1 - Protect Human 

Health, for contaminated sediments. This effort is accomplished through cooperation among the 
Page 6	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

critical partners, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), OW, ORD and the 

regional offices, within U.S. EPA. 

Figure 1-3. Relationship of the CSSP Document to GPRA Goals and Other Plans 

1.5	 Relationship of the Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Document to EPA’s 

National Strategic Plan Goals 

The relevance of addressing the problem of contaminated sediments to the Agency’s mission is 

reflected in the linkages with U.S. EPA’s National Strategic Plan goals, as discussed below. The 

GPRA requires all Federal agencies to develop a five-year strategic plan that establishes clear goals, 

objectives, and annual performance measures. The strategic plan is updated every three years, and 

agencies must report back to Congress annually on the results achieved. U.S. EPA’s 2003 Strategic 

Plan (U.S. EPA, 2003c) establishes five goals that identify the environmental results that U.S. EPA 

is working to attain. Contaminated sediments is a significant multi-media issue related to the desired 

results for many of the goals (Table 1-1). Addressing contaminated sediment problems significantly 

helps the Agency achieve identified environmental outcomes. 

The CSSP Document includes the first few steps in developing a science plan. It does not include 

management endorsement of the priorities or the implementation steps and schedules that are part of 

a complete science priority setting and implementation plan. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 7 

Table 1-1. Relationship of National Strategic Plan Goals and the Contaminated Sediments 

Science Priorities Document 

Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water 

Objective 2.1 – Protect Human Health Contaminated sediments affect human health by both 

direct and indirect exposure pathways (e.g., direct 

contact, ingestion, uptake into the aquatic food chain). 

Contaminants in sediments can enter the aquatic food 

chain, thus contaminating aquatic organisms and 

ultimately placing humans at risk of adverse health 

effects from consumption of these organisms. U.S. 

EPA is addressing contaminants in sediments in order 

to prevent contaminant movement through the food 

chain. 

Objective 2.2 – Protect Water Quality Contaminated sediments affect water quality and 

threaten healthy aquatic communities. 

Objective 2.3 – Enhance Science and Research A sound scientific understanding of contaminated 

sediments is necessary for EPA to meets its goal of 

clean and safe water. 

Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration 

Objective 3.3 – Enhance Science and Research The protecting and restoration of land (including 

contaminated sediments) requires the best available 

science and research. 

Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 

Objective 4.1 – Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Toxic substances in sediments, such as polychlorinated 

Risks biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury, can enter the aquatic 

food chain, contaminate fish, and place wildlife and 

humans at risk through their consumption. U.S. EPA 

is working to clean up contaminated sediment sites to 

prevent harm to human health and the environment. 

Objective 4.4 – Enhance Science and Research Contaminated sediments may cause unwanted, adverse 

consequences to human life, health, and the 

environment, and U.S. EPA is committed to using the 

best available science to reduce these risks. 
Page 8 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

1.6 Document Organization 

The CSSP Document is organized into four chapters. Chapter One discusses the goals, objectives, 

and how the CSSP Document relates to the Agency’s mandate. Chapter Two provides an overview 

of the contaminated sediment issues across the Agency. The brief description of issues in Chapter 

Two is intended to provide an introduction to the discussion of contaminated sediment issues, as well 

as providing the overall context for the more detailed discussion of specific research and science needs 

given in Chapter Three. 

Chapter Three, along with U.S. EPA’s contaminated sediment science activities database (Appendix 

A), is the data collection and analysis section of the CSSP Document. It documents the current 

contaminated sediment science activities ongoing within the Agency, and places these activities within 

the context of Agency goals. Significant data gaps and uncertainties in methodology/assessment 

procedures are identified. It proposes research and science activities to fill those data gaps and resolve 

related issues. Finally, it provides the key recommendations for future Agency science activities, 

including research. 

Chapter Four discusses approaches to implement the contaminated sediments science priorities. For 

each recommendation, critical U.S. EPA partners and the immediate or long-term nature of the science 

activity are proposed (see Table 4-1). 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 9 

2. OVERVIEW OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT SCIENCE ISSUES ACROSS THE 

AGENCY’S REGULATORY PROGRAMS 

2.1 Introduction 

Chapter Two provides an overview of the contaminated sediment problems and issues across U.S. 

EPA. The brief description of issues in this chapter is meant to provide an introduction to the 

discussion of contaminated sediment issues, as well as providing the overall context for the more 

detailed discussion of specific research and science needs given in Chapter Three of this document. 

2.2 Scope, Magnitude, and Impacts of Contaminated Sediments 

U.S. EPA defines contaminated sediments as soils, sand, and organic matter or minerals that 

accumulate on the bottom of a water body and contain toxic or hazardous materials that may adversely 

affect human health or the environment (U.S. EPA, 1998d). In 1997, U.S. EPA published its first 

National Sediment Quality Survey Report to Congress, The Incidence and Severity of Sediment 

Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States (U.S. EPA, 1997a). This report describes areas 

where sediment may be contaminated at levels that may adversely affect aquatic life, wildlife, and 

human health. To evaluate sediment quality nationwide, U.S. EPA developed the National Sediment 

Inventory (NSI) database, which is a compilation of existing sediment quality data and protocols used 

to evaluate the data. The NSI was used to produce the first biennial Report to Congress on sediment 

quality in the United States as required under the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (U.S. 

EPA, 1997a). Data in the NSI were generated from studies conducted between 1980 and 1993, and 

represent information collected in 1,363 of the 2,111 watersheds in the United States. U.S. EPA’s 

evaluation of the data shows that sediment contamination exists in every region and state of the 

country and that various waters throughout the United States contain sediment sufficiently 

contaminated with toxic pollutants to pose potential risks to sediment-dwelling organisms, fish, and 

humans and wildlife that eat fish. 

U.S. EPA published the first update to The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in 

Surface Waters of the United States, National Sediment Quality Survey: Second Edition 

(“Update”;U.S. EPA, 2004b) in 2004. The initial report presented a national baseline screening-level 

assessment of contaminated sediments from sediment quality data collected from 1980 through 1993. 

The Update identifies locations where data collected from 1990 to 1999 indicate that direct or indirect 

exposure to the sediment could be associated with adverse effects to aquatic life and/or human health. 

Of the 19,398 sampling stations evaluated in the Update, 8,348 stations (43 percent) were classified 

as Tier 1 (associated adverse effects on aquatic life or human health are probable), 5,846 (30 percent) 

were classified as Tier 2 (associated adverse effects on aquatic life or human health are possible), and 

5,209 (27 percent) were classified as Tier 3 (no indication of associated adverse effects).3 The Update 

3 It is important to note that the percentage of all NSI sampling stations where associated effects are "probable" or 

"possible" (i.e., 43 percent in Tier 1 and 30 percent in Tier 2) does not represent the overall condition of sediment 
Page 10 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

does not provide an assessment of the “national condition” of sediments. However, it does provide 

an assessment of changes in the extent and severity of sediment contamination over time for specific 

areas in the United States where sufficient data exist.4 

The NSI sampling stations were located in 5,695 individual river reaches (or water body segments) 

across the contiguous United States, or approximately 8.8 percent of all river reaches in the country 

(based on EPA's River Reach File 1).5 Approximately 3.6 percent of all river reaches in the contiguous 

United States contained at least one station categorized as Tier 1, approximately 2.9 percent of 

reaches contained at least one station categorized as Tier 2 (but none as Tier 1), and in about 2.3 

percent of river reaches all of the sampling stations were classified as Tier 3. 

Watersheds containing areas of probable concern for sediment contamination (APCs) are those with 

at least 10 Tier 1 sampling stations and in where at least 75 percent of all sampling stations were 

classified as either Tier 1 or Tier 2. The NSI data evaluation found that 96 watersheds throughout the 

United States contained APCs (Figure 2-1). These watersheds represent about 4.2 percent of all 

watersheds in the United States (96 of 2,264) and APC designation could result from extensive 

sampling throughout a watershed, or from intensive sampling at a single contaminated location or a 

few contaminated locations. 

Sediments act as both a repository and a source of pollutants. Many of these pollutants adsorb onto 

sediment particles which eventually settle to the bottom of water bodies. Over time these pollutants 

may be buried under layers of cleaner sediments. But sediments are subject to erosion and 

resuspension, which may result in the pollutants being released and dispersed through the water 

column for transport downstream, uptake through the food chain, or release to the atmosphere via 

volatilization, for transport through the air and re-deposition into lakes and other waterways. 

across the country; most of the NSI data were obtained from monitoring programs targeted toward areas of known 

or suspected contamination (i.e., sampling stations were not randomly selected). 

4 Two general types of limitations are associated with the Update: limitations of the compiled data, and; 

limitations of the evaluation approach. Limitations of the compiled data include the mixture of data sets derived 

from different sampling strategies, incomplete sampling coverage, the age and quality of data, and the lack of 

measurements of important assessment parameters. Limitations of the evaluation approach include uncertainties in 

the interpretive tools to assess sediment quality, use of assumed exposure potential in screening-level quantitative 

risk assessment (e.g., fish consumption rates for human health risk), and the subsequent difficulties in interpreting 

assessment results. 

5 A river reach can be part of a coastal shoreline, a lake, or a length of stream between two major tributaries 

ranging from approximately 1 to 10 miles long. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 11 Figure 2-1. Watersheds Identified as Containing Areas of Probable Concern Source: U.S. EPA. 2004b 
Page 12 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

The bioaccumulative, persistent, and toxic forms of contaminants in sediment affect aquatic life and 

wildlife through direct contact, ingestion, food chain effects, and habitat modification. These impacts 

include reproductive effects, developmental effects, birth defects, cancer, tumors, other deformities, 

and even death. Humans are also at risk through direct exposure to pollutants or through consumption 

of contaminated fish and wildlife. Exposure to these contaminants is linked to cancer, birth defects, 

neurological defects(e.g., in infants and children), immune dysfunction, and liver and kidney ailments. 

Research is currently underway studying the potential for endocrine disruption effects due to 

contaminants in sediments. 

In addition, contaminated sediments can impose costs on society through lost recreational 

opportunities and revenues. For example, fish consumption advisories can have a significant impact 

on the use of our natural resources. Approximately twenty-three percent of the nation’s lake acreage 

and nine percent of the nation’s river miles are under advisory for fish consumption, in many cases due 

to contaminated sediments. Contaminated sediments may also cause severe economic impacts on local 

and regional transportation, fishing, tourism, and development industries. In one Great Lakes harbor, 

the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal, contaminated sediments are imposing an annual cost of eleven to 

seventeen million dollars (Peck et al., 1994). 

2.3 Overview of Major Sediment Issues and Needs Across the Agency 

The management of contaminated sediments is a multi-faceted challenge for the Agency. As a multimedia issue, aspects of contaminated sediment management fall under different parts of U.S. EPA. 

This section provides an overview of the major contaminated sediment issues across the Agency. This 

discussion is meant to provide the overall context for the discussion of the specific research and 

science needs that follow in Chapter Three. 

Water Quality Standards 

The Clean Water Act was established to restore and maintain the quality of waters in the United 

States. Sediment underlying surface water is recognized as a significant source of, and sink for, toxic 

pollutants in the aquatic environment. Therefore, addressing sediment quality is an integral component 

of water quality standards programs. It is necessary to incorporate appropriate sediment quality 

protection policies and procedures to protect and maintain designated water uses. The Clean Water 

Act establishes as a national goal “...that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which 

provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and provides for recreation 

in and on the water,” be achieved by July 1983 (CWA Section 101(a)). Sediment quality can affect 

the attainment of designated uses. It is appropriate to assess and protect sediment quality as an 

essential component of the total aquatic environment in order to achieve and maintain designated uses. 

The relationship between sediment quality, biological effects, and attainment of designated uses is 

uncertain. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 13 

Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads 

Section 303(d) of the CWA and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 130.7) require states and 

authorized tribes to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of pollutant discharge at levels 

necessary to achieve applicable water quality standards. TMDLs identify the loading capacity of the 

water body, wasteload allocations for point sources, and load allocations for nonpoint sources and 

natural background. About 40,000 TMDLs are required for about 20,000 impaired water bodies in 

U.S., based on U.S. EPA’s 1998 list of impaired waters. The 2000 305(b) report has been published 

and is available at http://www.epa.gov/305b/. About twenty-four percent of the TMDLs (based on 

1998 data from the TMDL tracking system) are for pollutants that are also found in contaminated 

sediments. These TMDLs require analysis of the contribution of pollutants from contaminated 

sediments. 

Fish Advisories 

The states, U.S. territories, and Native American tribes have primary responsibility for protecting their 

residents from the health risks of consuming contaminated, non-commercially caught fish and wildlife. 

They do this by issuing consumption advisories for chemicals such as mercury or PCBs for the general 

population as well as for sensitive subpopulations (e.g., pregnant women, nursing mothers, and 

children). These advisories inform the public when high concentrations of chemical contaminants have 

been found in local fish and wildlife and include recommendations to limit or avoid consumption of 

certain fish and wildlife species from specific water bodies or water body types. Approximately 

twenty-three percent of the nation’s lake acreage and over nine percent (9.3%) of the nation’s river 

miles are under advisory for fish consumption. Many of these advisories can be linked to contaminated 

sediments. One hundred percent of the Great Lakes and their connecting waters and seventy-one 

percent of coastal waters of the contiguous forty-eight states were under advisories in 2000. It is 

expected that improving sediment quality will reduce the need for many consumption advisories. 

Bioavailability, accumulation, tissue distribution, and depuration are major issues for fish advisories. 

Management of Dredged Material from Navigational Dredging 

Several hundred million cubic yards of sediment are dredged from United States ports, harbors, and 

waterways each year to maintain and improve the nation’s navigation system for commercial, national 

defense, and recreational purposes. Of the total sediment volume dredged, approximately one-fifth 

is disposed of in the ocean (i.e., waters outside the baseline) at designated sites in accordance with 

Section 103 of MPRSA. Most of the remaining dredged material is discharged into inland waters of 

the United States (i.e., waters inside the baseline), placed in confined disposal facilities with a return 

flow to waters of the U.S. (i.e., inland waters and waters out to three miles from the baseline), or used 

for beneficial purposes (including as fill) in waters of the U.S., all of which are regulated under Section 

404 of the CWA. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal agency designated to maintain navigable waters, conducts 

a majority of this dredging and disposal under its Congressionally authorized civil works program. 
Page 14 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

The balance of the dredging and disposal is conducted by a number of local public and private entities. 

In either case, the disposal is subject to a regulatory program administered by U.S. ACE and U.S. EPA 

under the above statutes. U.S. EPA shares the responsibility of managing dredged material, principally 

in the development of the environmental criteria by which proposed discharges are evaluated and 

disposal sites are selected, and in the exercise of its environmental oversight authority. Estimates by 

U.S. ACE indicate that only a small percentage of the total annual volume of dredged material 

disposed (approximately three million to twelve million cubic yards) is contaminated such that special 

handling and/or treatment is required. The major issues here are uncertainties about the biological 

effects of risk management options and environmental effects of disposal practices. 

Superfund Sites 

Superfund is the Federal government's program to clean up the nation's uncontrolled hazardous waste 

sites under CERCLA. The National Priorities List (NPL) is a published list of priority hazardous 

waste sites in the country that are being addressed by the Superfund program. The regions have 

identified about four hundred NPL sites potentially having contaminated sediments. These include a 

number of very large contaminated sediment sites where remedies may cost up to several hundreds 

of millions of dollars. The major issues associated with contaminated sediments include risks to human 

health and the environment, limited disposal space, high costs, and the uncertainties related to risk 

management options. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Sites 

Like the Superfund program, RCRA sites/facilities are remediated to support current and reasonably 

anticipated uses. RCRA authority for Corrective Action is to clean up releases from a specific facility; 

therefore it is less amenable to an area-wide approach than Superfund. The number of RCRA sites 

with contaminated sediment issues is smaller than the number of CERCLA contaminated sediment 

sites. In March 1999, the regions and states identified seventeen RCRA Corrective Action sites with 

sediment contamination problems. The major issues associated with contaminated sediments related 

to RCRA sites include uncertainties regarding risks to human health and the environment and 

uncertainties related to risk management options. 

Deposition of Contaminants via Short- and Long-Range Air Transport 

Over the past thirty years, scientists have collected a large amount of data indicating that air pollutants 

can be redeposited on land and water, sometimes at great distances from their original sources. These 

data demonstrate that air transport of contaminants (both near- and far-field) can be an important 

contributor to declining water quality. These air pollutants can have undesirable health and 

environmental impacts: contributing to fish body burdens of toxic chemicals, causing harmful algal 

blooms through deposition of nutrients, and impacting water quality, resulting in unsafe drinking 

water. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 15 

In response to mounting evidence indicating that air pollution contributes significantly to water 

pollution, Congress added the Great Waters Program (Section 112(m)) when it amended the Clean 

Air Act in 1990. The Great Waters Program, a joint program including U.S. EPA and NOAA, is 

designed to study and address the effects of air pollution on the water quality and ecosystems of the 

Great Lakes, Lake Champlain, the Chesapeake Bay, and estuaries that are part of the National Estuary 

Program or the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 

Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Pollutants 

Persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic chemicals (PBTs) often accumulate in sediments. The 

Agency has three major efforts related to PBTs: a PBT Initiative; the Great Lakes 

Binational Toxics Strategy; and Testing Requirements for Pesticides and Toxic Substances Use 

under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and TSCA. 

PBT Initiative 

U.S. EPA has developed and is implementing a national multi-media strategy for the reduction of

persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic chemicals (PBTs), entitled the PBT Initiative.6 The goal of this 

strategy is to reduce risks to human health and the environment from existing and future exposure to 

priority pollutants. The four main elements of the PBT Initiative are: 

1.	 Develop and implement national action plans to reduce priority PBT pollutants, 

utilizing the full range of U.S. EPA tools. 

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

3.	 Prevent new PBTs from entering the marketplace. 

4.	 Measure progress of these actions against U.S. EPA’s Government Performance 

Results Act (GPRA) goals and national commitments. 

U.S. EPA's challenge in reducing risks from PBTs stems from the pollutants' ability to travel long 

distances, to transfer rather easily among air, water, and land, and to linger for generations in people 

and the environment. Although much work has been done over the years to reduce the risk associated 

with these chemicals, they frequently occur at levels of concern in fish tissue. All of the substances 

that are causing the fish consumption advisories are PBTs and metals. 

6 Priority PBTs currently being addressed under the PBT initiative include: aldrin/dieldrin; benzo(a)pyrene; 

chlordane; DDT/DDD/DDE; hexachlorobenzene; alkyl-lead compounds; mercury and its compounds; mirex; 

octachlorostyrene; PCBs; dioxins and furans; toxaphene. 
Page 16 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy 

The Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy provides a framework for actions to reduce or eliminate 

persistent, toxic substances from the Great Lakes Basin, especially those that bioaccumulate. The 

Strategy was developed jointly by Canada and the United States in 1996 and 1997 and was signed 

April 7, 1997. The Strategy establishes reduction challenges for an initial list of persistent, toxic 

substances targeted for virtual elimination (‘Level One’ substances) which are synonymous with the 

first twelve priority pollutants identified through the PBT Initiative. These substances have been 

associated with widespread long-term adverse effects on wildlife in the Great Lakes, and, through their 

bioaccumulation, are of concern for human health. The Strategy provides a framework for action to 

achieve specific quantifiable reduction “challenges” in the 1997 to 2006 time frame for specific toxic 

substances. 

Testing Pesticides and Toxic Substances for Registration and Use 

FIFRA and TSCA provide U.S. EPA the authority to ban or restrict the use of pesticides and toxic 

chemicals that have the potential to contaminate sediment. These actions can be taken if 

environmental or human health risks are determined to be unacceptable. Sediment toxicity testing can 

be required to assess the risks of sediment contamination posed by pesticides and other chemicals. 

These tests must be applied under the authority of FIFRA and TSCA in a strategy to systematically 

evaluate the risks of sediment contamination. 

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

To address the contaminated sediment issues discussed above, U.S. EPA produces scientific products 

such as guidance documents and risk assessments. Various scientific activities, internal and external 

to U.S. EPA, support the development of these scientific products. Figures 2-2 through 2-4 

summarize the major recent science products and activities in contaminated sediments by OW, OSRTI, 

ORD, and U.S. EPA regions. The information has been separated into effects and assessment, 

sediment characterization and fate and transport, and remediation monitoring and managing 

contaminated sediments. Cross-Agency relationships have resulted in focused scientific activities to 

more directly support science products and program office or regional decisions. A detailed listing 

of U.S. EPA’s Contaminated Sediment Science Activities Database, including program and regional 

office activities, is contained in Appendix A. It presents recent projects that include scientific areas 

on program implementation, human health and ecological effects and assessment, exposure and 

modeling, and remediation and risk management. Collaboration among U.S. EPA scientists and 

engineers enhances the use of quality scientific information in risk management decision-making. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 17 

Figure 2-2. Current Agency Science Activities And Products Regarding 

Contaminated Sediment Effects And Risk Assessment 

• 

• 

• 

• Site Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. 

• Site Assessment Framework Document. 

• Improved Site Assessment. 

SCIENCE PRODUCTS 

Draft Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guideline Documents. 

Integrated Water Quality Criteria for Ambient Waters. 

Use of Sediment Benchmarks to Predict Toxicity in Great Lakes Sediments. 

ORD SCIENCE ACTIVITIES OW SCIENCE ACTIVITIES REGIONAL SCIENCE ACTIVITIES 

• Toxicity Identification Evaluation • Field Valuation Sediment Toxicity • Miniaturized Sediment Toxicity Tests on 

Sediments. Tests (ORD and USGS). Marine and Freshwater Amphipods and 

• Sediment Toxicity Test Methods 

(acute, chronic, toxicity correlation 

• Development of Methods to Test 

Chronic Toxicity of Marine 

Fish (U.S. EPA Region 2 and U.S. EPA 

Region 6). 

with field data, criteria development Sediments. • Sediment Quality Assessment. 

issues). • Sediment Toxicity Test Methods. • In situReal-time System to Assess PAH 

• Sediment Toxicity Assessment Contaminated Sediments (GLNPO and 

Methods with OW and USGS. OSRTI). 

• STAR Grants Basic Research • Human Health and Ecological Risk 

(ecological system assessment effects Assessment. 

of contaminated sediments on biota). 
Page 18	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Figure 2-3. Current Agency Science Activities And Products Regarding 

Contaminated Sediment Characterization And Environmental Fate And Transport 

• Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks Documents. 

• 

• 

• Site Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. 

• Site Assessment Framework Document. 

• National Sediment Inventory. 

• Summary of Available Fate and Transport Models. 

SCIENCE PRODUCTS 

Integrated Water Quality Criteria for Ambient Waters. 

Use of Sediment Quality Guidelines to Predict Toxicity in Great Lakes Sediments. 

ORD SCIENCE ACTIVITIES OW SCIENCE ACTIVITIES OSWER REGIONAL SCIENCE 

SCIENCE ACTIVITIES 

• STAR Grants Basic Research (fate, • Sediment Bioavailability. ACTIVITIES transport, and bioaccumulation of • Site Characterization. contaminated sediments; physical and • Bioaccumulation Testing 

and Interpretation for the • Site

chemical sediment parameter impacts; 
 

watershed and ecological system studies Purpose of Sediment Characterization. • Risk Assessment.
 

and trophic transfer; bioavailability of 	 Quality Assessment: Status • Risk Assessment • R/V Mudpuppy 

and Needs. Guidance Sediment Assessments contaminants; mechanisms of 

contaminated release from re-suspended • Sediment Fate Transport Development. in the Great Lakes 

Basin (GLNPO). sediments during dredging).	 Model. 

• Co-sponsoring a 

• Fate and Transport Methods (e.g., • Tiering Classification for conference on • Fully Integrated 

bioaccumulation, distribution of the National Sediment Using Chemical Environmental 

contaminants, uptake into biota). Inventory. Fate and Transport Location Decision 

Models at Support (FIELDS) 

• Indicators of Ecosystem Sustainability. • Methods for Collection, Contaminated Software Package. 

Storage, and Manipulation. Sediment Sites. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 19 

Figure 2-4. Current Agency Science Activities And Products Regarding 

Remediation, Monitoring, And Managing Contaminated Sediments 

• Sediment Cleanups. 

• 

• 

SCIENCE PRODUCTS 

Development of Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites. 

Development of Biological, Physical, and Chemical Monitoring Fact Sheets. 

ORD SCIENCE ACTIVITIES OW SCIENCE OSWER SCIENCE REGIONAL SCIENCE ACTIVITIES 

ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES 

• Remediation Technology • Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Program 

Performance (dredging and • Ocean­ • Rule-making Applicable (U.S. EPA Regions 2, 3, 5, and GLNPO). 

capping). 

• Site Specific Technical 

Support. 

Dredged 

Material 

Disposal. 

to Contaminated 

Sediments (OSW). 

• Contaminated Sediment 

• Demonstration of Sediment 

Decontamination Technology 

Development with Beneficial Use 

• Monitored Natural Recovery Technical Advisory 

Group review of large and 

Applications (U.S. EPA Region 2 and 

GLNPO). 

• Research. 

• Ex situManagement and 

complex Superfund Sites 

(OSRTI and Regions). • Sediment Capping and Natural Recovery 

Project (U.S. EPA Region 3). 

Treatment Technologies. 

• Site Demonstrations of 

Innovative Technologies. 

• Evaluation of Remedial 

Effectiveness at 

Superfund Sites (OSRTI). 

• Multi-Media Initiative for Calcasieu 

Estuary (U.S. EPA Region 6). 

• Sediment Environmental Priority 

• Innovative In situ Treatment Initiatives (U.S. EPA Region 5). 

Technologies. • Great Lakes Contaminated Sediments 

Initiative (U.S. EPA Region 5). 
Page 20	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

2.5 Overview of Communication and Collaboration Activities 

Management of contaminated sediments requires a coordinated effort which surpasses any single 

legislative authority or media. Comprehensive, multi-media responses that combine multiple 

programs, agencies, and resources with public and private support can result in resolution of the 

contaminated sediments problem. This section provides an overview of how such coordinated multimedia efforts occur within and outside of U.S. EPA. 

2.5.1 Collaborative Efforts Within U.S. EPA 

Several key collaborative efforts within the Agency are relevant to the CSSP Document and include 

the Contaminated Sediment Management Committee (CSMC), publication of the Contaminated 

Sediment Management Strategy (CSMS) (U.S. EPA, 1998b), development of the National Sediment 

Inventory, the Agency-wide Science Inventory, and cross-media teams such as the U.S. EPA Region 

5 Sediment Team that focus their efforts on the contaminated sediments issue. In addition, there has 

been enhanced Headquarters collaboration with the regions and coordination across media programs 

in the regions. These efforts are briefly discussed 

below. 

•	 U.S. EPA published the Contaminated 

Sediment Management Strategy in April 

1998. The CSMS summarizes U.S. 

EPA’s understanding of the extent and
 

severity of sediment contamination;
 

describes the cross-program policy 

framework in which U.S. EPA intends to 

promote consideration and reduction of 

ecological and human health risks posed 

by sediment contamination; and identifies
 

actions U.S. EPA believes are needed to
 

bring about consideration and reduction of 

risks posed by contaminated sediments 

(see Figure 2-5 for goals). 

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. 

Figure 2-5. The Goals of the Contaminated 

•	 The CSMC was established to coordinate 

all the appropriate programs and their associated regulatory authorities involved in the 

management of contaminated sediments. CSMC includes representation from OSWER, 

OW, ORD, Office of Enforcement and Compliance (OECA), and many of the regions. 

•	 The National Sediment Inventory is a national database and repository of data regarding 

sediment quality in the United States. In accordance with the requirements of Title V of the 

Water Resources Development Act, U.S. EPA’s Office of Water developed the first 

comprehensive national survey of data regarding sediment quality and compiled all available 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 21 

information in a national database. The database includes information regarding quantity, 

chemical and physical composition, and geographic location of pollutants in sediments. This 

information was summarized in a report to Congress entitled, The Incidence and Severity 

of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States (U.S. EPA, 1997a). The 

National Sediment Inventory is being updated on a regular basis and will be used to assess 

trends in sediment quality. 

•	 U.S. EPA’s Science Inventory is a database of Agency research and science activities for a 

number of different topics, one of which is contaminated sediments. The Office of Science 

Policy coordinated development of the Science Inventory for the Agency. The portion on 

contaminated sediments identifies the current scientific activities and research efforts in the 

contaminated sediments area from across the Agency. 

•	 Contaminated sediments were designated as an U.S. EPA Region 5 Environmental Priority 

in 1995 due to both the extent and severity of the problem across the region. Because a 

coordinated, multi-media effort would be required to address the problem, a Regional Team 

was formed with members representing regional programs and the Great Lakes National 

Program Office. The Team helped develop a strategy to implement a coordinated approach 

to program and office efforts to address contaminated sediments sites and provide technical 

expertise to the region, state agencies, and others. 

•	 In 2000, the Agency established five Estuarine Indicator Research Programs. These 

Programs were designed to identify, evaluate, recommend and potentially develop a suite of 

new, integrative indicators of ecological condition, integrity, and/or sustainability that can 

be incorporated into long-term monitoring programs and which will complement the 

Agency’s intramural coastal monitoring program. Moreover, the Agency, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), and seven other Federal agencies have developed a 

Clean Water Action Plan to protect public health and restore the nation’s waterways through 

111 key actions. 

•	 The Agency's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) is a long-term 

research effort to enable status and trend assessments of aquatic and other ecological 

resources across the U.S. with a known statistical confidence. Initiated in the late 1980's 

within ORD, EMAP addresses monitoring the conditions of estuaries, streams and lakes in 

selected geographic regions, as well as examining the surrounding landscapes in which these 

resources occur. EMAP is now progressing towards national demonstrations of monitoring 

science in these and other aquatic resources. This strategy forms the basis for the research 

needed to establish the condition of the nation's aquatic and other resources. Future plans 

for EMAP involve research and technology transfer to enable periodic national assessments 

of all aquatic ecosystems. Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 

(REMAP) was initiated to test the applicability of the EMAP approach to answer questions 

about ecological conditions at regional and local scales. Using EMAP's statistical design and 
Page 22	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

indicator concepts, REMAP conducts projects at smaller geographic scales and in shorter 

time frames than the national EMAP program. 

•	 A framework and guidance for assessing the hazards and risks associated with metals and 

metalloids is being developed through the Risk Assessment Forum. The work was initiated 

in 2001 to identify the special properties of metals in soils, sediments, water, and air. The 

final products will provide tools and advice for sampling, analysis, and assessment of the 

hazards and risks from metals, including environmental chemistry and fate, bioavailability, 

and health and ecological effects. 

2.5.2 External Collaborative Efforts 

The Agency recognizes the importance of an 

open dialogue and active collaboration with 

Federal and state agencies and other 

stakeholders who are concerned with the 

contaminated sediment issue. U.S. EPA is 

participating in, is sponsoring, or has sponsored 

a number of multi-stakeholder collaborations 

concerned with the various aspects of this issue. 

