Marine Pollution Bulletin 69 (2013) 76–90

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul

Anatomy of a decision: Potential regulatory outcomes from changes

to chemistry protocols in the Canadian Disposal at Sea Program
Sabine E. Apitz a,⇑, Suzanne Agius b,1
a
SEA Environmental Decisions, Ltd., 1 South Cottages, The Ford, Little Hadham, Hertfordshire SG11 2AT, United Kingdom
b
Environment Canada, Marine Protection Programs, 351 St. Joseph Blvd., 16th Floor, Gatineau, Québec, Canada K1A 0H3

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Environment Canada currently assesses dredged material proposed for disposal at sea using a two-tiered
Dredged material management assessment framework. Tier 1 determines sediment geophysical properties and concentrations of four
Contaminated sediments regulated chemical constituents (Cd, Hg, PAH and PCB), and ‘‘other chemicals of interest’’ based on lower
Upper Action Levels (UALs) action levels; this is followed by biological assessment. EC is pursuing a ‘‘data mining’’ approach to eval-
Lower Action Levels (LALs)
uate potential refinements by compiling sediment chemistry and toxicity datasets, and subjecting them
Canadian Disposal at Sea Program
to a series of decision protocols. This paper reports on database development and initial use, and recom-
mends potential changes to Tier 1 chemical protocols and further work to address other aspects of the
framework. Major findings include the poor performance of Hg and Cd as sentinels for other metals,
the significance of the list of analytes (vs. the specific SQGs used) in decisions, and the potential for chem-
ical upper action levels to save the expense of unnecessary toxicity testing.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

1. Introduction
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) and
associated regulations govern the disposal at sea of dredged mate-
rial (DM) in Canada. CEPA Schedule 6 establishes a two tiered
assessment framework (AF), which guides Environment Canada’s
(EC) decisions about the disposal of DM and is designed to meet
the requirements for permit assessment in CEPA (and under the
London Protocol). The DaS Regulations lay out the regulated chem-
icals of concern and the Lower Action Levels (LALs) for these and
the biological testing required at the Upper Action Level (UAL).
Proponents wishing to dispose of DM must conduct an evalua-
tion of opportunities to reuse or recycle the waste before a Disposal
at Sea (DaS) permit is considered. If disposal at sea remains a viable
option following this evaluation, the DM must be assessed accord-
ing to the two-tiered AF. The Tier 1 assessment involves the deter-
mination of both the geophysical properties of the DM (sediment)
and the concentrations of four contaminants – cadmium, mercury,
total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and total polychlo-
rinated biphenyls (PCBs), as well as ‘‘other chemicals of interest’’
based on site-specific knowledge. The determined concentrations
are then compared to analyte-specific LALs, specified in the regula-
tions. If all contaminant concentrations are below the regulated
LALs or other relevant SQGs for ‘‘other chemicals of interest’’, the
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0)1279 771890.
E-mail addresses: drsea@cvrl.org (S.E. Apitz), Suzanne.Agius@ec.gc.ca (S. Agius).
1
Tel.: +1 819 953 1690; fax: +1 819 953 0913.
material is deemed eligible for a DaS permit so long as other CEPA
Schedule 6 requirements are also met.
Unlike DM disposal frameworks in many countries (IMO, 2009),
CEPA does not apply chemical UALs within its decision framework.
In cases where any of the four regulated contaminant concentra-
tions exceed the regulated LALs, the material must undergo a Tier
2 assessment before a DaS permit can be considered. The Tier 2
assessment requires proponents to choose from available reference
test methods (EC, 1998, 2001; USEPA, 1993) specified in the regu-
lations, to assess dredged material for its potential toxicity to the
environment. To be considered of negligible risk, and safe for open
water disposal, samples of sediment to be dredged must pass the
acute lethality test and at least one other toxicity test. Sediments
that fail to meet these requirements are considered to be posing
a non-negligible risk to the environment, and cannot be disposed
of at sea ‘‘unless made acceptable for disposal through the use of
management techniques or processes’’ (CEPA, 1999, Schedule 6).
Currently, the disposal at sea program does not issue permits for
materials found to be above the UAL.
Decision frameworks, whether scientifically based or not, are
tools for implementing policy. There remains a need to develop
and validate a Canada-specific decision framework that consis-
tently, effectively and transparently implements EC’s objectives,
statutory requirements and policies on DM disposal in a manner
that protects the environment without posing undue burdens on
project proponents.
To this end, and as part of an ongoing review, Environment
Canada’s Disposal at Sea Program hosted a Contaminated Dredged

0025-326X Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.01.008
 S.E. Apitz, S. Agius / Marine Pollution Bulletin 69 (2013) 76–90 77

