CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT REMEDIATION

GUIDANCE FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES:

APPENDIX A: PRINCIPLES FOR MANAGING 

CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT RISKS AT 

HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES 
This page left intentionally blank. 
Appendix A: 11 Principles 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460


Feb. 12, 2002


OFFICE OF


SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY


RESPONSE


OSWER Directive 9285.6-08 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Risks at Hazardous Waste Sites 

FROM: Marianne Lamont Horinko /s/ Marianne Lamont Horinko 

Assistant Administrator 

TO: Superfund National Policy Managers, Regions 1 - 10 

RCRA Senior Policy Advisors, Regions 1 - 10 

I. PURPOSE 

This guidance will help EPA site managers make scientifically sound and nationally 

consistent risk management decisions at contaminated sediment sites. It presents 11 risk 

management principles that Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), On-Scene Coordinators 

(OSCs), and RCRA Corrective Action project managers should carefully consider when 

planning and conducting site investigations, involving the affected parties, and selecting and 

implementing a response. 

This guidance recommends that EPA site managers make risk-based site decisions using 

an iterative decision process, as appropriate, that evaluates the short-term and long-term risks of 

all potential cleanup alternatives consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances 

Pollution Contingency Plan’s (NCP’s) nine remedy selection criteria (40 CFR Part 300.430). 

EPA site managers are also encouraged to consider the societal and cultural impacts of existing 

sediment contamination and of potential remedies through meaningful involvement of affected 

stakeholders. 

This guidance also responds in part to the recommendations contained in the National 

Research Council (NRC) report discussed below. 

A-1 
Appendix A: 11 Principles 

II. BACKGROUND 

On March 26, 2001, the NRC published a report entitled A Risk Management Strategy for 

PCB-Contaminated Sediments. Although the NRC report focuses primarily on assessment and 

remediation of PCB-contaminated sediments, much of the information in that report is applicable 

to other contaminants. Site managers are encouraged to read the NRC report, which may be 

found at http://www.nrc.edu. 

In addition to developing these principles, OSWER, in coordination with other EPA 

offices (Office of Research and Development, Office of Water, and others) and other federal 

agencies (Department of Defense/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of 

Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of the Interior/U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and others) is developing a separate guidance, Contaminated 

Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites (Sediment Guidance). The 

Sediment Guidance will provide more detailed technical guidance on the process that Superfund 

and RCRA project managers should use to evaluate cleanup alternatives at contaminated 

sediment sites. 

While this directive applies to all contaminants at sediment sites addressed under 

CERCLA or RCRA, its implementation at particular sites should be tailored to the size and 

complexity of the site, to the magnitude of site risks, and to the type of action contemplated. 

These principles can be applied within the framework of EPA’s existing statutory and regulatory 

requirements. 

III. RISK MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES 

1. Control Sources Early. 

As early in the process as possible, site managers should try to identify all direct and 

indirect continuing sources of significant contamination to the sediments under investigation. 

These sources might include discharges from industries or sewage treatment plants, spills, 

precipitation runoff, erosion of contaminated soil from stream banks or adjacent land, 

contaminated groundwater and non-aqueous phase liquid contributions, discharges from storm 

water and combined sewer outfalls, upstream contributions, and air deposition. 

Next, site managers should assess which continuing sources can be controlled and by 

what mechanisms. It may be helpful to prioritize sources according to their relative 

contributions to site risks. In the identification and assessment process, site managers should 

solicit assistance from those with relevant information, including regional Water, Air, and PCB 

Programs (where applicable); state agencies (especially those responsible for setting Total 

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and those that issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

A-2 
Appendix A: 11 Principles 

System (NPDES) permits); and all Natural Resource Trustees. Local agencies and stakeholders 

may also be of assistance in assessing which sources can be controlled. 

Site managers should evaluate the potential for future recontamination of sediments when 

selecting a response action. If a site includes a source that could result in significant 

recontamination, source control measures will likely be necessary as part of that response action. 

However, where EPA believes that the source can be controlled, or where sediment remediation 

will have benefits to human health and/or the environment after considering the risks caused by 

the ongoing source, it may be appropriate for the Agency to select a response action for the 

sediments prior to completing all source control actions. This is consistent with principle #5 

below, which indicates that it may be necessary to take phased or interim actions (e.g., removal 

of a hot spot that is highly susceptible to downstream movement or dispersion of contaminants) 

to prevent or address environmental impacts or to control human exposures, even if source 

control actions have not been undertaken or completed. 

2. Involve the Community Early and Often. 

Contaminated sediment sites often involve difficult technical and social issues. As such, 

it is especially important that a project manager ensure early and meaningful community 

involvement by providing community members with the technical information needed for their 

informed participation. Meaningful community involvement is a critical component of the site 

characterization, risk assessment, remedy evaluation, remedy selection, and remedy 

implementation processes. Community involvement enables EPA to obtain site information that 

may be important in identifying potential human and ecological exposures, as well as in 

understanding the societal and cultural impacts of the contamination and of the potential 

response options. The NRC report (p. 249) “recommends that increased efforts be made to 

provide the affected parties with the same information that is to be used by the decision-makers 

and to include, to the extent possible, all affected parties in the entire decision-making process at 

a contaminated site. In addition, such information should be made available in such a manner 

that allows adequate time for evaluation and comment on the information by all parties.” 

Through Technical Assistance Grants and other mechanisms, project managers can provide the 

community with the tools and information necessary for meaningful participation, ensuring their 

early and continued involvement in the cleanup process. 

Although the Agency has the responsibility to make the final cleanup decision at 

CERCLA and RCRA sites, early and frequent community involvement facilitates acceptance of 

Agency decisions, even at sites where there may be disagreement among members of the 

community on the most appropriate remedy. 

Site managers and community involvement coordinators should take into consideration 

the following six practices, which were recently presented in OSWER Directive 9230.0-99 Early 

A-3 
Appendix A: 11 Principles 

and Meaningful Community Involvement (October 12, 2001). This directive also includes a list 

of other useful resources and is available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/pubs.htm. 

(1) Energize the community involvement plan.

(2) Provide early, proactive community support.

(3) Get the community more involved in the risk assessment.

(4) Seek early community input on the scope of the remedial investigation/feasibility

study (RI/FS).

(5) Encourage community involvement in identification of future land use.

(6) Do more to involve communities during removals.

3. Coordinate with States, Local Governments, Tribes, and Natural Resource 

Trustees. 