These efforts have been diverse. For example, 

the National and Regional Dredging Teams, cochaired by U.S. EPA and U.S. ACE, were 

formed in response to the final report of the 

Interagency Working Group on the Dredging 

Process in order to provide a mechanism for 

timely resolution of conflicts over navigational 

dredging by involving all agencies and 

maximizing interagency coordination. 

OSWER’s Technology Innovation Office (TIO) 

and ORD’s National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory (NRMRL) are cosponsors of the Remedial Technologies 

Development Forum (RTDF) Sediment Action 

Team, a public- and private-sector partnership 

created to undertake the research, development, 

demonstration, and evaluation efforts needed to 

achieve common cleanup goals (see Figure 2­

6). It is anticipated that these collaborations 

will continue and expand through the 

implementation of the CSSP Document. 

• Contaminated Aquatic Sediment Remedial Guidance 

Sediments Remediation Guidance; involves ORD, OW, 

and the regions, as well as inter-agency participation 

from NOAA, USGS, U.S. FWS, and U.S. ACE. 

• 

from U.S. EPA, U.S. ACE, NOAA (Ocean and Coastal 

Resource Management (OCRM) and National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS)), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), 

• RaDiUS database of Federally-funded research. 

• 

USGS, and U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 

Lakes states, Great Lakes Commission and six Federal 

agencies, including U.S. EPA. 

• Inter-state Technology and Regulatory Cooperation 

(ITRC) Sediment Remediation Team. 

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

• Ashtabula River Partnership. 

• Remedial Technologies Development Forum (RTDF). 

Sediment Action Team. 

• Superfund Forum on Managing Contaminated 

Sediments at Hazardous Waste Sites (May 30 ­

Figure 2-6. Examples of External Collaborative Efforts 

Workgroup: developing Superfund Contaminated 

National Dredging Team (NDT): includes members 

Great Lakes Dredging Team: Comprised of Great 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 23 

In addition to these direct collaborative efforts with other agencies, the RAND Corporation, in 

cooperation with the National Science Foundation (NSF), was funded by the Federal government to 

develop a database called RaDiUS (Research and Development in the United States). This database 

tracks government resources and research and development activities. RaDiUS helps the research 

community understand the research being conducted by the Federal government in order to eliminate 

duplication of effort and promote collaboration. The database was searched using the term "sediment" 

and identified more than 650 projects in eight agencies: USDA, Department of Commerce (DOC), 

Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Interior (DOI), U.S. 

EPA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and NSF. The results of this search 

were considered in the development of this document and will be revisited as the document develops 

and is implemented. 

2.6 National Research Council Report on PCB-Contaminated Sediments 

In an effort to address the controversial issues related to the management of PCB-contaminated 

sediments, the U.S. Congress directed U.S. EPA to “enter into an arrangement with the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a review which evaluates the availability, effectiveness, costs, 

and effects of technologies for the remediation of sediments contaminated with polychlorinated 

biphenyls, including dredging and disposal.” In response to this Congressional request, the National 

Research Council (NRC) published A Risk-Management Strategy for PCB-Contaminated Sediments, 

which was released in March 2001 (NRC, 2001a). Among the eleven major conclusions and 

recommendations made by the committee, one was directed at the research areas shown in Figure 2-7. 

•	 A better assessment of human health and ecological risks associated with mixtures of individual 

chlorobiphenyls present in specific environmental compartments. 

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

•	 Processes governing the fate of PCBs in sediments, including erosion, suspension, transport of fine 

cohesive sediments, pore water diffusion, biodegradation, and bioavailability. 

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

•	 Pilot scale testing of innovative technologies, such as biodegradation and in situ active treatment caps, to 

assess their effectiveness and applicability to various sites. 

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

assessments. 

Figure 2-7. Recommendations for Further Research on PCB-Contaminated Sediments (NRC, 2001a) 
Page 24 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

2.7 National Research Council Report on Contaminated Marine Sediments 

The National Research Council established the Committee on Contaminated Marine Sediments to 

“assess the nation’s ability for remediating contaminated sediments and to chart a course for the 

development of management strategies.” The Committee published the results of their findings in 

Contaminated Sediments in Ports and Waterways (NRC, 1997). In general, the report concluded that 

there is no need to delay sediment remediation projects in anticipation of a ground-breaking 

remediation technology, since no such technology is on the horizon. The recommendations are 

organized into three areas: decision-making, remediation technologies, and project implementation. 

A summary of the recommendations is given in Figure 2-8. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 25 

1997) 

DECISION-MAKING 

•	 U.S. EPA and U.S. ACE should continue to develop uniform/parallel procedures for environmental/human health 

risks associated with freshwater, marine, and land-based disposal, containment, or beneficial reuse of contaminated 

sediments. 

•	 Because consensus building is essential for project success, Federal, state, and local agencies should work together 

with appropriate private-sector stakeholders to interpret statutes, policies, and regulations in a constructive manner so 

that negotiations can move forward and sound solutions are not blocked or obstructed. 

•	 

information to stakeholders concerning the available tools; (2) use appropriate risk analysis techniques throughout the 

management process, including the selection and evaluation of remediation strategies; and (3) demonstrate the 

appropriate use of decision analysis in an actual contaminated sediments case. 

•	 U.S. ACE should modify the cost-benefit analysis guidelines and practices it uses to ensure the comprehensive, 

uniform treatment of issues involved in the management of contaminated sediments. 

•	 U.S. ACE should revise its policies to allow for the implementation of placement strategies that involve the beneficial 

in contaminated sediments disposal should develop incentives for and encourage implementation of beneficial use 

alternatives. 

•	 Federal and state regulators, as well as ports, should investigate the use of appropriate legal and enforcement tools to 

require upstream contributors to sediment contamination to bear a fair share of cleanup costs. 

TECHNOLOGIES 

•	 U.S. EPA and U.S. ACE should develop a program to support research and development and to demonstrate 

innovative technologies specifically focused on the placement, treatment, and dredging of contaminated marine 

should span the full range of research and development, from the concept stage to field implementation. 

•	 U.S. ACE and U.S. EPA should develop guidelines for calculating the costs of remediation systems, including 

technologies and management methods, and should maintain data on the costs of systems that have actually been 

and management methods based on relative costs, as well as their effectiveness in reducing risks to human health and 

ecosystems. 

•	 U.S. EPA and U.S. ACE should support research and development to reduce contaminant losses from confined 

disposal facilities and confined aquatic disposal, to promote the reuse of existing confined disposal facilities, and to 

improve tools for the design of confined disposal facilities and confined aquatic disposal systems and for the 

evaluation of long-term stability and effectiveness. 

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

To facilitate the application of decision-making tools, U.S. EPA and U.S. ACE should: (1) develop and disseminate 

use of contaminated sediments even if they are not lowest cost alternatives. In addition, regulatory agencies involved 

sediments. Innovative technologies should be demonstrated side-by-side with the current state-of-the-art technologies 

to ensure direct comparisons. The results of this program should be published in peer-reviewed publications so the 

effectiveness, feasibility, practicality, and cost of various technologies can be evaluated independently. The program 

used. The objective should be to collect and maintain data for making fair comparisons of remediation technologies 
Page 26 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

2.8 Long-term Trends Affecting Contaminated Sediments 

The purpose of this CSSP Document is to capture not only immediate and intermediate scientific needs 

for contaminated sediment management, but also longer term trends or impacts which may be “outside 

the box of regulatory focus,”yet are of critical environmental concern. In many cases, these scientific 

concerns encompass more than the area of contaminated sediments. A listing of some of these 

concerns is given in Figure 2-9. 

The sources and activities that lead to sediment 

contamination are likely to increase with the growth in 

world population and economic development. 

Atmospheric loadings are likely to increase as well. 

Under most current projections of future conditions here 

and abroad, societal and governmental pressure will 

increase to maintain navigation channels, protect food and 

water supplies, and develop housing, business, and 

recreation along waterways and coastlines. While it is 

extremely important to develop the capability to detect 

and manage contaminated sediments, that strategy alone 

is unlikely to achieve the desired levels of environmental 

protection. 

An important area for future research is the collection and 

analysis of contaminated sediment data to understand 

environmental loadings, develop measures and 

management strategies to prevent additional loadings to 

sediments and develop alternative uses, promote 

recycling, and minimize the generation of waste to reduce 

future loadings. Such approaches (e.g., conceptual 

models of the sources and pathways that lead to 

contaminated sediments and global budgets of metals and 

persistent and bioaccumulative organics) could be 

integrated with other U.S. EPA programs, Federal agencies and states, industrial trade groups, 

stakeholders, and foreign countries. Consideration of these broader scientific/societal issues in this 

kind of strategy will require national and international collaboration. 

Figure 2-9. Environmental 

Trends Relevant to 

Contaminated 

Sediments 

• Expanding urban centers in coastal 

areas and increased waterfront 

development. 

• Increase of impervious roof and 

pavement surfaces. 

• Long-range transport of contaminants. 

• Total Maximum Daily Load challenge. 

• Nonpoint source controls. 

• 

including sites that span multiple 

communities. 

• Limited disposal capacity. 

• High costs of remediation vs. 

Large/complex sites (“mega” sites), 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 27 

3. ASSESSING THE SCIENCE ON CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS 

Chapter Three presents the state of the science for assessing and managing contaminated sediments 

and specific science needs. Science needs were developed to provide guidance on the scientific tasks 

required to address the key scientific questions within each topic. Science needs were evaluated for 

their ability to address high priority, critical data gaps, to reduce uncertainty in risk assessment/risk 

management decision-making, and to provide state-of-the-science guidance or tools. Key 

recommendations for each major topic were agreed to by the Workgroup members using a group 

consensus process that included the evaluation criteria, professional judgment, and comment or input 

from both internal and external review. The Workgroup however, purposely did not constrain the 

recommendations to fit within available resources. Instead, the recommendations are a comprehensive 

list that U.S. EPA organizations can consider when balancing resource allocations across competing 

high priority needs. 

The thirty-three (33) key recommendations described in this section address the contaminated 

sediment issues and data gaps, as well as areas for better coordination of contaminated sediment 

science activities, including research, across the Agency that are identified as highest priority by the 

Workgroup and have undergone both internal and external Agency review. The recommendations 

follow each science topic: sediment site characterization; exposure assessment research; health effects 

research; ecological effects research; sediment remediation; baseline, remediation, and postremediation monitoring; risk communication and community involvement; and information 

management and exchange activities. 

It is important to understand that the recommendations presented in this document are closely 

interrelated, reflecting the relationships among the underlying science areas. Therefore, each 

recommendation may be viewed as a single aspect of the larger universe of science needs in the area 

of contaminated sediments, generating insights for use in other areas and relying on insights gathered 

from the implementation of other recommendations. For example, the information gathered from 

Recommendation A.1 (a workshop on sediment stability) is intended to provide information to be used 

in Recommendations B.3 (fate and transport modeling), B.4 (use of sediment stability data), D.4 

(ecological benefits and adverse effects of dredging), E.1-E.4 (remediation alternatives), and F.1-F.2 

(monitoring). Similarly, Recommendations E.1 (collecting the data necessary and developing the 

guidance for determining the conditions under which natural recovery is a viable option) and E.4 

(evaluating the short- and long-term impacts of dredging relative to natural processes and human 

activities) are strongly linked to Recommendation D.4 (acquiring data and developing criteria to use 

in balancing long-term benefits from dredging versus shorter term effects on ecological receptors and 

their habitats). Users of this document are encouraged to identify and explore these links. 
Page 28	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

3.1 Introduction 

Contaminated sediments threaten ecosystems, aquatic resources, and human health. Sediment 

contamination primarily occurs because many pollutants adsorb to organic and inorganic particles that 

eventually settle to the bottom of streams, rivers, reservoirs, lakes, estuaries, or marine waters. 

Sediments also serve as a habitat for the benthic community. However, when contamination of the 

sediments occurs, the entire system becomes a contaminant reservoir for bioaccumulation and trophic 

transfer. Substantial and complicated impacts on the ecosystem are well documented, ranging from 

direct effects on benthic communities to substantial contributions to contaminant loads and effects on 

upper trophic levels (e.g., humans and other fish eaters) through food web contamination. 

The assessment and management of contaminated sediments in ports and harbors, rivers, lakes, and 

at hazardous waste sites do not easily lend themselves to simple solutions. Contaminated sediments 

in aquatic environments are best characterized as systems problems, with multiple causes and effects. 

Aquatic environments are a complex assemblage of interacting physical, chemical, and biological 

processes, many of which are inherently nonlinear, with considerable uncertainty about both their 

nature and their interconnections, and that are strongly linked to terrestrial ecosystems. Further 

difficulties arise from the great variability in the physical and biogeochemical characteristics of aquatic 

environments; human and ecological receptors; and the cultural, social, and economic values 

associated with different freshwater, estuarine, and marine environments. Fundamental to the 

assessment and effective management of contaminated sediments is a sound understanding of the 

science affecting contaminated sediment systems. This chapter weighs science needs against the 

backdrop of current contaminated sediment science activities within the Agency. 

To illustrate how complex sediment processes can be, Figure 3-1 presents one example of a conceptual 

model for a generalized contaminated sediment site. The model depicts the pathways from the source 

of contamination through the various environmental media to exposure of ecosystems and human 

populations. Table 3-1 lists key processes that underlie contaminated sediment systems. 

Broadly defined, science needs for contaminated sediments may be separated into several areas: 

•	 Characterizing water body/sediment systems (including physical and biogeochemical 

characteristics, human and ecological receptors). 

•	 Understanding the physical/chemical processes that operate in water body/sediment systems. 

•	 Understanding the biological effects of contaminants found in sediments, particularly with 

regard to the complex mixtures of contaminants typically found at contaminated sediment 

sites. 

•	 Modeling water body/sediment systems— including accounting for the spatially variable and 

dynamic nature (i.e., seasonal flow variations and episodic storm events) of real systems. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 29 

•	 Clarifying the processes that are the basis of technological systems designed to 

mitigate/remediate environmental degradation. 

•	 Understanding the interactions and feedback among physical and biological processes. 

Table 3-1. Key Processes Underlying Contaminated Sediment Systems 

Physical/Chemical Systems

 Transport and cycling of contaminants in sediments, water column, and atmosphere

 Chemical and phase transformations

 Energy flow and transformation 

Biological Systems 

Biological production 

Origins, functions, and maintenance of biological diversity 

Reproduction and development 

Metabolism, growth, and death 

Cellular differentiation and proliferation 

Immune function 

Neurobiological function 

Incidence and mechanisms of pathology 

Growth and regulation of populations 

Interactions of biological processes with physical/chemical and social processes 

Source: Adapted from Building a Foundation for Sound Environmental Decisions, National Research Council, National 

Academy Press, Washington, D.C., p19 
Page 30 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Figure 3-1. Conceptual Model of a Generalized Contaminated Sediment Site 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 31 

This chapter discusses current contaminated 

sediment science activities and identifies science 

needs within eight major topic areas. The major 

topics are: 

•	 sediment site characterization 

•	 exposure assessment 

•	 human health toxicity and risk 

characterization 

•	 ecological effects and risk assessment 

•	 sediment remediation 

•	 baseline, remediation, and postremediation monitoring 

•	 risk communication and community 

involvement 

•	 information management and 

exchange activities. 

Key scientific questions were developed for 

each major topic in order to focus discussions 

on scientific needs and to identify recommended 

science activities to address these questions (see 

Figure 3-2). Future updates to the 

Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Document will re-evaluate the current state of 

the science and identify any new and emerging 

science issues and needs. 

Appendix A, the Contaminated Sediment 

Science Activities Database, provides a 

summary of recent and current projects (as of 

June 2000) on various scientific topics of 

concern in the assessment and management of 

contaminated sediments. The database is 

divided into major science areas. Program 

implementation projects include remediation, 

monitoring, pilot studies, and initiatives. 

Human health and ecological effects and 

assessment projects include productive crossAgency efforts on equilibrium partitioning of 

contaminants, ecotoxicological method 

development, risk assessments, and 

characterization studies. Exposure and 

Sediment Site Characterization: 

•	 What physical, chemical and biological methods best 

characterize sediments and assess sediment quality? 

Exposure Assessment: 

•	 What are the primary exposure pathways to humans and 

wildlife from contaminants in sediments and how can 

we reduce uncertainty in quantifying and modeling the 

degree of exposure? 

Human Health Toxicity and Risk Characterization: 

•	 What are the risks associated with exposure to 

contaminants in sediments through direct and indirect 

pathways? 

Ecological Effects and Risk Assessment: 

•	 What are the risks associated with exposure to 

contaminants in sediments to wildlife species and 

aquatic communities? 

Sediment Remediation: 

•	 What sediment remedial technology or combination of 

technologies is available to effectively remediate sites? 

Baseline, Remediation, and Post-remediation 

Monitoring: 

•	 What types of monitoring are needed to ensure that the 

implemented remedy meets remedial performance goals 

and does not cause unacceptable short-term effects? 

Risk Communication and Community Involvement: 

•	 How can we provide communities with more 

meaningful involvement in the contaminated sediments 

cleanup process? 

Information Management and Exchange Activities: 

•	 How do we improve information management and 

Figure 3-2. Key Scientific Questions 
Page 32 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

modeling tasks include work on topics such as TMDLs, bioavailability, and environmental fate. 

Remediation and risk management projects include guidance development, technology development 

and evaluation, site specific efforts, field demonstration of technologies, and information management 

systems. 

More recently, the Agency has prepared an online Science Inventory, a searchable, Agency-wide 

catalog of more than 4,000 science activities such as research, technical assistance and assessments, 

along with more than 750 peer-reviewed products (http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/). The database contains 

more than 19,000 records in the archives including project descriptions, products produced, types of 

peer review, links to related work and contacts for additional information. Users can conduct keyword 

searches or search within nine cross-cutting science topics, one of which is ‘Contaminated Sediments’. 

3.2 Sediment Site Characterization 

U.S. EPA has evaluated sediment quality data collected from more than 21,000 sampling stations 

nationwide (U.S. EPA, 1997a). This evaluation has indicated that contaminated sediment sites occur 

in different types of water bodies in every state. The water bodies affected include streams, lakes, 

harbors, near shore areas, and oceans. U.S. EPA has recognized that in different water body types, 

many factors can affect the kinds and magnitude of impacts that contaminated sediments have on the 

environment (U.S. EPA, 1992b). These factors include hydrology, physical and chemical 

characteristics of the sediment, types of contaminants present and their associated human health or 

ecological effects, and synergistic or antagonistic effects of contaminants. Sediment characterization 

and assessment tools vary in their suitability and sensitivity for detecting different endpoints and 

effects. For example, the most appropriate method for conducting screening level assessments may 

not provide adequate information for definitive risk assessments. Similarly, methods providing 

information about food chain exposure may not answer questions about direct toxicity. It is, therefore, 

necessary to match the assessment method used with the site or program-specific objectives of a study 

being conducted. For this reason, multiple complementary characterization or assessment methods 

are used to assess sediment quality. Assessments of sediment quality have commonly involved: use 

of various spatial and temporal sampling strategies, analyses of physical parameters, analyses of 

chemical parameters, biological testing (both laboratory and in situ testing for toxicity and 

bioaccumulation of contaminants), and evaluation of ecological indicators such as benthic community 

structure. 

3.2.1 Sampling Strategies (Temporal and Spatial) 

Selection of an appropriate sampling design is one of the most critical steps in assessment and 

characterization studies. The sampling design chosen will depend upon the study objectives. U.S. 

EPA (U.S. EPA, 2001b) describes the factors to consider in designing a sampling study. It is 

important that the study design control extraneous sources of variability and error so that data are 

representative for the objectives being addressed. Sampling designs for spatially distributed variables 

fall into two major categories: 1) random or probabilistic, and 2) targeted designs. Probability-based 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 33 

designs avoid bias in the results of sampling by randomly assigning and selecting sampling locations. 

In targeted, judgmental, or model-based designs, sampling locations are selected on the basis of prior 

knowledge or variables such as estimated loading, depth, salinity, and substrate type. Because 

targeted sampling designs can often be quickly implemented at a relatively low cost, this type of 

sampling is often used to meet schedule and budgetary restraints that cannot be met by implementing 

a statistical design. A comprehensive review of site-specific factors that may influence the location 

of sampling stations, particularly for large-scale monitoring studies, is provided by Mudroch and 

MacKnight (1994). 

U.S. EPA has also developed a computerized sampling design program called the Field Environmental 

Decision Support (FIELDS) system. This system is a set of software modules designed to simplify 

sophisticated site and contamination analysis. Each module is a self contained unit that can be applied 

to a variety of scenarios. When used together, either working through the FIELDS process, or being 

applied according to a different schedule, the modules offer power and efficiency in the 

characterization, analysis, and discrete sampling data points to be interpolated into a surface. 

Important uses of these interpolated surfaces include delineating hot spots, calculating average 

concentrations, estimating contamination mass and volumes, and developing post-remediation 

scenarios. An updated 2003 version of the FIELDS software can be downloaded from the site 

http://www.epa.gov/region5fields/. 

Regardless of the appropriateness of a sampling plan, its ultimate effectiveness will be dependent upon 

the ability to retrieve the samples. Recovering a complete sediment core representing the desired 

vertical interval can prove to be infeasible. Representativeness of a sample may be affected by such 

problems as: core shortening or compression, sample loss during retrieval, sample washout, and 

inability to determine the sediment surface. The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) 

Program has conducted studies to evaluate the capability of samplers to collect representative sediment 

samples (U.S. EPA, 2000d). 

Science Needs 

The National Research Council (1997) discusses the complex factors necessary to develop a sediment 

sampling plan. The distribution of sediment contaminants is determined by complex interactions 

among meteorological, hydrodynamic, biological, geological, and geochemical factors. Interactions 

among these factors result in a transport system with wide variations, both spatial and temporal. For 

example, it is particularly important to consider sediment transport time scales, which typically range 

from hours to months but are sometimes disturbed by high-energy storms which can displace large 

amounts of sediment and significantly alter the distribution and availability of contaminants. 

Understanding these interactions is critical to specifying comprehensive sampling designs. As NRC 

(1997) notes, designs of sediment sampling strategies increasingly rely on computer-based numerical 

models. These models fall into four categories: hydrodynamic, sediment and chemical transport, 

biological toxicity, and ecosystem response. Improved numerical models will facilitate the design of 

optimal sediment sampling strategies. However, accurate simulations of sediment and chemical 

transport will also require the development of site-specific formulations. 
Page 34 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

3.2.2 Physical Parameters 

Analysis of physical characteristics of sediment provides information that can be used to assess the 

effects of contaminants on the benthic environment and the water column. Physical analysis of the 

sediment is generally the first step in the characterization and assessment process. Information 

describing physical parameters of the sediment is required to understand bioavailability, fate, and 

transport of sediment contaminants at any site. Physical analysis often includes measurement of 

parameters such as particle size distribution, total solids, and specific gravity. Methods for measuring 

sediment physical characteristics have been published and widely used for a number of years. Many 

of these methods are based on analytical techniques originally developed for soils. 

Particle size distribution analysis defines the frequency distribution of size ranges of the mineral 

particles that make up the sediment (Plumb, 1981; Folk, 1980). Sediment particle size influences both 

chemical and biological characteristics of the sediment. It is used to normalize chemical concentrations 

and account for some of the variability found in biological assemblages (U.S. EPA, 1998c) or in 

laboratory toxicity testing (U.S. EPA, 2000d; Hoss et al., 1999). Particle size is frequently described 

in percentages of gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Each of these size fractions, however, can be subdivided 

further so that a more complete characterization of particle sizes can be determined (Puget Sound 

Estuary Program, 1986). Commonly used sediment particle size methods include: wet sieving (U.S. 

EPA, 1979; Plumb, 1981; Puget Sound Estuary Program, 1986; Singer et al., 1988), hydrometer 

method (Day, 1965; Patrick, 1958), pipette method (Guy, 1969; Rukavina and Duncan, 1970), settling 

techniques (Sandford and Swift, 1971), and X-ray absorption (Duncan and Lattaie, 1979; Rukavina 

and Dunkan, 1970). 

Total solids is a gravimetric determination of the organic and inorganic material remaining in a sample 

after it has been dried at a specific temperature. The total solids values are used to convert 

concentrations of contaminants from a wet weight to a dry weight basis. Water content of sediment 

provides useful information for assessments of sediment quality. Methods for determining water 

content of a sediment are described by Plumb (1981) and Vecchi (1999). 

Specific gravity of a sediment sample is the ratio of the mass of a given volume of material to an equal 

volume of distilled water at the same temperature (Plumb, 1981). The specific gravity of a sediment 

sample can be used to predict the behavior (i.e., dispersal and settling characteristics) of sediments. 

Methods for determining specific gravity are described by Plumb (1981) and Blake and Hartge (1986). 

Science Needs 

As noted above, reliable methods are available for measuring the physical parameters of a sediment. 

It is necessary, however, to collect sediment samples to measure these parameters. The National 

Research Council (1997) describes a variety of mechanical methods available to collect vertical 

sediment column samples for evaluation of physical parameters. Depending on the objectives of a 

study, sediment samples can be mixed to provide composite samples. This provides an indication of 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 35 

average physical parameter measurements at a site. However, high-resolution spatial data are often 

needed to fully characterize physical sediment parameters at heterogeneous sites. Obtaining such data 

requires conducting detailed site surveys with dense sampling. This is a very slow and expensive 

process that, even with dense sampling, can provide limited spatial resolution. 

Sampling is currently conducted using two main types of devices: grab samplers and core samplers. 

Various grab and core samplers have limitations that can affect cost and time required for sampling. 

Grab sampler limitations can include: boats, winches, and lines required for operation; limited 

sampling depth and volume; loss of sample due to incomplete device closure; and sample 

contamination from metal frame. Core sampler limitations can include: equipment required for 

operation and lifting, difficulty of deployment and handling, repetitive and time consuming operation 

and removal of liners, and risk of metal contamination. Improved sampling and data collection 

techniques could reduce cost and provide improved spatial resolution. 

The National Research Council (1997) notes that sediment physical parameters and contaminant 

concentrations are often interpolated horizontally, resulting in an overestimation of the mass or volume 

of a contaminated sediment. However, interpolation could also result in an underestimation of the 

mass or volume of a sediment. Thus, it is important to develop and implement more cost effective 

assessment technologies to replace coring. The National Research Council further notes that a 

promising technique for measurement of physical sediment parameters is acoustic sub-bottom 

profiling. Development of acoustic sub-bottom profiling technology could permit high resolution 

mapping of acoustic reflectivity, and determination of physical sediment parameters such as porosity, 

bulk density, and grain size. This technology has the potential to reduce overall sediment assessment 

costs and increase the spatial resolution of field surveys. In addition to improved field methods for 

measuring physical sediment parameters, research is needed in two other important areas. An 

important area for future research is the effect of geomorphological and physical sediment parameters, 

such as sediment texture, on the response of benthic organisms exposed to contaminants. Work is also 

needed to better understand the relationships between bioturbation and physical sediment parameters 

(such as surface roughness, internal porosity, and physical strength), and the resultant modification 

of sediment erodability and contaminant transport pathways. 

It is recommended that U.S. EPA hold a workshop to identify work necessary to develop methods that 

could reduce the cost and increase the efficiency and accuracy with which physical parameters can be 

evaluated at contaminated sediment sites. 

3.2.3 Chemical Parameters 

Chemical analysis of sediment provides information about chemicals that, if bioavailable, can cause 

toxicity or bioaccumulate to levels of concern. In addition, chemical parameters such as pH, total 

organic carbon, and redox potential furnish information to assess bioavailability and contaminant 

exposure. 
Page 36 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

U.S. EPA and other agencies have developed analytical methods capable of identifying and quantifying 

these chemical parameters. However, techniques for analysis of chemical constituents in sediment 

have some inherent limitations. Interferences encountered as part of the sediment matrix, particularly 

in samples from heavily contaminated areas, may limit the ability of a method to detect or quantify 

some analytes. The most selective methods using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) 

techniques are often used for nonchlorinated organic compounds because such analysis can avoid 

problems due to matrix interferences. Gas chromatography/electron capture detection (GC/ECD) 

methods are frequently used as the analytical tool for PCB and pesticide analyses because these 

methods result in lower detection limits. GC/ECD is effective at detecting and measuring all PCB 

congeners in media including sediments. Methods for collection of sediment and interstitial water 

samples and for analysis of chemical parameters are described in a number of publications (U.S. EPA, 

1998c, 1995b, and 2001b). 

Many chemical contaminants can persist for relatively long periods of time in sediments where bottomdwelling animals can accumulate and pass them up the food chain to fish. Therefore, methods are 

needed for analysis of chemical contaminants in fish tissue. U.S. EPA has published interim 

procedures for sampling and analysis of priority pollutants in fish tissue (U.S. EPA, 1981); however, 

official U.S. EPA-approved methods are available only for the analysis of low parts-per-billion 

concentrations of some metals in fish and shellfish tissues (U.S. EPA, 1991b). Although the U.S. 

EPA-approved methods for many analyses have not been published, states and regions have developed 

specific analytical methods for various target analytes (U.S. EPA, 2000d). 

In addition to conventional laboratory methods of analyses, rapid sediment characterization 

technologies are starting to be used at some sites. These are field transportable analytical tools which 

provide measurements of chemical, physical, or biological parameters on a real-time or near real-time 

basis. Some such typical screening level ex situ analytical tools recommended by the Assessment and 

Remediation of Contaminated Sediment (ARCS) Program for freshwater sediments include X-ray 

fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) for metals, ultraviolet fluorescence spectroscopy (UVF) for PAHs, 

and immunoassays for pesticides, PCBs, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The XRF 

technique for metals measures the fluorescence spectrum of x-rays emitted when atoms are excited 

by an x-ray source. The energy of emitted x-rays reveal the identity of the metals in the sample and 

their intensity is related to their concentrations. An XRF spectrometer can analyze a wide range of 

elements from ppm to percent levels, encompassing typical element levels found in soils and sediments. 

Field portable XRF units provide near real-time measurements with minimal sample handling, allowing 

for extensive, semi-quantitative analysis on site. UVF is based on the measurement of fluorescence 

observed following UV excitation of organic solvent extracts of sediments. Typically used for PAHs 

in sediments, this technique gives near real-time measurements as solvent extraction adds to the 

analysis time. Immunoassays are used for field screening of target contaminants through the use of an 

antibody than binds only to that substance. Quantitation is generally performed by monitoring solution 

color changes with a spectrophotometer. This technique has a sample turnaround of the order of 

minutes, providing near real-time measurements (US Navy, 2002). 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 37 

The Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR), a collaboration of multiple Federal 

agencies including EPA, DOD, DOE, DOI, and NASA, has developed a matrix that provides a general 

understanding of state-of-the-art technologies for site characterization and the applicability of various 

technologies to specific problems. The matrix can be accessed through the internet at 

http://www.frtr.gov/site. In addition, EPA’s Technology Innovation Office provides a source of 

innovative remediation and characterization technologies that can be accessed at 

http://www.epareachit.org. Not all of these technologies are EPA-verified; verification of the 

performance of site characterization and field analytical technologies is conducted through EPA’s 

Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV) and the Consortium for Site Characterization 

and Technology (CSCT), along with certification statements from California EPA’s (CalEPA) 

California Environmental Technology Certification Program. 