Material Management Decisions Workshop in 2006. The workshop
brought together over 50 sediment assessment and management
experts from academic, industrial, and regulatory backgrounds
and charged them with drafting a potential framework to assess
contaminated DMs and compare the risks of various disposal alter-
natives. The resulting recommendations concerned the develop-
ment of sediment assessment tools, the interpretation of these
tools, and the essential attributes of a comparative risk assessment
process for DM management (Agius and Porebski, 2008). The work-
shop participants strongly recommended the development of a na-
tional dredging or sediment management strategy, and proposed
an expanded decision-making framework for the tiered assess-
ment of dredged materials and for the comparative assessment
of disposal options for those sediments deemed to be unsuitable
for ocean disposal (Fig. 1). Specific recommendations to improve
chemical assessments included:
 Inclusion of a broader suite of metals (or even a full metal scan)
rather than just Cd and Hg, in Tier 1 assessments.
 Expansion of the PAHs examined in Tier 1 from the 16 parent
compounds to include a focus on the more persistent and toxic
alkylated PAHs, which are often present at higher
concentrations.
 Examination of total PCB based upon the measurement of indi-
vidual congeners rather than Aroclors, since these compounds
provide a better platform of information with which to evaluate
toxicity and assess bioaccumulation potential.
 Consideration of the inclusion of a broader range of organic
compounds in the assessment.
 Inclusion of chemical UALs in the Tier 1 assessment.
 Consideration of different decision rules for an expanded list of
contaminants (the current one out, all out rule stipulates that
any single exceedance of a LAL triggers further assessment).
It was recognized that the implementation of these recommen-
dations would require the development and application of new,
analyte-specific LALs, and, potentially chemical UALs that are com-
patible with EC’s DaS sample handling, extraction and analysis
protocols.
Since the workshop, EC has sought advice externally and car-
ried out work internally to address a range of issues in support
of framework revisions (Agius and Porebski, 2008; Apitz, 2008,
2010; Golder, 2008; Mudroch and Agius, 2011; Vogt, 2009).
These studies generated broad-ranging advice and options by
evaluating the scientific underpinnings of various assessment
and decision tools, and reviewing international policy and prac-
tice on various aspects of DM frameworks. Based upon the work-
shop recommendations, Apitz (2008, 2010) reviewed the use of
various chemical, biological and decision tools in a Tier 1 assess-
ment. A range of options were reviewed, but it was pointed out
that many options were interdependent and that the optimal
choices would depend upon a range of policy choices by EC, in-
formed by available science. In particular, the regulatory implica-
tions of various choices on chemical approaches would be
dependent upon the list of chemicals considered, the decision
rules applied, and the role of bioassays in the tiered approach.
It was strongly recommended that any changes to the frame-
work should be preceded by a comparison of the regulatory out-
comes that could result using representative sediments from
throughout Canada’s coastal and marine areas when various
decision rules were used. Such a review would evaluate whether
an expanded, and potentially more expensive, assessment ap-
proach would change regulatory outcomes and whether it ‘‘cap-
tured’’ potentially contaminated sediments which were currently
missed (Apitz, 2008, 2010).
Mudroch and Agius (2011) conducted a small-scale examina-
tion of the impacts of various chemical, biological and decision ap-

