Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$125.25



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 65


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 64
USE OF THE APPARENT EFFECTS THRESHOLD APPROACH (AET) IN CLASSIFYING CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS Robert Barrick, Harry Beller, Scott Becker, and Thomas Ginn PTI Environmental Services ABSTRACT The Apparent Effects Threshold (AET) approach is a tool for deriving sediment quality values for a range of biolo- gical indicators used to assess contaminated sediments. The AET is the contaminant concentration in sediment above which adverse effects are always expected for a particular biolog- ical indicator. Application of this approach in 13 embaym- ents of Puget Sound, Washington is described. Approximately 85 percent of the 198 benthic infauna stations and 283 amphipod bioassay stations are in accordance with the pre- dictions of the proposed AET values for these indicators (i.e., they do not exhibit adverse effects when all concen- trations are less than AET values, and do exhibit adverse effects at chemical concentrations above the AET values). Similarly, approximately 95 percent of 56 oyster larvae bioassay stations and 56 Microtox bioassay stations are in accordance with predictions of AET for these indicators evaluated in a single urban bay and associated reference area (Commencement Bay and Carr Inlet; additional data for other embayments are not available). The integration of AET as one tool for environmental decision making is discussed, including the need for more than a single number that defines "clean sediments." Specific management requirements may dictate that low sediment quality values (e.g., the lowest AET for a range of biological indicators) be applied to ensure sensitive identification of potential problems, while high values (e.g., the highest AET for a range of biological indicators) be applied to ensure that remedial action is efficiently focused on problem sediments for which there is a preponderance of evidence. INTRODUCTION Sediments are a primary reservoir of contaminants released by indus- trial, commercial, and residential activities in coastal urban bays. The management of contaminated sediments requires that biological or 64

OCR for page 64
65 chemical criteria be developed to distinguish effects or concentration levels above which the sediments are considered to be a problem. Regu- latory sediment criteria for defining "clean sediments" have not yet been adopted, but the assessment of toxic effects associated with con- taminated sediments has been approached by environmental scientists in two general ways (Figure 1~. . The first general approach is based on empirical relationships between laboratory sediment bioassays, in situ biological effects observed in organisms associated with sediments, and chemical concen- trations measured in sediments. Examples of this "effects-based" approach include the Sediment Quality Triad (Long and Chapman, 1985), the Apparent Effects Threshold (AET) (Barrick et al., 1985), and the Screening Level Concentration (SLC) (Battelle, 19869. The second approach emphasizes theoretical models to predict the partitioning of sediment contaminants to interstitial water (a major exposure pathway for organisms associated with sediments). The predicted interstitial water concentrations are then compared to water quality criteria based on laboratory measurements of biological effects (e.g., the equilibrium partitioning approach ; Pavlou, 1987~. None of the available approaches is fully capable of addressing all concerns over interactive effects among chemicals; hence, field verification using diverse environmental samples is important to the evaluation of each approach. The following presentation summarizes the concept of the AET approach and its application and verification in multiple areas of Puget Sound, Washington. The information has been abstracted from a manuscript in preparation (Barrick et al., in prep.~. The AET approach assumes a dose-response relationship between increasing chemical contamination and biological effects. Specifically, for each chemical of concern, the AET is the chemical concentration in sediments above which statistically significant biological effects are always expected for one or more biological effects indicator. AET can be developed for any measured chemical (organic or inorganic) that spans a wide concen- tration range in the data set used to generate AET. The AET concept IN SITU Chemistry Field BENTHIC - ~ Correlation EFFECTS Field I LABORATORY | Chemistry Laboratory Sediment ~ | EXPOSURE | ~ Correlation FIGURE l Assessment of sediment quality. an, (1 ) SEDIMENT TOO ~ Predicted IW ~ Predicted CHEMISTRY Par f i lion ing Chemistry Criteria Effects (1) Effects-Based (2) Theoretical (2 ~