Science Needs 

Although published methods for sampling sediment and quantifying chemical parameters are available, 

the National Research Council (NRC, 1997) notes that there is growing interest in the use of real-time 

or near real-time chemical sensors for use in the field. NRC (1997) remarks that these sensors can 

provide both point measurements and long-term, time-series observations. Development of these 

technologies is needed for more cost-effective site assessment. Although sensors that measure pH, 

Eh, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and ammonia are currently available, these sensors are not capable of 

measuring contaminants of concern in sediments. NRC (1997) identifies fiber-optic sensors as a 

technology that holds promise for assessment of sediment chemistry. These sensors make use of 

optical measurements down a fiber, or immobilized membranes or reagents at the fiber tip that 

reversibly or irreversibly bind with specific analytes, producing a response that can be sensed optically. 

NRC identifies development of these kinds of technologies as a scientific advancement that would 

contribute significantly to the development of improved management protocols for contaminated 

sediment sites. 

In addition to the development of field methods for real-time detection of sediment chemical 

parameters, work is needed to develop more sensitive, low-cost laboratory methods to detect sediment 

contaminants and chemical parameters that control bioavailability of contaminants. Interferences 

encountered as part of the sediment matrix, particularly in samples from heavily contaminated areas, 

may limit the ability of available methods to detect or quantify some analytes. In other instances, the 

impetus to develop still more sensitive methods are often risk-based criteria that arise to meet specific 

project or site needs. An important area for future research is the development and validation of 

methods that minimize the use of hazardous solvents and reagents thereby reducing the exposure of 

laboratory workers to these chemicals and minimizing the waste which must be disposed of in 

accordance with RCRA regulations. Work is also needed to develop faster and less expensive 

methods for analysis of interstitial water. Interstitial water analysis is particularly useful for assessing 

sediment contaminant levels and associated toxicity. Isolated interstitial water can provide a matrix 

for both toxicity testing and an indication of partitioning of contaminants within the sediment matrix. 

In addition to improved laboratory methods for detection of sediment contaminants, improved 
Page 38 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

methods for analysis of chemical contaminants, especially bioaccumulative compounds, in fish tissue 

are also needed. 

An important area for future research is the development and validation of methods to assess sediment 

contaminants of emerging concern, such as endocrine disruptors, including alkylphenol ethoxylates 

(APEs) and their metabolites. Many of the suspect endocrine disruptor compounds (EDCs) identified 

to-date are low-solubility, neutral organic compounds that are highly sorbed to organic carbon phases 

of sediments, suspended particles in the water column, airborne particulate matter, and soil. Sedimentassociated contaminants not only serve as a source of toxicity to benthic organisms living in contact 

with these sediments, but also can reintroduce contaminants into the water column or aquatic food 

chain. Alkylphenol ethoxylates can biodegrade to alkylphenols, such as nonylphenols, which can persist 

in the environment and be highly toxic to aquatic organisms. Exposure to alkylphenol ethoxylates, 

specially their metabolites, may affect endocrine and other important human and animal system 

functions (U.S. EPA, 2001). 

In order to address these science needs, it is recommended that U.S. EPA: 1) develop more sensitive, 

low-cost laboratory methods for detecting sediment contaminants and real-time or near real-time 

chemical sensors for use in the field, 2) develop U.S. EPA-approved methods with lower detection 

limits for analysis of bioaccumulative contaminants of concern in fish tissue, and 3) develop methods 

for analyzing emerging endocrine disruptors, including APEs and their metabolites. 

3.2.4 Emerging Potential Sediment Contaminants 

In response to requirements set forth in the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, the Agency 

developed the National Sediment Quality Survey (NSQS) report and initiated the NSI (designed to 

compile sediment quality information from available electronic databases into one centralized, easily 

accessible location). U.S. EPA published the first update to the NSQS in 2004. The objective of the 

initial NSQS, and subsequent updates, is to depict and characterize the incidence and severity of 

sediment contamination based on the probability of adverse effects to human health and the 

environment. Severity of contamination was evaluated using multiple lines of evidence, using sediment 

chemistry data, chemical residue levels in edible tissue of aquatic organisms, and sediment toxicity 

data. Of the sampling stations evaluated in the 2004 update, 8,348 stations (43 percent) were 

classified as Tier 1 (adverse effects are probable), 5,846 (30 percent) were classified as Tier 2 (adverse 

effects are possible), and 5,204 (27 percent) were classified as Tier 3 (no indication of adverse effects). 

It is important to realize that these percentages do not represent the overall condition of sediment 

across the country as NSI data were obtained from monitoring programs that generally target areas 

of known or suspected contamination. 

Science Needs 

Although the NSI includes approximately 4.6 million records of sediment chemistry, tissue residue, 

and toxicity data, for more than 50,000 monitoring stations across the country, for approximately 150 

compounds (including isomers), there is no single, comprehensive list of potential sediment 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 39 

contaminants that could be used to guide monitoring efforts. Such contaminants include commercial 

compounds – for example, alkylphenol ethoxylates, and pharmaceuticals – produced in high volume 

that are both likely to be found in sediments and have adverse biological effects. 

3.2.5	 Key Recommendations for Sediment Site Characterization 

Accurate sediment site characterization is of great importance to scientists, risk managers, and others 

involved in the decision-making process. Because of the complexity of chemical fate and transport 

processes in sediment, water, and biota, many factors can affect the kinds and magnitude of impacts 

that contaminated sediment has on the environment. These factors include hydrology, the physical and 

chemical characteristics of the sediment, the types of contaminants present and their associated human 

health or ecological effects, and synergistic or antagonistic effects of contaminants. Better tools and 

methods for analysis of physical and chemical parameters, biological testing, evaluation of ecological 

effects, and sediment sampling will result in sound science to support decision-making. 

Physical Parameters 

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

property data for use in evaluating sediment stability. 

A workshop is needed to identify research necessary to develop better, faster, and more cost-effective 

methods for high resolution determination of physical sediment parameters. Such methods are needed 

for evaluating remedial options (e.g., natural attenuation, capping, or dredging). When evaluating 

remedial options, it is important that risk managers obtain information on key physical sediment 

parameters including the erosional and depositional properties of sites to be remediated. High 

resolution spatial data are needed to characterize freshwater sites where sediment is often 

heterogeneous. Improved spatial resolution of field survey data will enable more accurate 

determination of the volume or mass of contaminated sediment. It is recommended that U.S. EPA 

consult with USGS, U.S. ACE, and U.S. Navy on their progress in developing these techniques. An 

improved understanding of the relationships between geomorphological and physical sediment 

parameters and contaminant transport, fate, and effects will enable decision-makers to more effectively 

evaluate site management alternatives. 

Chemical Parameters 

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

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

Interferences encountered as part of the sediment matrix, particularly in samples from heavily 

contaminated areas, may limit the ability of available methods to detect or quantify some analytes. 

More sensitive, low-cost methods are needed to detect sediment contaminants and the chemical 

parameters that control bioavailability of contaminants such as PCBs, dioxin, PAHs, metals, and 

pesticides. Real-time or near real-time sensors are also needed to provide both point measurements 
Page 40	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

and long-term, time-series observations of sediment contaminants of concern. Real-time chemical 

sensors will enable better, faster, and more cost-effective site assessment and the immediate targeting 

of hot spots for potential remediation. 

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

bioaccumulative contaminants of concern in fish tissue. 

Many chemical contaminants can persist for relatively long periods of time in sediments where bottomdwelling animals can accumulate and pass them up the food chain to fish and wildlife. Therefore, 

improved methods are needed for analysis of chemical contaminants such as dioxin, metals and 

pesticides in fish tissue. U.S. EPA has published interim procedures for sampling and analysis of 

priority pollutants in fish tissue (U.S. EPA, 1981). However, official U.S. EPA-approved methods 

are available only for the analysis of low parts-per-billion concentrations of some metals in fish and 

shellfish tissues (U.S. EPA, 1991b). Although U.S. EPA-approved methods for many analytes have 

not been published, states and regions have developed specific analytical methods for various target 

analytes (U.S. EPA, 2000d). 

A.4 	 Develop methods for analyzing emerging endocrine disruptors, including alkylphenol 

ethoxylates (APEs) and their metabolites. 

Present methods for analyzing emerging endocrine disrupting chemicals are inadequate. An important 

area for future research is the development and validation of methods to analyze endocrine disruptors, 

including APEs and their metabolites, to support regulatory decision-making. 

3.3	 Exposure Assessment 

The major human health exposure pathways for contaminated sediments are through the food chain. 

Body burdens in humans can be measured directly for past exposures from all sources. However, it 

is more common to measure contaminant concentrations in food fish and shellfish to estimate the 

human exposure from the dietary pathway. Areas of uncertainty in exposure estimates from this 

pathway include: 

•	 Fish and shellfish consumption by sub-populations, such as subsistence, recreational fishers, 

women of child-bearing age, pregnant women, Native American tribes, immigrants from 

fishing cultures and young children (U.S. EPA 1997c, U.S. EPA 2002b, U.S. EPA 2000c). 

•	 Fish and shellfish preparation, such as whole fish versus fillet, and cooking methods (e.g. pan 

frying, grilling, etc.). 

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

of commercial Aroclors (U.S. EPA, 2000f). 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 41 

•	 Predictions of the rate and extent of reductions in contaminant concentrations in fish in 

response to metabolism and depuration and natural processes or remedial actions affecting 

contaminant release and environmental loadings. 

•	 Contamination transformations in a biological system encompassing such issues such as 

consuming different types of fish and the metabolic effects of different types of organs and 

tissues on transformation, storage, and depuration in the consumer. 

•	 Degree and duration of exposure to evaluate short- and long-term human health impacts 

(U.S. EPA, 1989). 

Other potential pathways of human exposure include dermal contact, incidental ingestion, and 

inhalation exposures from in-place sediments, historical dredge spoils, floodplains, and contact with 

sediments during removal and ex situ management. These pathways have not received as much 

attention as the food ingestion pathway. 

OSWER has issued the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume I: Human Health 

Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) (U.S. EPA, 2004a) 

http://www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfund/programs/risk/ragse/ to address human health dermal 

assessments. However, scientific information needs to include the development of better estimates of 

dermal exposures to types of soils (e.g., beach, river, intermittent stream, etc.), biologically available 

fractions of sediment contaminants (e.g, contaminant may be slow to desorb due to strong adsorption 

by the sediment matrix), and contaminant interactions in sediments. 

OSWER’s Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels at Superfund Sites (U.S. 

EPA, 2002c) and the Soil Screening Guidance (U.S. EPA, 1996d) describe a process by which to 

evaluate exposure to contaminated soils via volatilization and dermal pathways. There is a need to 

include better guidance during the formulation of the sediment exposure assessment of when 

contaminant volatilization and fugitive dust emissions need to be considered as a direct contact threat 

to human health. 

3.3.1 Bioavailability 

The bioavailability of a contaminant relates total concentration in the sediment, overlying water 

column, or ambient air to the concentration that affects the ecological or human receptor. 

Bioavailability depends on the exact chemical speciation of the toxic constituent; the contaminant 

binding phases in the sediment (e.g., organic carbon for nonionic organic contaminants and acid 

volatile sulfides for metals); the degree to which the receptor is in contact with the sediment; and the 

degree to which the contaminant is absorbed by the receptor. 

Several tools are available to assess bioavailability. Acute and chronic toxicity testing are direct 

measures of whether or not a contaminated sediment contains enough of the toxicant in an available 

form to exert a toxic effect. Research by ORD, in cooperation with OW, has led to development of 
Page 42	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

a range of toxicity tests. Such tests are used in assessing contaminated sediments and in managing 

dredged material disposal under MPRSA and CWA. Bioassays have become an effective assessment 

tool providing direct, quantifiable evidence of biological consequences of sediment contamination and 

are used to determine the relationship between toxic effects and bioavailability. These tests can be 

used to determine whether sediment is toxic, but they do not provide an indication of the chemicals 

causing the effect. 

When unacceptable exposures to toxicants are determined from sediment concentrations, the simplest 

assumption used is that 100% of the contaminant is available to receptors. This is a conservative 

assumption appropriate for screening levels. 

More realistic and site-specific estimates of bioavailability can be developed using field-measured biota 

sediment accumulation factors, which relate contaminant concentrations to tissue concentrations to 

determine what residual sediment concentrations will not pose a threat of acute or chronic toxicity 

(Burkhard, 2003; Burkhard et al, 2003). 

An alternative, indirect approach is the use of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs) 

(DiToro et al, 1991; Ankley et al, 1996). This approach uses contaminant concentrations in sediment 

and other sediment properties to estimate the pore water concentration of contaminants at chemical 

equilibrium. The pore water concentration is then correlated with the concentration available to the 

aquatic organism and can be compared to various reference values for acute or chronic toxicity. ESGs 

can be used to determine which contaminants in sediment might be exerting a toxic effect 

demonstrated in whole sediment toxicity tests. They can also be used to help establish unacceptable 

levels of toxic contaminants in sediment. 

3.3.2	 Bioaccumulation Potential 

Figure 3-3. Methods for Estimating 

Bioaccumulation 

Thus, a • Field-measured bioaccumulation factor - direct

measurement of the relationship between water 

concentrations and tissue concentrations of the 

toxicant. 

• Field-measured biota-sediment accumulation 

factor - direct measurement of the relationship 

between sediment concentrations and tissue 

or 

If 

concentrations of the toxicant. 

journeys or during reproduction (e.g., during embryonic development or lactation). 

Some sediment contaminants exert toxic effects 

by being accumulated to greater degrees in 

successively higher trophic levels. 

sediment contaminant concentration that poses 

no direct acute or chronic toxicity to aquatic 

biota or humans via direct exposure may be 

magnified through the food chain so that 

species eating fish, birds, wildlife are 

exposed to an unacceptable toxicant dose. 

the contaminant is metabolized and stored by 

the predator, it may exert toxic effects to the 

predator under stress, such as during migratory 

The most direct measure of bioaccumulation is measurement of the toxicant in the tissues of the 

receptor (see Figure 3-3). Direct measurement is ideal because it includes all sources of exposure and 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 43 

accounts for elimination and metabolism. Bioaccumulation test method protocols have been 

developed for freshwater oligochaetes and marine polychaetes and bivalves (U.S. EPA, 2000d; Lee 

et al., 1989). The National Research Council (2001a) recommends this method for PCBs: An 

assessment of present exposure to PCBs is best addressed through direct measurement in specific 

organisms or in their diet. 

The direct measurement method is referred to as a field-measured bioaccumulation factor (BAF) for 

water/organism interactions and a field-measured biota-sediment accumulation factor (BSAF) for 

sediment/organism interactions. The BAF is appropriate for all chemical stressors, while the BSAF 

is appropriate for nonionic organic compounds and ionic organics that partition to lipids and organic 

carbon in similar ways. Although direct measurement can be expensive and difficult, it is commonly 

used in assessments of contaminated sediment sites. There are uncertainties if bioaccumulation is 

measured in food sources because consumption rates by higher trophic levels are not always wellknown for ecological predators and humans, particularly human sub-populations from fishing cultures. 

In addition, the mobility of predator populations means food/prey may have been ingested in areas 

beyond the contaminated sediment site of concern. Therefore, OW and ORD have collaborated on 

extensive research to provide alternative estimates that relate contaminant concentrations in sediments 

and water to the concentrations that would consequently occur in various species. 

Laboratory tests can be used to assess bioaccumulation by freshwater and marine benthic invertebrates. 

Methods are available for freshwater Diporeia spp., Lumbriculus variegatus, and mollusks and marine 

species. OW has published a compendium of methods for measuring bioaccumulation of sedimentborne toxicants in freshwater (U.S. EPA, 2000d). 

Deployed organisms also can be used to measure current exposures to sediment-borne toxicants. 

These measures are very useful in determining baseline exposures and responses to remedial actions 

and to estimate variabilities. However, the linkage between caged organism uptake and dietary 

exposure of higher trophic levels is uncertain. A further confounding factor exists for persistent and 

bioaccumulative toxicants such as PCBs and PAHs. These complex mixtures change over time 

through weathering and are found in different mixtures in source sediments and receptor tissues. 

The current state-of-the-practice is to use direct testing and models to estimate the direct dose 

delivered to the lowest trophic level in a food web and the food-delivered dose to successively higher 

tropic levels. Models range from simple to complex. Empirical models use partitioning coefficients 

(BAFs or BSAFs) to link sediment concentrations with tissue levels in organisms. More complex 

models use mechanistic models of uptake, metabolism, and excretion, along with feeding patterns to 

estimate the tissue burdens for fish, birds, and mammals. 

The approaches described above provide several different ways to assess exposure of ecological and 

human receptors to sediment-borne contaminants. Each of the estimation approaches can cause 

disagreements among affected parties, ranging from the theoretical soundness of alternative 

approaches to the values selected for exposure duration and dietary composition. Even with the direct 

measurement of contaminants in receptor tissues, arguments can be made about the relative 
Page 44	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

importance of sediment contamination relative to other sources. Validation of models is hindered by 

a paucity of data sets that overcome the natural variability of ecological receptors. Research on 

monitoring may provide additional tools to measure bioaccumulation in receptors. 

3.3.3 Fate and Transport Modeling 

Aquatic sediments are a sink for contaminants from a wide range of point and nonpoint sources. But 

the “sink” is connected to ecological and human receptors through a variety of mechanisms: 

partitioning to the overlying water column and air; uptake by organisms and accumulation or 

magnification in the food chain; chemical and biological alteration; dilution and dispersion; bulk 

sediment transport; and burial by fresh sediments. For non-degradative processes, it may be necessary 

to evaluate the transport and fate of the contaminant in the short- term and the long-term. Over the 

short-term for a persistent and bioaccumulative toxicant, the focus may be on dilution and dispersal 

in a river; over the longer-term, the biogeochemical cycle may be evaluated and monitored over a 

much larger region. 

The National Research Council (NRC, 2001a) made two recommendations for research specifically 

related to PCB-contaminated sediments: 

•	 A better understanding of the contribution of PCB-contaminated sediments to the total 

global burden is needed. 

•	 The role of global cycling of PCBs in assessing the PCB problem at a specific site 

should be considered. 

Although the NRC report specifically addressed PCBs, these recommendations are also applicable to 

other persistent and bioaccumulative toxicants such as mercury and some pesticides. 

The current state-of-the-practice is to apply one or more of a suite of mathematical models to simulate 

the important processes. Fate and transport modeling can be highly controversial because various 

models, assumptions used in the models, and selection of input parameters can lead to very different 

conclusions about present risk and how protective various remedial alternatives will be. 

The fate of organic contaminants in sediments may include degradation via chemical and biologicallymediated pathways. The mechanisms, rates, and endpoints of degradation processes need to be better 

understood to assess both natural recovery and active remedies that are intended to enhance 

contaminant degradation. NRC (2001a) noted that anaerobic dechlorination may have a threshold 

value. This implies that degradation may proceed from higher concentrations toward the threshold 

value and then become negligible; models need to account for such non-linear behavior. Such models 

are chemical and sediment-matrix specific. 

Contaminant transport in sediments and overlying waters is critical to assessing both present risk and 

the performance of all remedies. Contaminants can be transported by diffusion and dispersion within 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 45 

bed sediments, advection from upward groundwater movement, bulk sediment movement, movement 

of suspended sediments, and dissolution into the overlying water. Contaminants can enter and leave 

the system through landscape erosion, atmospheric deposition, and volatilization. Many of these 

processes are active in different contaminated sediment systems and determine how biotic exposure 

changes over time. The wide range of transport mechanisms contributes to uncertainty in the 

characterization of sediment sites as well as estimates of present risk. Active capping and the natural 

process of burial by cleaner sediments can only be effective over the long-term if contaminant transport 

by diffusion, advection, and bioturbation are slow enough that sediments and the overlying water 

column remain at safe levels. These remedies also depend on the long-term stability of the system with 

respect to bulk sediment movement by natural hydrodynamics, catastrophic events, and human 

intervention, such as dam removal, navigation dredging, and boat traffic. 

The role of uncertainty in fate and transport modeling needs to be addressed so that stakeholders 

understand how sure we are of existing risks and the risk reduction achievable by remediation. It is 

critical that the contaminant transport models link smoothly with biological uptake and trophic transfer 

models to obtain an accurate assessment of present risks and risk reductions achievable by 

management alternatives. 

Science Needs 

The science needs associated with exposure assessment relate to refining our understanding of the 

important pathways of exposure, including the exposure of aquatic organisms to contaminants of 

concern, and improving the tools used to measure and model how contaminants cycle within the 

system. It is important that the complexity of the tools applied to specific sites be commensurate with 

the risks and costs of proposed decision-making and consistent with the National Research Council 

recommendation (NRC, 2001a). It is important that the use of different tools at different sites or 

under different authorities be integrated so that consistent decisions can be made to protect the 

environment and potential ecological or human receptors. Because contaminated sediment is a mobile 

medium and contaminants within sediment can migrate into other media, understanding all the 

important fate and transport processes is a key step in assessing the risk and estimating the potential 

effectiveness of various remedial actions. 

3.3.4 Key Recommendations for Exposure Assessment 

B.1 Develop a tiered framework for assessing food web exposures. 

The National Research Council (2001a) recommended a tiered approach to risk assessment for PCBcontaminated sediment sites that would work well for any sediment contaminated by bioaccumulative 

compounds. The screening tier would apply conservative assumptions and rely on existing data in the 

literature to easily distinguish sediments that do not pose an unacceptable risk from those that may. 

The middle tier would use a combination of some site-specific data and interpretive tools to produce 

a more refined assessment of the level of risk. At many sites, this approach would be sufficient to 

determine whether or not remediation was warranted and would provide some insight into the 
Page 46 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

potential benefits of alternative remedies. The highest tier of exposure assessment would rely heavily 

on site-specific data and would include model tailoring and model calibration to site conditions. This 

most sophisticated assessment would be applied only at selected sites where the combination of site 

complexity, resource values, affected party interests, and potential costs warrant a detailed 

investigation of existing and potential future exposures. 

ORD’s research and program applications are presently focused at the middle tier; funding is being 

sought to expand the research to the lower and higher tiers. This recommendation is to provide 

program guidance for implementing the screening tier and to conduct research and model validation 

for the highest tier. 

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

remedial programs in waterways with contaminated sediments. 

In many of the country’s water bodies, there are multiple legal authorities to address both existing 

contaminated sediments and continued contaminant loading. Different legal authorities vest power 

in various Agency programs and guidance is needed concerning coordination of scientific activities 

(e.g., improvements in fate and transport models) between programs. Integrated management models 

need to be improved and communicated within U.S. EPA and to partners in state programs. Pilot 

projects need to be developed to identify the most effective ways to integrate and coordinate 

environmental management to control sources and achieve water quality goals. Results of the TMDL 

pilot projects in waterways with contaminated sediments could be made available to the states as 

potential models for the development of complex TMDLs involving multiple toxic pollutants and 

media (i.e., water, sediment, and fish tissue). 

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

models that allow prediction of exposures in the future. 

Numerous models exist for contaminant fate and transport, including both public domain and 

proprietary codes. Some models have not been peer-reviewed in the open literature and there are very 

few long-term data sets that can be used to judge predictive capability. The existing public domain 

and commercial models need to be evaluated to determine their mechanistic and mathematical 

foundations and robustness, and to determine the extent to which they are accepted by the scientific 

community. One or more models need to be further developed to improve any weaknesses determined 

from the evaluation; the ORD has begun this work. The models need to be validated with high quality 

data sets, which will be developed via other recommendations in this document. Refer to the Council 

on Regulatory Environmental Models (CREM) and its models knowledge database 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/crem/knowledge_base/knowbase.cfm) for information on models validation. 

The fate and transport models also need to be compatible (i.e. able to be easily linked) with models 

that predict direct and food web exposures for the purpose of assessing risks and comparing 

remediation alternatives. The bioavailability of the contaminants within portions of the system has to 

be considered to provide input from the transport models to the exposure/effects models. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 47 

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

Current approaches to evaluating sediment stability in transport modeling vary across the Agency and 

the larger stakeholder community. While a single model is probably not appropriate for all sites, a 

consistent approach is needed to ensure that important factors are being considered. Data sets 

developed by the regions and other organizations can help identify the key factors that the transport 

models need to include for realistic predictions. In addition, a workshop was held in January 2002 to 

conduct a comparative evaluation of the models for hydrogeological conditions in terms of the 

reliability of predictions. 

3.4 Human Health Toxicity and Risk Characterization 

Contaminants in sediments can present risks to humans through direct contact (inhalation of 

particulates or gases, ingestion, dermal contact) or indirect exposure pathways (ingestion of fish, 

wildlife, or plants that have accumulated contaminants). Health effects may occur at the point of 

contact, e.g., skin or lung, but will most often occur in response to contaminants or their metabolites 

circulating internally (the internal dose). The scientific base for human health toxicity and risk 

characterization crosses environmental media and is shared among EPA program offices. ORD’s 

research on this issue (e.g., exposure factors handbook; Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), 

Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures (U.S. EPA, 

2000f), etc.) is so central to multiple programs that the relevant work is being assembled into a new 

human health risk assessment plan to provide a complete, coherent view of the program, informed by 

the needs across EPA programs. Detailed information on these human health toxicity issues can be 

found in many other Agency documents. Similarly, research on newly-identified compounds that 

potentially interfere with human endocrine systems, relevant to multiple media and multiple programs, 

is assembled in the multi-year plan for endocrine disruptor research. It would be redundant to do a 

complete assessment of high priority needs solely for contaminated sediments in this document. 

Therefore, this section focuses on human health toxicity issues that occur at contaminated sediment 

sites, but are not addressed in other Agency documents. 

EPA has published guidance for conducting risk assessments at Superfund sites (Risk Assessment 

Guidance for Superfund, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk/tooltrad.htm). Although 

exposure parameters are not explicitly given for all sediment exposure pathways, the guidance can be 

used to select parameters suitable for a particular site. In addition, EPA’s FIELDS software tools 

contain a human health module for analyzing the human health impact of contaminated sediments via 

dermal, ingestion, and inhalation pathways. Further, improvements underway on this module include 

refinements of existing exposure pathway models. 

There are several risk assessment issues that are particularly common or problematic for contaminated 

sediment sites. Using the existing science base, the programs and regions will need to develop or 

update guidance on possible ways to address these issues. 
Page 48	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Sediments contaminated with PCBs are common at many Superfund sites as well as navigational 

dredging sites. The National Academy of Sciences made a point that baseline and post-remedy risk 

assessments should not rely on toxicity of technical grade Aroclor mixtures, because the aged and 

weathered residues found in the environment have significantly different compositions. Their 

recommended alternative approach is to use congener-specific analysis and toxicity assessment, 

including multiple toxicity endpoints (e.g., cancer and Ah receptor activation). Currently, there is a 

lack of guidance and policy on the quantification of risks from the co-planar PCB congeners in a 

human health risk assessment and whether the weathering and biological uptake of the congeners lead 

to significant increases in toxicological potency. 

Dermal exposure to contaminated sediments also presents a risk to human health as many 

contaminated sediment sites are considered attractive for recreational purposes such as wading or 

participating in sports on contaminated floodplains. Intermittent streams, staged dredge spoils, and 

floodplains are examples of areas where direct contact may occur. These exposure scenarios provide 

unique but direct dermal contact with contaminated sediment and surface water. The Risk Assessment 

Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, 

Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) (U.S. EPA, 2004a) proposes a methodology 

for assessing the exposures from the dermal pathway for contaminated soils, sediments, and water. 

Many of the contaminants commonly located in sediments are environmentally and biologically 

persistent and exert their effects by disrupting sensitive physiological systems such as the endocrine 

system (i.e., endocrine disruptors). Some of the noted health effects are trans-generational and thus 

do not exhibit their toxicity until later generations. Further guidance on the methodology and policy 

for quantifying human health risks from endocrine disruptors is necessary. 

3.4.1 Science Needs 

Advances in almost any aspect of human health toxicity and exposure would result in an improved 

understanding of the health effects of exposure to contaminated sediments. Several of these areas are 

extremely important for assessing other environmental problems as well. Needs particularly important 

to sediments include: 

•	 Characterizing individual contaminants in sediment or biological samples to evaluate mode 

of action and individual chemical contributions to risk. Examples include dioxins, furans, and 

dioxin-like PCBs; PAHs; and mercury species. 

•	 Determining interactions among multiple contaminants found in sediments and the resulting 

impacts on site-specific risk assessment (NRC, 2001a). 

•	 Studying of mode- and mechanism-of-action for species and mixtures most often found in 

sediments, particularly focusing on chronic or sub-chronic systemic effects. 

•	 Developing biomarkers of effect (toxicity) and relating these to measurable toxic endpoints. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 49 

•	 Evaluating the reproductive toxicity of endocrine disruptors and other newly emerging 

contaminants of concern such as APEs. 

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

3.4.2	 Key Recommendations for Human Health Toxicity and Risk Characterization 

C.1	 Develop guidance for characterizing human health risks on a PCB congener basis. 

Improved methods are needed to assess the risks associated with exposure to aged PCBs in sediment. 

For example, although it is recognized that measurement of PCB Aroclors in sediment can 

underestimate exposure to PCBs, this method of chemical analysis continues to be used in risk 

assessments because a toxicity equivalence approach for evaluating PCB congeners has not been fully 

developed. 

C.2	 Develop sediment guidelines for bioaccumulative contaminants that are protective of 

human health via the fish ingestion pathway. 

Contaminant-specific sediment guidelines to protect recreational and subsistence anglers should be 

developed. This will conserve resources by efficiently eliminating sites or parts of sites and chemicals 

from further study, and will help focus site investigations on the most important areas. Fish tissue 

contaminant guidelines have been developed for a range of chemicals (U.S. EPA, 2000a), but 

corresponding levels of contaminants in sediments are still needed. Guidelines for bioaccumulative 

contaminants such as DDT and metabolites, PCBs, methyl mercury, dieldrin, and high molecular 

weight PAHs should be developed. 

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

Although the greatest human health risk is generally from ingestion of contaminated fish, there is a 

need to develop better methods, models, and exposure factors that will enable risk assessors to 

estimate the exposure from direct skin contact with contaminated sediments. Research is needed to 

determine the amount of sediment that might come into contact with the skin from various activities. 

Research is also needed to develop a model that accurately predicts how much of the sediment-borne 

contaminants actually crosses the dermal barrier and is available to cause a toxicological effect. 

Current dermal absorption models are either water or soil-based and it is not clear which might be 

more applicable for sediments. 

C.4	 Evaluate the toxicity and reproductive effects of newly recognized contaminants, such 

as APEs and other endocrine disruptors and their metabolites on human health. 

Additional long-term toxicity data are needed on APEs and other similar chemicals to further 

understand their long-term effects on reproductive and other systems. EPA programs will need to 
Page 50 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

monitor advances in toxicity data and incorporate new information into guidance and policy on 

managing contaminated sediment sites. 

