Washington State Department of Ecology

Publication Summary

Title

Final Environmental Impacts Statement For the Washington State Sediment Management Standards

Month-Year Published

December 1990

Online Availability

View this publication in Acrobat PDF format

547 kilobytes, requires version 4.0 or later of Adobe Acrobat Reader Software get Acrobat Reader

Short Description

See the executive summary below.

(Also see abstract below)

Publication Number

90-50

Contact

Kathryn DeJesus, (360) 407-7242

Print Availability

Request from the program.

Not available as a printed document. Please use download version.

Number of pages

110

Keywords

air quality, alternatives, benthic, biological, board, cleanup, code, contamination, environmental, Environmental Impact Statement, Environmental Protection Agency, evaluation, fish, goals, information, law, marine, marine mammals, model, noise, order, pH, pollution , pollution control, process, Puget Sound, regulatory, response, rule, rules, science, sediment, SEPA, source control, standards, State Environmental Policy Act, study, terrestrial, toxic, toxics, transport, transportation, urban, waste, water, water quality

Subject Waterbodies

Puget Sound

Related Publications

Title

Relationship

Chapter 173-204 WAC, Sediment Management Standards

related regulation

Abstract

Long Description

executive summary:

Need for Sediment Management Standards

Sediments in several areas of Puget Sound and throughout Washington state have been identified as contaminated with toxic substances such as petroleum-derived compounds, chlorinated organic compounds, and metals. Sediment contamination has been associated with impacts on animals living in the sediments and the development of tumors and other abnormalities in bottom-feeding fish. In addition, fish, crabs, and clams have been observed to accumulate pollutants in areas with sediment contamination. In several of these areas, local health departments have advised residents to limit their consumption of seafood.

Authority

The proposed Sediment Management Standards (SMS) acknowledge the Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW) and the Model Toxics Control Act (Chapter 70.105D RCW) as the primary authorizing legislation for establishing sediment source control and cleanup standards, respectively. The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) also cites several other state laws as providing authority for the adoption of the SMS. The laws and Ecology's intent in citing each law within the authority section of the SMS are described in Chapter 1.

Objective of the Proposal

The objective of the proposed action is to adopt statewide sediment management standards for source control and cleanup activities. The source control standards include authorization, maintenance, and closure of sediment impact zones (i.e., sediment dilution zones, limited areas in which dischargers are permitted to contribute higher contaminant levels for limited periods of time). The cleanup standards include a decision process designed to meet the sediment quality goals identified in the rule. This decision process includes procedures to screen contaminated sediment areas for consideration of active cleanup, to rank contaminated sediment sites based on the relative risk they pose to human and environmental health, and to select a site-specific cleanup standard.

The rule also includes sediment quality standards that establish a "no effects" goal for the chemical and biological quality of sediments. The sediment quality standards have previously undergone review and are not evaluated in this document.

Although the rule is proposed for statewide application, only the qualitative portions of the source control, cleanup, and sediment quality standards will apply to the sediments in all waters of the state. The quantitative source control, cleanup, and sediment quality standards currently set forth in the rule (i.e., the chemical values and biological effects levels) apply only to Puget Sound sediments. Source control, cleanup, and sediment quality standards for all other state marine, low salinity, and freshwater sediments shall be determined on a case-by-case basis until quantitative standards applicable to these sediments are established. Like the Puget Sound sediment standards, the development of these other standards will be subject to all applicable public review and State Environmental Policy Act requirements.

A separate, companion environmental impact statement (Ecology 1990b) that documents the incorporation by reference of the SMS into the Model Toxics Control Act cleanup regulation is available for review.

Purpose of the Environmental Impact Statement

The purpose of this environmental impact statement is to evaluate four alternatives for determining the maximum degree of sediment contamination to be allowed during implementation of three sediment management activities related to the following three sets of standards:

Source control standards-The maximum degree of sediment contamination (chemical quality/biological effects) allowed in sediments impacted by ongoing discharges [i.e., the sediment impact zone maximum allowable contamination level (SIZmax)]

Screening standards-The maximum degree of sediment contamination allowed before a contaminated sediment site cleanup is required [i.e. the cleanup screening level (CSL)]

Cleanup standards-The maximum degree of sediment contamination allowed to be left in place after active cleanup [i.e., a minimum cleanup level (MCUL)].