Site managers should communicate and coordinate early with states, local governments, 

tribes, and all Natural Resource Trustees. By doing so, they will help ensure that the most 

relevant information is considered in designing site studies, and that state, local, tribal, and 

trustee viewpoints are considered in the remedy selection process. For sites that include 

waterbodies where TMDLs are being or have been developed, it is especially important to 

coordinate site investigations and monitoring or modeling studies with the state and with EPA’s 

water program. In addition, sharing information early with all interested parties often leads to 

quicker and more efficient protection of human health and the environment through a 

coordinated cleanup approach. 

Superfund’s statutory mandate is to ensure that response actions will be protective of 

human health and the environment. EPA recognizes, however, that in addition to EPA’s 

response action(s), restoration activities by the Natural Resource Trustees may be needed. It is 

important that Superfund site managers and the Trustees coordinate both the EPA investigations 

of risk and the Trustee investigations of resource injuries in order to most efficiently use federal 

and state resources and to avoid duplicative efforts. 

Additional information on coordinating with Trustees may be found in OSWER Directive 

9200.4-22A CERCLA Coordination with Natural Resource Trustees (July 1997), in the 1992 

ECO Update The Role of Natural Resource Trustees in the Superfund Process 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk/tooleco.htm), and in the 1999 OSWER Directive 

9285.7-28 P Ecological Risk Assessment and Risk Management Principles for Superfund Sites 

(also available at the above web site). Additional information on coordinating with states and 

tribes can be found in OSWER Directive 9375.3-03P The Plan to Enhance the Role of States and 

Tribes in the Superfund Program (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/states/strole/index.htm). 

A-4 
Appendix A: 11 Principles 

4. Develop and Refine a Conceptual Site Model that Considers Sediment Stability. 

A conceptual site model should identify all known and suspected sources of 

contamination, the types of contaminants and affected media, existing and potential exposure 

pathways, and the known or potential human and ecological receptors that may be threatened. 

This information is frequently summarized in pictorial or graphical form, backed up by sitespecific data. The conceptual site model should be prepared early and used to guide site 

investigations and decision-making. However, it should be updated periodically whenever new 

information becomes available, and EPA’s understanding of the site problems increases. In 

addition, it frequently can serve as the centerpiece for communication among all stakeholders. 

A conceptual site model is especially important at sediment sites because the 

interrelationship of soil, surface and groundwater, sediment, and ecological and human receptors 

is often complex. In addition, sediments may be subject to erosion or transport by natural or 

man-made disturbances such as floods or engineering changes in a waterway. Because 

sediments may experience temporal, physical, and chemical changes, it is especially important to 

understand what contaminants are currently available to humans and wildlife, and whether this is 

likely to change in the future under various scenarios. The risk assessor and project manager, as 

well as other members of the site team, should communicate early and often to ensure that they 

share a common understanding of the site and the basis for the present and future risks. The May 

1998 EPA Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (Federal Register 63(93) 26846-26924, 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk/tooleco.htm), the 1997 Superfund Guidance 

Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting 

Ecological Risk Assessments (EPA 540-R-97-006, also available at the above web site), and the 

1989 Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume 1, Part A (EPA 540-1-89-002, 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk/ragsa) provide guidance on developing conceptual 

site models. 

5. Use an Iterative Approach in a Risk-Based Framework. 

The NRC report (p. 52) recommends the use of a risk-based framework based on the one 

developed by the Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk 

Management (PCCRARM, 1997, Framework for Environmental Health Risk Management, Vol. 

1, as cited by NRC 2001). However, as recognized by the NRC (p. 60): “The framework is 

intended to supplement, not supplant, the CERCLA remedial process mandated by law for 

Superfund sites.” 

Although there is no universally accepted, well-defined risk-based framework or strategy 

for remedy evaluation at sediment sites, there is wide-spread agreement that risk assessment 

should play a critical role in evaluating options for sediment remediation. The Superfund 

program uses a flexible, risk-based framework as part of the CERCLA and NCP process to 

adequately characterize ecological and human health site risks. The guidances used by the 

A-5 
Appendix A: 11 Principles 

RCRA Corrective Action program (http://www.epa.gov/correctiveaction/resource/guidance) also 

recommend a flexible risk-based approach to selecting response actions appropriate for the site. 

EPA encourages the use of an iterative approach, especially at complex contaminated 

sediment sites. As used here, an iterative approach is defined broadly to include approaches 

which incorporate testing of hypotheses and conclusions and foster re-evaluation of site 

assumptions as new information is gathered. For example, an iterative approach might include 

pilot testing to determine the effectiveness of various remedial technologies at a site. As noted 

in the NRC report (p. 66): "Each iteration might provide additional certainty and information to 

support further risk-management decisions, or it might require a course correction." 

An iterative approach may also incorporate the use of phased, early, or interim actions. 

At complex sediment sites, site managers should consider the benefits of phasing the 

remediation. At some sites, an early action may be needed to quickly reduce risks or to control 

the ongoing spread of contamination. In some cases, it may be appropriate to take an interim 

action to control a source, or remove or cap a hot spot, followed by a period of monitoring in 

order to evaluate the effectiveness of these interim actions before addressing less contaminated 

areas. 

The NRC report makes an important point when it notes (p. 256): “The committee 

cautions that the use of the framework or other risk-management approach should not be used to 

delay a decision at a site if sufficient information is available to make an informed decision. 

Particularly in situations in which there are immediate risks to human health or the ecosystem, 

waiting until more information is gathered might result in more harm than making a preliminary 

decision in the absence of a complete set of information. The committee emphasizes that a 

‘wait-and-see’ or ‘do-nothing’ approach might result in additional or different risks at a site.” 

6. Carefully Evaluate the Assumptions and Uncertainties Associated with Site 

Characterization Data and Site Models. 

The uncertainties and limitations of site characterization data, and qualitative or 

quantitative models (e.g., hydrodynamic, sediment stability, contaminant fate and transport, or 

food-chain models) used to extrapolate site data to future conditions should be carefully 

evaluated and described. Due to the complex nature of many large sediment sites, a quantitative 

model is often used to help estimate and understand the current and future risks at the site and to 

predict the efficacy of various remedial alternatives. The amount of site-specific data required 

and the complexity of models used to support site decisions should depend on the complexity of 

the site and the significance of the decision (e.g., level of risk, response cost, community 

interest). All new models and the calibration of models at large or complex sites should be peerreviewed consistent with the Agency’s peer review process as described in its Peer Review 

Handbook (EPA 100-B-00-001, http://www.epa.gov/ORD/spc/2peerrev.htm). 