OCR for page 64
66 can be applied to matched field data for sediment chemistry and any observable biological effects (e.g., bioassays, benthic infaunal abundance, bioaccumulation). By using these different indicators, application of the resulting sediment quality values addresses a wide range of biological effects in the management of contaminated sediments. A single biological test or single concentration for a chemical may not always define "acceptable contamination." Hence, a range of sediment quality values such as pro- vided by the AET approach may be necessary to serve the needs of differ- ent programs. DESCRIPTION OF AET APPROACH The focus of the AET approach is to identify concentrations of con- taminants that are associated exclusively with sediments exhibiting statistically significant biological effects relative to reference sedi- ments. The calculation of AET for each chemical and biological indica- tor is straightforward: - 1. collect "matched" chemical and biological effects data--conduct chemical and biological effects testing on subsamples of the same field sample (because of subsampling concerns, benthic infaunal analyses may require chemical analyses to be conducted on a separate sediment sample collected concurrently with the chemical sampled; I. determine "impacted" and "nonimpacted" stations--statistically test the significance of adverse biological effects relative to suitable reference conditions for each sediment sample and bio- logical indicator; a. determine AET using only "nonimpacted" stations--for each chemi- cal, determine the AET for a given biological indicator as the highest detected concentration among sediment samples that do not exhibit statistically significant effects (if all values for the chemical are always undetected in these samples, no AET can be established for that chemical and biological indicator); '.. check for tentative AET--verify that statistically significant biological effects are observed at a chemical concentration higher than the AET, otherwise the AET is only a tentative mini- mum estimate (or may not exist.) A pictorial representation of the AET approach for two chemicals is presented in Figure 2 based on amphipod bioassay results in Puget Sound. Two subpopulations of all sediments analyzed for chemistry and subjected to an amphipod bioassay are represented by bars in the fig- ures, and include sediments that did not exhibit statistically significant (P > 0.05) amphipod toxicity ("nonimpacted" stations), and sediments that exhibited statistically significant amphipod toxicity in bioassays (nimpacted" stations).

OCR for page 64
67 FIGURE 2 The AET approach applied to sediments tested for lead and 4-methyl phenol concentrations and amphipod mortality during bioassays. LEAD ~ NO SEDIMENT TOXICITY me steer = e ~ ~ a~ lee~ - SEDIMENT TOXICITY OeSERVED F:~/'',,'/,///~/~/'.~,//,/~ t t ~ 1 SP IS SP-14 . I RS.19 7 - PA ~ ~' '1 1 1000 APPARENT CONCENTRATION (~IKg DW) A - HIPOD TOXICITY THRESHOLD ~ . . . . .... ! . 10 100 HI RS-18 I l 63 - PA , ,,4 ~ 10,000 MAXIMUM _ OBSERVED LEVEL AT A BIOLOGICAL STATION OH 4-METHYL PHENOL ~ NO SEDIMENT TOXICITY 1 1 RS 1' RSe18 . . .~ U10 100 , SP!1S 1 300 ppe sP.lil ...... 1000 APPARENT CONCENTRATION (~g/Kg DW) ~PHIPOD rot TH - S - LO ,_ MAXIMUM OBSERVED LEVEL AT ~ BK)LOGKAL STATION The horizontal axis in each figure represents sedimentary concentra- tions of contaminant of concern (i.e., lead or 4-methyl phenol) on a log scale. For the amphipod bioassay under consideration, the AET for lead is the highest lead concentration corresponding to sediments that did not exhibit significant toxicity. Above this lead AET, signifi- cant amphipod toxicity was always observed in the data set. The AET for 4-methyl phenol was determined analogously. The Potential Effect Threshold (Figure 2) is the concentration below which no statistically significant biological effects were observed in any sample. Note that this threshold for 4-methyl phenol is equal to the detection limit for the compound. The threshold is designated as "potential" because toxicity was observed in some, but not all, of the samples from stations with higher lead or 4-methyl phenol concentrations. The toxicity effects observed at these stations could have resulted from other contaminants or physical conditions (e.g., grain size). Because the potential effect threshold for a chemi- cal cannot be related in a meaningful way to the observed biological effects, it is not used to set sediment quality values.