This document addresses the environmental trade-offs associated with programmatic adoption of each of the four alternative contamination levels identified for the SIZmax, CSL, and MCUL. Site-specific environmental impacts are not defined, but this document is intended to encourage and facilitate public involvement in decisions regarding the impacts on the environment from selection of any one of the alternatives. The environmental impacts associated with individual contaminated sediment sites will be evaluated prior to the initiation of cleanup activities on a case-by-case basis.

Description of the Alternatives

Four alternative approaches to establishment of the SIZmax, CSL, and MCUL are evaluated in this environmental impact statement. The four sediment management alternatives generally represent increasing degrees of adverse environmental effects along a scale of decreasing costs. In the process of formulating the SIZmax, CSL, and MCUL alternatives, Ecology determined that in order to maintain integrity and consistency between the various portions of the rule, the same chemical concentration and biological effects levels should be established for the SIZmax, CSL, and MCUL. The alternative contamination levels to be considered are described below:

Alternative 1--Under Alternative 1, defined as the no-action alternative, source control standards and cleanup standards would require all discharges and cleanup decisions to meet the long-term sediment quality goal previously established for Puget Sound. Alternative 1 is the "no effects" level established by the sediment quality standards, that is, no significant effects in any of the biological tests used to establish the standards. Alternative 1 represents the lowest biological effects level and the highest cost of the four alternatives.

Alternative 2-Alternative 2 is the level at which significant effects are allowed in one but not two of the biological tests used to establish the sediment quality standards. This alternative is defined as allowing "minor adverse effects." Alternative 2 represents an increased biological effects level and lower cost than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3-Alternative 3 is the level at which significant effects are allowed in three but not all four of the biological tests used to establish the sediment quality standards. This alternative is defined as allowing "moderate adverse effects." Alternative 3 represents an increased biological effects level and lower cost than Alternative 2.

Alternative 4-Alternative 4 is the higher of the level defined in Alternative 3 and the level at which significant effects are identified in all the biological tests used to establish the sediment quality standards. This alternative is defined as allowing "severe adverse effects." Alternative 4 represents an increased biological effects level and lower cost than Alternative 3.

Background Information

Areas of contaminated sediments and associated adverse effects have been identified in Washington state since the early 1980s. Sediment contamination has been associated with impacts on animals living in the sediment, and the development of tumors and other abnormalities in bottom-feeding fish. In addition, fish, crabs, and clams have been observed to bioaccumulate pollutants in areas with sediment contamination.

Contamination in sediments comes from numerous sources, including both historical practices and ongoing point and nonpoint discharges. Rules currently in place that regulate discharges to waters of the state are primarily concerned with water quality rather than sediment quality and therefore do not directly address the problems associated with sediment contamination. Since toxicants from the water column can concentrate in sediments, harmful sediment contamination can occur even when the water column is not seriously contaminated.

Prior to the adoption of the 1987 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan (the PSWQA Plan), the regulation of discharges; the management of dredging and disposal of dredged material; and the identification, ranking, and cleanup of contaminated sediment sites were hampered by the lack of coordinated goals and policies addressing the prevention of sediment contamination. The absence of any adopted sediment quality standards added to the difficulty in consistent protection of sediment quality. During this time, regulation of sources of toxicants through permit programs generally addressed the quantity, not quality, of sediment particles suspended in effluents that could ultimately affect the quality of impacted sediments. State and federal water quality, hazardous waste, and cleanup laws were often in disagreement concerning the need for the protection of sediments, the level of protection necessary, and the appropriate scientific methods for measuring the chemical and biological quality of sediments.

