Summary Response to Comments on the Contaminated Sediments Science Plan prepared by The Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Workgroup of the Science Policy Council U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D. C. May 18, 2004 Summary Response to Comments Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy May 18, 2004 Page 1 Section 1.0 Introduction A. Background In 2000, the United States Protection Agency's ( EPA's) Science Policy Council ( SPC) initiated the development of a Draft Contaminated Sediments Science Plan ( Science Plan) because contamination of sediments is a multi faceted, cross Agency issue which can benefit from a more comprehensive and higher level of coordination across EPA Program and Regional offices. Extensive resources to address contaminated sediment problems are spent by a number of Agency program offices, including the Superfund Program, Office of Water ( OW), Office of Solid Waste ( OSW), Great Lakes National Program Office ( GLNPO), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances ( OPPTS), Office of Research and Development ( ORD), and EPA Regional offices. As a complement to EPA's Science Inventory, ( which was not complete at the writing of the Science Plan), the Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities document ( CSSP)   renamed to better reflect its purpose and scope   is a mechanism for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( U. S. EPA) to develop and coordinate Agency office and region wide science activities that affect contaminated sediments. The CSSP provides an analysis of the Agency's contaminated sediment scientific activities, identifies and evaluates science needs, and provides key recommendations for filling those needs.

B. EPA's Science Advisory Board ( SAB) Peer Review and Public Comment An expert panel ( Expert Panel) under the Executive Committee of EPA's Science Advisory Board, met on October 30 31, 2002 to review the June 13, 2002 Science Plan. The review was conducted at the request of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response in Washington, D. C. at a public meeting. The Panel was charged with reviewing the adequacy of the Science Plan in addressing a range of contaminated sediments issues, as well as considering the methods exemplified by the Science Plan for agency wide science planning.

On July 22, 2002, the US Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response ( OSWER), issued in the Federal Register a Notice of Availability and Request for Comment on the Science Plan. Twelve commenters, including individual corporations, state agencies, environmental and public interest groups, and trade associations, submitted over 260 individual comments regarding the science policy issues ( submitted under Docket SFUND 2002 0004). The comments ranged in specificity. Some commenters addressed the general approach and its rationale, while other reviewers provided detailed comments only on certain aspects of the proposed approach. A listing of the names and affiliations of the parties submitting comments appears in Appendix A.

Upon receiving all comments, the CSSP Workgroup ( CSSP WG), a cross Agency Workgroup comprising staff from multiple EPA Program Offices and Regions, summarized and organized all comments by topic. The CSSP WG then reviewed all comments and decided upon the appropriate revisions to the document. EPA greatly appreciates the time and thoroughness of the reviewers and commenters and has strived to improve the Science Plan based on their comments. Summary Response to Comments Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy May 18, 2004 Page 2 C. Organization of this Document This document contains a summary of EPA's responses to the SAB and public comments received on its Science Plan. It is not meant to describe EPA's response to each individual comment but rather, summarizes how EPA is addressing major recommendations and criticisms in its revisions to the Science Plan. Although the Agency solicited comments on all aspects of the Science Plan, comments and information were specifically sought on the following four questions:

1. Does the Science Plan adequately convey the needs for such a strategic planning document, i. e., are the goals and objectives of the plan understandable and appropriate to the subject?

2. Are the major areas of contaminated sediments science ( sediment site characterization, exposure assessment, human health effects and risk assessment, ecological effects and risk assessment, sediment remediation, baseline and postremediation monitoring, risk communication, and information management and exchange activities) appropriately addressed? Are any major areas missing?