A-6 
Appendix A: 11 Principles 

Site managers should clearly describe the basis for all models used and their 

uncertainties when using the predicted results to make a site decision. As recognized by the 

NRC report (p. 65), however, “Management decisions must be made, even when information is 

imperfect. There are uncertainties associated with every decision that need to be weighed, 

evaluated, and communicated to affected parties. Imperfect knowledge must not become an 

excuse for not making a decision.” 

7. Select Site-specific, Project-specific, and Sediment-specific Risk Management 

Approaches that will Achieve Risk-based Goals. 

EPA’s policy has been and continues to be that there is no presumptive remedy for any 

contaminated sediment site, regardless of the contaminant or level of risk. This is consistent 

with the NRC report’s statement (p. 243) that “There is no presumption of a preferred or default 

risk-management option that is applicable to all PCB-contaminated-sediment sites.” At 

Superfund sites, for example, the most appropriate remedy should be chosen after considering 

site-specific data and the NCP’s nine remedy selection criteria. All remedies that may 

potentially meet the removal or remedial action objectives (e.g., dredging or excavation, in-situ 

capping, in-situ treatment, monitored natural recovery) should be evaluated prior to selecting the 

remedy. This evaluation should be conducted on a comparable basis, considering all 

components of the remedies, the temporal and spatial aspects of the sites, and the overall risk 

reduction potentially achieved under each option. 

At many sites, a combination of options will be the most effective way to manage the 

risk. For example, at some sites, the most appropriate remedy may be to dredge high 

concentrations of persistent and bioaccumulative contaminants such as PCBs or DDT, to cap 

areas where dredging is not practicable or cost-effective, and then to allow natural recovery 

processes to achieve further recovery in net depositional areas that are less contaminated. 

8. Ensure that Sediment Cleanup Levels are Clearly Tied to Risk Management Goals. 

Sediment cleanup levels have often been used as surrogates for actual remediation goals 

(e.g., fish tissue concentrations or other measurable indicators of exposure relating to levels of 

acceptable risk). While it is generally more practical to use measures such as contaminant 

concentrations in sediment to identify areas to be remediated, other measures should be used to 

ensure that human health and/or ecological risk reduction goals are being met. Such measures 

may include direct measurements of indigenous fish tissue concentrations, estimates of wildlife 

reproduction, benthic macroinvertebrate indices, or other “effects endpoints” as identified in the 

baseline risk assessment. 

As noted in the NRC report (p. 123), “The use of measured concentrations of PCBs in 

fish is suggested as the most relevant means of measuring exposures of receptors to PCBs in 

contaminated sediments.” For other contaminants, other measures may be more appropriate. 

A-7 
Appendix A: 11 Principles 

For many sites, achieving remediation goals, especially for bioaccumulative contaminants in 

biota, may take many years. Site monitoring data and new scientific information should be 

considered in future reviews of the site (e.g., the Superfund five-year review) to ensure that the 

remedy remains protective of human health and the environment. 

9. Maximize the Effectiveness of Institutional Controls and Recognize their 

Limitations. 

Institutional controls, such as fish consumption advisories and waterway use restrictions, 

are often used as a component of remedial decisions at sediment sites to limit human exposures 

and to prevent further spreading of contamination until remedial action objectives are met. 

While these controls can be an important component of a sediment remedy, site managers should 

recognize that they may not be very effective in eliminating or significantly reducing all 

exposures. If fish consumption advisories are relied upon to limit human exposures, it is very 

important to have public education programs in place. For other types of institutional controls, 

other types of compliance assistance programs may also be needed (e.g., state/local government 

coordination). Site managers should also recognize that institutional controls seldom limit 

ecological exposures. If monitoring data or other site information indicates that institutional 

controls are not effective, additional actions may be necessary. 

10. Design Remedies to Minimize Short-term Risks while Achieving Long-term 

Protection. 

The NRC report notes (p. 53) that: “Any decision regarding the specific choice of a risk 

management strategy for a contaminated sediment site must be based on careful consideration of 

the advantages and disadvantages of available options and a balancing of the various risks, costs, 

and benefits associated with each option.” Sediment cleanups should be designed to minimize 

short-term impacts to the extent practicable, even though some increases in short-term risk may 

be necessary in order to achieve a long-lasting solution that is protective. For example, the longterm benefits of removing or capping sediments containing persistent and bioaccumulative 

contaminants often outweigh the additional short-term impacts on the already-affected biota. 

In addition to considering the impacts of each alternative on human health and ecological 

risks, the short-term and long-term impacts of each alternative on societal and cultural practices 

should be identified and considered, as appropriate. For example, these impacts might include 

effects on recreational uses of the waterbody, road traffic, noise and air pollution, commercial 

fishing, or disruption of way of life for tribes. At some sites, a comparative analysis of impacts 

such as these may be useful in order to fully assess and balance the tradeoffs associated with 

each alternative. 

A-8 
Appendix A: 11 Principles 

11. Monitor During and After Sediment Remediation to Assess and Document Remedy 

Effectiveness. 

A physical, chemical, and/or biological monitoring program should be established for 

sediment sites in order to determine if short-term and long-term health and ecological risks are 

being adequately mitigated at the site and to evaluate how well all remedial action objectives are 

being met. Monitoring should normally be conducted during remedy implementation and as 

long as necessary thereafter to ensure that all sediment risks have been adequately managed. 

Baseline data needed for interpretation of the monitoring data should be collected during the 

remedial investigation. 

Depending on the risk management approach selected, monitoring should be conducted 

during implementation in order to determine whether the action meets design requirements and 

sediment cleanup levels, and to assess the nature and extent of any short-term impacts of remedy 

implementation. This information can also be used to modify construction activities to assure 

that remediation is proceeding in a safe and effective manner. Long-term monitoring of 

indicators such as contaminant concentration reductions in fish tissue should be designed to 

determine the success of a remedy in meeting broader remedial action objectives. Monitoring is 

generally needed to verify the continued long-term effectiveness of any remedy in protecting 

human health and the environment and, at some sites, to verify the continuing performance and 

structural integrity of barriers to contaminant transport. 