Fig. 1. Schematic showing sediment characterization framework as proposed by working group participants. The red-dashed lines show the contents of each tier. Rounded
boxes represent actions, boxes represent the collection and interpretation of information, and diamonds represent decision points. From Agius and Porebski (2008). (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
78 S.E. Apitz, S. Agius / Marine Pollution Bulletin 69 (2013) 76–90
proaches recommended by Apitz (2010) on the Tier 1 classification
of a set of sediment samples. However, results were inconclusive;
sites which were sampled for this study were selected specifically
because they ‘‘failed’’ the current DaS assessment scheme and thus
may not have provided an appropriate basis to evaluate the full
range of potential sediments that might be encountered by the
DaS program. There were also concerns that low sample numbers
and the basis for sample selection (which targeted known contam-
inated sites) may have compromised the validity of study results.
However, field studies of sufficient size (and with sufficient analy-
ses) to adequately test the impacts of various assessment and deci-
sion approaches are very expensive.
Instead of a field study, EC pursued a more cost-effective ap-
proach that challenged Tier 1 formulations using a ‘‘data mining’’
strategy. Available sediment chemistry (and, ideally, co-located
toxicity) datasets were identified, and subjected to a series of Tier
1 decision approaches to determine whether these ‘‘classified’’ sed-
iments differently in regulatory terms. The results yielded recom-
mendations for a possible approach to revising Tier 1. This paper
reports on the development and application of a ‘‘mined’’ sediment
database and the outcomes and implications of various potential
changes to the Canadian chemical assessment protocols for DaS,
including the assessment of a broader suite of metal and organic
contaminants, the use different sediment quality guidelines (SQGs)
for LALs and the application of chemical UALs.
2. Methods
2.1. Database development
The objective was to develop a dataset of marine, coastal and
estuarine sediment analytical results that were representative of
the range of sediment types and contaminant combinations and
levels that might be encountered by the Canadian DaS Program.
If available, priority was to be placed on North American data. Only
samples that had results, at a minimum, for some metals, PAHs and
PCBs, and data from as many other analytes and co-associated bio-
tests as possible were to be included in the dataset. Biotest results
were to be collected for later analysis. Metadata on sampling and
analytical approaches were required to ensure datasets were com-
parable and useful.
2.1.1. Data search
An informal data request letter, describing project objectives
and the above data requirements, was sent to a broad network
of international sediment and DM assessment and management
professionals. A broad range of responses were received, includ-
ing personal and organizational datasets, publications, and links
to a range of regional, national and international on-line
datasets.
Datasets were reviewed in terms of geography, site type, con-
taminant levels and mixtures, analytical methods (including sam-
ple preparation and extraction approaches), number and type of
analytes and analyses, availability of biotest results, consistency
of methods and availability of metadata, number of samples, ease
of data access (the project had a tight timeline) and relevance of
chemical and biological results to the DaS program objectives.
Following these reviews, a decision was made to focus on the
NOAA Status and Trends (NS&T) and Mussel Watch datasets re-
cently placed online (NS&T, 2012), and also an extensive dataset
of sediment chemistry and toxicity from Pearl Harbor, HI that
had already been extracted from a report (Ogden, 1997, 1998)
and had, in part, been previously used for another project (Apitz
et al., 2007). These datasets met all requirements; they were from
North America, covered a broad range of marine, coastal and estu-
arine environments, had dozens to hundreds of data points for
each region, covered the required and a broad range of other ana-
lytes, often had co-associated toxicity data, and had extensive
metadata on methods. As with the EC DaS program, bulk sediments
(not a specific size fraction) were extracted in the NOAA and Pearl
Harbor studies. Because contaminants have a tendency to associate
with fine-grained sediments, data from studies examining different
fractions would have resulted in less compatible results. Further-
more, both metals and organics were extracted with similar meth-
ods to those required in the DaS program. Metals were extracted
by strong acid, but not total, digestion, in the NOAA and Pearl Har-
bor programs, as they are in the DaS program, and in most sedi-
ment quality guideline (SQG) approaches. The NOAA and Pearl
Harbor datasets were in ASCII and PDF formats, respectively, so
they could easily be extracted and placed into an Excel spreadsheet
and then further manipulated.
2.1.2. Database development
The NOAA (NS&T and Mussel Watch) data were available as text
files which contained lists of comma delineated records for analyt-
ical results and metadata for metal, organic, benthic survey or bio-
assay results from a range of studies or regions; the Pearl Harbor
data were available as PDF documents. All data were converted
into study-specific worksheets in an Excel spreadsheet. In these
worksheets, each row was a record with columns representing
study, sample number, date, location, analyte, method, result and
any qualifier. All results (physical, metal, organic and biological)
from one study were combined in one worksheet. All analyses
listed in these files were reviewed. Not all studies had the same
number or set of analytes, and parameters sometimes had different
names in different studies. For parameters of potential interest
(chemical constituents, sediment grain size, organic matter, toxic-
ity results and metadata, benthic community results and some
other parameters), records were given a sort code based upon
the parameter; datasets were then sorted by sample code and
parameter. Data were then extracted into new study-specific
worksheets in which there was one row for each sample number
and columns for parameters of interest. Datasets were reviewed
and validated. Samples that did not have at least some metal,
PAH and PCB results were eliminated.
The resultant datasets contained a broad range of sediment
physical, chemical and biological data. Datasets were reviewed to
ensure that all results for a given parameter were in the same
units, and anomalous data (such as non-numerical results or
impossible values) were eliminated unless they could be corrected
in correspondence with relevant database coordinators. The final
dataset contained 2196 records from 29 studies throughout the
coasts of the United States.
A very broad range of data were included in this database, much
of which was collected for deeper analysis of project results or for
later stages of this work. This paper focuses only on Tier 1 evalua-
tion using sediment chemistry, which was conducted using a sub-
set of analytes identified below. After selecting parameters for
evaluation of Tier 1 sediment chemistry, a final worksheet was
developed in which all samples were included, with data for se-
lected parameters.
2.2. Selection of parameters of interest
2.2.1. Metals
The DaS Program currently examines only Cd and Hg routinely.
The database contained data for 10–18 inorganic constituents per
sample (Al, As, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mn, Hg, Mb, Ni, Sb, Se, Si,
Ag, Th, Sn and Zn). Although one workshop recommendation was
to consider using a ‘‘full scan’’ of metals, this project focuses on