3. Are the key recommendations clearly defined and appropriate to resolve the science needs discussed in Chapter 3?

4. Are there other issues or key recommendations which should be considered in this Science Plan?

The SAB peer review and public responses to the questions above could generally be divided into two general categories: programmatic or scientific. For the purposes of this Summary Response to Comments document, the comments have been grouped into the following four broad topics:

1. The scope/ purpose of the Science Plan ( including the process and criteria used to determine and prioritize science needs and the prioritization/ implementation of Science Plan recommendations);

2. The role/ science of sediment quality guidelines;

3. Data collection needs; and,

4. Method development needs.

Section 2.0 Response to Comments Section 2.0 is divided into the four broad comment topics listed above. Following each topic are the issues raised by the SAB or public commenters. The issues presented represent the range of comments received and particularly, those requiring revisions to the Science Plan. EPA's response is presented after each issue and discusses the revisions to the Science Plan or the Agency's rationale for why no changes were required. Summary Response to Comments Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy May 18, 2004 Page 3 Topic 1: The Scope/ Purpose of the Science Plan The Draft Contaminated Sediments Science Plan stated three goals: 1) to develop and disseminate tools and science necessary to address the management of contaminated sediments; 2) to enhance the level of coordination and communication of science activities across the Agency; and, 3) to develop an effective, cost efficient strategy to promote these scientific activities and research. These goals are revised in the Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities document ( renamed to better reflect its purpose and scope) as follows: 1) identify the science necessary to address the assessment and management of contaminated sediments; 2) identify the science gaps and tools that are important in reducing uncertainty in contaminated sediment risk management decision making; 3) recommend approaches to promote necessary scientific activities and research; and, 4) enhance the level of coordination and communication of contaminated sediment science activities across Agency program and regional offices. By meeting these goals, the Agency will have developed a scientifically sound and effective plan for addressing contaminated sediments, leading to improved environmental decision making and the conservation of human and financial resources.

Given the extensive range of comments received on the scope of the Science Plan, several broad issues are discussed and commented on below.

Issue 1A: Based on the goals of the Science Plan above, most public commenters and the Science Advisory Board ( SAB) expressed an overarching concern regarding the value of the Science Plan as a basis for science planning. Generally, neither the SAB nor public commenters found the Science Plan an adequate strategic planning document. The SAB explicitly stated:

While this effort will substantially contribute to building awareness of important contaminated sediment work across the Agency, its value as a foundation for coordinating current and future contaminated sediments science activities is compromised in the absence of knowledge regarding the research being done in other Federal, State and regional governments. . . . [ A] broader review of pertinent science is necessary for the Agency to ascertain research priorities. . . . In the absence of [ a coherent] framework [ governing plan development, implementation, and assessment] and identifiable criteria for science priority setting, the material presented in the draft document is most reasonably viewed as an inventory or synthesis of the Agency's current contaminated sediment science related activities.

The framework should be accompanied by realistic priorities and describe how research within the different subject areas ( key scientific questions) will be coordinated and integrated across the different topic areas.

The SAB further noted:

The need for the development of a defensible science planning framework is so fundamental to addressing complex and multi jurisdictional environmental problems, that the Panel does not recommend extensive revision of the CSSP work group's document   Instead, the Panel suggests that the development of a model science plan, undertaken with sufficient resources and a coherent vision, should proceed on a separate track targeting an alternative technical area, one that is less complicated, more easily assembled, and offering a fresh approach to development of a defensible cross Agency science plan. Summary Response to Comments Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy May 18, 2004 Page 4 Several commenters expressed their belief that the Science Plan did not provide sufficient detail with regard to implementation and that many of the plan's recommendations are place holders that sketch out only general ideas for research.

Several commenters also stated that the Science Plan is too ambitious in its inclusion of 33 specific recommendations and that the recommendations should be prioritized and streamlined so that a realistic number of action items can be accomplished within an appropriate time frame. Another commenter stated that the Science Plan should capitalize on the experience and resources of other public and private stakeholders.

EPA Response: The Agency agrees that further discussion of prioritization and coordination is appropriate and necessary. The Agency developed the Science Plan as a first step in coordinating the numerous science activities that were occurring in the various Offices, and Regions. Science planning and coordination occurs across various Offices within EPA. However, each Office has its own budget that funds all activities for that office. Science activities for contaminated sediments may therefore compete with other funding requirements. As such, the Science Plan proposed that a broad oversight committee , such as the SPC, would be an appropriate group to oversee prioritizing and funding contaminated sediment issues.