3.5 Ecological Effects and Risk Assessment 

Aquatic ecosystems are a complex assemblage of interacting physical, chemical, and biological 

processes. Many of these processes are inherently nonlinear and there is considerable uncertainty about 

both their nature and their interconnections. The ability to predict site specific ecological effects or 

risks is maximized with knowledge of these processes and interactions present at the particular site. 

Since contaminant availability and ecological food webs differ from site to site, it is critical to 

understand exposure-effect dynamics.7 

The primary focus of sediment assessments is determining the potential for (i.e., the risk of) adverse 

impacts to biota. The simplest of all assessments might include the use of single lines-of-evidence such 

as a set of toxicity tests, a benthic community survey, or the use of Sediment Quality Guidelines 

(SQGs) to make a decision regarding adverse effects. However, the initial screening of contaminated 

sediments may be insufficient for making decisions due to uncertainty. In such cases, it is useful to 

gather additional lines of evidence that improve certainty. This may involve utilizing a weight-ofevidence approach or conducting an ecological risk assessment. Elements of these approaches include 

developing a conceptual site model, understanding organism linkages, selecting measurement and 

assessment endpoints, characterizing exposure, and performing a risk characterization. Section 3.5 

focuses on the narrower issue of understanding the science needs for assessing contaminated sediment 

systems. These include ecological screening levels, ecological indicators, direct toxicity to aquatic 

biota, ecological significance and population models, and the selection of remedial alternatives that are 

protective of ecological receptors. 

3.5.1 Ecological Screening Levels 

Numerical screening levels or SQGs based upon concentrations of contaminants in sediment that are 

associated with potential adverse effects have been proposed by a number of investigators and 

jurisdictions around the world using both mechanistic and empirical approaches (Chapman, 1989; 

Long and Morgan, 1991; Long, 1992; MacDonald et al., 1996; U.S. EPA 1992b, 1996b, and 1997a; 

MacDonald et al., 2000; Field et al., 1999, 2002).8 Screening values are needed by U.S. EPA, states 

7 Fundamental research regarding the assessment and management of aquatic environments (including 

contaminated sediments) is defined in the Agency’s Ecological Research Multi-Year Plan and Water Quality 

Research Program Multi-Year Plan (U.S. EPA 2003d; U.S. EPA 2003e). 

8 More generally these approaches include the equilibrium partioning (EqP) approach (Di Toro et al. 1991a; Di 

Toro et al. 1991b; Ankley et al. 1996; NYSDEC 1998; Di Toro and McGrath 2000), screening-level concentration 

approach (Persaud et al. 1993; Von Stackelberg and Menzie 2002), effects range–low (ERL) and effects 

range–median (ERM) approaches (Long et al. 1995; USEPA 1996e), threshold-effects level (TEL) and probableeffects level (PEL) approaches (MacDonald et al. 1996; Smith et al. 1996; USEPA 1996e), the apparent-effects 

threshold (AET) approach (Barrick et al. 1988; Ginn and Pastorok 1992; Cubbage et al.. 1997), and, most recently, 

the “consensus-based” evaluation approach (Swartz 1999; MacDonald et al. 2000b; MacDonald et al. 2000a) and 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 51 

and tribes, and other Federal agencies to: 1) help prioritize sites for further investigation, and 2) help 

identify causative contaminants when toxicity is indicated by bioassays or other tools. 

The empirical or correlative approach to the derivation of SQG values has focused on evaluation of 

the available toxicity data to establish associations between individual chemical concentrations 

in sediments and adverse biological effects. This approach was originally developed by NOAA using 

sediment chemistry data collected under the National Status and Trends Program (Long and Morgan, 

1991; Long, 1992). The empirical guidelines approach was adopted, with some modifications, by the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (MacDonald, 1994; MacDonald et al., 1996) and the 

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) (1995; Smith et al., 1996) to support the 

development of guidelines in the State of Florida and in Canada. Additional data available in the 

published literature and collected through U.S. EPA’s ARCS program have been used to further refine 

the empirically derived guidelines (Ingersoll et al., 1996). Although empirically derived SQGs have 

in many cases accurately predicted sediment toxicity, a number of limitations have been associated 

with this approach (MacDonald et al., 1996; NRC, 2001a). The correlative approach does not require 

the quantitative evaluation of cause and effects relationships between contaminant concentrations and 

biological responses. Because the approach is based on empirical associations between contaminant 

concentrations and biological responses, various factors other than the concentrations of the 

contaminant under consideration could have influenced the actual response observed in any 

investigation. 

In addition, the guidelines developed using this approach do not address either the potential for 

bioaccumulation or the associated adverse effects of bioaccumulation on higher trophic levels. 

Another method developed by U.S. EPA (and others) is the equilibrium partitioning (EqP) approach 

to develop Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs). This approach focuses on 

predicting the chemical interaction among sediments, interstitial water, and the contaminants. 

Numerous studies have supported an assumption that interstitial water concentrations of contaminants 

appear to be better predictors of biological effects than bulk sediment concentrations. U.S. EPA based 

the ESBs on EqP theory, which is a conceptual approach for predicting the bioavailability of sedimentassociated chemicals and their toxicity. The theory assumes that sediment-associated contaminants 

achieve a steady-state between chemical activity in three phases: the interstitial (pore) water, the 

binding phases in sediment which limit bioavailability (i.e., organic carbon for nonionic organic 

chemicals and acid volatile sulfides for divalent metals), and the biota. Under this assumption, the 

pathway of chemical exposure (i.e., respiration of interstitial water or ingestion of sediment) is not 

important as activities are equal in equilibrated phases; that is, if the chemical concentration in any one 

phase is known, then the concentration in the others can be predicted. Thus, EqP theory, enabling 

prediction of interstitial water concentration from the total sediment concentration, chemical properties 

(e.g., partition coefficients) and the relevant sediment properties (e.g., organic carbon in its various 

forms), can be used to estimate the exposure concentration for an organism. U.S. EPA also notes that 

the logistic regression modeling (LRM) approach (Field et al. 1999, 2002). 
Page 52	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

equilibrium partitioning theory does not address potential food chain effects of bioaccumulative 

sediment pollutants9 and EqP does not apply to most inorganic and metal contaminants in sediments. 

It is important to note that the above discussion of ESBs and the other screening tools does not 

address nor is it meant to imply any EPA policy concerning the use of screening levels in EPA 

programs. The information is provided only as a review of some work that has been undertaken to 

derive screening levels. This review was used to assist in the identification of science needs for further 

development of these approaches. 

Many additional issues regarding ecological screening levels and risk assessment are addressed by the 

FIELDS Team.10 The FIELDS software tools contain an ecological risk module, peer reviewed by 

U.S. EPA Ecological Risk Assessors Forum, which includes screening values and can be used for

analyzing the impact of contaminated sediments on ecological receptors. Further refinements on this 

module include the addition of wildlife exposure models and the ability to evaluate risks based on 

tissue concentrations. 

Science Needs 

U.S. EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) and others have identified a number of science needs to 

further support regulatory use of the Agency’s ESBs and other chemical-specific screening values and 

sediment quality guidelines (SAB, 1992 and 1996). These science needs include: 

•	 Field and laboratory studies to evaluate the accuracy of chemical-specific sediment quality 

guidelines. These could include new studies and the use of existing data from contaminated 

sites where both contaminants and benthic community data are available. Sublethal sediment 

toxicity tests (in situ studies, laboratory studies of field-collected sediment, and spikedsediment laboratory studies) using a range of species including benthic fish and algae, longterm studies of population dynamics, and colonization studies are examples of sensitive tests 

that could be used to further validate sediment quality guidelines. An important area for 

future research is the evaluation of the range of sediment types to which sediment guidelines 

can be applied. Field validation of these guidelines in different sediment types would help 

define the appropriate conditions for applying the guidelines. 

9 Details on the ESG methodologies and chemical-specific ESGs can be found in the following documents: Eco 

Update. Intermittent Bulletin Volume 3, Number 2 – Ecotox Thresholds. U.S. EPA 540/F-95/038 (U.S. EPA, 

1996b); Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection 

of Benthic Organisms: Endrin. (U.S. EPA, 2003f); Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning 

Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Dieldrin. (U.S. EPA, 2003g); Procedures 

for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic 

Organisms: PAH Mixtures. (U.S. EPA, 2003h) 

10 The mission of the U.S. EPA Region 5 FIELDS Team is to combine field expertise with technical innovation to 

provide rapid, cost-effective, and high-quality decision support to contaminated site characterization and 

remediation. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 53 

•	 Studies of chemical concentrations in interstitial water from natural sediment samples are 

needed. These values can be compared to predicted ESG values for the same sediments. 

•	 Another area for future research is evaluation of bioaccumulation from food and kinetic 

limitations on contaminant bioaccumulation to determine their relevance for both equilibrium 

and non-equilibrium conditions. It is important to conduct additional work to determine 

whether metals guidelines can be used to define conditions where sediment sorbed metals can 

be bioaccumulated by benthic organisms. These investigations can provide additional insight 

into the contributions of adsorbed or digested material to total exposure. 

•	 In addition to diet, habitat requirements of benthic infaunal and other sediment-dwelling 

organisms may cause them to be exposed to higher concentrations of contaminants than 

those measured in bulk sediments. Yet another area for future research is the investigation 

of the importance of contaminant exposure routes that are not now explicitly considered. 

For example, preferential sorting of particulates during tube building may be a route of 

exposure to contaminants that could be considered in applying sediment quality guidelines. 

•	 There has been considerable discussion regarding whether sediment quality guidelines are 

most usefully expressed as a range of values reflecting uncertainty, or the current point 

estimates (current practice). Recent modeling work has attempted to address this by using 

the probability of effects to define sediment quality guidelines. The use of a range of values, 

e.g., using one specific value for a particular organic carbon content, or the development of 

improved estimates of uncertainty could be considered. 

•	 Although U.S. EPA has conducted research to develop mixtures guidelines for PAHs and 

metals, understanding how mixtures of contaminants in sediments are best evaluated is an 

important area for future research. 

3.5.2 Ecological Indicators 

Ecological indicators may be defined as measurable characteristics related to the structure, 

composition, or functioning of ecological systems. The inherent complexity of ecological systems, 

however, makes both the assessment of ecological integrity and the creation of a coherent system of 

ecological indicators challenging tasks (U.S. EPA, 2002d). Biological indicators measure condition 

more directly, integrate the effects of periodic exposures to multiple pollutants, and provide a more 

accessible and understandable tool. The Agency’s research in this area focuses on measures of 

community structure and genetic markers to determine and diagnose the cause of poor condition in 

aquatic systems. Table 3-2 lists essential ecological attributes (EEA) and reporting categories as they 

relate to contaminated sediments. It is important to note that multiple indicators may be associated 

with each subcategory in the EEA hierarchy. 
Page 54 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Table 3-2. Essential Ecological Attributes and Reporting Categories as They Relate to 

Contaminated Sediments 

Ecosystems and Communities 

Species and Populations 

Organism Condition 

Biotic Condition 

• Community Extent 

• Community Composition 

• Trophic Structure 

• Community Dynamics 

• Physical Structure 

• Population Size 

• Genetic Diversity 

• Population Structure 

• Population Dynamics 

• Habitat Suitability 

• Physiological Status 

• Symptoms of Disease or Trauma 

• Signs of Disease 

Chemical and Physical Characteristics (Water, Air, Soil, and Sediment) 

Nutrient Concentrations 

Trace Inorganic and Organic Chemicals 

Other Chemical Parameters 

Physical Parameters 

• Nitrogen 

• Phosphorus 

• Other Nutrients 

• Metals 

• Other Trace Elements 

• Organic Compounds 

• pH 

• Dissolved Oxygen 

• Salinity 

• Organic Matter 

• Other 

• Sediment Particle Size 

• Depth of Black Layer 

• Redox Potential 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 55 

Ecological Processes 

Energy Flow • Primary Production 

• Net Ecosystem Production 

• Growth Efficiency 

Material Flow • Organic Carbon Cycling 

• Nitrogen and Phosphorus Cycling 

• Other Nutrient Cycling 

Hydrology and Geomorphology 

Surface and Groundwater Flows • Pattern of Surface Flows 

• Hydrodynamics 

• Pattern of Groundwater Flows 

• Salinity Patterns 

• Water Storage 

Dynamic Structural Characteristics • Channel/Shoreline Morphology, Complexity 

• Extent/Distribution of Connected Floodplain 

• Aquatic Physical Habitat Complexity 

Sediment and Material Transport • Sediment Supply/Movement 

• Particle Size Distribution Patterns 

• Other Material Flux 

Adapted from: A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition: An SAB Report United States 

Environmental Protection Agency-EPA Science Advisory Board, Washington, D.C., EPA-SAV-EPEC-02-009. 

Historically, sediment monitoring programs have used benthic community studies as indicators of the 

effects of sediment contaminants on aquatic ecosystems. An assessment of benthic community 

structure typically involves field measurements that include the sorting and identification of organisms, 

and analysis of the numbers of taxa, individuals, and biomass in each sample. At many sites, the 

objective of the benthic community survey is to determine if there are unacceptable risks to the 

communities of organisms that inhabit those sediments. Many different benthic community measures 

have been used as ecological indicators such as: species diversity indices; biotic indices; indicator 

organisms; species richness measures; enumeration of specific abundances of taxa present; indices 

measuring similarity between benthic communities at reference and study sites; community function 

measurements based on habitat; trophic structure and other ecological measures; and statistical 

approaches applied to determine whether the benthic community at a study site varies from reference 

or other sites. The major limitation associated with the use of these indicators is difficulty relating 

them to the presence of individual chemicals or other stressors. 

Thus, in order to gain better insight into the ecological state of sediments, integrated approaches are 

required. First proposed by Chapman et al. (1986), a common integrated methodology is the Sediment 

Quality Triad (SQT), a weight-of-evidence approach for assessing sediment quality using measures 

of: (1) sediment chemistry, (2) sediment toxicity, and (3) benthic community composition. One 

advantage of the triad approach is the use of both chemical and biological data in evaluating the 

ecological relevance of the results of bioassays and chemical analyses for sites. Although the SQT 
Page 56	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

cannot provide a causal link between a specific contaminant and adverse effects on the benthic 

community (i.e., it is the ecological relevance of the mixture of contaminants that is being evaluated), 

the approach provides an indication of the degree of pollution-induced degradation in aquatic 

communities. Thus, the ecological relevance of the mixture of contaminants in a system may be 

addressed using the SQT. 

Science Needs 

The development of new indicator methods for measuring risks from sediment contaminants will 

improve our ability to assess and characterize contaminated sites, and lead to more effective decisions 

for managing sites. An important area for future research is to develop new, cost-effective indicator 

methods at all levels of biological organization (molecular, cellular, organismal, population, and 

community). It is important that these biological responses can be linked to known chemical stressors. 

Cellular and biochemical measurements can be used to indicate the bioavailability of sediment 

contaminants to establish levels of exposure, and to facilitate fate and transport modeling of the 

contaminants. A number of specific science needs have been identified to link sediment contaminants 

and other stressors with biological impairment. These include: 

•	 Develop and assess statistical techniques to associate sediment contaminants with communitylevel responses. 

•	 Develop methods to characterize exposure to individual stressors and predict exposure to 

contaminant mixtures. 

•	 Develop whole sediment toxicity identification methods. 

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

•	 Develop diagnostic indicators for emerging chemicals such as endocrine disruptors. 

•	 Develop mechanistic ecosystem models and a better understanding of benthic community 

structure and function. 

•	 Develop methods to measure spatial and temporal variation in structural and functional 

properties of benthic communities, and an understanding of how this variation affects 

prediction and detection of impacts. 

•	 Determine the cause-effect connection between sediment contamination, behavioral responses, 

and the relevance of behavioral responses. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 57 

3.5.3 Direct Toxicity to Aquatic Biota 

Studies at contaminated sediment sites have demonstrated that high concentrations of contaminants 

have resulted in direct toxicity to benthic invertebrates and to reductions in fish and wildlife 

populations. At some sites that are heavily contaminated from past mining operations, heavy rain 

events have resulted in acute lethality of salmonids due to short-term pH-induced increases in metal 

solubility in the water column. 

Biological sediment testing has become an effective assessment tool that provides direct, quantifiable 

evidence of the impacts of sediment contamination. Sediment tests, with other site information can 

be used to: 1) determine the relationship between toxic effects and bioavailability, 2) investigate 

interactions among chemicals, 3) compare the sensitivities of different organisms, 4) determine spatial 

and temporal distribution of contamination, 5) evaluate dredged material, 6) rank areas for cleanup, 

and 7) set cleanup goals. 

A variety of standard biological test methods have been developed for assessing the short- and longterm toxicity of contaminants associated with freshwater and marine sediments using amphipods, 

midges, polychaetes, oligochaetes, mayflies, and cladocerans. These toxicity tests provide measures 

of several different acute and chronic endpoints including survival, growth, behavior, and 

reproduction. Sediment toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) procedures have also been used to 

identify toxic compounds in sediment samples containing mixtures of chemicals. 

Science Needs 

Although a number of sediment toxicity test methods have been standardized, protocols using new test 

species to provide tests of greater sensitivity are an important area for future research. It will also be 

necessary to standardize test methods using species that inhabit different geographic ranges and habitat 

types. Additional work will be necessary to: 

•	 Develop a better understanding of how sediment can be manipulated before, during, and after 

tests without inappropriately affecting test results. 

•	 Establish appropriate physical test conditions, feeding regimes, test duration, and test 

initiation or termination procedures. 

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

•	 Complete additional work to understand the sensitivity of test species to major classes of 

contaminants. This information can aid in species selection and test interpretation. 

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

studies could be conducted by evaluating bioassay response to sediments collected along a 
Page 58	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

natural pollution gradient and comparing results to benthic community studies and in situ test 

results. 

•	 Identify and standardize formulated sediment and sediment spiking techniques. 

•	 Develop tests with amphibians, reptiles, algae, and rooted aquatic plants. 

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

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

toxicity tests. 

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

3.5.4 Ecological Significance and Population Models 

In an ecological risk assessment, it is important to clearly define and describe ecological significance 

and to determine what levels of population and community effects are generally acceptable; e.g., will 

a twenty percent reduction in a specific endpoint still sustain a functioning, healthy ecosystem? U.S. 

EPA needs to further develop techniques that will improve our ability to determine if: 1) the observed 

or predicted adverse effects on a structural or functional component of the site’s ecosystem is of 

sufficient type, magnitude, areal extent, and duration that irreversible effects have occurred or are 

likely to occur, and 2) these effects appear to exceed the normal changes in the structural or functional 

components typical of similar unaffected ecosystems. 

Science Needs 

•	 Develop predictive models for determining the potential population level effects; e.g., how 

much sediment toxicity is needed before one can predict that there will be significant effects 

on the population of concern. How many bass or mink or kingfishers can be affected before 

there will be an impact on the ability of the population of biota to sustain itself at a healthy 

level in the area impacted by the site? 

•	 Develop a method for estimating depth of bioturbation for benthic macro-invertebrates. 

Certain benthic macro-invertebrates that colonize on caps build or live in burrows or tunnels 

in the sand/sediment cap environment. In order to evaluate the potential impact on these 

aquatic food chain organisms, the depth and extent of benthic bioturbation impacts in a cap 

need to be identified. 

•	 Potential benthic macro-invertebrate cap attraction. Caps often are of a non-indigenous fill 

material or sand or are anchored with stone. Will use of different materials reduce 

colonization times? Will it attract other, less desirable organisms and non-native 

communities? 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 59 

3.5.5 Selection of Ecologically Protective Remedial Options 

Dredging and capping remedies can result in short-term increases in the water column levels of 

suspended or dissolved contaminants and can cause severe disruption to benthic habitats. However, 

criteria are not readily available to help evaluate those situations in which the short-term impacts of 

intrusive remedial technologies are likely to outweigh the benefits of contaminant removal or 

sequestration. 

Science Needs 

•	 Develop better tools to help evaluate and compare the short-term and long-term impacts and 

long-term benefits of dredging, capping, monitored natural recovery, and other remedial 

alternatives, in terms of direct toxicity, habitat loss and recovery, and other ecological 

effects. 

3.5.6 Key Recommendations for Selection of Ecologically Protective Remedial Options 

D.1 Develop sediment guidelines to protect wildlife from food chain effects. 

Sediment quality guidelines are needed to protect piscivorous birds and wildlife from food chain 

effects. A critical aspect of developing such SQGs is the need to develop appropriate conceptual 

ecological site models. Food chains differ from site to site and food chain effects (e.g., 

bioaccumulation) are not only a function of the chemical concentration in sediment, but reflect how 

the chemical is transferred from sediment to biota, and how it travels from smaller to larger organisms. 

This effort would include a consistent method for estimating the site-specific bioavailability of 

contaminants (see also recommendation B.1). Contaminants of primary concern are bioaccumulative 

chemicals such as PCBs, DDT, and methyl mercury. 

D.2 Develop additional tools for characterizing ecological risks. 

Benthic community studies and single-species sediment toxicity tests are often used to evaluate the 

baseline risks to ecological receptors and the risks after remediation. An important area for future 

research is the development and validation of additional methods to assess long-term risks, especially 

for persistent bioaccumulating compounds. This includes the use of smaller, short-lived fish to predict 

the long-term food chain effects on game fish, and the use of molecular or genetic indicators to predict 

endocrine disruptor impacts. In addition, SQGs used in conjunction with other tools such as sediment 

toxicity tests, bioaccumulation, and benthic community surveys, provide additional lines of evidences 

– and ultimately a weight of evidence approach – that can be used to assess the risks associated with 

contaminated sediments. 

Improvement of uncertainty analysis is also a critical need in ecological risk assessments. Uncertainties 

result principally from lack of knowledge and from uncertainties in data. Knowledge-based 
Page 60 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

uncertainties hamper each step of a risk assessment or management alternatives evaluation. These arise 

from incomplete or inadequate characterization of physical, chemical, and biological processes, of the 

processes that generate stressors, of fate and transport processes (air, water, soil, biota), of exposure 

pathways to human and ecological receptors, and of their resulting effects and health implications. 

Uncertainties associated with data arise from inadequate measurement or data summary techniques, 

from an inappropriate characterization of heterogeneity at the site or ecosystem scale, and from the 

variability of geological, hydrological, and climatological conditions. The Agency in its Ecological 

Research Multi-Year Plan recommends additional research to improve risk assessment models and 

better characterize uncertainties (U.S. EPA, 2003d). 

D.3 Develop guidance on how to interpret ecological sediment toxicity studies (lab or in situ 

caged studies) and how to interpret the significance of the results in relation to site 

populations and communities. 

A more consistent process is needed to allow risk managers to determine: 1) if the observed or 

predicted adverse effects on a structural or functional component of the site’s ecosystem is of 

sufficient type, magnitude, areal extent, and duration that irreversible effects have occurred or are 

likely to occur; and 2) if these effects appear to exceed the normal changes in the structural or 

functional components typical of unimpacted ecosystems. Interpretive guidance for ecological 

sediment toxicity studies, and the significance of the results to site populations and communities needs 

to be developed to better evaluate the need to protect an ecological resource. An important area for 

future research is the development and validation of population models that include typical bioassay 

endpoints such as survival, growth, and reproduction, to provide further insight into interpretation of 

test results. 

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

dredging vs. the shorter term adverse effects on ecological receptors and their habitats. 

The Workgroup recommends that U.S. EPA collaborate with appropriate Federal agencies to study 

the short- and long-term impacts/benefits from environmental dredging. It is important that such 

evaluations include the impacts on habitat and aquatic plants and animals potentially caused by 

capping, dredging, and/or other remedial methods that alter the physical environmental conditions. 

It is desirable to monitor thoroughly at least two locations in order to quantitatively determine all 

contaminant losses (in particular the effectiveness of sediment resuspension controls) during remedial 

dredging. At these projects, it will be important to employ all currently accepted management 

practices (e.g., silt curtains, covered clamshell buckets, state-of-the-art cutter heads for hydraulic 

dredging) to ensure minimal resuspension. All losses quantified as part of the remedial dredging 

operation would then have to be measured against overall benefits to the site by evaluating ecological 

benefits for at least a ten-year horizon. Such a study could go far towards resolving the argument that 

short-term negative impacts from remedial dredging outweigh long-term ecological benefits. Similar 

studies could usefully be conducted as part of performance evaluations of capping and in situ 

treatment remedial alternatives. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 61 

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

sediment quality guidelines. 

Chemical-specific sediment quality guidelines have been developed by U.S. EPA for use in 

contaminated sediment assessment, prevention, and remediation programs. Field validation studies 

have been conducted on some of these guidelines for these uses. However, an important area of future 

work is to conduct additional field validation studies and laboratory tests using a range of species to 

further validate the guidelines and understand contaminant exposure routes. Work is also needed to 

develop mixtures guidelines for sediment contaminants. 

D.6 Continue developing and refining both chronic and sub-chronic sediment toxicity testing 

methods. 

Although a number of sediment toxicity test methods have been standardized, an important area for 

future research is the development and validation of protocols using new freshwater, marine, and 

estuarine test species to provide sensitive tests representing a greater range of species and habitat 

types. The currently available Leptocheirus plumulosus chronic test protocol uses an Atlantic Coast 

species, which may not adequately represent the sensitivity of species from Pacific Ocean systems. 

Chronic, sublethal test protocols are needed for marine species present in the Pacific, such as the 

amphipod Grandidierella japonica. Additional freshwater test protocols are needed for burrowing 

species. Field-based test methods (e.g., in situ test methods) are needed to assess the biological effects 

of contaminated sediments. Some of the currently available test protocols are expensive and difficult 

to run. It is important to develop both simplified test protocols to reduce costs, and interpretive 

guidance for sublethal test methods. A number of marine and estuarine test protocols for amphipod 

species have been developed. It is important to give consideration to developing additional methods 

for species other than amphipods. 

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

chemicals. 

Sediment contaminants often occur in mixtures. Whole sediment toxicity identification evaluation 

methods are needed in order to determine which contaminants cause observed toxicity. Currently 

available toxicity identification evaluation methods are capable of characterizing the toxicity of a 

sediment only by identifying classes of toxic contaminants (e.g., metals or organic toxicants). 

Additional work is needed to improve the method so that individual chemical contaminants can be 

identified. In addition, work is needed to conduct field validation studies supporting the method. 

3.6 Sediment Remediation 

A sediment remedial alternative is a technology or combination of technologies used to reduce the 

impact of contaminated sediments on human health and the environment. Alternatives can span a wide 

range of complexity and technological ingenuity. The simplest alternatives might employ only a single 

component (i.e., in situ capping). However, more complex alternatives may involve several different 
Page 62 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

technologies and various project components (U.S. EPA, 1994). For the more complex alternatives, 

it is important to match complementary components in order to obtain an efficient remedial design 

(e.g., hydraulic dredging may not be the best choice for sediments that will be disposed of in a landfill 

due to the "no water in landfills" rule). 

Due to all the confounding factors involved in sediment remediation, it is difficult to capture all the 

complexities of the state of the science in sediment remediation in only a few short pages. However, 

the subsections below provide a summary of the current state of sediment remediation technology, 

identification of problems, and a discussion of key research gaps. 

3.6.1 Natural Recovery/Bioremediation 

Natural recovery involves leaving contaminated sediments in place and allowing ongoing chemical, 

physical, and biological aquatic processes to contain, destroy, or otherwise reduce the bioavailability 

of contaminants. No actions are required to initiate or continue the natural recovery process (NRC, 

1997). Although natural recovery has been the strategy of choice at only a few contaminated 

sediments sites, the absence of timely remedial activities at many sites has made natural recovery the 

de facto remediation of choice at these sites. Case studies are identified in the National Research 

Council (1997) document. 

There are a plethora of resources available that provide more information on the natural recovery and 

bioremediation of contaminated sediments. However, there is still an ongoing debate regarding the 

viability of using natural processes or engineered biological processes to remediate contaminated 

sediments, especially those contaminated with heavy metals and chlorinated organics: "Using 

bioremediation to treat in-place [contaminated] sediments, although theoretically possible, requires 

further research and development because it raises a number of significant microbial, geochemical, and 

hydrological issues [including transport by large-scale storm events] that have yet to be resolved" 

(NRC, 1997). 

Additionally, while the "natural capping" and resulting sequestration of sediment contaminants from 

natural deposition may occur at a faster "average" rate than the ongoing biological breakdown, large 

scale storm events may result in hot-spot contamination being dispersed over a large area where it 

would be difficult to remove or remediate. 

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

Science Needs 

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

• Perform a literature survey to determine the level of effectiveness at natural recovery sites. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 63 

•	 Develop accepted measuring protocols to determine in situ chemical fluxes from bed 

sediments into the overlying water column. 

•	 Develop protocols for assessing the relative contribution of the five or more mechanisms for 

chemical releases from bed sediments (including mass transport of sediments and 

contaminants by large-scale storm events). 

•	 Determine the mechanisms for measuring the bioavailability of sorbed contaminants and the 

effect of sediment aging. 

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

anoxic sediments. 

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

of biological treatments. 

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

3.6.2 In situ Capping 

"In situ capping is the controlled, accurate placement of a clean, isolating material cover, or cap, over 

contaminated sediments without relocating the sediments or causing a major disruption of the original 

bed" (NRC, 1997). U.S. EPA's GLNPO and U.S. EPA Region 5 have coordinated with U.S. ACE 

and USGS in the production of two guidance documents on in situ capping (U.S. EPA, 1998d, and 

in preparation). Capping attempts to limit the adverse impacts of sediment contamination by providing 

a barrier to prevent contact between aquatic organisms and the contaminated sediments. Capping may 

also prevent downstream transport of sediments and their associated contaminants. 

The design and installation of conventional sediment caps is fairly straight-forward and well 

understood, including the numerous cap placement technologies (tremie tube, submerged diffuses, and 

others) described by U.S. EPA (1998d). However, the long-term effectiveness of this alternative has 

not been well researched, although the National Research Council (NRC, 2001a) documents in situ 

capping case studies that have been completed in Hamilton Harbor, Canada and the St. Paul Waterway 

in Tacoma, Washington. Reports documenting results of these operations can be found in Zeman and 

Patterson (1997) and Parametrix (1999), respectively. Additionally, many entities are now beginning 

to discuss more complex sediment cap designs, including the use of zero-valent iron or biological 

treatment mechanisms in the cap 

design. 

Science Needs 

•	 Analyze data from historical and ongoing field applications to determine capping 

effectiveness (NRC, 1997). 
Page 64	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

•	 Research and/or develop technologies to control contaminant releases during cap placement 

(NRC, 1997). 

•	 Testing to simulate and evaluate the consequences of episodic mixing (e.g., anchor 

penetration and major flood/storm events) (NRC, 1997). 

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

contaminants through the cap. 

•	 Develop and evaluate the use of innovative cap designs that incorporate chemical and/or 

biological treatment technologies. 

•	 Assess the uncertainties associated with cap performance predictions. 