comparing sediment data to a set of sediment quality guidelines
 S.E. Apitz, S. Agius / Marine Pollution Bulletin 69 (2013) 76–90
(SQGs) that might be used as LAL or UAL values in a decision
framework. Thus, a decision was made to focus on those metals
which were included in other international dredging programs,
and for which dredging-relevant SQGs were available. The metals
selected were As, Cd, Cr, Ni, Pb, Cu, Zn and Hg. Within the database,
individual records contained data for 6–8 (7.9 ± 0.3) metals from
that list.
2.2.2. PAHs
The current DaS Program evaluates total PAH based upon the 16
EPA priority PAHs, called the DaS list in this study (acenapthene,
acenaphtylene, anthracene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benz(a)anthracene,
chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene, inde-
no(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene and pyrene).
Other SQGs considered were based on a different list, used by Long
et al. (1995) when evaluating coastal sediment contaminant/toxic-
ity co-occurrence: this study refers to this set of 13 PAHs as the
Long95 list: (acenapthene, acenaphtylene, anthracene, benzo(a)-
pyrene, benz(a)anthracene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, fluo-
ranthene, fluorene, methylnaphthalene, naphthalene,
phenanthrene and pyrene). Although one of the workshop recom-
mendations was to consider a broader range of PAHs in the DaS
decision framework, for the purposes of this study, comparisons
can only be meaningfully made against plausible LAL and UAL val-
ues. Thus, for this study, tPAH was the sum of the PAHs in the DaS
list when values were compared to DaS and Consensus-based SQGs
(see below), and the sum of the Long95 list when compared to
CCME ISQG, TEL and PEL SQGs, or the sum of the subset of these
reported for a sample.
2.2.3. PCBs
Most PCB data in the database were reported as individual con-
gener concentrations; within the database, individual records con-
tained data for 3–40 (21.7 ± 7.7) congeners. Congener-based SQGs
consider different subsets of PCBs, but the majority of the dredging
LALs and UALs reviewed consider a subset also considered by the
International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES). For this
study, tPCB is considered the sum of the 7 ICES PCBs (congeners 28,
52, 101, 118, 138, 153 and 180), or the sum of the subset of these
reported for a sample. This subset of PCBs were also most com-
monly reported in the dataset; thus their use helped ensure that
values being compared were as compatible and consistent as
possible.
Because the DaS PCB SQG is based upon aroclor, not congener
values, the possibility of converting database congener values to
aroclor equivalents was explored (Newman et al., 1998). However,
the variable number and set of congeners in the records, and the
lack of data on congeners critical for corrections rendered these
conversions meaningless and not comparable. Thus, the decision
was made to instead convert the DaS SQG to a hypothetical conge-
ner value (see below).
When reported, PCB congeners 77, 105, 114, 118, 123, 126, 156,
157, 167, 169 and 189 were also converted to 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity
equivalent (TEQ) values using the World Health Organization
(WHO) toxicity equivalent factors after (Narquis et al., 2007). The
sum of these values (or the subset of those congeners reported
for a sample) was then used as a sample 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ value
for comparison with SQGs as appropriate.
2.2.4. Other organics
A broad range of other organic contaminants were reported in
the compiled datasets. Although these were all kept in the core
database for future assessment, a subset of parameters was se-
lected for analysis the current study. Constituents were selected
based upon their frequency of inclusion (and detection) in records,
79
their inclusion in other dredging programs, the availability of SQGs
for the constituent and Environment Canada expression of interest.
The parameters selected were total DDT (tDDT, the sums of DDD,
DDE and DDT values when reported), total tributyltin (tTBT, the
sum of tributyltin and dibutyltin), lindane, dieldrin, chlordane
(the sum of alpha and gamma chlordane when reported), aldrin
and hexachlorobenzene (HCB).
2.3. Development of LAL and UAL values for comparison
To test how various changes to the DaS chemical assessment
protocols affect potential regulatory outcomes for the sediments
in the database, contaminant levels were compared to hypothetical
chemical LAL and UAL for each constituent under consideration.
Table 1 lists the SQGs that were applied and those used to develop
them.
The DaS program contains four LAL values, for Cd, Hg, tPAH and
tPCB (CEPA, 1999). For other contaminants of interest, the DaS pro-
gram may look to the CCME Interim Sediment Quality Guideline
(ISQG) list (CCME, 2002), and then to SQGs from other jurisdic-
tions. The metal values in the ISQG list are based upon the thresh-
old effects levels (TELs) and probable effects levels (PELs) from
MacDonald et al. (1996), but without the inclusion of Ni for which
no ISQG was available. As many other dredging programs include
Ni in their lists, the TEL and PEL values, including Ni, are also ap-
plied in test protocols. However, the DaS and ISQG lists do not ad-
dress all of the other organics (e.g. pesticides, TBT) that were
evaluated in this study and some of the ‘other’ organic SQG values
used come from sources other than the CCME. To compare sedi-
ment data to a full list of SQGs in this study, a range of dredging
program LAL and UAL values (IMO, 2009), as well as non-dredging
sediment threshold and probable effects values (Buchman, 2008),
were collected (Table 1). A ‘‘Consensus’’ set of LAL and UAL values
was generated by calculating the geometric mean of all dredging
LAL values for a given parameter. If no dredging values were avail-
able, or, if the only dredging-value was the CCME value (which is
largely based on the non-dredging TEL and PEL values), then the
geometric mean of the relevant non-dredging threshold or proba-
ble effects SQGs was used. It is not suggested that these values
should be taken up as regulatory values. SQGs from different coun-
tries are developed based upon different sediment size fractions,
and different analytical methods. As most (but not all) sediment
contaminants tend to associate with the fine-grained sediment
fraction, these differences could result in different analytical re-
sults and pass/fail interpretations in various countries. However,
it has been noted that overall sediment pass/fail outcomes using
different SQG sets with the same narrative intent (e.g., LAL, UAL)
do not differ nearly as much as outcomes using different analyte
sets and decision rules (Apitz et al., 2007; Apitz, 2008, 2011; Wen-
ning et al., 2005). The ‘‘Consensus’’ LAL and UAL values developed
for this paper provide a consistent set of hypothetical SQGs for the
full suite of contaminants in this study. There are countless poten-
tial analyte and SQG lists that could be tested; in this paper we
present a subset of plausible values to provide insight into how a
range of choices affects potential regulatory outcomes. As various
analyte and action level lists are selected by Environment Canada
in future, the implications of these specific choices could be tested
using the database.
As noted above, the DaS PCB LAL is based upon aroclor, rather
than congener values. Attempts to convert database congener val-
ues to aroclor equivalents proved unsuccessful, so the next step
was to convert the DaS LAL to congener equivalents to enable the
DaS LAL to be compared to congener data available in this study.
The CCME ISQG provides both aroclor- and congener-based LALs
(CCME, 2002). Based upon the ratio of these two values, the DaS
80 S.E. Apitz, S. Agius / Marine Pollution Bulletin 69 (2013) 76–90