Prioritization of Science Plan recommendations into " immediate time frame" and " longer time frame" categories was used to provide general guidance regarding the importance of the science needs discussed. Once these needs had been discussed and further prioritized within EPA Offices, with regard to their regulatory and budget constraints, a more complete examination and planning of the topic would be undertaken. The Science Plan attempted to present the needs and recommendations of highest concern for the Agency, with greater detail provided by the individual Offices undertaking the work.

To address SAB and public reviewer concerns regarding the process and criteria used to develop key science recommendations, the Agency significantly revised the Science Plan to more clearly explain the process and criteria used by the CSSP WG. The rationale for the selection of the key recommendations is also more explicitly described and linked with the overall discussion of the science needs in Section 3 of the document.

The Agency also recognizes the utility of public and private stakeholders in assisting the Agency in establishing science priorities. Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 of the Science Plan discuss the collaborative efforts of the Agency. EPA has sought the expertise of public and private stakeholders by hosting several joint stakeholder meetings on various contaminated sediment science topics such as an EPA Forum on Managing Contaminated Sediments at Hazardous Waste Sites ( June 2001), an intensive three day workshop on Sediment Stability ( January 2002), and a workshop on the Environmental Stability of Chemicals in Sediments ( April 2003). The information garnered from these meetings was also incorporated into the CSSP. The summaries for these meetings can be found at: the following website: < http:// www. epa. gov/ superfund/ resources/ sediment/ meetings. htm> Summary Response to Comments Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy May 18, 2004 Page 5 Issue 1B: EPA's SAB was strongly supportive of EPA's inclusion of the risk communication, community involvement, information management topics. However, several commenters expressed concern that these topics have little or nothing to do with science and therefore should not be included.

Response: The Agency believes an important goal of the CSSP is to identify the science gaps and tools that are important in reducing uncertainty in, and improving the consistency of, contaminated sediment decision making. Risk communication and information management are fundamental to meeting this goal. The National Research Council in their Risk Management Strategy for PCB Contaminated Sediments stressed the importance of community involvement in their risk management framework ( NRC, 2001). EPA believes that the community should be involved early and often when addressing a contaminated sediment hazardous waste site. Given the importance of these topics to contaminated sediment science, these sections were not removed from the CSSP.

Issue 1C: Several commenters expressed their belief that characterizing PCB risk on congener basis and evaluating toxicity of endocrine disruptors ( and alkylphenol ethoxylates in particular) are not sediment specific and therefore should not be in the CSSP.

Response: Although neither PCBs nor endocrine disruptors are unique to sediments, they are often found in contaminated sediments. In addition, EPA is concerned about the interaction between PCBs/ endocrine disruptors and sediments characteristics ( e. g., organic content, grain size, and mixing) that affect bioavailability and exposure. Thus the Agency has included the study of these substances as a vehicle for understanding the risks associated with contaminated sediments. The NRC also suggests the use of PCB congeners as total PCB concentrations may not accurately capture exposure and toxicity effects ( NRC, 2001). Given the importance of these topics to contaminated sediment science, these sections were not removed from the CSSP.

Issue 1D: A commenter questioned the absence of a more thorough description of the role of other federal agencies, states, and tribes in the Science Plan. The commenter noted further that many Federal Agencies and states have invested considerable resources in contaminated sediment science and have developed a number of useful tools for assessing problems.

Response: The Agency has listed other Federal Agencies as suggested partners for key recommendations and currently coordinates contaminated sediment science issues with numerous federal agencies, states, and tribes. Such collaborations are the subject of many Memorandums of Understanding ( MOUs) between the Agency and its partners. In addition, EPA staff regularly participate on many multi stakeholder workgroups and committees.