3.6.3 In situ Treatment 

In situ treatment involves the active manipulation of in-place sediments to enhance the breakdown or 

prevent the transport (e.g., immobilization) of contaminants. Potential technologies include: in situ 

immobilization, in situ chemical treatment, in situ freezing, in situ geo-oxidation, and in situ 

vitrification (NRC, 1997). 

Immobilization technologies are likely to be based on the concepts of solidification and immobilization. 

The applicability of these processes to fine-grained sediments with high water content has yet to be 

demonstrated. Potential problems include: inaccuracies of in situ placement, erosion, temperature 

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

Researchers at the Canadian National Water Research Institute have developed and demonstrated 

equipment capable of injecting chemical solutions into sediments at a controlled rate (U.S. EPA, 

1994). However, the applicability of in situ chemical treatment appears to be limited because of 

interference between various classes of contaminants and the possibility of mobilizing metals in the 

process of oxidizing organics (NRC, 1997). The National Research Council (NRC, 2001a) states that 

"no effective in situ delivery system has yet been developed for [delivering required nutrients, 

substrates, or reagents to] contaminated sediments." 

The use of in situ freezing and in situ vitrification can be quickly dismissed based on high cost and 

limited effectiveness. Freezing by injection of molten sulfur has the same limitation as in situ 

solidification. In situ vitrification has been demonstrated on soils, but the high water content of 

sediments would require local site dewatering and the construction of a vapor recovery system (NRC, 

1997). The NRC (2001a) documents the difficulties encountered on an in situ treatment project in 

Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin. There are many difficulties associated with the application of in situ 

technologies to contaminated sediment deposits. Many of these problems are based upon the 

application of known processes to the high volumes of low-concentration sediment generally found 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 65 

in the field. In addition, many sediment deposits are both heterogeneous and fine-grained, making the 

uniform application of treatment amendments difficult. 

Science Needs 

•	 Additional extensive research of most in situ treatment would be required and is probably 

not justified based on the limited applicability and effectiveness of current technologies 

(NRC, 1997). 

•	 It is important that U.S. EPA critically evaluate the three in situ and ex situ ElectroChemical 

GeoOxidation (ECGOx) pilot-scale demonstrations that occurred in 2001 and 2002 to 

determine if additional studies are justified (GLNPO, U.S. ACE, several private companies, 

U.S. EPA's SITE Program, U.S. EPA Region 2, and U.S. EPA Region 10 are involved in 

the evaluation and demonstrations currently being discussed). 

•	 Continue an open dialogue with international agencies and technology vendors and perform 

literature reviews to keep abreast of any advances in in situ treatment technologies. 

3.6.4 Dredging/Removal 

"Efficient hydraulic and mechanical methods are [readily] available for the removal and transport of 

sediments for ex situ remediation or confinement" (NRC, 1997). Additionally, promising technologies 

for precision control include electronically positioned dredge-heads and bottom-crawling hydraulic 

dredges. The latter may offer the capability of dredging in depths beyond the standard maximum 

operating capacity of conventional dredges (NRC, 1997). Finally, many innovative mechanical (e.g., 

environmental clamshell) and hydraulic pumps (e.g., Eddy pump, PNEUMA pump) are available that 

advertise reduced sediment resuspension, increased solids content of dredged material, and/or other 

performance enhancements. Adequate research and data are not available to evaluate all of these 

claims. Hayes (1989) noted that the operation of the dredge and the experience of the dredge operator 

have a profound effect on the rate of sediment re-suspension. Furthermore, recent monitoring at 

dredging sites has focused on the short-term impacts and contaminant losses associated with dredging 

operations. U.S. EPA (1996a) presents a good general framework for estimating contaminant losses 

from all components of the dredging and disposal process. Additionally, the USGS (Steuer, 2000) 

presents a case study for monitoring short-term impacts for a dredging project on the Fox River in 

Wisconsin. 

Science Needs 

•	 Performance evaluation for innovative dredging equipment. 

•	 Performance evaluation of low resuspension dredges capable of removing sediments at near 

in situ densities (NRC, 1997). 
Page 66	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

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

•	 Increased monitoring before, during, and after dredging to determine short-term impacts, 

long-term impacts, and long-term improvements due to dredging projects. 

3.6.5 Ex situ Treatment Technologies 

Numerous ex situ treatment technologies have undergone bench- and pilot-scale demonstrations. The 

results of these studies are documented in numerous reports including U.S. EPA's ARCS program 

reports (http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/arcs/), International Navigation Association (PIANC) proceedings,

SITE programs (http://www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE/), and other documents. Ex situ treatment is 

generally more promising than using the same technology in situ, because conditions can be more 

tightly controlled in contained facilities. Chemical separation, thermal desorption, and immobilization 

technologies have been employed successfully but are expensive, complicated, and limited to treating 

certain types of sediments and/or contaminants. Because of the high unit costs, thermal and chemical 

destruction techniques do not appear to be cost-effective, near-term approaches for remediating large 

volumes of contaminated dredged material (NRC, 1997). 

Following up on the work conducted under the ARCS Program, U.S. EPA Region 2 coordinated a 

five-year study on sediment treatment technologies, the goal of which was to examine alternative 

methods to address and manage contaminated sediments in New York/New Jersey Harbor. A 

particular focus of U.S. EPA Region 2 work was to evaluate treatment technologies that both 

decontaminate sediments and produce a marketable final product. This study has resulted in a 

completed pilot-scale demonstration: a sediment washing process whereby a manufactured topsoil 

and bricks are produced as marketable end-products. An additional thermal treatment demonstration 

is planned for 2004: a process that produces a blended cement product (Stern et al., 1998; Jones et 

al., 2001). 

Utilizing the information generated by U.S. EPA Region 2 in its New York/New Jersey Harbor 

decontamination program and in an effort to identify treatment technologies with a unit cost (dollars 

per cubic yard) of less than one hundred dollars ($100), GLNPO has teamed with the Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for bench-scale testing and evaluation of sediment 

treatment technologies with beneficial end products (SEG, 1999). Additionally, GLNPO, U.S. EPASITE, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and Minergy Corporation are coordinating 

the pilot-scale demonstration and evaluation of Minergy's technology which destroys organic 

contaminants and encapsulates inorganic contaminants while producing a glass aggregate by-product 

that can be used for construction fill. Additional demonstrations are planned. 

Science Needs 

•	 Research and development of ex situ treatment technologies to search for reasonable 

possibilities for cost effective treatment of large volumes of sediments (NRC, 1997). 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 67 

•	 Additional full-scale demonstrations of promising treatment options to determine the 

effectiveness of technologies on a larger scale; to identify the pathways for contaminant 

losses; and, to determine the risks associated with contaminant losses during treatment. 

•	 Significant coordination between U.S. EPA, U.S. ACE, and technology vendors to identify 

cost-effective treatment options and potential end uses of treatment products to offset the 

cost of treatment. 

3.6.6 Beneficial Use Technologies 

"Dredged sediments traditionally have been viewed as waste [material]. However, dredged material 

is often used for beneficial purposes [such as], fill for urban development (such as the construction of 

National Airport in Washington, DC), beach nourishment, the creation of wetlands and wildlife habitat, 

for improving farmland [as a soil amendment], as fill for general construction, and for establishing 

coastal islands where many species of birds nest" (NRC, 1997). The statutory underpinning for the 

beneficial use of dredged material is provided by the WRDA, which contains provisions for using 

dredged material for such things as the protection, restoration, and creation of aquatic habitat (NRC, 

1997). In addition, both the MPRSA and CWA dredged material disposal regulatory programs help 

foster beneficial uses by requiring consideration of alternatives (such as beneficial use) to dredged 

material disposal. 

Most beneficial use projects completed to date have used "clean" dredged material, but the National 

Research Council (1997) contains an extensive list of completed beneficial use projects that used both 

"clean" and "contaminated" dredged materials. The NRC document also contains references to 

numerous scientific studies to assess the effectiveness of these beneficial use projects and to determine 

if there were any environmental impacts from the contaminants associated with the dredged sediments. 

U.S. ACE, GLNPO, and associated state and local organizations have coordinated on several 

beneficial use pilot projects within the Great Lakes watershed (mined land reclamation and 

construction fill projects in Duluth, Minnesota, top soil creation at Toledo, Ohio; Milwaukee, 

Wisconsin; and Green Bay, Wisconsin). 

Additionally, MDEQ realized significant cost savings on a sediment remediation project for Newburgh 

Lake when the dredged sediments were used as daily cover at a nearby landfill (GLNPO, 2000). 

Although there is significant information on research studies and pilot- and full-scale demonstrations 

of beneficial use, most of the reuse projects are isolated, one-time studies and are not consistently 

incorporated into long-term management strategies on dredge material management. This is 

unfortunate since increases in beneficial use could conserve valuable disposal space at Confined 

Disposal Facilities (CDFs) and landfills. 
Page 68	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Science Needs 

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

guidelines for the use of biosolids. 

•	 Literature review and analysis of beneficial use projects and studies to determine the 

associated environmental impacts. 

3.6.7 Disposal Options 

The National Research Council (1997) contains an excellent discussion of disposal options for 

contaminated sediments and a figure for visualizing each alternative. The three major options for 

contaminated sediment disposal include: 

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

?	 Confined disposal facilities - placement of sediments into a diked in-water, near-shore, or 

land-based facility specifically designed for containing sediments. 

?	 Contained aquatic disposal (CAD) - controlled, open-water placement of contaminated 

material followed by covering (capping) with clean material. (NRC, 1997). 

Both CDFs and landfills have a long history of use, and the state of research and study of these 

facilities is fairly well advanced. In contrast, fewer actual case studies exist for CAD projects, and 

therefore, there exists only a limited amount of research on this disposal option. Sumeri (1984) and 

Truitt (1986) document the results of a CAD project in the Duwamish Waterway in Seattle, 

Washington (NRC, 1997). In 1992, U.S. EPA and U.S. ACE published a document describing 

techniques for evaluating releases resulting from various disposal options (U.S. EPA/U.S. ACE, 

1992). 

Science Needs 

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

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

•	 Improved design criteria for designing and building CADs. 

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

•	 Better models to predict loss of contaminants via volatilization. 

3.6.8 Key Recommendations for Sediment Remediation 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 69 

E.1 Collect the necessary data and develop guidance for determining the conditions under 

which natural recovery can be considered a suitable remedial option. Such guidance would 

include: measurement protocols to assess the relative contribution of the various 

mechanisms for chemical releases from bed sediments (e.g., advection, bioturbation, 

diffusion, and resuspension), including mass transport of contaminants by large storm 

events; approaches to assess the vertical extent of the bioavailable zone in different 

environmental settings; methodologies to quantify the uncertainties associated with natural 

recovery; and development of accepted measuring protocols to determine in situ chemical 

fluxes from sediments. 

The Workgroup recommends that research be continued and increased for examining the relative 

contributions of the various mechanisms for contaminant release from sediments. 

When selecting a remedial option for a particular site, it is critical to determine the methods by which 

contaminants are lost or transported, and which mechanisms play significant roles. In many situations 

large storm events will be the largest mechanism to move contaminants from a particular hot spot. 

In other more quiescent settings, such processes as advection, diffusion and bioturbation may 

predominate. The method of contaminant loss varies seasonally in many systems, with resuspension 

by storm events typically predominating in spring; other mechanisms are more important over the rest 

of the year. The flux of contaminants via processes such as advection, diffusion, and bioturbation can 

also show seasonal variation. Knowing the relative contributions of these mechanisms is critical in 

determining whether natural recovery or capping are the most appropriate remedial options for a site. 

Also, being able to better quantify the uncertainties inherent in evaluation of natural recovery and other 

remedial options will enable more effective remedy selection. 

Under certain circumstances, natural recovery through burial of contaminated sediments may be a 

viable remedial option. In such cases, the depositional history of sediments can be understood through 

the analysis of sediment physical data in conjunction with age dating techniques using 137Cs, 210Pb, 

lignin, and other compounds in sediments. Even where physical data are seemingly sufficient to allow 

construction of a mathematical model of deposition, empirical data are critical for calibration and 

validation of such models. 

E.2 Develop performance evaluations of various cap designs and cap placement methods and 

conduct cap placement and post-cap monitoring to document performance. Continue to 

monitor ongoing capping projects to monitor performance (e.g., Boston Harbor, Eagle 

Harbor, Grasse River). 

The design and installation of conventional sediment caps is well understood; however, the long-term 

effectiveness of this remedial alternative has not been well researched. In addition, many entities are 

now beginning to discuss more complex cap designs, including the use of biological treatment. 

With capping becoming a management option being recommended at more sites, it is critical that 

evaluations be conducted to document its effectiveness. It is important that U.S. EPA promote 
Page 70	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

capping demonstration projects that include both short- and long-term monitoring to document cap 

placement methods and cap performance. All mechanisms of loss must be quantified during such a 

study including sediment resuspension (during placement), diffusion, advection, bioturbation, and 

storm events. 

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

In situ technologies, if proven effective, would be the most efficient means for remediating 

contaminated sediment sites. Such a technology would avoid the problems and make moot arguments 

of whether or not removing sediments via dredging does more harm than good. It would also obviate 

the difficulties associated with finding a disposal site. 

It is important that U.S. EPA actively identify and work with vendors who have a viable technology 

for treating contaminants in situ, conduct demonstration projects examining in situ technologies, and 

evaluate such projects to determine their efficacy. 

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

short-term and long-term impacts from dredging relative to natural processes and human 

activities (e.g., resuspension from storm events, boat scour, wave action and anchor drag). 

Large storm events are known to move large volumes of sediment and their associated 

contaminants. It is critical that any study examining the impacts from dredging also be examined in 

relation to all mechanisms of contaminant loss ongoing at a particular site. It is essential that all 

contaminant losses that would naturally occur at a site including resuspension from storm events, 

advection, diffusion, and bioturbation, be taken into account when evaluating dredging impacts. Only 

when the net losses from these processes are known can the impacts associated with dredging be 

adequately evaluated. 

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

identification of potential beneficial uses of treatment products. 

Much work on ex situ treatment has been conducted by both U.S. EPA Region 2 and GLNPO. A 

number of demonstrations have been successfully completed to date, and others are planned. The 

Workgroup is now confident that tools do exist to decontaminate sediments. It is apparent, however, 

that to make treatment viable, it is necessary that a marketable end use product (i.e., a cost effective 

option) either be extant or be developed, particularly at sites that have large volumes of contaminated 

sediments. 

Partnerships need to be developed with industry to conduct joint demonstrations and examine all 

options for making treatment cost effective and a viable alternative to landfilling. 

3.7 Baseline, Remediation, and Post-Remediation Monitoring 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 71 

To ensure that all sediment risk and exposure pathways at a site are being (or have been) adequately 

managed by the remedy, it is necessary to implement a sediment monitoring program for all types of 

sediment remedies, both during remedy implementation and over the long-term. Long-term 

monitoring should continue until all remedial action objectives have been met. In some instances, this 

may take many decades. A sediment monitoring program encompasses baseline monitoring, 

monitoring during remedial action implementation, and post-remediation, or long-term monitoring. 

Baseline monitoring encompasses the monitoring of those indicators of environmental change (i.e., 

fish or other biota, sediment chemistry, pore water chemistry, toxicity testing, and benthic community 

structure) and is conducted prior to the initiation of the remedial action. It is typically conducted 

during the remedial investigation or site characterization stage. It is important that baseline monitoring 

be consistent with the planned long-term or post-remediation monitoring, and to provide a valid basis 

for comparison with the post-remediation monitoring data in order to detect and evaluate 

environmental trends and to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedial action. 

In contrast, post-remediation, or long-term, monitoring is initiated once the remedial action is 

completed. It involves multiple measurements made over time to assess the success of the remedy in 

meeting remedial performance goals. The data are used to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of the 

selected remedial action in protecting human health and the environment, engineering/construction 

performance and structural integrity of any containment or stabilization structures, the recovery of 

areas impacted by the remedial action, and the success of mitigation projects built to offset 

environmental impacts caused by the remedial action; the data can also be used to evaluate restoration 

of the ecosystem. Post-remediation monitoring typically consists of monitoring fish or other biota 

populations and residues, toxicity testing, and benthic community structure evaluations. Monitoring 

may continue after the remedial performance goals are achieved to assure that the remedy is sound and 

continues to be effective. 

Monitoring during implementation of the remedial action is used to evaluate the short-term effects of 

the remedial action, whether the remedial action project meets design requirements, whether clean-up 

levels are met, and whether other remedial action objectives are met. In some cases where the 

implementation of the remedial action spans a significant length of time, the length of time of 

monitoring during implementation may span several years, if not decades. Natural recovery sites and 

large dredging projects encompassing millions of cubic yards of sediment are examples of sites where 

such monitoring may run for decades. Monitoring during dredging is conducted to measure dredging 

effectiveness and identify short-term upsets whereas monitoring after dredging is completed (i.e, postremedial monitoring) is conducted to determine whether the pre-dredging baseline conditions have 

been negatively affected. Monitoring during remedial action implementation may contain some of the 

same indicators, but will likely include monitoring of others such as turbidity, dissolved oxygen, 

sediment chemistry, water chemistry, and air monitoring. Further, the monitoring of environmental 

effects could include tracking other parameters such as the concentration of contaminants (either 

dissolved or suspended) in the water column, the amount of contaminants lost downstream, and the 

concentration of residual contaminants left behind in the bottom sediments. 
Page 72	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Monitoring is a standard component at a contaminated sediment project, beginning prior to the site 

investigation when project managers are trying to determine whether there is a problem, and running 

through post-remediation monitoring. These various types of monitoring programs are being 

implemented at a number of contaminated sediment sites, and plans are in place to initiate monitoring 

at others. 

A few examples of sites where post-remediation monitoring is underway or planned to be initiated are: 

•	 Cannelton Industries Superfund site on the St. Mary’s River, Michigan. 

•	 Black River, Ohio. 

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

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

•	 LCP Superfund site in Brunswick, Georgia. 

•	 Tennessee River Site in Decatur, Alabama. (Consent Decree with stream diversion, 

capping, and in-place stabilization). 

Monitoring during remedy implementation is underway on the Pine River, Michigan (Velsicol 

Superfund site). The Sediment Inventory may be referred to for additional information. See Figure 

3-4 for examples of other science activities related to monitoring. 

•	 FIELDS software tools have been developed to support the monitoring of remedy implementation and 

remediation effectiveness (U.S. EPA Region 5 Superfund). 

•	 Development of monitoring guidance and fact sheets (OSWER and Regions). 

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

Figure 3-4. Examples of Other Science Activities Related to Monitoring 

Questions arise regarding the short-term impacts and long-term effectiveness of dredging, capping and 

other in situ remedies. A look at sediment sites across the nation shows inconsistencies in the kinds 

of monitoring performed. Impediments to the implementation of monitoring may be due to limited 

knowledge on how to develop and implement monitoring plans. 

There is an ongoing debate regarding the short-term impacts and long-term effectiveness of dredging 

and capping remedies, with some claiming that dredging (and possibly capping) cause greater harm 

through destruction of habitat and release of contaminants. Others argue that while there are shortterm impacts, they can be minimized through technology and operational and other controls, and that 

these remedies will prove to be more protective over the long-term because of the permanent removal 

of the contaminants or through limitations on bioavailability. Other questions include: Will dredging 

or capping result in newly created or increased direct toxicity to biota from increases in dissolved or 

suspended contaminant concentrations in the water column? Will they result in an increase in the 

bioavailability of contaminants and increased tissue concentrations in fish and other biota? How long 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 73 

does it take for the habitat of a dredged or capped area to become suitable for aquatic life and for recolonization to take place? Will caps provide attractive habitat for desirable biota, or will they attract 

less desirable organisms and non-native communities? Information from the monitoring of both 

remedy implementation and post-remediation is necessary in order to address and resolve these issues. 

In addition, monitoring information can be used to inform decision-making at contaminated sediment 

sites. 

Science Needs 

The NRC Report (2001a) recommends that “[l]ong-term monitoring and evaluation of [...] 

contaminated sediment sites should be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the management 

approach and to ensure adequate, continuous protection of humans and the environment.” This is 

consistent with the issues discussed above - more and better monitoring data are needed. To ensure 

that such data are collected, guidance and information with regard to available protocols and tests are 

needed for the remediation project manager’s reference. In addition, to ensure that such monitoring 

is implemented, a cross-program policy may also be needed. For Superfund sites, such a policy may 

direct the agency to ensure that monitoring is included as a component of remedial alternatives in the 

Feasibility Study and Record of Decision, and included in settlements with potentially responsible 

parties (PRPs). For cleanups funded with Federal dollars, sufficient funds would need to be included 

to cover the cost of the monitoring, or agreements made with state or Federal partners to conduct such 

monitoring. 

Some specific areas that need to be addressed include: an evaluation of the existing protocols and 

tests performed to identify those which are appropriate for monitoring and any additional needs. For 

example, U.S. EPA's Office of Water has published protocols for sampling and analysis of fish and 

shellfish in order to determine human health risks associated with tissue contaminants (U.S. EPA, 

2000c). U.S. EPA has also published guidance on collection, storage, and manipulation of sediments 

(U.S. EPA, 2001b), and existing Agency protocols are available for dredged material testing and 

assessment (U.S. EPA, 1998c and 1991a). These protocols are available for use in monitoring 

contaminated sediment sites. However, monitoring guidance needs to be developed to provide 

remediation project managers with a consistent approach to developing monitoring plans and 

implementing such monitoring. It is important that monitoring guidance also address how monitoring 

plans are developed, what protocols and tests are available for use (with recommendations for the use 

for each), how to develop indicators and measures, how to evaluate monitoring data, minimum quality 

assurance/quality control (QA/QC) protocols, and specifics regarding which biota and which media 

should be used for specific situations (i.e., number of, species, and age of fish for bioaccumulative 

chemicals of concern). 

It is important to make monitoring data available to provide information for decision-making at other 

sediment sites. Please refer to Section 3.9 for additional details with regard to monitoring data 

management and exchange. 
Page 74 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

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

A review of sediment sites across the nation show a lack of or limited monitoring data with which to 

answer these questions and resolve the debate. In addition, monitoring data needs to be made available 

to inform decision-making at contaminated sediment sites. 

The impediments to monitoring include: limited knowledge on how to develop monitoring plans, 

including the type, frequency, and temporal extent of measurements and limited knowledge on their 

implementation. Additional issues include the cost of conducting monitoring, providing oversight when 

conducted by the PRP, and implications of the monitoring results and final compliance of remedial 

action. 

The following key recommendations are made to address these issues. 

F.1 Develop monitoring guidance fact sheets for baseline, remediation, and post-remediation 

monitoring, and monitoring during remedy implementation. 

An important area for future study is evaluation of existing protocols and tests in order to identify 

those which are appropriate for monitoring and what additional needs there may be. Monitoring 

guidance needs to be developed to provide project managers with a consistent approach to developing 

monitoring plans and implementing such monitoring (e.g., monitoring of sediment resuspension during 

remedy implementation). Such guidance would also address how monitoring plans are developed, what 

protocols and tests are available for use (with recommendations for the use of each), how to develop 

indicators and measures, how to evaluate monitoring data, minimum QA/QC protocols, and specifics 

regarding which biota and which media should be used for specific situations (i.e., number of, species, 

and age of fish for bioaccumulative chemicals of concern). This information would be compiled into 

a compendium and be available as a reference document for the guidance and fact sheets. 

To meet this need, the Workgroup recommends that the OSRTI, with support from the other program 

offices and regions, initiate the development of monitoring guidance fact sheets. It is suggested that 

a workgroup be established with representation across program offices and regions to take on this 

task. It is recommended that this workgroup coordinate with natural resource trustees to ensure that 

monitoring guidance addresses their values and priorities. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 75 

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

contaminated sediment sites. 

Training is needed to teach project managers how to develop and implement monitoring plans, and 

evaluate the resulting data with regard to remedy implementation and performance. Workshops or 

other fora are needed to share monitoring information and remedy performance. 

To begin to meet these needs, it is recommended that a two-day Monitoring Workshop be held under 

the suggested lead of ORD and OSRTI. The target audience would be U.S. EPA scientists and project 

managers of contaminated sediment sites. It is further recommended that an advisory group be formed 

with participation from the various program and regional offices to plan the workshop. 

The CSSP Document also recommends that additional sessions be held periodically (whether they be 

training workshops or brown bags for the purpose of teaching how to conduct monitoring or prepare 

monitoring plans, or fora for the purpose of sharing experiences and results), and at various levels(i.e., 

regional, national, U.S. EPA only, or U.S. EPA plus external parties). The leads for planning such 

sessions may be at the national or regional level. Use of existing fora is encouraged, such as the annual 

National Association of Remedial Project Managers meeting, or the National Superfund Site 

Assessment Conference. At the regional level, a program office may take the lead to sponsor a brown 

bag on monitoring. The timing of such regional sessions will be left to the discretion of the regions. 

It is also recommended that a national workshop be held in conjunction with the completion of the 

draft monitoring guidance, under the sponsorship of OSRTI, ORD, and OW. 

3.8 Risk Communication and Community Involvement 

The National Research Council’s report, A Risk-Management Strategy for PCB-Contaminated 

Sediments (NRC, 2001a) highlighted the many benefits of involving communities in the cleanup 

process. “Participation makes the process more democratic, lends legitimacy to the process, educates 

and empowers the affected communities, and generally leads to decisions that are more accepted by 

the community (Fiorino, 1990; Folk, 1991; NRC, 1997). The affected community members can 

contribute essential community-based knowledge, information, and insight that is often lacking in 

expert-driven risk processes (Ashford and Rest, 1999). Community involvement can also assist in 

dealing with perceptions of risk and helping community members to understand the differences 

between types and degrees of risk.”Although the benefits of early, active, and continuous community 

involvement have been widely recognized by U.S. EPA and others, the NRC found that there still 

remains much progress that needs to be made to more effectively involve communities. 

U.S. EPA’s two major programs/offices with responsibilities for protecting and cleaning-up 

contaminated sediments, Superfund and the Office of Water, have both expanded efforts to more 

greatly involve communities in their programs. For example, the Superfund program published a 

report identifying useful lessons that were learned on how to provide communities greater involvement 

(U.S. EPA, 1999b). Superfund has developed a number of general guidance documents and tools for 

use at Superfund sites. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS): Volume 1 - Human Health 
Page 76 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Evaluation Manual. Supplement to Part A: Community Involvement in Superfund Risk Assessments 

(U.S. EPA, 1999c) explains how Superfund staff and community members can work together 

especially during the risk assessment. A video, Superfund Risk Assessment - What It’s All About and 

How You Can Help, describes (in lay terms) the Superfund risk assessment process and how 

communities can help (U.S. EPA, 1999d). Other fact sheets and Community Advisory Group Toolkits 

have been developed (U.S. EPA, 1998a, 1995b, 1999b, and 1996b). Additionally, the Office of 

Water’s National Fish and Wildlife Contamination Program is developing an updated (second) edition 

of its Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume IV: 

Risk Communication (U.S. EPA, 1995a). This new edition will provide greater emphasis on ensuring 

that risk communication is culturally appropriate for diverse communities and that all communities be 

involved early and throughout the program. 

Risk communication provides the means for communities to have a greater role in the evaluation and 

decision-making process. Risk communication research develops the methods, models, and tools for 

U.S. EPA to more effectively reach out to communities, earn their trust, and build an effective working 

partnership. This partnership will allow communities to become more fully engaged in the entire 

cleanup process – not just as passive listeners, but as important decision-makers. The NRC (2001b) 

report recognized that U.S. EPA’s community involvement program has been advocating greater 

involvement of affected communities into the cleanup process. 

An important component of risk communication and community involvement is ensuring that all the 

technical information provided to the communities is understandable. Too often communities are 

either inundated with too much extraneous information that cannot be understood, or they are 

presented with summaries that contain too little data. Research is needed on both how to effectively 

extract the appropriate amount of information and determine the best vehicles (e.g., formal 

presentations, newsletters, informal meetings, videos, infomercials, web sites) for presenting the data 

to communities. In addition to developing more effective tools for the sender of messages, research 

is needed to develop better listening skills for all the receivers of messages. 

Communities have first-hand knowledge of the site and their own activities (such as catching and 

consuming fish) that would be very helpful to U.S. EPA’s evaluation of the site and its possible 

impacts on nearby communities. The development of site-specific exposure factors based on the 

measurements of the habits of the local community could reduce reliance on the use of national default 

assumptions that may not reflect local habits or conditions. 

Communities at contaminated sediment sites are diverse and often have conflicting interests that are 

hard to articulate and quantify. Measurement methods that might be suitable include public opinion 

survey instruments, randomly selected focus groups, and computer-based methods such as “virtual” 

town meetings. This is particularly important for sediment sites because they can cover large 

geographic areas. 

Because the effectiveness of risk communication and community involvement are rarely measured in 

application, there is considerable disagreement about the effectiveness of current public participation 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 77 

activities. Measuring the performance of existing tools and newly developed tools would focus 

improvements in necessary areas. 

Science Needs 

•	 Develop better methods and tools to measure the preferences of individuals, sub-populations, 

and communities throughout the entire sediment cleanup process. 

•	 Develop more effective methods and tools to describe, summarize, and present complex 

technical data to communities. 

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

•	 Develop ways to determine how various societal and cultural values and practices are 

impacted by contaminated sediments or cleanup activities. For example, the inability of 

native tribes to harvest fish and then barter them for other valuables is a cultural impact that 

is not often considered. 

•	 Develop community outreach methods and tools that can be applied to large geographic sites 

with multiple diverse communities. Because some contaminated sediment sites, especially 

river sites, can span tens or even hundreds of miles, they present difficult challenges to 

community involvement staff. 

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

participation programs. 

3.8.1 Key Recommendations for Risk Communication and Community Involvement 

Advances in the science of risk communication would result in much more meaningful community 

involvement in the contaminated sediments cleanup process. The methods, models, and tools 

produced by this research would allow U.S. EPA to more effectively reach out to communities, earn 

their trust, and build effective working partnerships– partnerships that empower communities to 

become more fully engaged in the entire cleanup decision-making process. To accomplish this, the 

following recommendation is made: 

G.1 Establish a research program on risk communication and community involvement focusing 

on developing better methods, models, and tools. 

There are many potential benefits to be gained by conducting research in this area. ORD could take 

the lead in developing a solicitation package to conduct research in one or more of these project areas. 
Page 78	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

3.9 Information Management and Exchange Activities 

Information, or data, management is a key component 

of the characterization, assessment, and monitoring 

activities conducted at contaminated sediment sites. A 

data management system provides one point of access 

for all data and simplifies assessment, QA/QC 

evaluation, modeling, mapping, querying, trends 

analysis and other activities that may be conducted 

using the data. Information communication and 

exchange are critical components of a contaminated 

sediment project and would be simplified by the 

establishment of a quality data management system. Outreach and information-sharing with the public 

is key to not only their understanding of the ecological and health risks associated with a site, but also 

of the possible solutions to address those risks. An informed public would be better able to contribute 

to the decision-making process in a knowledgeable manner. To manage the quality of its 

environmental data collection, generation, and use, EPA uses a Quality System that ensures that its 

environmental data are of sufficient quantity and quality to support the data's intended use. Some 

examples of the types of information/data management activities that are underway are shown in 

Figure 3-5. Other information communication and exchange activities are identified in Figure 3-6. 