Table 1a
Metal SQGs applied to the test protocols or used to develop the Consensus SQGs. Geometric means of values highlighted in gray were used to generate consensus LAL and UAL.
Where available (as they were for all metals considered) dredged material (DM) SQGs were used to develop metal Consensus LAL and UAL values. Ecological risk assessment-
based SQGs were collated, but only used for consensus SQGs if no dredging-based values were available. (See below-mentioned references for further information.)

Benchmark/SQG Reference As Cd Cr Ni Pb Cu Zn Hg
units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
LAL/threshold Effect SQGs
Venice Class A Min. Ambiente, 1993 15 1 20 45 45 40 200 0.50
CCME ISQG IMO 2009 7.24 0.7 52.3 30.2 18.7 124 0.13
Canadian DaS CEPA 1999 0.6 0.75
DM SQGs

Belgian L1* IMO 2009 20 2.5 60 70 70 20 160 0.30

France L1 25 1.2 90 37 100 45 276 0.40
German L1 IMO 2009 30 2.5 150 50 100 40 350 1.00
UK L1 IMO 2009 20 0.4 40 20 50 40 130 0.30
Ireland L1 IMO 2009 9.0 0.7 120.0 21.0 60.0 40.0 160.0 0.2
Concensus L1 16.2 1.0 63.3 36.7 60.2 33.1 186.9 0.4
Neth. Target Buchman, 2008 29 0.8 100 35 85 35 140 0.30
SQGs
ERA

TEL Buchman, 2008 7.24 0.676 52.3 15.9 30.24 18.7 124 0.13
ERL Buchman, 2008 8.2 1.2 81 20.9 46.7 34 150 0.15
UAL/Probable Effect SQGs
Venice Class B Min. Ambiente, 1993 25 5 100 50 100 50 400 2.00
CCME PEL IMO 2009 41.6 4.2 160 112 108 271 0.70
DM SQGs

Belgian L2* IMO 2009 100 7 220 280 350 100 500 1.50
France L2 50 2.4 180 74 200 90 552 0.80
German L2 IMO 2009 150 12.5 750 250 500 200 750 5.00
UK L2 IMO 2009 100 5 400 200 500 400 800 3.00
Ireland L2 IMO 2009 70.0 4.2 370.0 60.0 218.0 110.0 410.0 0.7
Consensus L2 66.0 5.1 255.1 120.8 237.6 123.1 495.8 1.5
ERM Buchman, 2008 70 9.6 370 51.6 218 270 410 0.71
SQGs
ERA

PEL Buchman 2008 41.6 4.21 160.4 42.8 112.18 108.2 271 0.70
AET Buchman, 2008 35 3 62 110 400 390 410 0.41

Table 1b
Organic SQGs applied to the test protocols or used to develop the Consensus SQGs. Geometric means of values highlighted in gray were used to generate consensus LAL and UAL.
Where available, dredged material (DM) SQGs were used to develop organic Consensus LAL and UAL values, if these were not available, SQGs for sediment ecological risk
assessment (ERA) were used. (See below-mentioned references for further information.)