EPA agrees that many federal agencies and states ( e. g., California, Florida, Washington) have invested considerable resources in contaminated sediment science and have developed a number of useful tools for assessing problems. EPA's recommendations are Summary Response to Comments Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy May 18, 2004 Page 6 consistent with the science needs or recommendations that are currently being addressed by other agencies and States and the CSSP encourages continued coordination with these groups ( See response to Issue 1A).

Additional Issues Regarding the Scope of the CSSP Many commenters suggested that the scope of the CSSP be expanded and suggested the inclusion of several topics to the document. EPA responds to several of the more commonly suggested topic inclusions below.

Bioavailability: Several commenters expressed concern that the issue of contaminant bioavailability was not adequately addressed by the Science Plan. Commenters noted that while the shortcomings of available methods are acknowledged, no appropriate science is suggested. Another commenter noted that the Agency did not address specific types of organic carbon in its recommendations.

Response: The CSSP is intended to broadly lay out science activities to be conducted by EPA. The Agency addresses contaminant bioavailability when it suggests research and model validation in support of a tiered framework to assess food web exposures which includes bioaccumulation.

The Agency agrees that the various forms of carbon in sediments can affect sorption mechanisms and bioavailability. The document has been revised to acknowledge that the type of organic carbon is an important consideration in contaminant binding phases and bioavailability.

Direct Toxicity: Several commenters suggested that direct toxicity ( e. g., dermal exposure) from contaminated sediments should be included within the list of human health effects.

Response: The Agency agrees that there is a science need to better understand the exposure that results from direct skin contact with contaminated sediments. The CSSP identifies two specific science needs regarding direct toxicity from contaminated sediments: 1) to determine the amount of sediment that might come into contact with the skin from various activities; and 2) to develop a model that accurately predicts how much of the sediment borne contaminants cross the dermal barrier ( and available to effect toxicity). In addition, the topic of direct toxicity is being addressed by other groups within EPA. The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response ( OSWER) has recently released a draft Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment ( U. S. EPA, 2001b) for public review. It promotes a consistent methodology for assessing the exposures from the dermal pathway and focuses on dermal contact with soil and water; it does not provide guidance on quantifying dermal absorption of chemicals resulting from exposure to vapors. Additional information for procedural guidance towards evaluating exposure to contaminated sediments can be found in the OSWER Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels at Superfund Sites ( U. S. EPA, 2002a) and the Soil Screening Guidance ( U. S. EPA, 1996b). Summary Response to Comments Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy May 18, 2004 Page 7 As this issue is not limited to contaminated sediments and because other EPA Offices are addressing the topic, additional information was not included in the CSSP.

Mixtures: A commenter suggested that the Agency conduct research and provide guidance on approaches to assess the toxicity of mixtures of contaminants in sediment that account for interactive effects based on mechanisms of toxic action.

Response: The Agency agrees that science and guidance on approaches to assess the toxicity of mixtures of contaminants that account for interactive effects based on mechanisms of toxic action is a science need. EPA issued the Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures ( U. S. EPA, 2000a), which represents the Agency's policy and procedural guidance for evaluating data on the health risks from exposures to chemical mixtures. The document's focus is on dose response and risk characterization and is organized according to the type of data available. The Agency's Human Health Research Strategy ( U. S. EPA, 2003a) and Ecological Research Multi Year Plan ( U. S. EPA, 2003b) also address the science needs associated with assessing the risks to both humans and the environment as a result of their exposure to mixtures of chemicals. As this issue is not limited to contaminated sediments and because other EPA Offices are addressing the topic, additional information was not included in the CSSP.

Indicator Species: A commenter suggested that the Agency give additional consideration to developing a transparent and scientifically defensible process for indicator species selection that accounts for their range of sensitivities to contaminants, developing specific guidance for assessing risk to endangered and threatened species from contaminated sediments and for evaluating the effectiveness of various risk reduction options to mitigate risk to protected species, and developing/ applying ecological risk assessment models that appropriately address species variability.