Management Activities 

Currently Underway 

• s sediment database. 

•	 s Sediment Inventory. 

•	 s Superfund sediment sites 

Figure 3-5. Types of Information/Data 

GLNPO’

OW’

OSRTI’

Figure 3-6. Information Communication and Exchange Activities 

•	 Sediment Network (OW). 

•	 Superfund Sediment Forum (OSRTI). 

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

Dredging Teams. 

•	 Great Lakes sediment web page (GLNPO). 

•	 

•	 s FIELDS system. 

•	 Contaminated Sediment Technical Advisory Committee (CSTAG). 

•	 U.S. EPA Region 5/States Sediment Forum. 

Public Outreach Tools: Sediment pamphlet and poster (OW) and a dredging video (OSRTI). 

U.S. EPA Region 5 Superfund’

Science Needs 

Environmental data need to be appropriately housed in data management systems. It is important that 

such data management systems be consistent and able to link across the regions and offices. 

Environmental information regarding contaminated sediment sites needs to be placed onto regional 

contaminated sediment web sites which are updated on a regular basis, and be linked across the 

regions so that information on sites in other regions is available to the viewer. It is also important that 

networks be formed so that information about contaminated sediment sites and issues can be 

exchanged and discussed. Workshops and other fora that are held periodically for a range of 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 79 

audiences are an important additional means of communicating and exchanging information, and 

increasing the science knowledge of stakeholders and others. 

There is a need for more timely information exchange, improved access to environmental information 

and data, both internally across the Agency and with external stakeholders and other interested parties. 

One of the recommendations in the National Research Council Report (2001b) is that there be “early, 

active, and continuous involvement of all affected parties and communities as partners.” One of the 

many keys to the success of such involvement is the availability of, and access to, environmental 

information and data about the site(s) of concern. In addition, stakeholders may also need some basic 

science knowledge (or someone to explain it) so as to be able to comprehend what the data and 

information means and be better able to contribute to the decision-making process in an informative 

manner. 

3.9.1	 Key Recommendations for Information Management and Exchange Activities 

To meet these needs, the following recommendations are made. 

H.1	 Establish regional sediment data management systems which can link the regions and 

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

There is a need for more timely information exchange regarding contaminated sediment sites, and 

improved access to environmental information and data. This will allow for improved decision-making 

in addition to being able to learn from the experiences of others. The two key impediments or issues, 

in addition to the lack of sediment data management systems in general, are the lack of consistent 

formats among such systems, and a lack of accessibility between regional systems and the national 

program offices. 

To address these issues, it is recommended that the regional information management programs take 

the lead for ensuring regional sediment data management systems are established, and to provide the 

technical support that may be needed. The regional program offices will need to work together to 

establish roles and responsibilities on how the data management systems will be set up and maintained. 

The Office of Environmental Information (OEI) would also have a key role in this activity. It is 

important to evaluate the existing data management systems such as U.S. EPA’s STORage and 

RETrieval database (STORET) to see if any are able to meet the needs identified here. It is suggested 

that a workshop be held for the regions and program offices to share information on existing data 

management systems and how this recommendation might best be implemented. 
Page 80	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

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

protocols for QA/QC using the Agency’s Quality System for Environmental Data and 

Technology. 

Because data are collected both by various U.S. EPA programs and offices and by other agencies, 

collection and reporting formats and QA/QC protocols vary. This leads to difficulties in sharing 

information across programs/offices and between U.S. EPA and other agencies. 

To address these issues, it is recommended that U.S. EPA’s Environmental Information Office, with 

OW and OSWER, take the lead in developing standardized formats and identifying minimum QA/QC 

protocols under its Quality System for Environmental Data and Technology.11 It is recommended that 

the regions, state environmental agencies, and other Federal agencies be involved, as appropriate. It 

is recommended that a workshop be held in the near future to address these issues, with the protocols 

being developed from the workshop. 

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

information. 

To also meet the need for more timely information exchange regarding contaminated sediment sites, 

the CSSP Document recommends that a national sediment web site be established. It is recommended 

that the proposed sediment web site under consideration in OW be considered for use as a centralized 

web site to meet this need. OW is suggested to take the lead, with support from OEI, OSRTI, and 

other offices and regions as appropriate. It is recommended that web sites developed by the regions 

and programs link with the national sediment web site. GLNPO, OW, OSRTI, and some of the 

regions are developing or have developed contaminated sediment web sites containing information on 

sediment sites, and also provide links to guidance and other information regarding the contaminated 

sediment problem. Where they do not exist, and are found to be needed, it is recommended that 

regional remedial and water programs, working with their regional information management programs, 

jointly develop contaminated sediment sites web sites. It is recommended that these web sites be in 

place as soon as practicable. 

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

more regional representation. 

The CSSP Document recommends that the Sediment Network be re-established under the co-lead of 

OW and OSRTI. Key representatives from appropriate national and regional program offices are 

11 EPA uses its Quality System to manage the quality of its environmental data collection, generation, and use. 

The primary goal of the EPA Quality System is to ensure that its environmental data are of sufficient quantity and 

quality to support the data's intended use. The EPA Quality System requires that each EPA Office, Region, and 

Research and Development Laboratory or Center develop and implement supporting Quality Systems. EPA's 

Quality System specifications may also apply to extramural agreement holders (i.e., contractors, grantees, and 

other recipients of financial assistance from EPA). 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 81 

presumptive participants. The suggested purpose of the Network would be to resolve issues and to 

share information (each representative would then share the information through their own 

organizations). It is also recommended that regular teleconferences be scheduled. It is also suggested 

that an OW/OSWER memorandum be prepared and sent to the program offices and regional offices 

announcing the Sediment Network and inviting their participation. 

A sediment list server is also recommended as an additional means of sharing information and 

resolving issues for a larger audience. Responsibility for maintenance of such a list server should be 

jointly shared between OW and OSWER. 

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

agencies. 

Many other Federal agencies and departments sponsor research on the same sediment research topics. 

The Workgroup recommends that coordination and communication of science and research among 

Federal agencies be promoted in order to avoid duplication of efforts, encourage partnering between 

researchers working on similar projects, and facilitate the timely sharing of interim and final results. 

Agencies that might participate include U.S. EPA, NOAA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

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

journals, and meetings). 

The Workgroup recommends that national and regional program offices encourage their managers and 

staff to share scientific information via workshops, conferences, publication in journals, and 

presentations. In addition, great benefit would be achieved by incorporating information of new 

technologies and approaches applicable to contaminated sediment management within existing regional 

training programs. It is recommended that other options for sharing scientific information be explored 

at the regional level. 
Page 82 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 83 

4. MEETING SCIENCE NEEDS 

4.1 Introduction 

There are many scientific uncertainties associated with assessing and managing contaminated 

sediments. Multiple offices and regions have overlapping science needs; some have individual, 

program-specific requirements. Realistically, it will take a long-term program to develop, implement, 

and verify the science. Planning across all U.S. EPA organizations, with recognition and coordination 

of important work being conducted by other organizations, such as Federal and State Agencies and 

academic institutions, is essential to advancing the science and managing risks from contaminated 

sediments in the most cost-effective ways. 

4.2 Recommended Approaches to Implement Strategy 

It is the Agency's intent that the Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Document serve as a 

single, formal assessment of contaminated sediment science activities which can be used to foster 

collaboration and dialogue between EPA offices and regions. The CSSP Document may be used as 

a framework for future science inventories or as the starting point for developing a more specific 

science and implementation plan. It is recommended that each organization consult the key 

recommendations when planning contaminated sediment science activities. 

The Workgroup recommends that a broad Agency oversight committee such as the Contaminated 

Sediment Management Committee be used to review the key recommendation of the CSSP Document 

in the future to ensure that science presented herein reflects the Agency’s evolving science needs. If 

such a group is used or formed, the bullets below identify some tasks that may be useful for review 

and collaboration. 

• Reviewing science activities: 

It is recommended that the lead U.S. EPA offices and regions present to the oversight committee 

the current science activities they are conducting pertaining to research topics and key 

recommendations identified in the CSSP Document, as well as identifying those additional science 

activities, based on the key recommendations in the CSSP Document, that they would implement 

should sufficient resources become available. This information sharing will serve to initiate closer 

coordination of science activities related to contaminated sediments across U.S. EPA. 

• Implementing science activities: 

It is recommended that lead U.S. EPA offices and regions who agree to carry out the 

recommended science activities ensure that these activities are considered within their annual 

planning, budgeting, and accountability process, and are implemented when resources are 

committed. It is recommended that for each recommendation, a brief one-page description be 
Page 84 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

developed (or updated) which includes the following information: title, key partners, actions 

underway, actions planned over next two years, products expected by (date), and primary 

contact(s). Please refer to Appendix B for an example. The one-page recommendation 

descriptions and a report out on the status of the implementation of the science activities would 

be provided at the annual meetings. The oversight committee would then determine whether 

progress toward the goals is being made and, if necessary, recommend adjustments to science 

activities to meet the key recommendations. 

• Identifying areas where science partnerships are needed: 

It is recommended that the oversight committee advise U.S. EPA offices and regions where 

scientific collaboration within the Agency, as well as with other Federal agencies, would be 

beneficial. These partnerships will hopefully speed the accomplishment of key recommendations. 

It is important that coordination also occur with the Science Policy Council on the use of science 

priorities for science planning; with the Council on Regulatory Environmental Modeling on the 

characteristics and appropriate applications for existing models; and with the Forum on 

Environmental Measurements on the development and validation of new analytical methods. 

• Coordinating with U.S. EPA offices and regions: 

It is recommended that the oversight committee contact the lead U.S. EPA office or region 

identified as a suggested critical partner from Table 4-1 for each key recommendation to 

understand how they intend to implement science activities for the recommendations. 

• Identifying unfunded activities: 

It is important to identify resource needs for unfunded or underfunded tasks. It is recommended 

that the oversight committee discuss unfunded science areas and communicate these to the 

appropriate science planning staff within U.S. EPA offices and regions in order to identify the 

appropriate resources to address them. 

• Updating the Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Document: 

Periodic reviews of the state of the science on contaminated sediments, a gaps analysis, and 

updating of the CSSP Document are recommended as needed. 

Table 4-1 lists the key recommendations by topic area, the time frame for implementation, and 

suggested critical partners. Although recommendations are roughly divided into two time frames, 

immediate and longer term, some of the recommendations could be viewed as continuing needs. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 85 

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

Suggested Critical Partners 

Recommendations 

Immediate Time Frame 

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

property data for use in evaluating sediment stability. (OSRTI, ORD, U.S. EPA Regions) 

Longer Time Frame 

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

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

OSRTI, GLNPO) 

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

bioaccumulative contaminants of concern in fish tissue. (ORD, OSRTI, OW, U.S. EPA 

Regions) 

A.4	 Develop methods for analyzing emerging endocrine disruptors, including alkylphenol 

ethoxylates (APEs) and their metabolites. (ORD) 

Immediate Time Frame 

B.1	 Develop a tiered framework for assessing food web exposures. (ORD, OW, OSRTI, U.S. 

EPA Regions) 

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

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

Regions) 

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

models that allow prediction of exposures in the future. (ORD, OSRTI, OW, U.S. EPA 

Regions) 

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

(ORD, OSRTI, OW, U.S. EPA Regions) 

A. Sediment Site Characterization 

B. Exposure Assessment 
Page 86	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Immediate Time Frame 

C.1	 Develop guidance for characterizing human health risks on a PCB congener basis. (ORD, 

OSRTI, OW, U.S. EPA Regions) 

C.2	 Develop sediment guidelines for bioaccumulative contaminants that are protective of 

human health via the fish ingestion pathway. (ORD, OSRTI, OW, U.S. EPA Regions) 

Longer Time Frame 

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

Regions) 

C.4	 Evaluate the toxicity and reproductive effects of newly recognized contaminants, such as 

alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs) and other endocrine disruptors and their metabolites on 

human health. (ORD, OPPT) 

Immediate Time Frame 

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

OW, U.S. EPA Regions) 

D.3	 Develop guidance on how to interpret ecological sediment toxicity studies (lab or in situ 

caged studies) and how to interpret the significance of the results in relation to site 

populations and communities. (OW, ORD, OSRTI, U.S. EPA Regions) 

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

dredging vs. the shorter term adverse effects on ecological receptors and their habitats. 

(ORD, OSRTI, U.S. EPA Regions) 

D.6	 Continue developing and refining both chronic and sub-chronic sediment toxicity testing 

methods. (ORD, OW, U.S. EPA Regions) 

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

chemicals. (ORD, OW) 

Longer Time Frame 

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

OPPTS, OW) 

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

sediment quality guidelines. (OW, ORD) 

C. Human Health Toxicity and Risk Characterization 

D. Ecological Effects and Risk Assessment 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 87 

Immediate Time Frame 

E.1	 Collect the necessary data and develop guidance for determining the conditions under 

would include: measurement protocols to assess the relative contribution of the various 

mechanisms for chemical releases from bed sediments (e.g., advection, bioturbation, 

diffusion, and resuspension), including mass transport of contaminants by large storm 

events; approaches to assess the vertical extent of the bioavailable zone in different 

environmental settings; methodologies to quantify the uncertainties associated with 

natural recovery; and development of accepted measuring protocols to determine in situ 

chemical fluxes from sediments. (ORD, OSRTI, U.S. EPA Regions, GLNPO) 

E.2	 Develop performance evaluations of various cap designs and cap placement methods and 

monitor ongoing capping projects to monitor performance (e.g., Boston Harbor, Eagle 

Harbor, Grasse River). (ORD, U.S. EPA Regions, GLNPO) 

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

short-term and long-term impacts from dredging relative to natural processes and human 

activities (e.g., resuspension from storm events, boat scour, wave action, and anchor 

drag). (OSRTI, U.S. EPA Regions) 

Longer Time Frame 

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

(ORD, GLNPO) 

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

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

EPA Regions) 

Immediate Time Frame 

F.1	 Develop monitoring guidance fact sheets for baseline, remediation, and post-remediation 

monitoring, and monitoring during remedy implementation. (ORD, OSRTI, U.S. EPA 

Regions, OW) 

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

contaminated sediment sites. (OSRTI, ORD, U.S. EPA Regions) 

E. Sediment Remediation 

which natural recovery can be considered a suitable remedial option. Such guidance 

conduct cap placement and post-cap monitoring to document performance. Continue to 

F. Baseline, Remediation, and Post-remediation Monitoring 
Page 88	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Immediate Time Frame 

G.1	 Establish a research program on risk communication and community involvement focusing 

on developing better methods, models, and tools. (ORD, OSRTI, U.S. EPA Regions) 

Immediate Time Frame 

H.1	 Establish regional sediment data management systems which can link the regions and 

program offices with each other and with the National Sediment Inventory. (U.S. EPA 

Regions, OW, OSWER, GLNPO) 

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

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

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

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

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

agencies. (ORD, OSWER, OW, U.S. EPA Regions, NOAA, U.S. Navy, U.S. ACE, 

USGS, U.S. FWS) 

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

journals, and meetings). (CSMC, OW, OSWER, U.S. EPA Regions, GLNPO) 

Longer Time Frame 

H.2	 

s Quality 

System for Environmental Data and Technology. (OEI, OW OSWER, U.S. EPA 

Regions) 

G. Risk Communication and Community Involvement 

H. Information Management and Exchange Activities 

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

protocols for quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) using the Agency’
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 89 

REFERENCES
 

Abramowicz, D.A. and D.R. Olsen. 1995. Accelerated Biodegradation of PCBs. CHEMTECH 

24:36-41. 

Ankley GT, Di Toro DM, Hansen DJ, Berry WJ. 1996. Technical Basis and Proposal for Deriving 

Sediment Quality Criteria for Metals. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15:2053-2055. 

Ashford, N.A. and K.M. Rest. 1999. Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. Rep. No. 

U60/CCU/100929-02. Prepared by the Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial 

Development, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA. 

Barrick R, Becker S, Pastorok R, Brown L, Beller H. 1988. Sediment Quality Values Refinement: 

1988 Update and Evaluation of Puget Sound AET. Bellevue WA, USA.: Prepared by PTI 

Environmental Services for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Bedard, D.L. and R.J. May. 1996. Characterization of the PCBs in Sediments of Woods Pond: 

Evidence for Microbial Dechlorination of Aroclors 1260 In Situ. Environmental Science 

Technology 30:237-245. 

Blake, G.R. and K.H. Hartge. 1986. Methods of Soil Analysis. American Society of Agronomy, Inc. 

and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. 

Brown, J.F. Jr., R.E. Wagner, H. Feng, D.L. Bedard, M.J. Brennan, J.C. Carnaham, and R.J. May. 

1987. Environmental Dechlorination of PCBs. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

6:579-593. 

Burkhard, L.P. 2003. Factors Influencing the Design of BAF and BSAF Field Studies. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22:351-360. 

Burkhard, L.P., D.D. Endicott, P.M. Cook, K.G. Sappington, and E.L. Winchester. 2003. 

Evaluation of Two Methods for Prediction of Bioaccumulation Factors. Environmental Science 

and Technology 37:4626-4634. 

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 1995. Protocol for the Derivation of Canadian 

Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. Prepared by the CCME Task 

Group on Water Quality Guidelines, Ottawa, ON. 

CDM. 1986. Weiss Associates ElectroChemical GeoOxidation Pilot Scale Study Work Plan: Draft 

Report. Prepared by Camp, Dresser, & McKee for Alcoa, Inc. 

Cerniglia, C.E. 1992. Biodegradation of PAHs. Biodegradation 3:351-368. 
Page 90 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Chapman, P.M. 1989. Current Approaches to Developing Sediment Quality Criteria. Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry 8:589-599. 

Chapman, P.M., E.A. Power, and G.A. Burton, Jr. 1982. Integrative Assessments in Aquatic 

Ecosystems. pp. 313-340. In: Sediment Toxicity Assessment. G.A. Burton, Jr. (ed). Lewis 

Publishers, Chelsea, MI. 

Chapman, P.M. 1986. Sediment Quality Criteria from the Sediment Quality Triad: An Example. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 5: 957-64. 

Cubbage J, Batts D, Briedenbach S. 1997. Creation and Analysis of Freshwater Sediment Quality 

Values in Washington State. Olympia WA, USA: Environmental Investigations and Laboratory 

Services Program, Washington Department of Ecology. 

Day, P.R. 1965. Particle Fractionation and Particle-Size Analysis. pp. 562-566. In: Hydrometer 

method of Particle Size Analysis 9. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. 

Di Toro DM, Mahony JD, Hansen DJ, Scott KJ, Carlson AR, Ankley GT. 1991a. Acid Volatile 

Sulfide Predicts the Acute toxicity of Cadmium and Nickel in Sediments. Environmental Science 

Technology 26:96-101. 

Di Toro DM, Zarba CS, Hansen DJ, Berry WJ, Swartz RC, Cowan CE, Pavlou SP, Allen HE, 

Thomas NA, Paquin PR. 1991b. Technical Basis for Establishing Sediment Quality Criteria 

for Non-ionic Organic Chemicals Using Equilibrium Partitioning. Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry 10:1541-1583. 

Di Toro DM, McGrath JA. 2000. Technical Basis for Narcotic Chemicals and Polycyclic Aromatic 

Hydrocarbon Criteria. II: Mixtures and sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

19:1971-1982. 

Duncan, G.A., and G.G. Lattaie. 1979. Size Analysis Procedures Used in Sedimentology 

Laboratory, NWRI Manual. National Water Research Institute, Canada Centre for Inland 

Waters, Canada. 

Field, L.J., D. M. Macdonald, S. B. Norton, C.G. Severn, and C.G. Ingersoll. 1999. Evaluating 

Sediment Chemistry and Toxicity Data using Logistic Regression Modeling. Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry 18(6):1311-1322. 

Field LJ, MacDonald DD, Norton SB, Ingersoll CG, Severn CG, Smorong D, Lindskoog R. 2002. 

Predicting Amphipod Toxicity from Sediment Chemistry Uusing Logistic Regression Models. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:1993–2005. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 91 

Fiorino, D.J. 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk - a survey of institutional 

mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values 15(2):226-243. 

Folk, R.L. 1980. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphill Publishing Co., Austin, TX. 

Folk, E. 1991. Public Participation in the Superfund Cleanup Process. Ecology Law Quarterly 

18(1):173-221. 

Ginn TC, Pastorok RA. 1992. Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sediments in Puget 

Sound. In: Burton Jr GA, editor. Sediment Toxicity Assessment. Boca Raton FL, USA: Lewis. 

p 371-397. 

GLNPO. 2000. Realizing Remediation II: An Updated Summary of Contaminated Sediment 

Remediation Activities at Great Lakes Areas of Concern. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL. 

Guy, Harold P. 1969. “Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the U.S.G.S.” p.58. In: 

Laboratory Theory and Methods for Sediment Analysis; Book 5. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Arlington, VA. 

Hayes, D.F. 1989. Guide to selecting a dredge for minimizing resuspension of sediment, 

environmental effects of dredging. Technical Note EEDP-09-1. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Hoss, S. M., Haitzer, W. Traunspurger, and C.E.W. Steinberg. 1999. Growth and Fertility of 

Caenorhabditis elegans (Nematoda) in Unpolluted Freshwater Sediments: Response to 

Particle Size Distribution and Organic Content. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

18(12):2921-2925. 

Ingersoll, C.G., P.S. Haverland, E.L. Brunson, T.J. Canfield, F.J. Dwyer, C.E. Henke, and N.E. 

Kemble. 1996. Calculation and Evaluation of Sediment Effect Concentrations. Journal of 

Great Lakes Research 22:602-623. 

Jones, K.W., Feng, H., Stern, E.A., Lodge, J., and N.L. Clesceri. 2001. Dredged Material 

Decontamination Demonstration for the Port of New York/New Jersey. Journal of Hazardous 

Materials 85:127-143. 

Lee, H. II, B.L. Boese, J. Pelletier, M. Winsor, D.T. Sprecht, and R.C. Randall. 1989. Guidance 

Manual Bedded Sediment Bioaccumulation Tests. EPA-600/X-89/302. ERL, Narragansett, 

RI. 
Page 92 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Long ER, MacDonald DD, Smith SL, Calder FD. 1995. Incidence of Adverse Biological Effects 

within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine Sediments. Environmental 

Management 19:81-97. 

Long, E.R. 1992. Ranges in Chemical Concentrations in Sediments Associated with Adverse 

Biological Effect. Marine Pollution Bulletin 24(1):38-45. 

Long, E.R., and L.G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed 

Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum OMA 52. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA. 

MacDonald, D.D. 1994. Approach to the Assessment of Sediment Quality of Florida 1991 Coastal 

Waters. Volume 1 - Development and Evaluation of Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines. 

Report. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. 

MacDonald DD, Carr RS, Calder FD, Long ER, Ingersoll CG. 1996. Development and Evaluation 

of Sediment Quality Guidelines for Florida Coastal Waters. Ecotoxicology 5:253–278. 

McDonald, D.D., Ingersoll, C.G., and Berger, T.A. 2000a. Development and Evaluation of 

Consensus-Based Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems. Archives of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 39:20-31. 

MacDonald DD, DiPinto LM, Field J, Ingersoll CG, Long ER, Swartz RC. 2000b. Development and 

Evaluation of Consensus-based Sediment Effect Concentrations for Polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19:1403-1413. 

Mudroch, A., and S.D. MacKnight. 1994. CRC Handbook of Techniques for Aquatic Sediment 

Sampling. Second Edition. CRD Press, Boca Raton, FL. 

National Research Council. 1997. Contaminated Sediments in Ports and Waterways: Cleanup 

Strategies and Technologies. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

National Research Council. 2001a. A Risk Management Strategy for PCB-Contaminated Sediments. 

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

National Research Council. 2001b. Understanding Risk, Informing Decisions in a Democratic 

Society. P.C. and H.V. Stineberg (eds). National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1998. Technical Guidance for 

Screening Contaminated Sediments. Albany NY, USA: Division of Fish and Wildlife, Division 

of Marine Resources. 38 p. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page 93 

Parametrix. 1999. St. Paul Waterway Area Remedial Action and Habitat Restoration Project: 1998 

Monitoring Report. Unpublished report to Simpson-Tacoma Kraft Co., Tacoma, WA, and 

Champion International, Stanford, CT, for the Washington State Department of Ecology and 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA.

Patrick, W.H., Jr. 1958. “Modification of Method Particle Size Analyses.” In: Proceedings of the 

Soil Science Society of America 4:366-367. 

Peck, J., Hulsey, B., and Savagian, A. 1994. Clean Lakes, Clean Jobs A Case for Cleaning Up 

Contaminated Sediments. Sierra Club Great Lakes Ecoregion Program, Madison, WI. 

Persaud D, Jaagumagi R, Hayton A. 1993. Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic 

Sediment Quality in Ontario. Toronto ON, Canada: Water Resources Branch, Ontario Ministry 

of the Environment. 27 p. 

Plumb, R.H. 1981. Procedure for handling and chemical analysis of sediment and water samples. 

Tech. Rep. EPA/CE-81-1. Prepared by Great Lakes Laboratory, State University College at 

Buffalo, Buffalo, NY for Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Technical Committee on Criteria for Dredged and Fill Material. Published by U.S. Army 

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Puget Sound Estuary Program. 1986. Recommended Guidelines for Measuring Selected 

Environmental Variables in Puget Sound. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, 

Office of Puget Sound, Seattle, WA, and Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, WA. 

Rukavina, N.A., and G.A. Duncan. 1970. “F.A.S.T. - Fast Analysis of Sediment Texture.” pp. 274­

281. In: Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Great Lakes Research. 

Sanford, R.B., and D.J.P. Swift. 1971. Comparisons of Sieving and Settling Techniques for Size 

Analysis, Using a Benthos Rapid Sediment Analyzer. Sedimentology 17:257-264. 

Seech, A., B. O'Neil, and L.A. Comacchio. 1993. “Bioremediation of Sediments Contaminated with 

PAHs.” In: Proceedings of the Workshop on the Removal and Treatment of Contaminated 

Sediments. Environment Canada's Great Lakes Cleanup Fund. Wastewater Technology 

Center, Burlington, Ontario. 

SEG. 1999. Trenton Channel Marketability Study, Detroit, Michigan. MERA #820012. Snell 

Environmental Group, Lansing, MI. 

Shuttleworth, K.L. and C.E. Cerniglia. 1995. Environmental Aspects of PAH Biodegradation. 

Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 54:291-302. 
Page 94	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Singer, J.K., J.B. Anderson, M.T. Ledbetter, I.N. McCave, K.P.N. Jones, and R. Wright. 1988. An 

Assessment of Analytical Techniques for the Size Analysis of Fine-Grained Sediments. Journal 

of Sedimentary Petrology 58:534-543. 

Smith, S.L., D.D. MacDonald, K.A. Kennleyside, G.G. Ingersoll, and J. Field. 1996. A Preliminary 

Evaluation of Sediment Quality Assessment Values for Freshwater Ecosystems. Journal of 

Great Lakes Research 22:624-638. 

Steuer, Jeffrey J. 2000. A Mass-Balance Approach for Assessing PCB Movement During 

Remediation of a PCB-Contaminated Deposit on the Fox River, Wisconsin. USGS Report 00­

4245. U.S. Geological Survey, Middleton, WI. 

Stern, E.A., K.R.Donato, N.L. Clesceri, and K.W. Jones. 1998. “Integrated Sediment 

Decontamination for the New York/New Jersey Harbor.” pp. 71-81. In: Proceedings, 

National Conference on Management and Treatment of Contaminated Sediments. 

EPA/625/R-98/001. 

Sumeri, A. 1984. “Capped in-water disposal of contaminated dredged material.” pp. 644-653. In: 

Dredging ‘84: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Dredging and Material 

Disposal. R.L. Montgomery and J.W. Leach (eds). American Society of Civil Engineers, New 

York. 

Swartz RC. 1999. Consensus Sediment Quality Guidelines for PAH Mixtures. Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry 18:780-787. 

Truitt, C.L. 1986. Engineering Considerations for Capping Subaqueous Dredged Material Deposits 

- Design Concepts and Placement Techniques. Environmental Effects of Dredging. EEDP-01-

4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

U.S. EPA. 1979. Chemistry Laboratory Manual for Bottom Sediments and Elutriate Testing. EPA905-4-79-014 (NTIS PB 294596). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Chicago, 

IL. 

U.S. EPA. 1981. Interim Methods for the Sampling and Analysis of Priority Pollutants in Sediment 

and Fish Tissue. EPA-600/4-81-055. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental 

Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 

U.S. EPA. 1988. Guidelines for Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/001F. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington , D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 1989. Interim Final. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol. 1: Human Health 

Evaluation Manual (Part A). EPA/540/1-89/002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington D.C. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 95 

U.S. EPA. 1991a. Evaluation of dredged material proposed for ocean disposal - testing manual. 

EPA-503-8-91-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 1991b. Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples. EPA-600-

4-91-010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems 

Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. 

U.S. EPA. 1992a. Proceedings of EPA’s contaminated sediment management forums. EPA 823. 

Chicago, IL, 21-22 April, and Washington, D.C., 27-28 May and 16 June. 

U.S. EPA.	 1992b. Sediment Classification Methods Compendium. EPA-823-R-92-006. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 1994. ARCS Program - Remediation Guidance Document. EPA-905-R-94-003. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL. 

U.S. EPA. 1995a. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, 

Volume IV: Risk Communication. EPA/823/R-95/001 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 1995b. QA/QC Guidance for Sampling and Analysis of Sediments, Water, and Tissues 

for Dredged Material Evaluations. Phase I - Chemical Evaluations. EPA-823-B-95-001. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 1996a. ARCS Program - Estimating Contaminant Losses from Components of 

Remediation Alternatives for Contaminated Sediments. EPA-905-R96-001. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL. 

U.S. EPA. 1996b. Ecotox Thresholds: Eco Update. EPA-540-F-95-038. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 1996c. Guidelines for Reproductive Toxicity Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-96/009. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 1996d. Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document. EPA/540/R95/128. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 1996e. Calculation and Evaluation of Sediment Effect Concentrations for the Amphipod 

Hyalella Azteca and the Midge Chironomus Riparius. EPA-905/R-96/008. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Chicago, IL. 
Page 96	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

U.S. EPA. 1997a.	 Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the 

United States. EPA-823-R-96-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 1997b. EPA's Strategic Plan. EPA/190-R-97-002. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 1997c. Exposure Factors Handbook, Vol. 1-3. EPA/600/P-25/002Ba, EPA/600/P25/002Bb, EPA/600/P-25/002Bc. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research 

and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 1998a. A Multimedia Strategy for Priority Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) 

Pollutants. Prepared by: U.S. EPA Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Pollutants (PBT) 

Plenary Group and U.S. EPA Office Directors Multimedia and Pollution Prevention Forum. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 1998b. EPA’s Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy. EPA-823-R-98-001. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.

U.S. EPA. 1998c.	 Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. 