2,3,7,8-
TCDD
Benchmark/SQG Reference PAH PCB TEQ tDDT tTBT Lindane Dieldrin Chlordane Aldrin HCB
units ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g
LAL/threshold Effect SQGs
Venice Class A Min. Ambiente, 1993 1000 10
CCME ISQG IMO 2009 766 22 0.00085 4.48 0.71 2.26
Canadian DaS CEPA 1999 2500 34
DM SQGs

Belgian L1* IMO 2009 3500 100 3

France L1 500
German L1 IMO 2009 1000 20
UK L1 IMO 2009 20 100
Ireland L1 IMO 2009 4000.0 7.0 100 0.3 0.3
Concensus L1 1730.0 31.7 0.00085 3.95 31.07 0.30 0.19 0.32 0.06 0.30
Neth. Target Buchman, 2008 1000 200 10 7 0.5 0.03 0.06 1.4
SQGs
ERA

TEL Buchman, 2008 1684 22 0.00085 3.89 0.72 2.26

ERL Buchman, 2008 4022 23 1.58 0.02 0.5
UAL/Probable Effect SQGs
Venice Class B Min. Ambiente, 1993 10000 200
CCME PEL IMO 2009 7071 189 386.58 4.3 4.79
DM SQGs

Belgian L2* IMO 2009 9000 100 7

France L2 1000
German L2 IMO 2009 3000 60
UK L2 IMO 2009 20
Ireland L2 IMO 2009 1260.0 500 1 1
Consensus L2 6610.1 178.2 3.6 29.7 59.2 1.0 4.0 4.3 9.5 1.0
ERM Buchman, 2008 44792 180 46.1 8 6
SQGs
ERA

PEL Buchman 2008 16770 189 51.7 4.3 4.79

AET Buchman, 2008 9100 130 3.6 11 1.9 2.8 9.5 6

aroclor-based LAL was converted to a congener-based value of ated no greater ambiguity than an incorrect and inconsistent con-
34 ng/g. Although this is a compromise, we concluded that this cre- version of the data.
 S.E. Apitz, S. Agius / Marine Pollution Bulletin 69 (2013) 76–90
2.4. Data analysis
A set of regulatory scenarios was developed, based upon SQGs
used, constituents considered and whether only chemical LALs or
also UALs were applied; these scenarios were then defined as test
protocols. For each scenario, SQG quotients were calculated for all
samples and constituents to be considered. For contaminant i, and
sample j,
SQG quotientij ¼ SQGi =½Cij ;
where [C]i is the concentration of contaminant i in sample j and
SQGi is the LAL or UAL SQG of interest. If this value is P1, then
the sample has ‘‘failed’’ for that analyte. The overall sample pass/fail
for each scenario was then evaluated. For this study, a one out, all
out rule is applied such that if a sample fails for one chemical, it
is considered to have failed Tier 1. There are a range of other deci-
sion rules that can be applied in a framework (see, for example,
Apitz, 2008, 2011), all of which can be tested using the database,
but this is the simplest approach.
For the application of a single set of SQGs as LAL values, the per-
formance of different scenarios was compared to that of the cur-
rent DaS approach. On a contaminant-by-contaminant basis, and
then considering the full sample results, the decision tree in
Fig. 2a was applied. This approach determines, for a given contam-
inant and protocol, and for the sample overall, whether the test
protocol agrees with the DaS approach (pass/fail) or whether the
test protocol is more or less conservative than the DaS protocol If
they agree on a pass, there is no change in regulatory outcome
for the two protocols, the sample (for the analyte under consider-
ation) would pass under both approaches. For a ‘‘More Conserva-
tive’’ test outcome, the sample fails for the test analyte using the
test protocol, but it would pass under the DaS protocol. This can
happen either if the test SQG is more conservative than the DaS
protocol or if the test protocol includes a contaminant that the
DaS does not (and the contaminant fails that SQG). A ‘‘Less conser-
vative’’ test outcome can happen if the DaS SQG for a given constit-
uent is less conservative than that in the test protocol. If both
protocols agree on a failure, there is no change in regulatory out-
comes between these two approaches. The sum of the ‘‘More Con-
servative’’ test outcomes and agreed failures represents the overall
failure rate for a given analyte or overall, for the test protocol. The
contaminant-by-contaminant comparison allows for an evaluation
of which contaminants, out of those for which data were available
and used, ‘‘drive’’ chemical failures and differences in various pro-
tocols, but it is important to note that a single sample can fail for
more than one analyte, thus the sum of contaminant-by-contami-
nant failure rates is not representative of the overall failure rate
Sample passes
full DaS protocol?
Yes No
Sample passes test protocol? Sample passes test protocol?
-or- -or-
Analyte level is lower than SQG Analyte level is lower than SQG
in test protocol? in test protocol?
Yes No Yes No
Agree Agree
Test More Test Less
Pass Conservative* Conservative* Fail
*for single analyte evaluations, test is more or less conservative for that analyte;
outcome of full test protocol may be different
Fig. 2a. Decision tree for LAL performance evaluation.  For single analyte evalu-
ations, test is more or less conservative for that analyte; outcome of full test
protocol may be different.
81
considering the full test protocol. The overall assessment provides
insight into how a full set of LAL evaluations performs.
To evaluate how protocols containing both LAL and UAL SQGs
perform, a slightly different decision tree was applied (Fig. 2b). This
approach evaluated overall regulatory outcomes for a given proto-
col. If all constituents under consideration pass the protocol LAL
SQGs, then the sample passes the chemistry evaluation, and would
be considered for unconfined ocean disposal without further sedi-
ment characterization (though it may still be subject to other crite-
ria before a permit for DaS is issued). If one or more chemicals fail
the LAL screen but pass the UAL screen, then the sediment would
be subjected to further analysis, either a consideration of back-
ground values and bioavailability or toxicity testing; this is called
‘‘Further Interpretation/Tier 2’’ in the decision tree. If a sample fails
both LAL and UAL for any constituent, the sample fails and is not
permitted for unconfined ocean disposal, but may be evaluated
for alternative management strategies (Tier 3 in Fig. 1). As above,
a one out, all out rule is applied.
These evaluations are only examining potential outcomes of
changes in the chemistry protocols. It is important to note that dif-
ferences between potential protocols do not necessarily suggest
that one is better than the other at identifying potential risk.
Chemical evaluation is only one part of an assessment of risk in
potentially contaminated sediments. A full evaluation of which
protocol ‘‘performs’’ better at predicting toxicity or other hazards
such as bioaccumulation or biomagnification requires an evalua-
tion of correlations between various chemical approaches and tox-
icity assessment results. This assessment, although essential, has
yet to be carried out in this project. However, the assessments re-
ported here do provide insights into the relative proportions of
samples that might pass or fail without toxicity assessment, or
be subjected to further analysis under various chemical protocols
(see Fig. 1).
3. Results
3.1. PAHs in protocols: how representative of compounds reported?
Within the database, individual records contained data for 13–
49 (41 ± 9) PAHs. It was thus possible to evaluate what proportion
of the total PAHs (as reported) the PAH subsets considered in the
LAL and UAL sets ‘‘captured’’. When all the samples are considered,
the proportion of the total PAHs in a sample (considering all PAHs
reported for that sample) that is included in the sum of the DaS list
(see above) is 58.6 ± 18.5%; the proportion using the Long95 list
(see above) is 41.5 ± 14.2%. There are strong correlations between
total PAHs measured in a sample and tPAH for the subsets; r2 val-
ues for a linear fit between total PAH and the subset tPAH values
are 0.97 and 0.93 for the DaS and Long95 lists, respectively. On
the other hand, there is a very poor correlation between these
Sample passes
full LAL protocol?
Yes No
Chemistry Sample/analyte passes
Pass UAL protocol?
Yes No
Further
Interpretation Tier 3
/ Tier 2*
*for single analyte evaluations, specific analyte did not fail UAL, but failure
of any in protocol will lead to Tier III for sample
Fig. 2b. Decision tree for UAL performance evaluation.  For single analyte
evaluations, specific analyte did not fail UAL, but failure of any in protocol will
lead to Tier 3 for sample.
Table 2