Response: The Agency agrees that a transparent and scientifically defensible process for indicator species selection that accounts for their range of sensitivities to contaminants is an important goal. EPA notes that these ( and similar) science needs are addressed in the Agency's Ecological Research Multi Year Plan ( U. S. EPA, 2003b). As this issue is not limited to contaminated sediments and because other EPA Offices are addressing the topic, additional information was not included in the CSSP.

Sub populations: A commenter suggested that the Agency's failure to include specific recommendations for sensitive sub population studies is a significant oversight since such studies are critical in establishing the variability of risk associated with targeted populations.

Response: The Agency agrees that sensitive sub population studies are critical in establishing the variability of risk associated with targeted populations and notes that the Office of Research and Development's ( ORD) Human Health Research Strategy ( U. S. EPA, 2003a) proposes research on susceptible sub populations that focuses on developing a scientific understanding of the biological basis for differing responsiveness of subpopulations within the general population, including factors associated with their Summary Response to Comments Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy May 18, 2004 Page 8 differential exposure. As this issue is not limited to contaminated sediments and because other EPA Offices are addressing the topic, additional information was not included in the CSSP.

Topic 2: The Role of Sediment Quality Guidelines The role and science of Sediment Quality Guidelines were a major topic of comments. Given the needs of risk assessors and decision makers, the CSSP includes a discussion of frameworks for sediment quality assessments ( dealing in particular with the use/ limitations of SQGs based on equilibrium partitioning).

Issues: Following are some specific issues raised by the commenters.

Equilibrium Partitioning: Several commenters expressed numerous concerns regarding sediment quality guidelines ( SQGs) in general and equilibrium partitioning ( EqP) guidelines in particular. Comments included:

° EqPs are not sufficiently accurate to be used to determine which contaminants can exert toxic effects; ° EqPs should only be used for screening purposes to determine the needs for additional sediment assessment; ° EqPs must not be considered substitutes for toxicity tests; ° The EqP approach's assumption of steady state equilibrium dynamics can ignore high variability in sediment environments; ° The EqP approach used in the ESGs does not account for important factors such as pH that effect bioavailability and toxicity; ° Uncertainty in EqP values has been greatly underestimated.

Response: A range of sediment quality assessment methods, including Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Quality Guidelines ( ESGs) are available for sediment quality assessment.

As is stated in EPA's Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks ( ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: PAH Mixtures ( EPA/ 600/ R 02/ 013), ESBs do not consider antagonistic, additive or synergistic effects of other sediment contaminants in combinations with other contaminants ( in this specific case, with PAHs) or the potential for bioaccumulation and trophic transfer of contaminants ( in this specific case, with PAHs) to aquatic life, wildlife or humans. Consistent with the recommendation of EPA's Science Advisory Board, publication of these documents does not imply the use of ESBs as stand alone, pass fail criteria for all applications; rather, ESB exceedances could be used to trigger the collection of additional assessment data.

Topic 3: Data Collection Needs Summary Response to Comments Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy May 18, 2004 Page 9 The CSSP identifies and discusses a variety of data needs within the topics of sediment site characterization; exposure assessment; human health effects and risk assessment; ecological effects and risk assessment; sediment remediation, baseline, remediation and post remediation monitoring; risk communication and community involvement; and, information management and exchange activities. The CSSP makes a number of recommendations with regard to data collection efforts.

Issues: Commenters made numerous suggestions regarding development of additional data to improve contaminated sediment management decisions. Three of the more common issues recommend that the Agency:

° Evaluate comprehensively the field data available from numerous capped and dredged sediment sites; ° Develop a better understanding of the role of natural attenuation processes in different environments and for different chemical and chemical mixtures, and; ° Evaluate the impacts on habitat and aquatic plants and animals potentially caused by capping, dredging;

Response: The Agency recognizes the importance of these suggestions. Specifically, recommendations D. 4 and E. 2 identified the need to further evaluate the impacts and performance of dredging and capping technologies. Also, work has been undertaken in several of these areas in various EPA Offices. For example, EPA's Superfund Program maintains a contaminated sediment remedy database to track remedial decisions at Superfund sites. ORD also evaluates field data, techniques, and results from various capped and dredged sites through individual investigations and via its cross office Contaminated Sediment Focus Groups. The CSSP also identifies the need to analyze data from historical and ongoing capping remedies and to evaluate the performance of innovative and low resuspension dredging technologies.