––Testing Manual. EPA-823-B-98-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 

D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 1998d.	 Guidance for In Situ Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediments. EPA905-B96-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 1999a. EPA Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters. EPA/600/R-98/079. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of 

Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 1999b. Lessons Learned about Superfund Community Involvement, Features 

Partnerships at Waste Inc, Superfund Site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 

Michigan City, IN. 

U.S. EPA. 1999c. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1- Human Health Evaluation 

Manual Supplement to Part A: Community Involvement in Superfund Risk Assessments. EPA 

-540-R-98-042. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 1999d. Superfund Risk Assessment and How You Can Help (Videotape). 

EPA-540-V-99-002 OSWER-9285.7-29A. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 

Washington, D.C. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 97 

U.S. EPA. 2000a. Draft Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection 

of Benthic Organisms: Metal Mixtures (Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 2000b. Draft Technical Basis for the Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of Benthic 

Organisms: Nonionic Organics. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 2000c. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. 

Third Edition. EPA-823-B-00-007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 2000d. Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of SedimentAssociated Contaminants With Freshwater Invertebrates. Second Edition. EPA/600-R-99-

064. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 2000e. Strategic Framework for EPA Science. Office of Science Policy. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 2000f. Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical 

Mixtures. EPA/630/R-00/002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment 

Forum, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 2001a. Methods for Assessing the Chronic Toxicity of Marine and Estuarine SedimentAssociated Contaminants with the Amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus. First Edition. EPA823-F-01-008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 2001b. Methods for Collection, Storage, and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical 

and Toxicological Analysis. In press. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 2001c. PBT National Action Plan for Mercury. Final Draft. Prepared by: U.S. EPA 

Mercury Task Force, Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Pollutants (PBT) Mercury Work 

Group. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 2002a.	 A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes. 

EPA/630/P-02/002F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 2002b. Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook (Interim Report). EPA-600-P-00-

002B. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. 
Page 98	 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

U.S. EPA. 2002c. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund 

Sites. OSWER 9355.4-24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 2002d. A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition: An SAB 

Report. EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Science 

Advisory Board, Washington, D.C., June 2002. 

U.S. EPA. 2003a. Human Health and Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments. OSWER 

Directive 9285.7-53. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Superfund Remediation 

and Technology Innovation, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 2003b. Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment. EPA/630/P-03/001A. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 2003c. U.S. EPA’s Draft 2003 Strategic Plan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Chief Financial Officer, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 2003d. Ecological Research Multi-Year Plan. Final Version. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C., May 29, 2003. 

U.S. EPA. 2003e. Water Quality Research Program Multi-Year Plan. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 2003f. Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks 

(ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Endrin. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. EPA-600-R-02-009. 

U.S. EPA. 2003g. Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks 

(ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Dieldrin. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. EPA-600-R-02-010. 

U.S. EPA. 2003h. Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks 

(ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: PAH Mixtures. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. EPA-600-R-02-

013. 

U.S. EPA. 2004a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume I: Human Health 

Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment). 

EPA/540/R/99/005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Superfund Remediation 

and Technology Innovation, Washington D.C. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities	 Page 99 

U.S. EPA. 2004b. The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the 

United States. Second Edition. EPA-823-R-04-007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA/U.S. ACE. 1992. Evaluating Environmental Effects of Dredged Material Management 

Alternatives - A Technical Framework. EPA-842-B-92-008. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. In prep. Appendix to the Capping Guidance Document: Impacts of Advective Transport 

of Contaminants through In Situ Caps (working title). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Great Lakes National Program Office and Region 5. 

U.S. GAO. 2000. Report to Congressional Requesters: Superfund Information Regarding EPA's 

Decision Process on the Hudson River Superfund Site. GAO/RCED-00-193. U.S. General 

Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Science Advisory Board. 1992. An SAB Report: Review of Sediment Criteria Development 

Methodology for Non-ionic Organic Contaminants. EPA-SAB-EPEC-93-002. Prepared by 

the Sediment Quality Criteria Subcommittee of the Ecological Processes and Effects 

Committee. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, Washington, 

D.C. 

U.S. Science Advisory Board. 1996. An SAB Report: Review of the Agency’s Approach for 

Developing Sediment Criteria for Five Metals. EPA-SAB-EPEC-95-020. Prepared by the 

Sediment Quality Criteria Subcommittee of the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board. Washington, D.C.

Vecci, M., T.B. Reynoldson, A. Pasteris, and G. Bonomi. 1999. Toxicity of Copper-Spiked 

Sediments to Tubifex tubifex (Oligochaeta, Tubificidae): Comparison of the 28-day 

Reproductive Bioassay With an Early Life Stage Bioassay. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 18(6):1144-1148. 

Von Stackelberg K, Menzie CA. 2002. A Cautionary Note on the Use of Species Presence and 

Absence Data in Deriving Sediment Criteria. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:466-

472. 

Zeman, A.J. and T.S. Patterson. 1997. “Results of in situ capping demonstration project in Hamilton 

Harbour, Lake Ontario.” In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering 

Geology and the Environment. Athens, Greece, 23-27 June. 

Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page A-1 

APPENDIX A 

CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS

SCIENCE ACTIVITIES DATABASE
Page A-2 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

This Appendix provides a summary of recent and current projects (as of June 2000) on various 

scientific topics of concern in the assessment and management of contaminated sediments. The 

database is divided into major science areas. Program implementation projects include remediation, 

monitoring, pilot studies, and initiatives. Human health and ecological effects and assessment 

projects include productive cross-Agency efforts on equilibrium partitioning of contaminants, 

ecotoxicological method development, risk assessments, and characterization studies. Exposure and 

modeling tasks include work on topics such as Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), 

bioavailability, and modeling. Remediation and risk management projects include guidance 

development, technology development and evaluation, site specific efforts, field demonstration of 

technologies, and information management systems. 

More recently, the Agency has prepared an online Science Inventory, a searchable, Agency-wide 

catalog of more than 4,000 science activities such as research, technical assistance and assessments, 

along with more than 750 peer-reviewed products (http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/). The database contains 

more than 19,000 records in the archives including project descriptions, products produced, types 

of peer review, links to related work and contacts for additional information. Users can conduct 

keyword searches or search within nine cross-cutting science topics, one of which is ‘Contaminated 

Sediments’. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Program OW/OWOW/OCPD Dredged Material Bioaccumulation Evaluation Dredged Material Implementation Guidance. The Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Programmatic Guidance 

EPA are working jointly to develop guidance for 

Activities related evaluating dredged material bioaccumulation GPRA 2.2 to implementing potential. regulatory and remediation programs. These activities are applications of 

OW/OWOW/OCPD Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Monitoring 

Program. Program calls for the continued monitoring of the nation’s 85 dredged material disposal sites (Regional responsibility). 

Ongoing monitoring GPRA 2.2 

existing methods and technologies. OW/OST/SASD Implementation Framework for the Use of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines. 

Document provides guidance for using ESGs 

Draft document GPRA 2.2 

appropriately and describes U.S. EPA’s recommendations in using ESGs in conjunction with other assessment tools (bioassays and benthic community assessments). 

OW/OWOW/OCPD Coastal monitoring by U.S. EPA OSV Peter W. 

Anderson. East and Gulf coastal monitoring of dredged material disposal sites, ocean discharges and sensitive areas focusing on water quality, sediment contamination 

Ongoing monitoring GPRA 2.2 

and impacts on living resources such as coral reef ecosystems. 
Page A-4 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Program Implementation (continued) 

Region 5/Water/ GLNPO 

Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Program. RAP Liaisons develop/implement Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for all Areas of Concern (AOCs) in the Great Lakes basin. RAPs address impairments to any one of 14 beneficial uses (e.g., restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption, dredging activities). 

RAP Liaisons for each AOOngoing GPRA 2.2 

Region 5: TSCA TSCA pilot. To provide WDNR the authority to approve 

disposal of TSCA regulated PCB-contaminated sediment 

Ongoing 

from in-state clean up projects at state-permitted solid waste landfills. 

Region 5 Shorelands Initiative. Proposed FY02 Cross-Program, 

Cross-Media Initiative: a cross-program multi-media 

Ongoing 

approach to address the impacts of contaminated sediments in rivers, waterways, lakes, streams and harbors by providing economic incentives and providing opportunities for liability and regulatory relief. 

Region 6 Alcoa/Lavaca Bay Remediation. This site covers 

approximately 60 square miles, and has sediments contaminated with mercury. This site is currently in the RI/FS phase. 

Ongoing GPRA 5.1 

Region 9 Regional Data Evaluation/Validation Approaches for 

Superfund Data Guidance (R9QA/006.1). 

Region 10 Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative. Region 10 Tribal Leaders Environmental Summit. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Program Implementation (continued) 

NHEERL/AED NHEERL/MED 

Development of toxicity identification evaluation methods for porewaters and whole sediments. Methods will help further develop toxicity identification evaluation methods for porewaters and whole sediments in fresh and salt water. 

U.S. EPA report on whole sediment TIE methodologyexpected FY 02, APM A77, FY01 GPRA 2.2 

OW/OST/SASD Field Validation Studies of long-term Sediment 

Toxicity Tests with Hyalella azteca and Chironomus 

tentans. This analysis is designed to evaluate the response of H. azteca and C. tentans in laboratory studies 

with the natural population of benthic organisms. 

Ongoing. Project is scheduled to be completed the end of FY 01. GPRA #2 GPRA 2.2 

OW/OST/SASD Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guideline (ESG) 

evaluation. This project will evaluate the Leptocheirus 

plumulosus chronic test responses to ESGs. 

Work is ongoing. Project ischeduled to be completed the end of FY 01. GPRA 2.2 

OW/HECD ORD/NHEERL 

Completion of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guideline Documents for Nonionic Organics: Technical Basis, Site-Specific, Dieldrin, Endrin, and Nonionics Compendium. Provide U.S. EPA’s recommended concentration of nonionic organic chemicals that can be present in sediments with out causing acute or chronic toxicity to benthic organisms, the technical basis for the guidelines, and a site-specific methodology. 

Draft documents completed GPRA 2.2 
Page A-6 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Program Implementation (continued) 

OW/HECD ORD/NHEERL 

Completion of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guideline Document for Metals Mixtures. Provides U.S. EPA’s recommended concentration of metal mixtures (Cu, Cd, Pb, Ni, Ag, Zn) that can be present in sediments without causing acute or chronic toxicity to benthic organisms. 

Draft document completed GPRA 2.2 

OW/HECD ORD/NHEERL 

Draft Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines Document for PAH Mixtures. Provides U.S. EPA’s recommended concentration of PAH mixtures that can be present in sediments without causing acute or chronic toxicity to benthic organisms. 

Draft document has been prepared for peer review. GPRA 2.2 

OW/HECD ORD/NHEERL 

Integrated Water Quality Criteria for Ambient Waters. Establish criteria that evaluate multiple routes of exposure and types of organisms. 

Criteria documents and models. No anticipated daof delivery at this time. Project is in scoping stage. GPRA 2.2 

NHEERL/MED Development of methods for testing short-term and 

chronic toxicity of freshwater sediments. Methods have been developed and tested, and a round-robin was conducted. 

Final document published GPRA 2.2 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Program Implementation (continued) 

NHEERL/AED Development of alternate measures of benthic 

infaunal condition. The usefulness of new approaches for assessing benthic condition is being examined, including CatScan and methods for examining the effects of porewater ammonia. 

Comparative estuarine metto discern and quantify the ecological effects of cumulative, multiple anthropogenic point sourceon benthic communities, FY00. Sensitivity of NH3 porewaand tube/tunnel structures isoft bottom sediments and macrofaunal community composition to detect chanin season, habitat and estuarine system, FY01. GPRA 2.2 
Page A-8 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health NHEERL/MED Horizontal and vertical heavy metal contamination in Data report of mercury in and Ecological Lake Michigan. Lake-wide sampling and analysis of Lake Michigan and Effects mercury in surface sediments and sediment cores is being mathematical modeling 

done in coordination with the Lake Michigan Mass relating sources to effects o

Activities related Balance Project and the Great Lakes National Program fish, FY03. to determining the Office. Models are being developed to assess the effects effects of of mercury to fish. GPRA 2.2 sediment contaminants on human and ecological receptors. These activities advance the state-of-theart by development and verification of methods, models, protocols, and 

NHEERL/MED Modeling of bioaccumulation of organic chemicals. 

Models are being developed to predict bioaccumulation of PBTs, such as dioxins, PCBs and PAHs, in fish and wildlife, in ecosystems with varying bioavailability of contaminants from sediment and water as well as differences in food web structures. 

Improved models and toolsincluding integrated sediment/water quality criteria, for assessing risks associated with contaminatsediments on the basis of predicted residues in fish awildlife, FY05. GPRA 2.2 

technologies. NHEERL/MED Importance of dietary metals uptake in effects of Published manuscripts, FY

metals-contaminated sediments. Experiments are underway to assess the effects of dietary metals GPRA 2.2 originating from contaminated sediment on fish. 

NHEERL/AED Field demographic study of amphipods. This project is Published manuscripts, FY

exploring the usefulness of a field indicator of benthic 04. condition using amphipod field demographics, and looks at geographic differences in sensitivity to contaminants. GPRA 2.2 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health and Ecological Effects (continued) 

NHEERL/AED Examine correlations between measured chemistry, 

acute toxicity, and benthic community data in field databases. The usefulness of measured chemistry data to predict biological effects from large field databases (e.g., EMAP) will be examined using three approaches (equilibrium partitioning-derived sediment guidelines to predict acute toxicity to amphipods from measured chemistry data; measured chemistry data will be compared to benthic community data; a population model will be used to predict effects on the benthic community using acute toxicity data). 

Manuscripts, FY02-04. GPRA 2.2 

NHEERL/GED Toxicity of contaminated sediments to aquatic plants 

and periphyton . Methods are being developed and applied for toxicity assessment using estuarine aquatic plants (primarily SAV) and periphyton. 

Report on the use of periphyton as indicators of metal contaminants in estuaries, APM 551, FY00Predictive laboratory phytotoxicity test methods contaminated sediments usseagrasses, FY01. Report on effects of xenobiotics and nutrients oaquatic vegetation, FY03. GPRA 2.2 

NCER/ Environmentally-Mediated Endocrine Disruption in STAR grants and Estuarine Crustaceans: A 3-Taxon Multi-Generational HSRCs Study of Sediment-Associated EDC Effects from the 

Genetic to Population Levels 
Page A-10 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health NCER/ Site-specific Validation of a Chronic Toxicity Test with and Ecological STAR grants and the Amphipod Hyalella azteca : An Integrated Study of Effects HSRCs Heavy Metal Contaminated Sediments in Peak Creek, (continued) Virginia. 

NCER/ Phylogenetic Analysis of Microbial Communities in STAR grants and Contaminated Nearshore Marine Sediments. HSRCs NCER/ Foraminifera as Ecosystem Indicators: Phase 1. A STAR grants and Marine Benthic Perturbation Index; Phase 2. Bioassay HSRCs Protocols. NCER/ Sediment Contaminant Effects on Genetic Diversity New STAR grants and Approach using DNA Analyses of Meiobenthos. HSRCs NCER/ Digestive Solubilization of Sediment-Sorbed STAR grants and Contaminants A Comparison of In Vitro and In Vivo HSRCs Processes. NCER/ Transport of Polychlorinated Biphenyls from Adult STAR grants and Oyster Crassostrea virginica to Embryos and Larvae and HSRCs Potential for Reproductive and Developmental 

Impairments. 

NCER/ Uptake of Sediment-Associated Contaminants by the STAR grants and Deposit-Feeding Amphipod Leptocheirus Plumulosus HSRCs (Shoemaker): Effects of Natural Sediment Qualities. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health and Ecological Effects (continued) 

NCER/ STAR grants and HSRCs 

Biochemical Indicator Patterns and their Linkages to Adverse Effects on Benthic Invertebrate Patterns. 

NERL/EERD Development of Indicators as Measures of Ecosystem 

Sustainability. Indicator methods can be used to measure PAH exposure, to determine exposure exceeding natural background, and to evaluate changes in exposure to petroleum and combustion by-product (PAH) waste in dredged streams. 

Draft report on national background and exposure criteria for indicators of exposure to PAHs - FY02. GPRA 2.2 

OAQPS OW OAR Regions 

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Pilot Projects in Florida and Wisconsin. The pilot projects are evaluating techniques for (1) determining the amount of mercury reductions needed to meet water quality standards; (2) determining the relative contributions of mercury from various sources; (3) the geographic extent of sources contributing mercury; and (4) analyzing Federal and State programs for reducing mercury emissions. 

Both projects should be completed in early 2001. GPRA 2.2 

OW/HECD ORD/NHEERL 

Improvements in sediment bioavailability theory. Investigate issues such as: non-equilibrium conditions, aerobic sediments, seasonal fluxes, sediment ingestion. 

Research reports that can bincorporated into existing ESGs to improve accuracy and precision. No date. GPRA 2.2 
Page A-12 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health and Ecological Effects (continued) 

NHEERL/MED NHEERL/AED 

Bioavailability of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in sediments. A series of studies are underway to quantify the acute and sublethal toxic effects of PAHs to benthic freshwater and marine species. Specific studies include (1) evaluation of the effects of ultraviolet radiation on the toxicity of PAHs, (2) determination of the contribution of highly insoluble PAHs to toxicity, and (3) assessment of the effects of pyrogenic PAH geochemistry on PAH bioavailability 

Report on predicting metal toxicity in sediments, APM152, FY99 Peer-reviewed publications and technical guidance to support derivation of Agensediment guidelines. GPRA 2.2 

NHEERL/MED NHEERL/AED 

Bioavailability of metals in sediments. A series of studies are underway to quantify the acute and sublethal 

Report on predictively metatoxicity in sediments, APM 

toxic effects of metals to benthic freshwater and marine 152, FY99. species. Specific studies include (1) analysis of the toxicity of chromium when associated with anoxic Peer-reviewed publications sediments, (2) evaluation of the effects of resuspension and technical guidance to on the fate and bioavailability of anoxic metal- support derivation of Agencontaminated sediments, and (3) performance assessment sediment guidelines. of in situ interstitial water sampling methods. 

GPRA 2.2 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health and Ecological Effects (continued) 

NERL/ERD Develop Computer Models for Science Integration 

and Parameterization of Multimedia Models for Watershed Scale Analysis and General Multimedia Exposure Assessments. Elucidate and model the underlying processes (physical, chemical, enzymatic, biological) that describe the transport and fate of organic pollutants and other stressors in environmental systems. 

Configure SPARC (SPARC Performs Automated Reasoning in Chemistry) aprototype processes constagenerator of pollutant fate organic pollutants; and incorporate planned producon mathematical techniquequantify coupled chemical speciation processes, and kinetic models describing reductive transformations processes (APM, 9/01). Configure SPARC as a prototype processes constagenerator of pollutant fate organic pollutants; and implement completed speciation models for ionization and tautomerization, and prototmodels for hydrate formatisolution phase hydrolysis, abiotic reduction in sedimesuspensions (APM, 9/02). GPRA 2.2 
Page A-14 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health and Ecological Effects (continued) 

NERL Characterize the Sorption of Organic Pollutants in 

Soils and Sediments for SPARC. Measure the magnitude and kinetics of organic contaminant sorption and transport in soils and sediments; apply and compare the utility of bicontinuum and distributed parameter models for describing contaminant release from soils and sediments, and use the measured and estimated 

Report on solute release kinetics from contaminated soils and sediments (APM, 9/02). GPRA 2.2 

sorption/desorption kinetic descriptors developed for assessing long-term contaminant release from soils and sediments. 

NERL/EERD Develop Stressor Signatures of Habitat Degradation 

Among Metrics from Fish, Benthic Macroinvertebrate, and Periphyton Assemblages. Develop and evaluate biological indicators and prepare OW-ORD Stressor Identification Evaluation Guidelines that help to identify stressors and sources, including sediments. 

Method for developing diagnostic signatures; compendium of Regional case-studies that describe hcauses of biological impairment were determineFY01-FY02. Compendium of case studieillustrating the application SIE guidelines, A75, FY01. GPRA 2.2 

NERL/EERD Real-Time Aquatic Biomonitoring Using Bivalves in 

Two Watersheds. The water quality of two watersheds was monitored (Ohio and Texas). Both biological and physical/chemical metrics were recorded. The gape behavior of the bivalve Corbicula fluminea was used as a 

GPRA 2.2 

monitor of overall water quality. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health and Ecological Effects (continued) 

NERL/ERD Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR). This 

multimedia, multi-receptor, multi-stressor, open architectural modeling system is designed for establishing safe exit levels for some waste streams that may now require disposal in Subtitle C facilities. Specific to sediments in the HWIR application, ExamsIO presently simulates suspended solids as a conservative substance. Plans are to add simple routines to ExamsIO to handle net deposition, bed load in streams, and burial in ponds/lakes/wetlands/bays for more realistic estimates of TSS which would be passed to Exams. 

HWIR Human Health and Ecosystems Site (Generic) Exposure - Risk AssessmenScreening Model Peer Reviewed and Applied to HWIR Listed Chemical ExLevels - APM 187, 1999. Update the HWIR99 Modeling Methodology for Delisting Hazardous Wastein response to public comments on 1999 Federal Register Notice, and incorporating enhanced uncertainty analysis techniques into the revised methodology - APM BB8, FY01. Critical Review of Documented Aquatic and Terrestrial Plant Phyto Processes and Data Complwith Formulation of KinetiAlgorithms for Organic and Inorganic Pollutants of Concern - FY01. GPRA 5.2 
Page A-16 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health NERL/ESD SITE Demonstration of Sediment Sampling Demonstration Plan for and Ecological Technologies. Tested a split core sampler for submerged Sediment Sampling - 1999 Effects sediments and a Russian peat borer. Verification Reports for (continued) Sediment Sampling - 2000

GPRA 5.1 

NERL/ESD NERL/HEASD Region I 

Mercury Cycling in the New England Estuaries: A Collaborative Study in Great Bay, NH (RARE Project). Research will examine cycling, bioavailability, and potential enhanced methylation of mercury in salt marshes in the Great Bay Estuary, NH. Mercury inputs from air and precipitation will be collected to calculate annual and seasonal deposition rates of Hg. 

Speciation of Hg Uptake bSpartina Alterniflora - 200Methylation and Hg Production in a Spartina Alterniflora Salt Marsh ­2000. Influx of Hg to the Great BEstuary via Fog - 2000. Volatile Hg Fluctuation in Great Bay Estuary - 2000. Mercury Cycling in the GrBay Estuary ; U.S. EPA Report – 2001. GPRA 2.2 GPRA 2.3 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health and Ecological Effects (continued) 

NERL/ESD Environmental Analytical Chemistry. This work is to 

provide state-of-the-science sampling, analysis, separation, and detection methods to allow rapid, accurate field and laboratory analyses of various media (e.g., surface or ground water, fish, sediments, soil). 

Vacuum Distillation ­hardware evaluation, operations manual, method development and testing, tetransfer to Regions - ongoiMercury in Fish from NatioParks, PRIMENet data bas2001. Reagent-free DeterminatioMercury in Whole-Fish Homogenates Using a Combustion Furnace-AtomAbsorption Analyzer - 200Anthropogenic Chemical Loading in Fish from NatioPark Index Sites, journal article and data base - 2001Fractionation of Toxic PCB Isomers Using Porous Graphitic Carbon HPLC anDetermination by GC/HRM- 2001. 
Page A-18 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health and Ecological Effects (continued) 

NERL/HEASD Biosensors. Addressing real-time and in situ monitoring 

devices which can be used cost-effectively at Superfund sites and RCRA facilities, as well as for ground-water monitoring. Biosensors are being evaluated for detection of contaminants such as phenols and pesticides. 

Biosensors for Field Analytical Monitoring, FieAnal. Chem. Technol. 2, 3331 - 1999. Determination of Phenols iEnvironmentally Relevant Matrices Using a Liquid Chromatographic System wan Enzyme-Based BiosensField Anal. Chem. Technol161-169 - 1999. Organophosphorus HydrolBased Assay for Organophosphate PesticideBiotechnol Progress 15, 51521 - 1999. Biosensors for EnvironmenMonitoring: An Update. Environ. Sci. Technol. Dec500-506, 1999. Field Method/Biosensor foDetection of Phenols in SoLeachate from ContaminatSuperfund Sites - 2001. Microchip-Based CE Systewith Biosensor Detector foMeasurement of Phenols ­2002. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health and Ecological Effects (continued) 

NERL/HEASD Immunochemistry. Methods and applications are being 

developed for analytes such as PCBs, pesticides and heavy metals that are found at Superfund and RCRA sites. 

Immunoassay Test Kits in Environmental Monitoring to be published in Current Issues in Regulatory Chemistry, Publisher: Assoof Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) - 1999. Comparison of QuantitativPCB ELISA with Gas Chromatography Determinative Versus WhoMethod Effects - 2000. Monoclonal Antibodies for the Toxic Co-Planar PCBs their Application to ELISA 2001. PCB Detection Using a DoSol-Gel Modified Electrochemical Immunosensor - 2001. Antibody Coated Sampling/Introduction Probfor Ion Trap Determination Coplanar PCBs - APM 561FY01. 
Page A-20 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health and Ecological Effects (continued) 

NERL-EERD Region 2 Region 6 

Miniaturized sediment procedures for assessing toxicity using marine and freshwater amphipods and embryo/larval fish. Existing U.S. EPA methods were modified and two alternative methods developed. Freshwater methods include a 7-day amphipod, Hyalella azteca method and 7-day fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) embryo/larval hatching method and two marine methods, a 10-day amphipod, Ampelisca abdita, 

and a 7-day sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) embryo/larval method. 

GPRA 2.2 

NERL-EERD A sediment toxicity method using Lemna minor 

(duckweed). Developed a Lemna minor sediment 

toxicity test method to assess sediment contaminants which may affect plants. Sediments were also tested using a miniaturized freshwater amphipod method and a fathead minnow embryo/larval (FHM) survival test. A sediment reference toxicant method has been developed for KCl and Atrazine. 

GPRA 2.2 

NCEA Dermal Exposure Research Program. NCEA Development of a wildlife contaminants exposure model 

(WCEM) as a tool for completing wildlife risk assessments. 

Region 1 Charles River Fish Contaminant Survey. Region 1 Model Calibration Report for the Housatonic River. Region 1 Model Validation Report for the Housatonic River. Region 1 Model Frame Work Report for the Housatonic River. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health Region 1 Monitoring the Success of Sediment Remediation at a and Ecological Site Contaminated with Chlorinated Pesticides, Effects Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Arsenic. (continued) Region 4 Everglades Pilot Study on Linking Air and Water 

Models. 

Region 9 Analysis of San Francisco Bay Fish for Dioxin. Region 9 Analysis of San Francisco Bay Sediments for Dioxin. Region 9 Evaluation of Dioxin-Like Emissions from Residential 

Wood Combustion. 

Region 10 Arsenic Determination in Saline Waters by Hydride 

Generation – Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry. 

Region 10 Compilation of report and data supporting the U.S. EPA 

study, “Asian and Pacific Islander Seafood Consumption Study in King County, Washington”. 

Region 10 Database of chemical analytical results for fish, shellfish, 

and plant tissues collected during June-July 1997 in areas of Cook Inlet. 

Region 10 Development of a low-level analytical method for co- 

planar PCB congeners in soil/sediment matrices using GC/ECD. 

Region 10 Native American Arsenic Exposure Study in Washington 

State. 
Page A-22 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health and Ecological Effects 

NCER/ STAR grants and HSRCs 

Developing Effective Ecological Indicators for Watershed Analysis. 

(continued) 

NCER/ The Particle Size Distribution of Toxicity in Metal- STAR grants and Contaminated Sediments. HSRCs NCER/ A Modeling and Experimental Investigation of Metal STAR grants and Release from Contaminated Sediments The Effects of HSRCs Metal Sulfide Oxidation and Resuspension. NCER/ Processes Influencing the Mobility of Arsenic and STAR grants and Chromium in Reduced Soils and Sediments. HSRCs NCER/ Trace Metal Dynamics in Reducing Aquatic Sediments STAR grants and Determination of Adsorption and Coprecipitation on HSRCs Undisturbed Sediment Core Sections Using a PlugThrough Reactor. NCER/ Formation and Propagation of Large-scale Sediment STAR grants and Waves in Periodically Disturbed Mountain Watersheds. HSRCs 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health NCER/ Trophic Transfer of Atmospheric and Sedimentary and Ecological STAR grants and Contaminants Into the Great Lakes Fisheries Controls on Effects HSRCs the Ecosystem Scale Response Times. (continued) NCER/ Biogeochemical Control of Heavy Metal Speciation and 

STAR grants and Bioavailability in Contaminated Marine Sediments. HSRCs NCER/ Distribution of Cs-137 in the Lena River Estuary-Laptev STAR grants and Sea System As Evidenced by Marine, Estuarine and HSRCs Lacustrine Sediments. NCER/ Effects of Interactions Between Sediment Components STAR grants and on Copper Sorption in Estuaries. HSRCs NCER/ The Effect of Sulfate and Sulfide on Mercury STAR grants and Methylation in Florida Everglades. HSRCs NCER/ Metal Speciation and Sequestering in Wetland Systems. STAR grants and HSRCs NCER/ Determination of Sediment Contribution from Unpaved STAR grants and Roads Within a Tropical Watershed. HSRCs NCER/ Effect of Natural Dynamic Changes on Pollutant- STAR grants and Sediment Interaction. HSRCs 

Human Health NCER/ Controls on Metal Partitioning in Contaminated and Ecological STAR grants and Sediments. Effects HSRCs (continued) 
Page A-24 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

NCER/ Source Identification, Transformation, and Transport STAR grants and Processes of N-, O-, and S- Containing Organic HSRCs Chemicals in Wetland and Upland Sediments. NCER/ Sediment Resuspension and Contaminant Transport in an STAR grants and Estuary. HSRCs NCER/ Pollutant Fluxes to Aquatic Systems via Coupled STAR grants and Biological and Physicochemical Bed-Sediment HSRCs Processes. NCER/ The Role of Competitive Adsorption on Suspended STAR grants and Sediments in Determining Partitioning and Colloidal HSRCs Stability. NCER/ Particle Transport and Deposit Morphology at the STAR grants and Sediment/Water Interface. HSRCs NCER/ Mobilization and Fate of Inorganic Contaminants Due to STAR grants and Resuspension of Cohesive Sediment. HSRCs NCER/ STAR grants and 

Desorption of Nonpolar Organic Pollutants from Historically Contaminated Sediments and Dredged 

HSRCs Materials. 

Human Health NCER/ Freshwater Bioturbators in Riverine Sediments as and Ecological STAR grants and Enhancers of Contaminant Release. Effects HSRCs (continued) 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

NCER/ STAR grants and HSRCs 

Modelling Air Emissions of Organic Compounds from Contaminated Sediments and Dredged Materials. 