OCR for page 64
68 INTERPRETATION OF AET AET correspond to the sediment concentration of a chemical above which all samples for a particular biological indicator were observed to have adverse effects. Thus, AET are based on noncontra- dictory evidence of biological effects for a given data set. Data are treated in this manner to reduce the weight given to samples in which factors other than the contaminant examined (e.g., other contaminants, environmental variables) may contribute to the biological effect. For example, sediment from Station SP-14 shown in Figure 2 exhib- ited severe toxicity, potentially related to a greatly elevated level of 4-methyl phenol (7,400 times reference levels). The same sediment from Station SP-14 contained a low concentration of lead that was well below the AET for lead (Figure 2~. Despite the toxic effects displayed by the sample, sediments from many other stations with higher lead con- centrations than Station SP-14 exhibited no statistically significant biological effects. These results were interpreted to suggest that the effects at Station SP-14 were more likely associated with 4-methyl phenol (or a substance with an environmental distribution) than with lead. A converse argument can be made for lead and 4-methyl phenol in sediments from Station RS-18. Hence, the AET approach helps to iden- tify different contaminants that are most likely associated with ob- served effects at each biologically impacted site. Based on the results for these two contaminants, effects at 4 of the 28 impacted sites shown in the figures may be associated with elevated concentrations of 4-methyl phenol, and effects at 7 other sites may be associated with elevated lead concentrations (or similarly distributed contaminants). These results illustrate that the occurrence of impacted stations at concentrations below the AET of a single chemical does not imply that AET in general are not protective against biological effects, only that single chemicals may not account for all biological effects. By developing AET for multiple chemicals, a high percentage of all sta- tions with biological effects are accounted for with the AET approach (see "Results of Validation Testify. Nevertheless, unmeasured toxic chemicals may occur in the environment with a different spatial dis- tribution than any of the measured chemicals. In such cases, it is unlikely that the AET approach could regularly predict impacts at sta- tions where only such chemicals induce toxic effects. AET can be expected to be most predictive when developed from a large data base with wide ranges of chemical concentrations and a wide diversity of measured contaminants. Small data sets that have large concentration gaps between stations and/or that do not cover a wide range of concentrations must be scrutinized carefully (e.g., to discern whether chemical concentrations in the data set exceed reference concentrations) before generation of the AET is appropriate. GENERATION OF PUGET SOUND AET -AET were originally generated for a combined measure of sediment toxicity (i.e., either amphipod mortality [Swartz et al., 1985] or

OCR for page 64
69 oyster larvae abnormality [Chapman and Morgan, 1983] ), and depressions in the abundance of benthic infauna ~ at high taxonomic levels). These AET were based on data from 50 to 60 stations sampled during the 1984- 1985 Commencement Bay Remedial Investigation (Barrick et al., 1985~. In a 1986 project for the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) and Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP), AET were generated with a lar- ger Puget Sound data base (190 samples, including Commencement Bay data) for individual measures of toxicity (i.e., amphipod mortality, oyster larvae abnormality, and Microtox bioassays "Williams et al., 19863), and benthic infaunal depressions (at high taxonomic levels). Matched biological and chemical data for an additional 10 stations from a joint state and federal investigation of creosote contamination in Eagle Harbor in central Puget Sound have also been incorporated (Bar- rick et al., 19861. The geographic distribution of samples in this data set is shown in Figure 3. Detailed descriptions of the specific chemical tests and sta- tistical analyses for biological indicators is provided elsewhere (Bel- ler et al., 19861. As the result of additional refinement studies spon- sored by the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Region 10, the AET data base has recently been expanded to include additional data on sedi- ment chemistry, benthic infaunal abundance, and amphipod mortality for over 100 sediment samples collected in two additional embayments of Puget Sound, Elliott Bay and Everett Harbor. A report summarizing the results of this refinement study is available from EPA (PTI, 1988~. RESULTS OF VALIDATION TESTS Selected AET generated from a 200-sample Puget Sound data base are presented for dry-weight normalized chemical data (Table 1~. AET gen- erated from chemical data normalized to total organic carbon have also been tested, but are less or no more predictive of observed biological effects than dry-weight normalized data. Such a result was not expec- ted based on organic carbon normalization theory, which assumes that interstitial water is the primary source of nonpolar organic contam- inants to biota, and that, under equilibrium conditions, the distribu- tion of nonpolar contaminants between sedimentary organic matter and water (i.e., KoC) is constant (and predictable). For contaminated sediments in the environment, organic carbon nor- malization could be less predictive than dry-weight normalization if sediment/interstitial water systems are not at equilibrium (e.g., because of overriding kinetic factors), if all sediment organic matter does not have uniform affinity for hydrophobic pollutants, or if inter- stitial water is not the predominant route of contaminant uptake. Dry- weight normalization assumes that mass loading of a contaminant in sedi- ment is a predominant factor influencing toxicity to benthic organisms (although organic carbon interactions may be a secondary factor). The AET concept does not favor one of these mechanistic explanations over the other, but can operate whether one, a combination of the two, or alternative mechanistic assumptions are appropriate.