With respect to dredging performance evaluation ( e. g., the rate of resuspension, precision of dredging, production rates), the Agency notes that other studies have evaluated the range of commonly used dredging technologies ( e. g., NRC 1997, U. S. EPA 1996a, Steuer 2000). The CSSP therefore focuses on gaps in performance evaluation associated with innovative and low resuspension dredging equipment.

The Agency agrees that better understanding of the impacts of dredging ( i. e., the destruction and recovery of submerged vegetation) would improve comparative net risk reduction calculations for the sediment management alternatives under consideration at a given site. Recommendations D. 4 identifies a collaborative approach for studying the short and long term impacts from environmental dredging). Recommendation E. 2 specifically identifies the need to further evaluate the impacts and performance of dredging and capping technologies.

Topic 4: Method Development Needs Summary Response to Comments Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy May 18, 2004 Page 10 The CSSP identifies and discusses a variety of science needs in the context of method development within the topics of sediment site characterization; exposure assessment; human health effects and risk assessment; ecological effects and risk assessment; sediment remediation, including baseline, remediation and post remediation monitoring; risk communication and community involvement; and, information management and exchange activities. The CSSP makes a number of recommendations with regard to method development.

Issues: Commenters made numerous suggestions regarding the development of additional methods/ tools to improve contaminated sediment management decisions. These issues are presented and responded to by specific issue below.

Fate and Transport: Commenters suggested that EPA explicitly recognize in its fate/ transport models the differences among contaminant source material and apply appropriate risk assessment models to systematically differentiate those exposure routes that warrant further evaluation from those that have an insignificant impact on human health risk.

Response: The Agency also agrees that the recommendations of Section 3.4 deserve expansion, including the need to explicitly consider the fate/ transport of the source material. The Agency further agrees, in principle, that different models are required for different contaminants in order to estimate human health effects ( e. g., there are significant differences in the bioaccumulation of PCBs, PAHs, and metals).

The Agency concurs with commenters regarding issues they have identified in sediment fate and transport modeling and has recommended developing improved contaminant fate and transport models for site specific exposures. In particular, recommendation B. 3 discusses the need for development of valid fate and transport models accounting for bulk sediment movement by natural hydrodynamics and human intervention.

Sediment Stability: Commenters suggested that EPA develop guidance or a methodology governing the evaluation of sediment stability at contaminated sediment sites.

Response: EPA recognizes that sediment stability is a critical area of contaminated sediment science. As such, EPA is actively pursuing issues related to sediment stability through numerous co sponsored workshops and also addresses the topic in its Draft Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites. The scientific issues that bear on sediment stability are also addressed in several places in the CSSP, including Sections 3.3, 3.6.1, and 3.6.2. Recommendation B. 3, for example, discusses the need for development of valid fate and transport models accounting for bulk sediment movement by natural hydrodynamics and human intervention. Recommendation E. 1 identifies the need to collect data and develop guidance for assessing the relative contribution of mass transport of contaminants by large storm events in evaluations of the suitability of natural recovery as a remedial option. The need for science to better understand the scientific issues that bear on sediment stability is embodied in these recommendations. EPA recognizes the importance of developing a guidance document Summary Response to Comments Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy May 18, 2004 Page 11 to discuss sediment stability and believes the science activities recommended above will guide and assist with future Agency efforts in this area.

Chemical Prioritization: Commenters suggested that EPA formulate and implement a scientifically defensible approach for selecting and prioritizing those chemicals of concern that require further human health effects investigation.