NCER/ Characterization of Laguna Madre Contaminated STAR grants and Sediments. HSRCs NCER/ Mobility and Transport of Radium in Sediment and STAR grants and Waste Pits. HSRCs NCER/ Pollutant Fluxes to Aquatic Systems via Coupled STAR grants and Biological and Physicochemical Bed-Sediment HSRCs Processes. NHEERL/GED Improved protocols to determine hazards of 

contaminated sediments in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Improved protocols to determine hazards of 

Development of existing field and laboratory data collected over the past 10 years in Gulf of Mexico estuaries to assess improvements in protocols for hazard assessments 

contaminated sediments in Gulf of Mexico - FY03. GPRA 2.2 
Page A-26 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health OW/OST/SASD Development of methods for testing chronic toxicity of Document has been publishand Ecological NHEERL/ORD marine sediments. This will be a joint U.S. EPA/U.S. Exposure ACE document that will describe methods for measuring GPRA 2.2 

sublethal effects of marine sediments with Leptocheirus 

Activities related plumulosus. to determining exposure of human and biological receptors to contaminated sediments. These activities advance the state-of-theart by development and verification of methods, models, protocols, and technologies. 

OW/OST/SASD Revised methodology for tiering classification for the 

National Sediment Inventory - Report to Congress. A technical advisory group has been established to modify/update the methodology for classifying sampling stations according to the probability of adverse effects on aquatic life and human health from sediment contamination. 

Methodology completed. National Sediment InventoReport to Congress - FY01GPRA 2.2 

OW/OST/SASD National Sediment Nonpoint Source Inventory and 

Assessment. This report is a supplement to the National Sediment Inventory. It characterizes nonpoint sources of sediment contamination and provides a national estimate of annual source loads of selected contaminants from identified categories of nonpoint sources. 

Currently undergoing Peer Review. National Sediment NonpoiSource Inventory and Assessment - Report to Congress - FY01 GPRA 2.2 

OW/OST/SASD Bioaccumulation Testing And Interpretation For The Published February 2000 

Purpose of Sediment Quality Assessment: Status and Needs. This document was prepared to serve as a status 

(U.S. EPA-823-R-00-001). 

and needs summary of the use of bioaccumulation data. GPRA 2.2 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health and Ecological Exposure (continued) 

OW/OST/SASD Methods for Collection, Storage, and Manipulation of 

Sediments for Chemical and Toxicological Analysis. This guidance manual covers collecting, handling, and transporting field sediments; manipulating sediments in the laboratory for chemical analysis and toxicological testing; and preparing formulated sediments for toxicological testing. 

Draft document. Methods document to be completed FY01. GPRA 2.2 

Region 5: Water and Superfund 

FIELDS (Fully Integrated Environmental Location Decision Support) Team. The FIELDS System combines GIS, GPS, environmental database, web site, and graphics technologies with fieldwork experience. Joint tech transfer pilots with ORD and Regions 5, 6, and 9. Also used in risk management/remediation. 

GLNPO Use of Sediment Quality Guidelines to Predict 

Toxicity in Great Lakes Sediments. Joint project with USGS to evaluate the predictive ability of freshwater Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs). 

Final Report - FY2001 

GLNPO In-situ LIF System for the Assessment of PAH 

Contaminated Sediments. Field demonstration of a rapid, vertically discrete, in-situ technique for measuring PAH contamination in sediments. 

Project Report - FY2002. GPRA 2.2 

GLNPO Sediment Assessment Framework Document. Joint 

effort with the Sustainable Fisheries Foundation to develop a sediment assessment framework to provide guidance on the use and evaluation of chemical, toxicity, benthic community, and bioaccumulation data from sediment assessments. 

Framework Document FY2001. GPRA 2.2 
Page A-28 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health and Ecological Exposure (continued) 

OAR-OAQPS OW Regions 

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Pilot Projects in Florida and Wisconsin. The pilot projects are evaluating techniques for (1) determining the amount of mercury reductions needed to meet water quality standards; (2) determining the relative contributions of mercury from various sources; (3) the geographic extent of sources contributing mercury; and (4) analyzing Federal and State programs for reducing mercury emissions. 

Both projects should be completed by early 2001. GPRA 2.2 

OAR-OAQPS Air/Water Interface Action Plan. Coordination effort Plan to be completed by enOW between OAR and OW to address the problem of air of summer 2000. Regions deposition. 

GPRA 2.3 

GLNPO GLNPO Grants Program. Annual program to provide 

financial and technical support to state and local agencies 

Ongoing 

for the assessment and remediation of contaminated sediments in Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs). 

Project reports posted on thweb at www.epa.gov/glnpo

GPRA 2.2 

Human Health and Ecological Exposure (continued) 

NCEA-W Sediment Toxicity Assessment Methods. The method 

in development combines bulk sediment toxicity testing with chemical concentrations measured in the same samples. A large database of paired sediment toxicity and chemistry data has been compiled. 

Final report describing the assessment method, APM A80, FY01. The method is being appliein the Office of Water's 20Report to Congress on Sediment Contamination Status and Trends. GPRA 2.2 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

NCEA-W Assessment of Toxicity of Dioxins and Related 

Compounds in Aquatic Wildlife. 

Human Health and Ecological Exposure (continued) 

NHEERL/GED Assessment of the relationship of contaminated 

sediments to estuarine biotic effects. Statistical analyses are used to determine the types and strengths of relationships among contaminated sediment variables and biotic response variables. 

Report on the relationship toxicity of contaminated sediments to aquatic animaand vascular plants, FY00. Report on fish and contaminant indicators of estuarine condition, FY01. GPRA 2.2 Correlations among water asediment chemistry, pollutaloadings, and ecological condition of coastal estuariFY04. Report on the relationship between sediment quality abenthic community distribution and condition, FY04. GPRA 5.1 

NERL/EERD Development of Indicators as Measures of Ecosystem 

Sustainability. Indicator methods can be used to measure PAH exposure, to determine exposure exceeding 

Draft report on national background and exposure criteria for indicators of 

natural background, and to evaluate changes in exposure to petroleum and combustion by-product (PAH) waste in 

exposure to PAHs (9/02). 

dredged streams. 
Page A-30 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health NHEERL/GED Improved protocols to determine hazards of Improved protocols to and Ecological contaminated sediments in the Gulf of Mexico. determine hazards of Exposure Development of existing field and laboratory data contaminated sediments in (continued) collected over the past 10 years in Gulf of Mexico Gulf of Mexico, FY03. 

estuaries to assess improvements in protocols for hazard assessments. GPRA 2.2 

NHEERL/GED Assessment of reference conditions in estuaries of the 

Gulf of Mexico. Field study. Includes assessment of references conditions for sediment contaminants and their 

Identification of sensitive benthic species, FY99. 

seasonal and spatial variabilities. Reference conditions for 

sediments in Gulf of MexicFY01. GPRA 2.2 

NERL/EERD Develop Indicators for Stressors in Environmental 

Media and Mixtures. Develop tests that can be used to 

Methods manual for sedimtoxicity sample collection 

determine toxicity of site samples of sediment, water, or discharge. Includes: Regional-scale toxicity assessment of sediment in the Mid-Atlantic and Southern Rockies; 

(9/00). GPRA 2.2 

and warm water fish embryo larval test to assess potential exposure/effects from sediments. 

NERL/EERD Indicator Development and Assessment of Large 

Rivers and Watersheds. New methods can be used to detect impairment in large rivers needing sampling by boat. Includes microbial metabolism of sediment. 

Bioassessment protocal for large non-wadable rivers in the mid-Atlantic (9/01). GPRA 2.2 and 8.1 

Region 1 Assessment of Mercury in Hypolimnetic Lake Sediments 

of Vermont and New Hampshire. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health Region 1 Ecological Risk Assessment for the Housatonic River. and Ecological Exposure (continued) 

Region 1 Human Health Risk Assessment for the Housatonic 

River. 

Region 1 Regional Applied Research Effort – Mercury Flux from 

Coastal Marsh. 

Region 1 Sediment Sampling Guidelines. Region 3 A Benthic Macroinvertebrate Survey of Non-Tidal 

Tributaries of the Anacostia River Test Titles. 

Region 3 A Survey of Streams in the Primary Region of Mountain 

Top Mining/Valley Fill Coal Mining Draft 1. 

Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment for LCP Superfund Site 

(NPL). 

Region 4 Field and Laboratory Standard Operating Procedures and 

Quality Assurance Plan for Conducting Sediment and Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Loads. 

Region 7 Nebraska REMAP Report ‘98. Region 9 Coastal EMAP Project. Region 9 San Francisco Bay Wetlands Regional Monitoring 

Program. 

NCER/ Response of Methylmercury Production and STAR grants and Accumulation to Changes in Hg Loading: A Whole- HSRCs ecosystem Mercury Loading Study. 
Page A-32 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health NCER/ Validation of Sediment Quality Criteria in Southeastern and Ecological STAR grants and Estuaries. Exposure HSRCs (continued) NCER/ Application of Sediment Quality Criteria for Metals to a 

STAR grants and Montane Lotic Ecosystem: Field Validation During HSRCs Reclamation of a Copper Mine Causing Acid Mine 

Drainage. 

NCER/ STAR grants and HSRCs 

Sediment Contamination Assessment Methods: Validation of Standardized and Novel Approaches. 

NCER/ Meiofaunal Validation of EqP-Based Sediment Quality STAR grants and Criteria for Metal Mixtures in Estuarine Sediments HSRCs Population to Community-Level Culturing Studies of 

Biogeochemical Controls on Bioavailability and Toxicity. 

NCER/ Developing a New Monitoring Tool for Benthic STAR grants and Organisms in the Gulf of Mexico Loss of Genetic HSRCs Variability in Meiofaunal Populations. NCER/ Bioavailability of Organic Contaminants in Estuarine STAR grants and Sediments to Microbes and Benthic Animals. HSRCs 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health NCER/ Environmental Monitoring and assessment of Wetlands and Ecological STAR grants and Using Sedimentary Diatoms from Present and Past. Exposure HSRCs (continued) NCER/ Sediment Entrainment and Stream Benthic Communities: 

STAR grants and Implications for Freshwater Bioassessment. HSRCs NCER/ Studies of the environmental fate of sediment-associated STAR grants and organic contaminants in marine systems. HSRCs NCER/ Investigation on the Fate and Biotransformation of STAR grants and Hexachlorobutadiene and Chlorobenzenes in a SedimentHSRCs Water Estuarine System. OSWER/OSRTI Development of Contaminated Aquatic Sediment Draft guidance on remediaOSWER/OSW Remediation Guidance. OSRTI has lead for cross­ - FY00/01. OSWER/TIO Agency workgroup (Contaminated Aquatic Sediments OW/OWOW Remedial Guidance Workgroup – CASRGW) to develop GPRA 5.1 OW/OST guidance to select remedies for sediment sites under ORD/NRMRL CERCLA. ORD/Narraganset Regions Region 1 Risk-Based Procedures Used to Support Remediation of 

a Ground Water-Surface Water Transition Zone Contaminated with Chlorobenzenes. 
Page A-34 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health Region 2 Full/Commercial-Scale Sediment Decontamination Anticipate 1-2 systems and Ecological Technology Development with Beneficial Use processing >250,000 cu ydExposure Applications. Bench- through full-scale tests are being by FY02. (continued) conducted to implement environmentally responsible and 

cost-effective technologies to decontaminate dredged material from the Port of NY/NJ. 

OW/OST/SASD Sediment Modeling Toolkit. The toolkit consists of 

three components: Graphical User Interface (GUI) to the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) grid generator to set up physical domain; GUI interface to EFDC model; and post-processor to view model output. Design is flexible to allow support of other water quality models. 

Beta test of toolkit beginniJuly 1, 2000 Version 1.0 distributed by of FY 02. GPRA 2.2 

Region 5: WPTD and Sediment Capping and Natural Recovery Project. A GLNPO joint project between U.S. EPA, USGS, and COE WES 

to develop a guidance document on capping and natural attenuation. 

GLNPO GLNPO Grants Program. Annual program to provide Ongoing 

financial and technical support to state and local agencies for the assessment and remediation of contaminated Project reports posted on thsediments in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. web at www.epa.gov/glnpo

GPRA 2.2 

GLNPO Demonstration of Contaminated Sediment Treatment 

Technologies. Joint efforts with the states of Michigan and Wisconsin perform on-site, pilot-scale demonstrations of sediment treatment technologies. 

Pilot projects scheduled for FY2001. GPRA 2.2 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health and Ecological Exposure (continued) 

Region 5/GLNPO Beneficial Use Work Group. Development of 

beneficial use guidelines; support to WI DNR project to develop guidance/criteria. Cooperation with state and federal agencies to perform pilot-scale beneficial use demonstrations. 

Region 5 “Position Paper” Criteria for the Evaluation Beneficial Use Projects ­FY2002. Project reports to be availaon the web (www.epa.gov/glnpo) ­

FY2001. 

Region 5/GLNPO Sediment Information Management System. A 

comprehensive, multi-program sediment site information database and tracking system for sediment remediation and management. 

Region 5: Water and Superfund 

FIELDS (Fully Integrated Environmental Location Decision Support) Team. The FIELDS System combines GIS, GPS, environmental database, web site, and graphics technologies with fieldwork experience. See description under Assessment. 

Region 6 Calcasieu Estuary. Region 6 is conducting a multimedia initiative, including the investigation and potential 

remediation of contaminated sediment. This is a three year pilot which will identify guidance, policy, and regulatory gaps as well as identifying better ways to coordinate large environmental responses. 

Region 10 Regional Sediment/Sand Management (RSM) Initiative NRMRL/LRPCD Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Sediments. This 

Congressionally-mandated study by the National Academy of Science is intended to evaluate the relative effectiveness, effects, and costs associated with a variety of methods for managing PCB-contaminated sediments. 

NAS report due to U.S. EPA and Congress, APM A81, FY01. Completed 3/01. GPRA 2.2 
Page A-36 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Human Health and Ecological Exposure (continued) 

NRMRL/LRPCD Dredging Performance. The effectiveness of dredging 

is being documented by the combined evaluation of past projects and completion of selected projects to fill data gaps. 

Report on short-term effectFY02. Report on the environmentand human health benefits contaminant mass removalDate? GPRA 5.1 

NRMRL/LRPCD Capping Performance. Data is being collected to Comparative report on in-s

determine performance of caps and the accuracy of model predictions of their performance. Selected field studies are being conducted to address specific questions related to short-term disturbances created during cap 

technologies, FY04. GPRA 5.1 

placement; permanence of cap performance; contaminant migration through caps and the accuracy of predictive models; and benthic and aquatic community responses to caps. Caps are being evaluated for applications in situ and in confined aquatic disposal sites. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Assessment NRMRL/LRPCD Monitored Natural Attenuation. Research is Interim report, FY01. 

investigating past performance at sites where MNA was 

Activities related selected intentionally and at sites where studies have Sorption/desorption kineticto assessing the been conducted over time without remedial action. Field model, FY03. risk associated studies are being conducted to fill data gaps, examine with human or specific attenuation mechanisms, and collect data on Technical Resource ecological long-term performance. Selected laboratory studies are Document, FY04. exposure to being conducted to determine rates of contaminant contaminants in sorption/desorption, and rates and endpoints of GPRA 5.1 sediments. These contaminant degradation. activities advance the state-of-theart development and verification of methods, models, protocols, and technologies. 

NRMRL/LRPCD Ex-Situ Management and Treatment Technologies. 

This research involves the performance of confined disposal facilities (CDFs) in managing risks from contaminated sediments disposed in hydraulic contact with the water body, treatments that can be applied to enhance the effectiveness of CDFs, and treatment/utilization of dredged material to recover CDF capacity. 

Peer reviewed journal articon biotreatment of PAH ­contaminated sediments, A159, FY99. Peer reviewed journal articon treatment of chlorinated organics in sediment, APM 160, FY99. Report on toxicity reductiofrom biological treatment oPAH-contaminated sedimeFY02. GPRA 5.1 
Page A-38 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Assessment (continued) 

NRMRL/LRPCD SITE Demonstrations of Innovative Technologies. 

Under the Superfund Innovative Technology Demonstration Program, three vendor technologies for contaminated sediment sites have been accepted for demonstration: Minergy’s glass forming process, IGT’s Cement Block process, and AquaBlok’s capping process. Additional projects are in the selection process. 

Individual technology evaluation reports, FY03-0GPRA 5.1 

NRMRL/LRPCD Innovative In-Situ Treatment Technologies. Ongoing 

bench research is investigating the use of hydrogen and zero-valent iron to respectively stimulate biological and chemical dechlorination of persistent chlorinated organic compounds such as PCBs, PCP, and DDT and the application of a particular microorganism to re-speciate lead into a sparingly soluble phosphate mineral. 

Journal article on hydrogen addition - FY01 Journal article on Fe(0) ­FY01. GPRA 5.1 

NCER/ Microbial Community Dynamics of PCB Dechlorination STAR grants and in Sediments. HSRCs NCER/ Importance of Reductive Dechlorination in Chesapeake STAR grants and Bay Sediments Role of Sulfate Respiration. HSRCs NCER/ Effectiveness of Regulatory Incentives for Sediment STAR grants and Pollution Prevention Evaluation Through Policy Analysis HSRCs and Biomonitoring. NCER/ Biotic and Abiotic Reductive Transformation of STAR grants and Chlorinated Solvents in Iron Reducing Sediments. HSRCs 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Assessment NCER/ Reduction of Herbicides in Wetland Sediments. (continued) STAR grants and 

HSRCs NCER/ Nitrogen Removal in Constructed Wetlands: STAR grants and Enhancement of Nitrate Mass Transfer in the HSRCs Denitrification Zone. NCER/ Investigation of the reductive transformation of STAR grants and chlorinated solvents in iron reducing sediments and to HSRCs assess the relative contributions of biological and abiotic 

reactions to dechlorination. 

NCER/ Reductive Dechlorination and Degradation of Model STAR grants and Chlorophenols in Marine and Estuarine Sediments. HSRCs NCER/ Enhanced Microbial Dechlorination of PCBS and STAR grants and Dioxins in Contaminated Dredge Spoils. HSRCs NCER/ Evaluation of Placement and Effectiveness of Sediment STAR grants and Caps. HSRCs NCER/ Isolating Organisms Which Dechlorinate Polychlorinated STAR grants and Biphenyls (PCBs). HSRCs NCER/ Development of a Model Sediment Control Ordinance STAR grants and for Louisiana. HSRCs 
Page A-40 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Assessment NCER/ Bioremediation of Sediments Contaminated with (continued) STAR grants and Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons. 

HSRCs NCER/ The Application of Plant Biotechnology in STAR grants and Bioremediation of Contaminated Sediments. HSRCs NCER/ Bioremediation of Contaminated Sediments and Dredged STAR grants and Material. HSRCs NCER/ The Effect of Sediment Treatment on Sediment STAR grants and Metabolism Rates in Marsh Mesocosms. HSRCs NCER/ Characterization of PAH Degrading Bacteria in Coastal STAR grants and Sediments. HSRCs NCER/ Mechanisms governing the release of contaminants from STAR grants and sediments resuspended during dredging operations. HSRCs NCER/ Use of chemical oxidants for the degradation of STAR grants and chlorinated benzenes and biphenyls in aqueous systems HSRCs and sediments. NCER/ An Investigation of Chemical Transport from STAR grants and Contaminated Sediment through Porous Containment HSRCs Structures. 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Assessment (continued) 

OW/OST/SASD Contaminated Sediment Pamphlet and Poster. The 

Pamphlet and Poster were designed to educate the public, including citizens groups and high school students on the definition and extent of contaminated sediment, sources of contamination, remediation and pollution prevention solutions, and what citizens can do to protect sediment. 

Pamphlet and the Poster wreleased October 1999. Pamphlet (U.S. EPA-823-F99-006), Poster (U.S. EPA823-H-99-001). GPRA #2 

OW/OST/SASD Sediment Network. Individuals from Regions 

(including GLNPO), HQ (OW & OSWER), and ORD that conference on a regular basis to communicate contaminated sediment issues. 

OW/HECD ORD/NHEERL 

OW/ORD Sediment Research Team. A cross-program effort to coordinate research activities focusing on contaminated sediment. 

OSWER/OSRTI Superfund Sediment Forum. Regional personnel who Ongoing 

participate in regular conference calls about Superfundspecific issues related to sediment cleanups. 

OSWER/TIO NRMRL/LRPCD 

Sediments Action Team, Remediation Technologies Development Forum. A partnership with industry to develop or advance innovative remediation technologies. 
Page A-42 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Assessment OSWER/OSRTI Updating CERCLIS3. Refining the Superfund sites Ongoing (continued) database to adequately capture those sites which address 

contaminated sediments. 

OSWER/OSRTI OW SedNet2000. Conference calls to share information. Ongoing 

Remediation/ OSWER/OSRTI Sediment Technology Video. Development of an Risk outreach video for project managers to use at public Management meetings to show citizens the different technologies that 

might be considered at Superfund sites. 

Activities related to remediating or otherwise 

GLNPO GLNPO Sediments Web Page. Contains Sediment 

Assessment and Remediation Guidance Documents, 

Ongoing 

managing the risks of 

Evaluations of Bench- and Pilot-Scale Sediment Treatment demonstrations, and other technical 

contaminated documents. Web page address: sediments. These www.epa.gov/glnpo/sediments.html activities advance the state-of-theart by development and verification of 

NCER/ STAR grants and HSRCs 

A Short Course of Remediation of Contaminated Soils and Sediments. 

methods, models, protocols, and technologies. 

Region 5: Superfund Region 5 Sediment Web Page. Web page (under 

development). 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Remediation/ Region 5: GLNPO Sediment Information Management System. A End of FY2000. Risk and Superfund comprehensive, multi-program sediment site information Management database and tracking system for sediment remediation (continued) and management. 

Region 5 and GLNPO 

Great Lakes Dredging Team (GLDT). A federal-stateprivate partnership with the primary objective of ensuring that the dredging of the Great Lakes harbors and channels is conducted in a timely and cost effective manner while meeting environmental protection, restoration and enhancement goals. Provides an interactive forum; works with local advocates. 

Great Lakes Dredging Team web site. GLDT outreach documentsDredging and the Great La

booklet; dredging case studies; developing a dredgvideo; “Decision Making Process for Dredged MaterManagement” white paperdraft TSCA/RCRA white paper; Beneficial Use Task Force; development of a beneficial use brochure; beneficial use project to facilitate state input into development of guidelines; Beneficial Use Workshop hSept. 15-16, 1998. 

Region 5: Water Mississippi River Dredging Team. Similar objectives 

as GLDT 
Page A-44 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

Area Organization Description Product/Estimated Dat

GPRA APGs/APMs 

Remediation/ Region 5 Beneficial Use Work Group. Develop beneficial use Risk guidelines; support WI DNR project to develop Management guidance/criteria. (continued) 

Region 5 Technology transfer and communication products Sediment remediation vide

in preparation - Superfund Office of Public Affairs. 

“Environmental Results of Dredging Projects” paper/presentation Sediment Fact Sheet 

Region 5 Great Lakes Regional Sediment Highlights Quarterly regional sedimen

news 

Region 5 Duluth Superior Technical Advisory Committee -andDuluth Superior Partnering Agreement. Partnership 

to address maintenance of the federal navigation channel and long-term management of the dredged material. 

Region 5 WI Sediment Advisory Committee (participant on). 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT KEY OSWER/OSRTI OSWER/OSW OSWER/TIO OW GLNPO OW/OST/SASD OW/HECD OAR OAQPS ORD NHEERL AED GED MED WED NERL EERD ERD CEAM ESD MSCTSC NCEA WO NRMRL LRPCD ETSC NCER STAR grants HSRCs 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response/Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovati

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response/Office of Solid Waste 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response/Technology Innovation Office 

Office of Water 

Great Lakes National Program Office, Office of Water, Chicago, IL. 

Office of Water/Office of Science and Technology/Standards and Applied Science Division 

Office of Water/Health and Ecological Criteria Division 

Office of Air and Radiation 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Office of Research and Development 

National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory 

Atlantic Ecology Division 

Gulf Ecology Division 

Mid-Continent Ecology Division 

Western Ecology Division 

National Exposure Research Laboratory 

Ecological Exposure Research Division 

Ecosystems Research Division 

Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling 

Environmental Sciences Division 

Monitoring and Site Characterization Technical Support Center 

National Center for Environmental Assessment 

Washington Office 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division 

Engineering Technical Support Center 

National Center for Environmental Research 

Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants 

Hazardous Substance Research Centers 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page B-1

APPENDIX B 

EXAMPLE OF A SUMMARY SHEET 
Page B-2 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page B-3 

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

identification of potential beneficial uses of treatment products. 

Key Partners: 

GLNPO, U.S. EPA Region 2, ORD 

Actions Underway: 

The demonstration of decontamination technologies along with the development of marketable 

end-products is being actively promoted by Region 2 and GLNPO. Region 2, working in New 

York/ New Jersey Harbor in cooperation with New Jersey DOT, is investigating a sediment 

washing process whereby a manufactured top soil and bricks are produced, and two thermal 

treatment processes in which a blended cement and lightweight aggregate are potential 

marketable final products. The sediment washing project has been completed and the blended 

cement and lightweight aggregate demonstrations are scheduled for FY 2002 and 2003. GLNPO 

is currently supporting two technologies: a glass vitrification technology which produces 

construction fill (with the potential for roofing shingles and floor tiles); and a thermal process 

examining blended cement as an end product. The vitrification project has been completed as 

part of a joint effort with Wisconsin DNR on the Fox River. The blended cement project, a 

cooperative project with Michigan DEQ, is scheduled for the summer of 2002. Through the 

SITE Program, ORD is providing analytical support to provide independent verification of the 

results of the treatment technology processes. 

Actions Planned Over Next 2 Years: 

Region 2 plans to complete two demonstration and report on the Cement-Lock and lightweight 

aggregate technologies. GLNPO will conduct the Cement-Lock process on the Detroit River 

sediments. Reports describing the environmental as well as economic effectiveness of all 

demonstrations will be completed and distributed. 

Products Expected by 2006: 

1. Demonstrations and final reports for above projects completed and published. 

2. Complete economic evaluations of marketable final products along with development of 

cost estimates for running full scale operations of each technology tested. 

3. Begin commercial application of decontamination technology in New York Harbor, 

including marketing of end-product. 

4. Demonstrate applicability of treatment technology to Superfund program. 

Primary Contacts: 

Marc Tuchman–GLNPO 

Eric Stern–Region 2 
Page B-4 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page C-1

APPENDIX C 

LIST OF ACRONYMS 
Page C-2 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page C-3 

AED Atlantic Ecology Division 

AET apparent-effects threshold 

APCs areas of probable concern 

APE alkylphenol ethoxylate 

ARCS Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments 

BAF bioaccumulation factor 

BSAF biota-sediment accumulation factor 

CAD contained aquatic disposal 

CASRGW Contaminated Aquatic Sediment Remedial Guidance Workgroup 

CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 

CDF confined disposal facilities 

CEAM Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling 

CERCLA Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CREM Council on Regulatory Environmental Models 

CSCT Consortium for Site Characterization and Technology 

CSMC Contaminated Sediment Management Committee 

CSMS Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy 

CSTAG Contaminated Sediment Technical Advisory Committee 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DDD dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane 

DDE dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene 

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

DOC Department of Commerce 

DoD Department of Defense 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DOT Department of Transportation 

ECGOx ElectroChemical GeoOxidation 

EDCs endocrine disruptor compounds 

EEA essential ecological attributes 

EERD Ecological Exposure Research Division 

EFDC Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code 

EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 

EqP equilibrium partitioning 

ERL effects range–low 

ERM effects range–median 

ESBs Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks 

ESD Environmental Sciences Division 

ESG Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines 
Page C-4 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

ETV Environmental Technology Verification 

FIELDS Field Environmental Decision Support 

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

FRTR Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable 

GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spectrometer 

GC/ECD gas chromatography/electron capture detection 

GED Gulf Ecology Division 

GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office 

GPRA Government Performance Results Act 

HECD Health and Ecological Criteria Division 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

ITRC Inter-State Technology and Regulatory Cooperation 

LIF Laser Induced Fluorescence 

LOE line-of-evidence 

LRM logistic regression modeling 

LRPCD Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division 

MARAD Maritime Administration (US Department of Transportation) 

MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 

MED Mid-Continent Ecology Division 

MPRSA Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act 

MYP Multi-Year Plans 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NCEA National Center for Environmental Assessment 

NDT National Dredging Team 

NERL National Exposure Research Laboratory 

NHEERL National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA) 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPL National Priorities List 

NRC National Research Council 

NRD Natural Resources Damages 

NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

NRSC National Regional Science Council 

NSF National Science Foundation 

NSI National Sediment Inventory 

NSQS National Sediment Quality Survey 

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

OAR Office of Air and Radiation 
Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities Page C-5 

OCRM Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (NOAA) 

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

OEI Office of Environmental Information 

OPA Oil Pollution Act 

OPPT Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

OPPTS Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 

ORD Office of Research and Development 

OSRTI Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation 

OST Office of Science and Technology (OW) 

OSW Office of Solid Waste 

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

OW Office of Water 

PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons 

PBT persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyls 

PEL probable-effects level 

PIANC International Navigation Association 

PRPs potentially responsible parties 

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control 

RaDiUS Research and Development in the United States 

RAP Remedial Action Plan 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RCT Research Coordination Team 

REMAP Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 

RTDF Remedial Technologies Development Forum 

SAB Science Advisory Board 

SASD Standards and Applied Science Division 

SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation 

SPC Science Policy Council 

SQGs Sediment Quality Guidelines 

SQT Sediment Quality Triad 

STAR Science To Achieve Results 

STORET Storage and Retrieval 

TEL threshold-effects level 

TIE toxicity identification evaluation 

TIO Technology Innovation Office 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Loads 

TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act 

U.S. ACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 
Page C-6 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

U.S. FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

UVF ultraviolet fluorescence spectroscopy 

WOE weight-of-evidence 

WRDA Water Resources Development Act 

XRF x-ray fluorescence spectroscopy 

Page A-46 Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities 

ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT KEY

OSWER/OSRTI Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response/Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovatio

OSWER/OSW Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response/Office of Solid Waste 

OSWER/TIO Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response/Technology Innovation Office 

OW Office of Water 

GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office, Office of Water, Chicago, IL. 

OW/OST/SASD Office of Water/Office of Science and Technology/Standards and Applied Science Division 

OW/HECD Office of Water/Health and Ecological Criteria Division 

OAR Office of Air and Radiation 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

ORD Office of Research and Development 

NHEERL National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory 

AED Atlantic Ecology Division 

GED Gulf Ecology Division 

MED Mid-Continent Ecology Division 

WED Western Ecology Division 

NERL National Exposure Research Laboratory 

EERD Ecological Exposure Research Division 

ERD Ecosystems Research Division 

CEAM Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling 

ESD Environmental Sciences Division 

MSCTSC Monitoring and Site Characterization Technical Support Center 

NCEA National Center for Environmental Assessment 

WO Washington Office 

NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

LRPCD Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division 

ETSC Engineering Technical Support Center 

NCER National Center for Environmental Research 

STAR grants Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants 

HSRCs Hazardous Substance Research Centers