OCR for page 64
70 :~ ~~o~ ~ ~~e'\~ ~~ ~ A'-;/ ... ^. .. . . . .r~ O 10 ~ . :-~ '.-~: OLYMPIA : 1c MILES - .-- 7., t .- . 1' `~ /4 MAOISOH~ ~ \;..~. . `~e - Phlox - FIGURE 3 Location of sampling sites for AET data sets.

OCR for page 64
71 TABLE 1 Continued NOTES: aBased on data from Beller et al., 1986 and Eagle Harbor Preliminary Investigation (Barrick et al., 19861. Data for recent surveys in Elliott Bay and Everett Harbor are not incorporated in these AET because the proposed AET values were under review by the Puget Sound Sediment Criteria Workgroup during preparation of this paper (see PTI, 1988~. Note: ">" indicates that a definite AET could not be estab- lished because there were no "effects" stations with chemical concen- trations above the highest concentration among "no effects" stations. bBased on 160 stations. CBased on 56 stations (all from Commencement Bay Remedial Investiga- tion). dBased on 104 stations. eBased on 50 stations (all from Commencement Bay Remedial Investiga- iion). A higher AET (24,000 ~g/kg for low molecular weight PAH and 13,000 ~g/kg for anthracene) could be established based on data from an Eagle Harbor station. However, the low-molecular-weight PAH composition at this station is considered atypical of Puget Sound sediments because of the unusually high relative proportion of anthracene. Thus, the low-molecular-weight PAH and anthracene AET shown are based on the next highest station in the data set. gThe value shown exceeds the Puget Sound AET established in Beller et al., (1986) and results from the addition of Eagle Harbor Preliminary investigation data (Barrick et al., 1986~. The value shown exceeds AET established from Commencement Bay Reme- dial Investigation data (Barrick et al., 1985) and results from the addition of Puget Sound data presented in Beller et al. (1986~. Measures of Reliability To meet the needs of ongoing sediment management programs, an ideal approach for sediment criteria would perform well on both of the fol- lowing two tests of reliability based on actual field data: 1 . sensitivity- -the proportion of actual environmental problems that are predicted as problems (i.e., the complement of "false negatives"; are all sediments exhibiting biological effects identified using the predictive approach?; and 2. efficiency--the proportion of predicted problems that are actu- ally environmental problems (i.e., the complement of "false pos- itives"; are only sediments exhibiting biological effects identified using the predictive approach?. The concepts of sensitivity and efficiency are illustrated in Figure 4. Sediment quality values that are highly sensitive may be

OCR for page 64
72 FIGURE 4 Measures of reliability (sensitivity B / and efficiency). / IMPACTED / o ~0 \ \ \ O \ \ O \\. / 0~ \ A CORRECTLY PREDICTED , SENSITIVITY = C/B x 100 EFFICIENCY = C/A x 100 = 5/7 x 100 = 71% . - = 5/8 x 100 = 63%1 1 FOR A GIVEN BIOLOGICAL INDICATOR A ALL STATIONS PREDICTED TO BE IMPACTED B ALL STATIONS KNOWN TO BE IMPACTED C ALL STATIONS CORRECTLY PREDICTED TO BE IMPACTED environmentally protective but are not necessarily cost-effective. Sediment quality values that are highly efficient may be cost-effective and defensible in pursuing high priority remedial action but are not necessarily protective. The concepts of sensitivity and efficiency will be used in this paper as an evaluation tool for assessing the relia- bility of AET. Test of AET Predictions As one example of a test of reliability, AET (dry weight) developed for eight Puget Sound embayments (approximately 200 samples; Beller et al., 1986) were used to independently evaluate new data from an additional five embayments (including Eagle Harbor, Elliott Bay, Everett Harbor, and two reference areas; PTI, 1988~. Stations pre- dicted to have biological effects were identified as those stations with one or more chemicals exceeding the AET. Only amphipod bioassay and benthic infaunal abundance data were collected in these new sur- veys. Microtox and oyster larvae bioassays have not been conducted outside of Commencement Bay. The sensitivity of 1986 benthic infauna AET in correctly identify- ing impacted stations ranged from 71 to 100 percent, and totaled 81 percent (57/70 impacted stations) for the combined new surveys. This sensitivity is comparable to that reported overall for the original surveys used to calculate these AET (82 percent; Belier et al., 1986~. The predictive efficiency of benthic infauna AET applied to different geographic areas in the new surveys ranged from 56 to 100 percent and totaled 74 percent (57/77 predictions) for the combined new surveys. The sensitivity of 1986 amphipod bioassay AET in correctly identifying impacted stations generally ranged from 60 to 100 percent,