Response: Although the formulation and development of a scientifically defensible approach for prioritizing chemicals for evaluation is beyond the purview of the CSSP, the Agency notes that the Office of Research and Development's ( ORD) Human Health Research Strategy ( U. S. EPA, 2003a) proposes research on establishing principles for prioritization of chemicals for screening and testing. In addition, the Agency's National Center for Environmental Assessment's, Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS) has an established process for selecting chemicals found in the environment that affect human health. IRIS is a tool that provides hazard identification and dose response assessment information, but does not provide situational information on instances of exposure. The Agency also recommends chemicals of concern that require human health toxicology research to the interagency National Toxicology Program ( NTP), which serves and is governed by the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences ( NIEHS). The NTP coordinates toxicological testing programs; develops and validates improved testing protocols; and provides information about potentially toxic chemicals to health regulatory and research agencies, the scientific and medical communities, and the public.

Section 3. Summary After reviewing and responding to both SAB and public comments, the CSSP WG revised the Science Plan, now renamed Contaminated Sediments Science Priorities, and presented the document to the SPC for final review. SUMMARY WILL BE COMPLETED AFTER SPC REVIEW.

Section 4. Bibliography Expert Panel 2003. Report of the Science Advisory Board Executive Committee Panel on the Contaminated Sediments Science Plan. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, Executive Committee, Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Review Panel. February 18, 2003.

National Research Council. 1997. Contaminated Sediments in Ports and Waterways: Cleanup Strategies and Technologies. National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.

National Research Council. 2001. A Risk Management Strategy for PCB Contaminated Sediments. National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.

Steuer, Jeffrey J. 2000. A Mass Balance Approach for Assessing PCB Movement During Remediation of a PCB Contaminated Deposit on the Fox River, Wisconsin. USGS Report 00 4245. U. S. Geological Survey, Middleton, WI. Summary Response to Comments Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy May 18, 2004 Page 12 U. S. EPA. 1996a. ARCS Program  Estimating Contaminant Losses from Components of Remediation Alternatives for Contaminated Sediments. EPA 905 R96 001. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL.

U. S. EPA. 1996b. Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington DC EPA/ 540/ R95/ 128.

U. S. EPA 200a. Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessments of Chemical Mixtures. United States Environmental Protection Agency Risk Assessment Forum, Washington DC EPA/ 630/ R/ 00002.

U. S. EPA 2001a. Office of Research and Development, Strategic Plan. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington DC 20460 EPA/ 600/ R 01/ 003. January 2001.

U. S. EPA 2001b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol. 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual ( Part E), Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Assessment. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington DC EPA/ 540/ R/ 99005.

U. S. EPA 2002a. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington DC OSWER 9355.4 24.

U. S. EPA 2003a. Human Health Research Strategy. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington DC 20460 EPA/ 600/ R 02/ 050. September 2003.

U. S. EPA 2003b. Ecological Research Multi Year Plan. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington DC May 29, 2003. Summary Response to Comments Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy May 18, 2004 Page 13 Appendix A List of Commenters American Chemistry Council 1300 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22209 ASTSWMO 444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 315 Washington, DC 20001 Clean Ocean Action 18 Hartshorne Drive P. O. Box 505 Highlands, New Jersey 07732 0505 DuPont Corporate Remediation Group Nancy. R. Grosso@ usa. dupont. com Federal Water Quality Coalition 2600 Chase Plaza 10 South LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 National Sediments Coalition ( NSC) 3000 K Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20007 Sediment Management Work Group c/ o Steven C. Nadeau Coordinating Director 2290 First National Building 660 Woodward Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Ohio EPA, NEDO 2110 East Aurora Road Twinsburg, Ohio 44087 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Constitution Hall 525 West Allegan Street P. O. Box 30473 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Summary Response to Comments Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy May 18, 2004 Page 14 Tennessee Valley Authority Environmental Policy & Planning Water Programs jrwright@ tva. gov Utility Solid Waste Activity Group c/ o Edison Electric Institute 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 2696 XCEL Energy 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 1993