IV. IMPLEMENTATION 

EPA RPMs, OSCs, and RCRA Corrective Action project managers should immediately 

begin to use this guidance at all sites where the risks from contaminated sediment are being 

investigated. EPA expects that Federal facility responses conducted under CERCLA or RCRA 

will also be consistent with this directive. This consultation process does not apply to TimeCritical or emergency removal actions or to sites with only sediment-like materials in wastewater 

lagoons, tanks, storage or containment facilities, or drainage ditches. 

Consultation Process for CERCLA Sites 

To help ensure that Regional site managers appropriately consider these principles before 

site-specific risk management decisions are made, this directive establishes a two-tiered 

consultation procedure that will apply to most contaminated sediment sites. The consultation 

process applies to all proposed or listed NPL sites where EPA will sign or concur on the ROD, 

all Non-Time-Critical removal actions where EPA will sign or concur on the Action 

Memorandum, and all “NPL-equivalent” sites where there is or will be an EPA-enforceable 

agreement in place. 

A-9 
Appendix A: 11 Principles 

Tier 1 Process 

Where the sediment action(s) for the entire site will address more than 10,000 cubic 

yards or five acres of contaminated sediment, Superfund RPMs and OSCs should consult with 

their appropriate Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) Regional Coordinator at 

least 30 days before issuing for public comment a Proposed Plan for a remedial action or an 

Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) for a Non-Time-Critical removal action. 

This consultation entails the submission of the draft proposed plan or draft EE/CA, a 

written discussion of how the above 11 principles were considered, and basic site information 

that will assist OERR in tracking significant sediment sites. If the project manager has not 

received a response from OERR within two weeks, he or she may assume no further information 

is needed at this time. EPA believes that this process will help promote nationally consistent 

approaches to evaluate, select and implement protective, scientifically sound, and cost-effective 

remedies. 

Tier 2 Process 

This directive also establishes a new technical advisory group (Contaminated Sediments 

Technical Advisory Group–CSTAG) that will monitor the progress of and provide advice 

regarding a small number of large, complex, or controversial contaminated sediment Superfund 

sites. The group will be comprised of ten Regional staff and approximately five staff from 

OSWER, OW, and ORD. For most sites, the group will meet with the site manager and the site 

team several times throughout the site investigation, response selection, and action 

implementation processes. For new NPL sites, the group will normally meet within one year 

after proposed listing. It is anticipated that for most sites, the group will meet annually until the 

ROD is signed and thereafter as needed until all remedial action objectives have been met. The 

specific areas of assistance or specific documents to be reviewed will be decided by the group on 

a case-by-case basis in consultation with the site team. For selected sites with an on-going RI/FS 

or EE/CA, the group will be briefed by the site manager some time in 2002 or 2003. Reviews at 

sites with remedies also subject to National Remedy Review Board (NRRB) review will be 

coordinated with the NRRB in order to eliminate the need for a separate sediment group review 

at this stage in the process. 

Consultation Process for RCRA Corrective Action Facilities 

Generally, for EPA-lead RCRA Corrective Action facilities where a sediment response 

action is planned, a two-tiered consultation process will also be used. Where the sediment 

action(s) for the entire site will address more than 10,000 cubic yards or five acres of 

contaminated sediment, project managers should consult with the Office of Solid Waste’s 

Corrective Action Branch at least 30 days before issuing a proposed action for public comment. 

This consultation entails the submission of a written discussion of how the above 11 principles 

A-10 
Appendix A: 11 Principles 

were considered, and basic site information that will assist OSW in tracking significant sediment 

sites. 

If the project manager has not received a response from OSW within two weeks, he or 

she may assume no further information is needed. States are also encouraged to follow these 

procedures. For particularly large, complex, or controversial sites, OSW will likely call on the 

technical advisory group discussed above. 

EPA also recommends that both state and EPA project managers working on sediment 

contamination associated with Corrective Action facilities consult with their colleagues in both 

RCRA and Superfund to promote consistent and effective cleanups. EPA believes this 

consultation would be particularly important for the larger-scale sediment cleanups mentioned 

above. 

EPA may update this guidance as more information becomes available on topics such as: 

the effectiveness of various sediment response alternatives, new methods to evaluate risks, or 

new methods for characterizing sediment contamination. For additional information on this 

guidance, please contact the OERR Sediments Team Leader (Stephen Ells at 703 603-8822) or 

the OSW Corrective Action Programs Branch Chief (Tricia Buzzell at 703 308-8632). 

NOTICE: This document provides guidance to EPA Regions concerning how the Agency 

intends to exercise its discretion in implementing one aspect of the CERCLA and RCRA remedy 

selection process. This guidance is designed to implement national policy on these issues. Some 

of the statutory provisions described in this document contain legally binding requirements. 

However, this document does not substitute for those provisions or regulations, nor is it a 

regulation itself. Thus it cannot impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, or the 

regulated community, and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. 

Any decisions regarding a particular situation will be made based on the statutes and regulations, 

and EPA decision-makers retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that 

differ from this guidance where appropriate. Interested parties are free to raise questions and 

objections about the substance of this guidance and the appropriateness of the application of this 

guidance to a particular situation, and the Agency welcomes public input on this document at 

any time. EPA may change this guidance in the future. 

cc: Michael H. Shapiro 

Stephen D. Luftig 

Larry Reed 

Elizabeth Cotsworth 

Jim Woolford 

A-11 
Appendix A: 11 Principles 

Jeff Josephson, Superfund Lead Region Coordinator, USEPA Region 2

Carl Daly, RCRA Lead Region Coordinator, USEPA Region 8

Peter Grevatt

NARPM Co-Chairs 

OERR Records Manager, IMC 5202G

OERR Documents Coordinator, HOSC 5202G

RCRA Key Contacts, Regions 1 - 10

A-12 
CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT REMEDIATION

GUIDANCE FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES:

APPENDIX B: USGS 100-YEAR FLOOD FACT 

SHEET 
This page left intentionally blank. 
FS-229-96 Page 1 of 4 

Fact Sheet 229-96 

The "1OO-Year Flood" 

(Larger Version, 149K GIF) 

Photo by Geff Hinds, Tacoma 

News Tribune 

Flood designations are based on 

statistical averages, not on the 

number of years between big 

floods. 

The estimates are only as good as the available data. 

Flood designations are updated as more data are 

collected or when the conditions change in a river 

basin. 