The PSWQA Plan, which was formally adopted by the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority in 1987, presents goals, strategies, and work elements for 12 program areas to improve and protect the quality of Puget Sound. The municipal and industrial discharges program and the contaminated sediments and dredging program specifically address the identification and management of contaminated sediments. These programs direct Ecology to develop Puget Sound sediment quality standards, source control standards including discharge sediment dilution zones, and contaminated sediment cleanup standards. In response to the PSWQA Plan and ongoing environmental and human health concerns relative to sediment contamination, Ecology developed the SMS, Chapter 173-204 WAC, to comprehensively address the management of sediments in Washington state waters.

Ecology's Rule-Making Approach

Throughout the development of the rule, Ecology conducted numerous public involvement and education activities. These activities were conducted to establish a better public understanding concerning technical and policy issues involved in the development of the rule and to address concerns and opinions from a wide range of interest groups on these issues.

During 1988, Ecology distributed two early drafts of the rule to obtain public comments on key needs and issues. Four public workshops were conducted in 1988 to obtain comment on these drafts of the rule. A major comment received from the public workshops was the need for a representative committee to discuss key policy issues identified from early drafts of the rule.

In response to public request, Ecology formed the Sediment Advisory Group, which then met routinely from August 1988 through February 1990. This committee's effort led Ecology to develop an issue paper on six major policy issues identified by the committee (Ecology 1989b). The issue paper discusses the key issues identified regarding the proposed standards and contains Ecology's conclusions on each issue, which were finalized after consideration of all written comments submitted by committee members.

During 1989, Ecology conducted additional briefing and development activities as follows:

Response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board report on the review of the apparent effects threshold method (this method was used by Ecology in the development of sediment quality standards for Puget Sound)

Briefing of the Washington State Science Advisory Board on the proposed rule

Development of the December 1989 Interim Sediment Quality Evaluation Process guidance document, which incorporates the sediment quality values into the implementation guidance developed for use by multiple Ecology programs.

In March 1990, Ecology formed an additional policy advisory committee, the Sediment Management Standards Work Group. This work group focused on the development of sediment impact zone and contaminated sediment cleanup standards. Ecology summarized and provided responses to the work group's recommendations concerning the rule on 24 May 1990. Comments on the draft rule were accepted from the public and the work group through the end of July 1990. Ecology incorporated changes into the rule as a result of these comments, and filed the proposed rule with the Office of the Code Reviser on 18 September 1990. The draft rule was officially issued as a proposed rule in the State Register on 3 October 1990. The final rule, the environmental impact statement, and the responsiveness summary incorporate and address the comments received during the public review period.

Affected Environment

The affected environment includes the physical, biological, and human environment of Washington state. The following specific elements of the environment may be affected by the selected alternative for the SIZmax, CSL, and MCUL.

Physical Environment

Sediment quality

Water quality

Air quality

Biological Environment

Plankton species

Macrophytic plants

Benthic macroinvertebrates and megainvertebrates

Anadromous and demersal fish

Marine mammals and water birds

Terrestrial plants and animals

Human Environment

Human health

Economics

Fishing

Cultural resources

Transportation

Noise and aesthetics

Water use

Land use.

Each of these elements of the environment is discussed in detail in Chapter 3.

Case Studies

Chapter 4 describes case studies conducted to evaluate the applicability of the source control and sediment cleanup standards to environmental conditions in Puget Sound. The results of three sediment impact zone case studies, along with 10 cleanup standards case studies to which the four alternatives have been applied, provide more specific information with regard to when and where a sediment impact zone might be needed, and the area and location of contaminated sediments that may require active cleanup.

The following key conclusions can be drawn from the results of the sediment impact zone case study analysis:

The potential for contaminants to accumulate in sediments adjacent to the point of discharge is highly dependent on the loading rate of contaminants and the energetics (i.e., currents, waves, and tides) of the receiving water.

Sediment impact zones are most likely to be needed when the point of discharge is to a calm receiving-water environment, such as an urban bay.

At a constant loading rate, a balance between contaminant discharge and surface sediment accumulation (i.e., steady state) was typically achieved in the surface 2-cm of the sediments adjacent to the discharge outfall within 10 years.