OCR for page 64
73 and totaled 65 percent (35/54 impacted stations) for the new surveys. This sensitivity is also comparable to an overall sensitivity of 54 per- cent for the original surveys used to calculate these amphipod bioassay AET. The predictive efficiency generally ranged from 50 to 100 percent and totaled 52 percent for the combined new surveys (in the Eagle Har- bor survey, however, significant amphipod mortality was observed at one of the five predicted stations). Recalculation of AET to include this independent data set of five embayments in the generation of AET automatically results (by defini- tion of AET) in 100 percent efficiency for both biological indicators. The sensitivity of the proposed amphipod AET is 58 percent, and the sensitivity of the proposed benthic infauna AET is 74 percent. There- fore, for the 13 Puget Sound embayments, approximately 85 percent of the benthic infauna stations (170 of 198) and amphipod bioassay sta- tions (238 of 283) are in accordance with the predictions of the pro- posed AET values for these indicators (i.e., they do not exhibit adverse effects when all concentrations are less than AET values, and do exhibit adverse effects at chemical concentrations above the AET values). An additional test of the reliability of AET has been conducted as they might be used in management programs. AET were developed for each chemical of concern for multiple biological indicators because different kinds of biological indicators respond in different ways to the same chemical exposure. For example, an assessment of acute lethal toxicity to contaminated sediments is expected to result in different sediment quality values than an assessment of acute or chronic sub- lethal toxicity to the same sediments. Acute or sublethal responses by different biological species also can differ. For example, the lowest AET (LAET) for one chemical (e.g., PCBs) may be established by the Microtox bioassay and for another chemical (e.g., lead) by benthic infaunal analyses. The LAET is expected to be protective of a range of biological effects. Used in combination, the multiple AET can also pro- vide a preponderance of evidence for associating environmental effects and chemical contamination. Above the highest AET (HAET) for a range of biological indicators there is a high degree of confidence that sed- iments will fail biological testing regardless of the test. In recent (1988) evaluations with the 300-sample data base for 13 embayments, LAET were from 90 to 94 percent sensitive in correctly predicting all known biological effects in the data base (depending on the particular biological test). By definition, HAET based on this 300-sample data base were 100 percent efficient in only predicting actual problem sed- iments (i.e., all of the sediments actually exhibited the predicted effects). Application of Puget Sound AET to other coastal areas of the United States would require validation through at least some site-specific chemical/biological testing. An initial evaluation based on predic- tions using Puget Sound AET and comparing with limited biological effects data from outside of Puget Sound has recently been reported (PTI, 1987).