BIG FLOODS COULD HAPPEN AGAIN IN WASHINGTON 

DURING ANY YEAR 

Rivers across the Nation seem to be rising to record flood levels 

almost every year. In Washington, more than one 100-year flood has 

happened on a few rivers in just the past several years. How can 100-

year floods happen so often? 

WHY DON'T THESE FLOODS HAPPEN EVERY 100 YEARS? 

The term "100-year flood" is misleading because it leads people to believe that it happens only once 

every 100 years. The truth is that an uncommonly big flood can happen any year. The term "100-year 

flood" is really a statistical designation, and there is a 1-in-100 chance that a flood this size will happen 

during any year. Perhaps a better term would be the "1-in-100 chance flood." 

The actual number of years between floods of any given size varies a lot. Big floods happen irregularly 

because the climate naturally varies over many years. We sometimes get big floods in successive or 

nearly successive years with several very wet years in a row. 

HOW ARE FLOODS DESIGNATED? 

Scientists collect data and study past floods to get a minimum of 10 years of information about the river; 

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/FS/FS-229-96/ 12/21/2001 
FS-229-96 Page 2 of 4 

a longer record provides a better estimate of the "1-in-100 chance flood." Scientists use statistics and 

observe how frequently different sizes of floods occurred, and the average number of years between 

them, to determine the probability that a flood of any given size will be equalled or exceeded during any 

year. 

MANY FLOOD DESIGNATIONS WILL CHANGE OVER TIME 

As more data are collected, or when a river basin is altered in a way that affects the flow of water in the 

river, scientists re-evaluate the frequency of flooding. Dams and urban development are examples of 

some man-made changes in a basin that affect floods. 

THE USGS COLLECTS ESSENTIAL DATA FOR UNDERSTANDING FLOODS 

Scientists at the USGS measure streamflow in rivers across the State during every major flood. After 

flood waters recede, the USGS may be funded to locate and survey "high-water marks" where debris 

and mud lines indicate the highest extent of flood waters. These post-flood surveys are used to estimate 

maximum flows at sites that could not be reached during the floods and also to map the areas covered by 

the floods. 

Streamflow data that have been collected since 1975 on the Chehalis River 

near Doty indicate that the estimated streamflow of "1-in-100 chance 

flood" is higher than it was 20 years ago. 

The eariler flood designation was accurate on the basis of the data that 

were available at the time; more large floods happened after 1975 than 

from 1940-1975. 

The change in the flood designation after 20 years of additional data 

collection highlights the importance of continued river monitoring. 

Annual peak flow data for 1995 and 1996 are provisional and may change. 

(Larger Version, 182K GIF) 

(Larger Version, 198K GIF) 

Rapid urban development in the Mercer 

Creek Basin since 1977 has increased the 

estimated magnitude of the "1-in-100 chance 

flood" at Bellevue, Wash. 

(Larger Version, 182K GIF) 

The completion of Howard Hanson Dam on 

the Green River has decreased the 

magnitude of the "1-in-100 chance flood" at 

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/FS/FS-229-96/ 12/21/2001 
FS-229-96 Page 3 of 4 

Auburn, Wash. since 1961. 

DO YOU LIVE ON THE FLOODPLAIN? 

The areas affected by past floods have been mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

and many other government agencies. Because of continuing changes in river channels and land use in 

many basins, the maps may not reflect current information for your area. Inquire at your City or County 

Building or Planning Department. 

If you live on the designated floodplain, the chances are about 1 in 2 that you will experience a flood 

during your lifetime. Prepare for a flood as you would for any natural disaster, and make evacuation 

plans for your family. 

FLOODS WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN 

Although we can lessen effects of some floods, they are part of the natural cycle of every river and 

benefit instream habitats by moving material downstream and renewing streambeds. As floods get 

bigger and spread farther, flood waters slow and deposit sediment on the floodplain. This natural process 

created valuable farmlands in river valleys of the Pacific Northwest over thousands of years. 

Glossary of Flood Terms 

A flood is any relatively high streamflow that 

overtops the natural or artificial banks of a 

river. 

Discharge is another term for streamflow; it is 

the measured volume of water that moves past 

a point in the river in a given amount of time. 

Discharge is usually expressed in cubic feet 

per second. 

One cubic foot per second (cfs) is about 450 

gallons per minute. The average discharge of 

the Columbia ~ River in September at The 

Dalles, Oregon, is about 120,000 cfs, which 

would fill the Seattle Kingdome in less than 10 

minutes. The average discharge of the 

Puyallup River in September is about 1,700 

cfs at Puyallup, Wash. 

The floodplain is the relatively flat lowland 

that borders a river, usually dry but subject to 

flooding. Floodplain soils actually are former 

flood deposits. 

The average number of years between floods 

of a certain size is the recurrence interval or 

return period. The actual number of years 

between floods of any given size varies a lot 

because of the naturally changing climate. 

A hydrograph is a graph that shows changes 

in discharge or river stage over time. The time 

scale may be in minutes, hours, days, months, 

years, or decades. 

The river stage is the height of the water in 

the river, measured relative to an arbitrary 

fixed point. 

from U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet FS-229-96 

For more information contact any of the following: 

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/FS/FS-229-96/ 12/21/2001 
FS-229-96 Page 4 of 4 

The U.S. Geological Survey has served the public and 

Federal, State, and local goverments since 1879 by 

collecting, analyzing, and publishing detailed 

information about the Nation's mineral, land, and water 

resources. The USGS has been studying the water 

resources of Washington State since the turn of the 

century. This information is in a variety of map, book, 

electronic, and other formats and is available by 

contacting: 

U.S. Geological Survey 

1201 Pacific Ave., #600 

Tacoma, WA 98402 

(206) 593-6510 

Fax: (206) 593-6514 

Email:dc_wa@usgs.gov 

Selected data and interpretive 

reports are available on the 

USGS Washington "home page" 

on the World Wide Web at 

http://wwwdwatcm.wr.usgs.gov/ 

Fact Sheet 

Home Page Environment Hazards Information Management Resources State 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey

Maintainer: Fact Sheet Team

Last update: 09:01:06 Fri 10 Aug 2001

Privacy Statement || Disclaimer || Accessibility

URL: http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/FS-229-96 

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/FS/FS-229-96/ 12/21/2001 
CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT REMEDIATION

GUIDANCE FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES:

APPENDIX C: RADIOMETRIC DATING OF 

SEDIMENT 
This page left intentionally blank. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Appendix C: Radiometric Dating of Sediment 

RADIOMETRIC DATING OF SEDIMENT 

C.1 BACKGROUND 

Radiometric dating is a technique that has been in use for decades in fields as diverse as geology 

and archeology. This technique relies on measuring the known rate of isotope decay, or half-life, as a 

function of time and depth of sampling. Briefly stated, when the half-life of a radionuclide is known, then 

observing the distribution of the radionuclide and its breakdown products along a sample core can provide 

significant insight into the chronology of soil formation within the sample core. 