82
Potential regulatory outcomes of a range of LAL-only chemical test protocols compared to the current DaS protocol. Agree Pass, % More Conservative, % Less Conservative and Agree Fail percentages are the percent of records with each
assignment, for a given analyte and overall (All), compared to the DaS protocol, based upon the decision tree in Fig. 2a. LAL listed are the SQGs applied to each analyte in the test protocol. n is the number of samples in the database
reporting data for a given analyte. Total % fail is the sum of % More Conservative and % Agree fail; it is the % of samples in the database that fail the test protocol for a given analyte, or overall (All). For single analyte evaluations, test is
more or less conservative for that analyte; outcome of full test protocol may be different.

Analyte Ag Cd Cr Ni Pb Cu Zn Hg PAH PCB 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ tDDT tTBT Lindane Dieldrin Chlordane Aldrin HCB All
Analyte/SQG units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g –
Protocol DaS (current)
LAL – 0.6 – – – – – 0.8 2500.0 34.0 – – – – – – – – –
Number of samples 0 2172 0 0 0 0 0 2195 2196 2196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2196
% Agree Pass – 68.9 – – – – – 68.7 68.7 68.7 – – – – – – – – 68.7
% More Conservative – 0.0 – – – – – 0.0 0.0 0.0 – – – – – – – – 0.0
% Less Conservative – 8.7 – – – – – 24.9 12.2 18.7 – – – – – – – – 0.0
% Agree Fail – 22.5 – – – – – 6.4 19.1 12.6 – – – – – – – – 31.3
Protocol DaS + ISQG metal
LAL 7.2 0.6 52.3 – 30.2 18.7 124.0 0.8 2500.0 34.0 – – – – – – – – –
n 2183 2172 2192 0 2194 2171 2172 2195 2196 2196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2196
% Agree Pass 45.2 68.9 49.1 – 61.3 48.7 61.6 68.7 68.7 68.7 – – – – – – – – 35.5
% More Conservative 23.6 0.0 19.7 – 7.4 19.9 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 – – – – – – – – 33.2