OCR for page 64
74 APPLICATION OF AET TO SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT IN PUGET SOUND The reliability of the AET approach (particularly AET normalized to dry weight) at predicting biological effects indicates its potential utility as a tool for sediment quality management. Uses for which the AET approach is well-suited include determination of the extent and relative priority of potential problem areas to be managed, identification of potential problem chemicals in impacted sed- iments, prioritization of laboratory studies for determining cause- effect relationships, and with appropriate safety factors or other modifications, for use in regulatory programs and as "trigger levels" for screening decisions on the need for further chemical or biological testing of sediments. Sediment criteria based on definitive laboratory cause-effect studies and field verification studies will continue to be active research issues for many years. In the interim, field effects-based approaches using the AET concept provide decision tools that have the following characteristics: 2. 3. . developed empirically from field provide chemical-specific values, supported by a variety of biological indicators including acute lethal and sublethal bioassays and in situ benthic infaunal analyses reflecting acute and/or chronic effects, 4. driven by statistically significant adverse effects, 5. supported by noncontradictory evidence of adverse effects within a given data set. Sediment quality values based primarily on AET have been integrated into several Puget Sound programs (Figure 5~. These chemical values are not used in isolation; in all cases site-specific biological testing is used to supplement or verify the predictions based on sedi- ment quality values. Problem area and problem chemical identification was the focus of the Commencement Bay Remedial Investigation, and is currently a major aspect of the urban bays program of PSEP. This-prob- lem identification establishes a basis in taxies action plans for prior itizing potential remedial actions according to the environmental signi ficance of contamination. Problem identification requires sensitive sediment quality values to ensure that all potential problems are con- sidered. The purpose of subsequent sediment remedial action is to mitigate contamination in problem areas and thereby to eliminate associated adverse biological effects. In the Commencement Bay Feasibility Study, sediment quality values based on the lowest AET for a range of biolog- ical indicators were developed as potential target cleanup goals (not considering cost or technical feasibility). These goals correspond to

OCR for page 64
75 ~ Commencemen t Bay S,uperfund ~ Chemical/ Predictive FS Biological =~? Relationships c=: > Goals L-1 Analyses Site-Specific CLEANUP Refinement L .,- DECISION Embayment Puget Sound r PROBLEM Chem'Cal/8iolo9ical [~no predictions ~ I- ;> DEFINITION tPuge! Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis| Tier 1 I.. Tier 2 Need Taste? Id> Chemistry Predictions r Tier 3 :> Biological Confirmation A> DISPOSAL ~ DECISION FIGURE 5 Use of sediment quality values based on AET in Puget Sound remedial action programs. those sediment contaminant concentrations that are not predicted to result in adverse effects according to the biological effects indica- tors used to generate AET. Although the goals may not be totally pro- tective of all potential environmental problems, they are sensitive to currently measurable effects, including effects originally used to iden- tify problem areas in the remedial investigation. A higher (i.e., less stringent) level for cleanup was identified as an alternative to the target cleanup goal. This alternative cleanup level was recommended for use should the target goal be infeasible at a particular problem area. The higher concentration alternative would be more technically or economically feasible than target goals because it would tend to require smaller volumes of sediment for remedial action. Instead of using an arbitrary multiple of the target goals, this alter- native was generally based on the highest AET for the range of biolog- ical indicators (i.e., the concentration of each chemical above which all biological effects accounted for by AET are predicted to occur). This alternative cleanup level is expected to be efficient in addressing major contaminant problems. Dredged material disposal guidelines developed by PSDDA incorporate sediment quality values to address both sensitivity and efficiency con- cerns (Phillips et al., 1988~. PSDDA guidelines establish a chemical screening level (SL) above which biological testing must be performed to establish the suitability of dredged material for disposal at uncon- fined, open-water sites. The SL is lower or equal to the lowest AET for a range of biological indicators and is intended to be sensitive (i.e., fully protective of the environment). Contamination below the SL is assumed to be acceptable without confirming biological tests. A