C.2 RADIOMETRIC DATING 

The purpose of this section is to describe the process of radioactive decay and its relationship to 

radiometric dating. Highlight D-1 depicts the decay of a hypothetical parent isotope and the formation of 

a radiogenic daughter. With time, the decay of a radioactive parent produces radiogenic daughter atoms 

within the material in which the isotope resides (i.e., soil, sediment, etc). Knowing the decay rate of the 

parent, the time since the parent material was formed can be measured in terms of the ratio of daughter 

and parent nuclides in the material. In Highlight D-1, it can be seen that this ratio is unique for any point 

in time. 

Highlight C-1: Radioactive Decay of a Parent Isotope and Radiogenic Formation of a Daughter 

Isotope 

November 2002 Draft Document - Do Not Cite or Quote C-1 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

Appendix C: Radiometric Dating of Sediment 

The accuracy of this method of dating relies on two assumptions. First, the system in which 

radioactive decay occurs must be closed. In order for this method to produce accurate assessments of 

time, it is important that neither parent nor daughter atoms have been introduced or removed by factors 

other than radioactive decay. This assumption is more important when daughter atoms have been 

introduced from outside the system, than when parent atoms have an external origin. When daughter 

atoms are introduced from sources outside of the system, the ratio of daughter to parent isotopes increases 

and estimates of the age of material will be too large. The violation of this assumption and its resolution 

will play an important role in estimating sedimentation rates and is discussed in detail in the next section. 

The second assumption is that no daughter atoms were present in the system when the parent isotope was 

formed. Again, the failure of this assumption would result in dating estimates that were larger than the 

actual age of the material. 

There are three major systems of radioactive decay that have been used for radiometric dating 

(Eicher 1976). A system is usually identified by its parent-daughter (or granddaughter) relationship, such 

as the potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, and uranium-lead. Within each system, different isotopes 

may be used as geochronometers, such as potassium-40, rubidium87, uranium-235 and uranium-238 and 

the daughter products may be chosen based on physical characteristics, such as solubility and half-life. 

There are a large number of unstable isotopes that could be used for radiometric dating of sediments, but 

many may be unsuitable for such an application. Some of the reasons for unsuitability include very long 

or short half-lives, ubiquity in nature, solubility in water, or poor understanding of their physical 

characteristics. The selection of a radionuclide for radiometric dating should depend on the following 

five requirements (USGS 1998): 

• The chemistry of the isotope (element) is known; 

• The half-life is known; 

• The initial amount of the isotope per unit of substrate is known or accurately estimated; 

• The only change in concentration of the isotope is due to radioactive decay; and 

• In order to be useful, it must be relatively easy to measure. 

Given these requirements, four isotopes are commonly used to measure sedimentary dynamics 

over a time period from 100 to 150 years: Beryllium-7 (7

Be), Carbon-14 (14C), Cesium-137 (137Cs), and 

Lead-210 (210Pb). The following sections describe each of these radionuclides and their use in 

radiometric dating of sediments (USGS 1998). Highlight C-2 presents a graphical representation of the 

radioactive decay chains for each of these isotopes. 

Beryllium-7 

7

Be is a naturally produced radioisotope that is formed by cosmic ray bombardment of 

atmospheric nitrogen (N) and oxygen (O). It is removed from the atmosphere through precipitation. 

Beryllium is a highly reactive element and becomes rapidly and tightly bound to sediments. 7

Be has a 

half-life of 53 days, which makes it effective for dating sediments of an age of about 1 year. Detection of 

its presence is a reliable indicator that the substance was in contact with the atmosphere within the past 

November 2002 Draft Document - Do Not Cite or Quote C-2 
Appendix C: Radiometric Dating of Sediment 

1

2

3

Highlight C-2: Radioactive Decay of Common Isotopes 

4 year. This information is important, as it can be used to calibrate other radiometric dating methods to date 

5 and define sedimentary behavior. 

6 Carbon-14 

7 14C is produced in the Earth’s atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic ray particles with nitrogen 

8 (N), oxygen (O), and carbon (C). Of these elements, nitrogen is the most important in terms of the 

9 amount of 14C produced. 14C was also produced by thermonuclear activity (bomb testing), which 

10 contributed significantly to 14C levels in the atmosphere, reaching a peak in 1963 (Northern Hemisphere) 

11 and 1964 (Southern Hemisphere). All 14C produced is rapidly oxidized to CO2 and is assimilated into the 

12 carbon cycle. 14C has a half-life of 5,730 years and has an effective range of applicability of 100 to 

13 70,000 years for dating organic material. The amount of bomb-produced carbon is determined by 

14 comparing present radiocarbon activity to 1950 carbon activity, the date established by convention as the 

15 baseline for all radiocarbon dating. Post-1952 carbon values are reported as a percentage of modern (that 

16 is, 1950) carbon, and denoted as 14C. 

17 Cesium-137 

18 Cesium has only one naturally occurring stable isotope, 133Cs. The radiogenic isotope 137Cs has 

19 been used in hydrologic studies. 137Cs is produced from detonation of nuclear weapons and emissions 

20 from nuclear power plants. Beginning in 1954 with the commencement of nuclear testing, 137Cs was 

21 released into the atmosphere where it is absorbed readily into solution and returns to earth in the form of 

22 precipitation. Once 137Cs enters the ground water, it is deposited on soil surfaces and is removed from the 

23 landscape primarily by particle transport. As a result, the input function of these isotopes can be estimated 

24 as a function of time. The resulting activities of 137Cs in sediments can thus be used to understand the 

November 2002 Draft Document - Do Not Cite or Quote C-3 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Appendix C: Radiometric Dating of Sediment 

history of sediments by dating cores and estimating rates of sediment deposition and thus erosion within 

the watershed. 

134Cs and 135Cs have also been used in hydrology as a measure of cesium output by the nuclear 

power industry. This isotope is used because, while it is less prevalent than either 133Cs or 137Cs, both are 

be produced solely by nuclear reactions. 