For the 10 cleanup case study sites, application of the Alternative 1 CSL in the cleanup decision process would retain all sites for further cleanup consideration, the Alternative 2 CSL would screen out two sites from further cleanup consideration, and the Alternatives 3 and 4 CSL would each screen out the same five sites from further cleanup consideration. A similar relationship was demonstrated among the alternatives for determining sediment areas that exceed MCULs (i.e., the area of sediments requiring cleanup within the study sites). The number of sites and the area of sediments requiring cleanup under Alternatives 3 and 4 were so similar that the impacts of these two alternatives were generally not evaluated separately in the discussion of impacts.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives

There are fewer types of impacts associated with implementation of the source control standards than with implementation of the cleanup standards because, unlike the cleanup standards, the identification and authorization of a sediment impact zone does not require the implementation of remedial action activities. The discussion of environmental impacts associated with sediment impact zones focuses only on the varying degrees of impact that would be associated with the different SIZmax values. The impacts associated with varying sizes of impact zones is reflected in the impacts associated with the four alternatives as applied in the cleanup standards.

The following significant impacts on the physical, biological, and human environment have been identified:

Alternatives 2-4 would allow some sediments to remain in place that have chemical concentrations exceeding sediment quality standards. These sediments would be confined to sediments within impact zones and to sediments within cleanup sites that would be expected to naturally recover over a period of time to the sediment quality standards, once source control is achieved or cleanup is accomplished. Because these sediments are allowed to remain in place, biological impacts are likely to occur during the period that a sediment impact zone is allowed and/or until sediments remaining at cleanup sites reco-ver naturally to levels of the sediment quality standards. Under Alternative 2, these biological impacts are expected to be minor. Under Alternatives 3 and 4, the potential biological impacts are considered significant.

Impacts on commercial, recreational, and tribal fisheries and cultural resources are directly tied to potential biological and human health impacts. Because the biological impacts under Alternatives 3 and 4 are potentially significant, there may be impacts on fisheries and cultural resources under these alternatives. These impacts would be localized to the vicinity of sediment impact zones and contaminated sediment sites. However, considered cumulatively, these impacts potentially could be significant. Although human health-based sediment quality standards are still under development, the rule contains a provision requiring site-specific assessments of risks to human health. These assessments should mitigate human health impacts on a site-specific basis.

During cleanup of contaminated sediment sites, there is a potential for short-term impacts on water quality, aquatic life, noise levels, aesthetics, land use, water use, transportation, and human health, regardless of the alternative chosen. These impacts will likely be greater if more stringent alternative cleanup standards are chosen. Because of the high level of impact associated with increased traffic, resource use, and need for landfill capacity that would be associated with cleanups under Alternative 1, short-term remedial impacts for this alternative are considered adverse and significant. These impacts will be more fully assessed for each individual site in site-specific environmental impact statements.

Under any of the alternatives, the cost of cleaning up contaminated sediment sites is considered significant. However, the costs (both at individual sites and from a program-wide perspective) associated with more stringent alternatives increase. A-dditional-ly, the proposed rule will result in additional permitting and monitoring costs for sediment impact zones. However, these costs are not considered significant (i.e., less than 1 percent of sales). Evaluation of the Alternatives

In Chapter 6 the alternatives are evaluated according to several criteria, divided into the following three classes:

Threshold criteria include protection of human health, protection of the environment, and compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). These criteria reflect requirements and compliance with the Model Toxics Control Act and the PSWQA Plan, and thus receive the most weight in the evaluation.

Balancing criteria include technical feasibility, scientific certainty, and cost effectiveness. These criteria represent practical considerations that affect how easily an alternative can be implemented under the source control and cleanup standards. These criteria receive less weight than the threshold criteria in the evaluation.

Modifying criteria reflect issues of public and agency concern and perceptions. Regulatory precedence is the modifying criterion considered in this evaluation. This criterion is given less weight in the evaluation but may affect the outcome if the alternatives are ranked similarly under the preceding sets of criteria.

The results of the alternative evaluations under the threshold, balancing, and modifying criteria are set forth in Chapter 6. Based on the results of these evaluations, Ecology prefers Alternative 2 over the other alternatives for establishing the SIZmax, CSL, and MCUL values.

This page last updated March 10, 2008