OCR for page 64
76 maximum level (ML) was also established by PSDDA as the highest AET for a range of biological indicators. The ML was intended to indicate a level of chemical contamination above which there was a preponderance of evidence for adverse effects. Biological testing above the ML is always expected to confirm the prediction of unacceptable biological effects, and is not required. It is recognized that site-specific factors could anomalously influence predictions of biological effects based on sediment quality values. Therefore, in evaluating final requirements for sediment remed- ial action, selected verification of predicted effects is recommended (extensive biological testing of each sample may not be feasible). For example, in the Commencement Bay Feasibility Study an option is pro- vided to appeal the site-specific prediction of biological effects. This biological testing program is consistent with the intent of other regional contaminated sediment management programs, including PSDDA disposal guidelines. Comparable tests and test protocols are recom- mended, and site-specific biological information overrides predictions of biological effects based on chemical data. Some specific differ- ences between regional programs in the interpretation of biological test results may exist because of differing program goals (e.g., clean- up of nearshore sediments in a multiuse environment versus assessment of the suitability of potentially contaminated material for disposal at a designated deep-water site). CONCLUSIONS AND RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS Sediment remedial action is controversial because few objective criteria exist for quantitatively assessing more than the economic feasibility of remedial actions. A commonly expressed concern is that cleanup or disposal guidelines based solely on the most sensitive bio- logical effects would likely be economically or technically infeasible. In any case, there is a strongly perceived need for a preponderance of evidence to implement remedial action. To address these concerns, a range of sediment quality values-- such as those incorporated into existing Puget Sound programs--is recom- mended. The low end of this range is protective of a wide range of adverse biological effects. At the high end of this range, a prepon- derance of evidence exists for the prediction of adverse biological effects by multiple indicators. These tradeoffs required by balancing environmental protection and remedial action feasibility are reflected in the sensitivity and efficiency of sediment quality values, which should both be evaluated as part of their validation or in any research effort. REFERENCES Barrick, R. C., D. S. Becker, D. P. Weston, and T. C. Ginn. 19850 Com- mencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial Investigation, Final Report. Prepared for the Washington [State] Department of Ecology

OCR for page 64
77 and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-910/9-85-134b. Belle- vue, Wash.: Tetra Tech, Inc. 2 volumes + appendices. Barrick, R. C., H. R. Belier, and M. Meredith. 1986. Eagle Harbor Pre- liminary Investigation, Final Report. Prepared for Black & Veatch Engineers-Architects and the Washington Department of Ecology. Bellevue, Wash.: Tetra Tech, Inc. 247 pp. Battelle. 1986. Sediment Quality Criteria Methodology Validation: Calcu- lation of Screening Level Concentrations from Field Data, Final Report. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cri- teria and Standards Division. Washington, D.C.: Battelle. 60 pp. + appendices. Chapman, P. M. and J. D. Morgan. 1983. Sediment bioassays with oyster larvae. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 31:438-444. Beller, H. R., R. C. Barrick, D. S. Becker. 1986. Development of Sedi- ment Quality Values for Puget Sound, Final Report. Prepared for the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis and Puget Sound Estuary Pro- gram. Bellevue, Wash.: Tetra Tech, Inc. Long, E. R. and P. M. Chapman. 1985. A sediment quality triad: measures of sediment contamination, toxicity and infaunal community composi- tion in Puget Sound. Mar. Poll. Bull. 16:405-415. Pavlou, S. P. 1987. The use of the equilibrium partitioning approach in determining safe levels of contaminants in marine sediments. In Fate and Effects of Sediment-Bound Chemicals in Aquatic Systems, K. L. Dickson, A. W. Maki, and W. A. Brungs, eds. Toronto: Pergamon Press. Pp. 388-412. Phillips, K., D. Jamison, J. Malek, B. Ross, C. Krueger, J. Thornton, and J. Krull. 1988. Evaluation procedures technical appendix. Pub- lic Review draft report prepared by the the Evaluation Procedures Work Group with assistance of Resource Planning Associates, PTI Environmental Services, Shapiro & Associates, and Tetra Tech, Inc. for the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis. PTI Environmental Services. 1987. Policy implications of effects-based marine sediment criteria. Prepared for AMS/U.S. Environmental Pro- tection Agency, Office of Policy Analysis. EPA Contract No. 68-01- 7002. Bellevue, Wash: PTI Environmental Services. 57 pp. plus appen- dices. PTI Environmental Services. 1988. Sediment quality values refinement: 1988 Update and evaluation of Puget Sound AET. Final report prepared for Tetra Tech, Inc./U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 Office of Puget Sound. PTI Environmental Services, Belle we, Wash. Swartz, R. C., W. A. Deben, J. K. P. Jones, J. O. Lamberson, and F. A. Cole. 1985. Phoxocephalid amphipod bioassay for marine sediment toxicity. In Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: 7th Symposium, R. D. Cardwell, R. Purdy, and R. C. Bahner, eds. ASTM STP 854. Philadelphia, Pa.: American Society for Testing and Materials. Pp. 284-307. Williams, L. G., P. M. Chapman, and T. C. Ginn. 1986. A comparative evaluation of sediment toxicology using bacterial luminescence, oyster embryo, and amphipod sediment bioassays. Mar. Environ. Res. 19:225-249.