Lead-210 

210Pb, with a half-life of 22.3 years, is ideal for most ecosystem studies. A member of the 238U 

series, 210Pb forms by the decay of its intermediate gaseous parent, radon-222. 222Rn, formed by the decay 

of radium, escapes into the atmosphere by recoil or by diffusion, and rapidly decays to form 210Pb. This 

isotope has a residence time in the atmosphere of about 10 days before it is removed by precipitation. 

The highly reactive lead is then rapidly adsorbed to and incorporated into the depositing sediment. 210Pb 

is also formed within sediments by the decay of 226Ra. Dates of sediment deposition are calculated by 

determining the decrease in 210Pb activity at each selected sediment interval; this decrease is a function of 

time. If the initial concentration of 210Pb is known, or is estimated using 7

Be data, then the “age” of a 

sediment interval can be calculated. 

C.3 RADIOMETRIC DATING FOR ESTIMATING SEDIMENTATION RATES 

Radiometric dating in a lacustrine, estuarine, or marine setting is marked primarily for its 

violation of one of the primary assumptions, that the “system” is closed and there is no introduction nor 

loss of daughter products through other than radiogenic transformation of the parent material already 

present in the material. The system is defined as that area of sediments which are under evaluation. Such 

an area may be a river reach, a tidal wetland, or any other natural hydrologic catchment area. The 

accumulation of sediments in any such area will involve the introduction of both parent and daughter 

isotopes which were formed upstream in the migratory sediments’ original location. Thus, when a core is 

taken from an area of interest, the core will contain not only the isotopes that were deposited through 

aerial deposition within the catchment area but also isotopes that were transported into the area as a result 

of sedimentary deposition. Some isotopes also form within the material of interest, itself, as a result of 

radiogenic decay of parent material that was already present in the material of interest. For example, 

210Pb can be deposited in sediments as precipitation, but it also forms as a daughter product from the 

radiogenic decay of 226Ra within the sediments. Thus, within a system in which 210Pb is used as a 

geochronometer there are two original sources of 210Pb, and then the 210Pb that has been introduced into 

the system as a result of sedimentation. Dating such cores requires integrating information from multiple 

sources or making a series of assumptions. The accuracy of the effort will be sensitive to any 

assumptions that are made, and independent verification of the radiometric dating will greatly improve its 

accuracy. 

Methods have been developed, primarily by the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS), to inventory, or 

separate out the various contributing sources of isotopes to a natural catchment area. First, there are 

multiple sources of data related to the rates of aerial deposition of many isotopes. Depending on the 

isotope, institutions such as universities or government agencies, have performed many studies, some 

long-term, directed at measuring rates of aerial deposition of radioactive isotopes. For instance, in the 

South Florida area, the University of Miami has tracked aerial deposition of 210Pb and 137Cs for nearly a 

decade. Under the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, several organizations collect and monitor 

information on 137Cs deposition at numerous sites in the U.S. Other organizations are interested in 

radiometric dating to support archeological and paleontological investigations. These sources of 

November 2002 Draft Document - Do Not Cite or Quote C-4 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Appendix C: Radiometric Dating of Sediment 

information may be used to establish rates of aerial deposition of the isotope to be used in the radiometric 

dating of sediments. 

The second source of an isotope maybe its formation within the sediments of concern. In such 

cases, the parent material can be directly measured. Using known rates of radioactive decay, an estimate 

of the amount of daughter product that would be produced by the radiogenic decay of the parent can be 

generated. This level of daughter product material is often called the “supported” amount of the isotope, 

or the amount of an isotope that should be present given the amount of the parent material present. 

The final source of an isotope within a natural catchment area is that which is introduced through 

sedimentation, or transported into the system from sources upstream. This is the amount of sediment that 

is most of interest to site managers at sites whose remedies include natural capping. The amount of 

sediment being transported into a system can be measured by the amount of isotope that is present but 

could not have been produced within the system, given the amount of parent material present. Often, this 

amount is called the “unsupported” amount of the isotope. 

Radiometric dating of a catchment system requires establishing an inventory of the isotope 

present and the related daughter products and determining the amount of the inventory that can be 

attributed to 1) aerial deposition, 2) in situ formation, and 3) sedimentary transport. Given that the first 

two can be either estimated based on studies of the local area or directly measured, the amount of the third 

component can only be attributed to sedimentation. 

Important Considerations 

There are some factors of which investigators using radiometric dating methods should be aware. 

Some to consider will include the following: 

C First, if no studies are available to establish rates of aerial deposition, then assumptions 

should be made. Such assumptions should be based on as much relevant information as 

possible, and the accuracy of the dating method will be sensitive to the validity of those 

assumptions. For instance, if the assumption underestimates the rate of aerial deposition, 

then the radiometric dating method will overestimate the amount of sediment being 

transported into the catchment area and the estimated rate of sedimentation will be too 

high; 

C Second, investigators should be aware that sediment deposition is a dynamic process that 

reflects not only hydrologic events but also is influenced by man-made events. 

Furthermore, sedimentation occurs not as a homogeneous, continuous process, but in 

pulses over time. Therefore, extrapolating results across event short periods of time may 

result in inaccurate results. For example, in a rapid depositional environment, such as 

portions of the Chesapeake Bay where rapid urban development is clearing large tracts of 

land quickly, sedimentation rates may fluctuate significantly over periods as short as one 

to two years. Therefore, the core intervals that are used for dating should be small 

enough to account for such variations, usually one to five centimeters; 

C Third, relying solely on measurements of isotope activity without taking into account the 

quality and characteristics of the sediments in which the measurements are made can 

significantly influence the radiometric dating results. For example, in catchment areas 

with little or no mixing of sediments, fine-grained sediments settle into fine laminate 

structures. Concentrations of isotopes within these fine laminate structures may be 

significantly higher than within laminates of coarser-grained materials, such as sand, and 

November 2002 Draft Document - Do Not Cite or Quote C-5 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Appendix C: Radiometric Dating of Sediment 

radioactive measurements will also be higher. Thus, without taking into account that 

material in which the isotope has been deposited, the radiometric method will 

underestimate the age of the sediments; and 

C Fourth, information about significant geologic, ecological, or anthropogenic events 

should be considered and integrated into the radiometric dating when appropriate. Largescale housing or industrial construction over extended periods of time can introduce 

significant quantities of recently-deposited isotopes into the system as a result of erosion 

of unprotected soils. Similar information can used to benchmark 137Cs levels in 

sediments. Knowledge of the half-life of 137Cs, and that 137Cs was introduced into the 

environment as a result of atomic bomb testing in the mid-1950s can be used to validate 

date estimates using 210Pb as a chronometer. For example, during a study conducted by 

the USGS in Lake Ponchatrain, Louisiana, using 210Pb as the geochronometer, the method 

showed that the bottom of the cores taken near the input from the Mississippi River were 

of about 150 years of age. However, additional testing of the material at the bottom of 

the cores indicated the presence of 137Cs, which has only been present in the environment 

since the mid-1950s. A USGS study of the South Florida Bay area used the introduction 

of the Australian Pine to benchmark 210Pb levels in core samples taken in peat soils. The 

introduction of the Australian Pine occurred during the early 1900s. Because of the 

minimal mixing that can be expected in such soils, investigators were able to establish 

appropriate rates of supported isotope activity with a significant degree of accuracy. 

November 2002 Draft Document - Do Not Cite or Quote C-6 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Appendix C: Radiometric Dating of Sediment 

REFERENCES 

Eicher, D.L. 1976. Geologic Time. Prentice-Hall Publishers, 2nd Ed. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 1998. Short-Lived Isotopic Chronometers, Fact Sheet FS-73-98. 

U.S. Geological Survey. Geochronology of Terrestrial Sediments: South Florida. Fact Sheet. 

http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/fs/sed_geochron/. 

Kendall, C. and McDonnell, eds. Isotope Tracers in Catchment Hydrology. Elsevier Science B.V., 

Amsterdam NETH. 1998. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Bibliography of Publications of 137Cs Studies Related to Erosion and 

Sediment Deposition. Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, Maryland 

http://hydrolab.arsusda.gov/cesium137bib.htm.. 

November 2002 Draft Document - Do Not Cite or Quote C-7 
CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT REMEDIATION

GUIDANCE FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES:

APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL REFERENCES 

REGARDING DREDGING EQUIPMENT, 

TREATMENT, AND TRANSPORT 
This page left intentionally blank. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

Appendix D: Additional Dredging References 

Additional References Regarding Dredging Equipment, Treatment, and Transport 

Dredging Equipment Specifications and Characteristics: 

The Permanent International Association of Navigation Congress (PIANC 1996) report, Handling and 

Treatment of Contaminated Dredged Material from Ports and Inland Waterways. Report of Working 

Group No. 17 of the Permanent Technical Committee I, Supplement to Bulletin No. 89, 2996. Permanent 

International Association of Navigation Congresses, Brussels, Belgium. Available on CD ROM. 

Guide to Selecting a Dredge for Minimizing Resuspension of Sediment (D.F. Hayes 1996). 

Environmental Effects of Dredging, Technical Note EEDP-09-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Selecting and Operating Dredging Equipment: A Guide to Sound Environmental Practices (St. Lawrence 

Centre 1993). Selecting and Operating Dredging Equipment: A Guide to Sound Environmental 

Practices, prepared in Collaboration with Public Works Canada and the Ministere de l’Environment du 

Quebec, written by Les Consultants Jacques Berube, Inc. Cat. No. En 40-438/1993E. 

Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program Remediation Guidance 

Document (U.S. EPA 1994). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program 

Office. Chicago, IL. EPA 905/B-96/004. October. 

Anticipating Sediment Resuspension and Contaminant Release During Environmental Engineering 

Operations (Hayes 1992). Proceedings of the International Symposium on Environmental Dredging, 

September 30 - October 2, 1992, Buffalo, NY. 

Innovative Technologies for Dredging Contaminated Sediments (Zappi and Hayes 1991). Miscellaneous 

Paper EL-91-20. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Handbook of Dredging Engineering (Herbich 1992). First Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New 

York, NY. 

Treatment Technologies and Effects: 

ARCS Program Remediation Guidance Document (U.S. EPA 1994). U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Great Lakes National Program Office. Chicago, IL. EPA 905/B-96/004. October. 

Pilot Scale Demonstration of Thermal Desorption for the Treatment of Buffalo River Sediment (U.S. EPA 

1993). EPA 905/R-93/005. December. 

Pilot Scale Demonstration of Sediment Washing for the Treatment of Saginaw River Sediments (U.S. 

EPA 1994). Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program. EPA 905/R4/019. July. 

Pilot Scale Demonstration of Thermal Desorption for the Treatment of Ashtabula River Sediment (U.S. 

EPA 1994). EPA 905/R-94/021. August. 

November 2002 Draft Document - Do Not Cite or Quote D-1 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Appendix D: Additional Dredging References 

Pilot Scale Demonstration of Solvent Extraction for the Treatment of Grand Calumet River Sediment 

(U.S. EPA 1994). EPA 905/R-94/003. January. 

The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles, Fifth Edition (U.S. 

EPA 1992). EPA 540/R-92/077. November. 

Recent Developments for In-situ Treatment of Metal Contaminated Soils (U.S. EPA). U.S. EPA Office 

of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Available at 

http://207.86.51.66/download/remed/metals2.pdf.. 

New Jersey Office of Maritime Resources and Technology Development. Available at 

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/maritime/ 

Selecting Remediation Technologies for Contaminated Sediment (U.S. EPA 1993). Office of Water. 

EPA 823/B-93/001. Washington, DC. 

Dredge Material Transport Technologies: 

National Waterways Study - Overview of Transportation Industry (Churchward et al. 1981). National 

Waterways Study - Overview of the Transportation Industry. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute of 

Water Resources, Water Resources Support Center, Fort Belvoir, VA. 

ARCS Program Remediation Guidance Document (U.S. EPA 1994). U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL. 

Dredged Material Transport Systems for Inland Disposal and/or Product Use Concepts (Souder et al. 

1978). Dredged Material Research Program Technical Report D-78-28. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Waterways Experiment Stations, Vicksburg, MS, June. 

Fundamentals of Hydraulic Dredging (Turner 1984). Cornell Maritime Press, Centerville, MD. 

Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal (U.S. EPA 1979). U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, 

Cincinnati, OH. EPA 625/1-79/011. September. 

Guidelines for Selecting Control and Treatment Options for Contaminated Dredged Material Requiring 

Restrictions, Puget Sound Disposal Analysis (Cullinane et al. 1986). Report prepared for the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers Seattle District, Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

November 2002 Draft Document - Do Not Cite or Quote D-2