S.E. Apitz, S. Agius / Marine Pollution Bulletin 69 (2013) 76–90

% Less Conservative 9.5 8.7 10.0 – 8.2 4.1 11.8 24.9 12.2 18.7 – – – – – – – – 0.0
% Agree Fail 21.7 22.5 21.3 – 23.1 27.3 19.6 6.4 19.1 12.6 – – – – – – – – 31.3
Total % Fail 45.3 22.5 40.9 0.0 30.5 47.2 26.5 6.4 19.1 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.5
Protocol DaS + ISQG metal +
ISQG other organics
LAL 7.2 0.6 52.3 – 30.2 18.7 124.0 0.8 2500.0 34.0 0.9 4.5 – – 0.7 2.3 – – –
n 2183 2172 2192 0 2194 2171 2172 2195 2196 2196 2196 2196 0 0 2174 2196 0 0 2196
% Agree Pass 45.2 68.9 49.1 – 61.3 48.7 61.6 68.7 68.7 68.7 68.4 59.7 – – 66.7 67.5 – – 33.2
% More Conservative 23.6 0.0 19.7 – 7.4 19.9 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 9.1 – – 2.3 1.2 – – 35.5
% Less Conservative 9.5 8.7 10.0 – 8.2 4.1 11.8 24.9 12.2 18.7 30.5 11.2 – – 18.1 21.0 – – 0.0
% Agree Fail 21.7 22.5 21.3 – 23.1 27.3 19.6 6.4 19.1 12.6 0.8 20.1 – – 12.8 10.2 – – 31.3
Total % Fail 45.3 22.5 40.9 0.0 30.5 47.2 26.5 6.4 19.1 12.6 1.1 29.1 0.0 0.0 15.2 11.4 0.0 0.0 66.8
Protocol CCME ISQG
LAL 7.2 0.7 52.3 – 30.2 18.7 124.0 0.1 766.0 22.0 0.9 4.5 – – 0.7 2.3 – – –
n 2183 2172 2192 0 2194 2171 2172 2195 2196 2196 2196 2196 0 0 2174 2196 0 0 2196
% Agree Pass 45.2 68.9 49.1 – 61.4 48.7 61.6 58.8 60.9 67.4 68.4 59.7 – – 66.7 67.5 – – 30.8
% More Conservative 23.6 0.0 19.7 – 7.3 19.9 6.9 9.9 7.8 1.3 0.3 9.1 – – 2.3 1.2 – – 37.9
% Less Conservative 9.5 11.4 10.0 – 8.2 4.1 11.8 8.1 8.5 16.2 30.5 11.2 – – 18.1 21.0 – – 0.0
% Agree Fail 21.7 19.8 21.3 – 23.1 27.3 19.6 23.2 22.8 15.1 0.8 20.1 – – 12.8 10.2 – – 31.3
Total % Fail 45.3 19.8 40.9 0.0 30.4 47.2 26.5 33.1 30.6 16.4 1.1 29.1 0.0 0.0 15.2 11.4 0.0 0.0 69.2
Protocol TEL
LAL 7.2 0.7 52.3 15.9 30.2 18.7 124.0 0.1 1684.0 21.6 0.9 3.9 – – 0.7 2.3 – – –
n 2183 2172 2192 2163 2194 2171 2172 2195 2196 2196 2196 2196 0 0 2174 2196 0 0 2196
% Agree Pass 45.2 68.9 49.1 42.7 61.4 48.7 61.6 58.8 67.9 67.4 68.4 58.7 – – 66.7 67.5 – – 28.7
% More Conservative 23.6 0.0 19.7 26.9 7.3 19.9 6.9 9.9 0.9 1.3 0.3 10.0 – – 2.3 1.2 – – 40.0
% Less Conservative 9.5 11.4 10.0 6.2 8.2 4.1 11.8 8.1 12.4 16.2 30.5 10.4 – – 18.1 21.0 – – 0.0
% Agree Fail 21.7 19.8 21.3 24.2 23.1 27.3 19.6 23.2 18.9 15.1 0.8 20.9 – – 12.8 10.2 – – 31.2
Total % Fail 45.3 19.8 40.9 51.0 30.4 47.2 26.5 33.1 19.8 16.4 1.1 30.9 0.0 0.0 15.2 11.4 0.0 0.0 71.3
Protocol Consensus L1
LAL 16.2 1.0 63.3 36.7 60.2 33.1 186.9 0.4 1730.0 31.7 0.9 4.0 31.0 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 –
n 2183 2172 2192 2163 2194 2171 2172 2195 2196 2196 2196 2196 1169 2190 2174 2196 2035 1573 2196
% Agree Pass 63.8 68.9 54.2 63.2 67.9 58.8 66.3 67.4 65.7 68.6 68.4 59.0 71.7 61.9 60.8 56.6 54.7 59.8 30.8
% More Conservative 5.0 0.0 14.6 6.3 0.8 9.8 2.3 1.3 3.1 0.1 0.3 9.7 0.4 6.8 8.3 12.1 14.0 7.2 37.9
% Less Conservative 23.9 17.7 11.6 17.7 17.3 8.0 17.0 18.5 10.2 18.4 30.5 10.6 23.4 22.0 11.7 9.1 14.7 18.1 0.2
% Agree Fail 7.3 13.4 19.6 12.7 14.0 23.4 14.4 12.8 21.1 12.9 0.8 20.7 4.5 9.4 19.3 22.2 16.6 14.9 31.1
Total % Fail 12.3 13.4 34.2 19.0 14.8 33.2 16.7 14.2 24.2 13.1 1.1 30.4 5.0 16.2 27.6 34.3 30.6 22.1 68.9
 S.E. Apitz, S. Agius / Marine Pollution Bulletin 69 (2013) 76–90
ratios (tPAHDaS/tPAHall and tPAHLong95/tPAHall) and the total num-
ber of PAHs reported for a sample; r2 values for a linear fit between
these parameters are only 0.29 and 0.26 for the DaS and Long95
lists, respectively.
As the different studies feeding into the dataset reported differ-
ent subsets of PAHs, and the PAHs in the samples differed greatly in
source, level, distribution and degree of weathering in samples
even from the same study, there are a number of artifacts in this
analysis. The strong correlation between tPAHall and tPAHlists, and
the large proportion of tPAHall included in the subsets suggests that
assessment of tPAH using one of these subsets should provide a
reasonable indicator of PAH presence. On the other hand, since
the parent PAHs tend to be the more biodegradable compounds
(Apitz and Meyers-Schulte, 1996), and since the more recalcitrant
substituted compounds can also be more toxic and bioaccumula-
tive (e.g., Turcotte, 2008), this assessment does not address
whether these subsets are good predictors of potential PAH toxic-
ity. Rather the level of PAH-induced toxicity may not solely be a
function of total PAH but also of the concentration and combina-
tion of individual compounds that make up that mix, as well as
their bioavailability in a given sample. An assessment of these is-
sues was outside the scope of this study.
3.2. PCBs in protocols and database: how representative?
As individual records in the database contained data for 3–40
(21.7 ± 7.7) congeners, it was possible to evaluate what proportion
of the total PCBs (as reported) the ICES7 subset ‘‘captured’’. When
all the samples are considered, the proportion of the total PCBs in a
sample (considering all PCBs reported for that sample) that are in-
cluded in the sum of the ICES7 list is 50.8 ± 23.9%. There is a very
strong correlation between tPCBall and tPCBICES (r2 = 0.93), but
there is no correlation between tPCBICES/tPCBall and the total num-
ber of PCBs reported for a sample; the r2 value for a linear fit be-
tween these parameters is only 0.06. As the different studies
feeding into the dataset reported different subsets of PCBs, and
the PCBs in the samples differed greatly in source, level, distribu-
tion and degree of weathering in samples even from the same
study, there are a number of artifacts in this analysis. It is impor-
tant to note that the proportion of PCBs that the ICES7 represent
will also be biased by the fact that they were by far the most fre-
quently reported PCBs; while the average proportion of records
reporting any one specific PCB from the full list of 40 was
44.1 ± 41.2%, the average proportion of records reporting the spe-
cific congeners of the ICES7 was 97.8 ± 2.3%. It seems that the ICES7
provide an adequate predictor of PCB presence in the sediments,
although whether this subset is proportional to PCB-induced toxic-
ity in the sediments was outside the scope of this work.
3.3. LAL protocols
Table 2 illustrates the results, in percent of total samples in each
category, for a range of LAL protocols based upon the decision tree
in Fig. 2a. It is important to note that the number of records report-
ing data for a given constituent (n) ranges between constituents –
while the number of records with the standard DaS analytes ranges
between 2172 and 2196, there are, for example, only 1169 TBT re-
cords and 1573 HCB records. In each protocol, LAL SQGs for the se-
lected range of analytes are applied to reported analytes for each
sample, and results are compared to the overall results for the cur-
rent DaS protocol. Thus, for a given analyte and protocol, samples
classed as ‘‘More Conservative’’ suggest that the current DaS proto-
col ‘‘misses’’ a sample which would be caught in the test protocol,
and that a given analyte is one that is a cause of the chemical fail-
ure in this dataset for the test protocol. As more than one contam-
inant can (and often does) fail in a sample, the sum of the
83
individual analyte ‘‘More Conservative’’ outcomes is greater than
the overall dataset (all) ‘‘More Conservative’’ percentage, but this
contaminant-by-contaminant assessment is an indication of how
frequently a given analyte is potentially of concern in the dataset.
On a contaminant-by-contaminant basis ‘‘Less Conservative’’ out-
comes (samples that fail the overall DaS protocol but pass the test
protocol for that specific contaminant) are not uncommon, but
when all contaminants are considered (all), they are very rare, as
it is very unlikely that a sample fails the 4-contaminant DaS proto-
col but passes a test protocol that considers a broader range of con-
taminants. In fact, this happens in only 5 (0.2%) of samples, when
the Consensus LALs are applied; in this case one or more of the
analytes that drive the DaS fail must be the only ones in the Con-
sensus list that fail.
Fig. 3 compares the overall potential regulatory outcomes for a
range of chemical assessment scenarios, applying only an LAL va-
lue to sediment chemistry. The number in the yellow box is the
percentage of samples that would fail based upon the test proto-
cols. In a protocol applying only a LAL chemical screen, samples
that fail the chemical screen are not rejected for ocean disposal.
Rather, samples are subjected to further assessment, starting with
a consideration of bioavailability and background chemistry, fol-
lowed, if necessary by bioaccumulation and/or toxicity assess-
ment; a Tier 2 assessment in this hypothetical approach.
Using the current DaS protocol which considers the four ana-
lytes Cd, Hg, tPAH and tPCB, 68.7% of samples would pass, 31.3%
would require further assessment. As this protocol is being com-
pared to itself, there are no overall ‘‘More Conservative’’ or ‘‘Less
Conservative’’ outcomes. When only the DaS analytes are consid-
ered, Cd fails the DaS protocol most frequently (22.5% of the time),
followed by tPAH (19.1%), tPCB (12.6%), with Hg resulting in the
least frequent failures (6.4%).
The next test protocol applies the DaS LAL values for Cd, Hg,
tPAH and tPCB, but considers a broader suite of metals by applying
the CCME ISQG values, where available, as LALs for those metals.
When a broader suite of metals is considered (Ag, Cd, Cr, Pb, Cu,
Zn), outcomes change significantly – there is a 33.2% increase rel-
ative to the DaS list alone in the number of samples that would re-
quire further assessment. Individual contaminant failures for the
additional metals are most common in Cu (47.2%), followed by
Ag (45.3%), Cr (40.9%), Pb (30.5%) and Zn (26.5%).
The addition of organic constituents for which CCME ISQG val-
ues could be found for use as LALs also results in an increase in
samples requiring further assessment. However, most of the sam-
ples that failed for these parameters had already failed for one or
more analytes, as 29.1%, 15.2% and 11.4% failures in tDDT, dieldrin
and chlordane, respectively, result in only a 2.3% increase in overall
sample failures.
The next test protocol considers the same list of analytes, but,
for consistency, applies CCME ISQG values for all contaminants.
Although this is not currently part of the DaS approach, a decision
to apply LALs from a consistent source is plausible. The ISQG LALs
are somewhat less conservative for Cd, but are more conservative
for Hg, tPAH and tPCB than are the DaS values. As a result, there
is a small decrease in failure rates for Cd, but slight increases in
failure rate for tPCB and significant increases in failure rates for
Hg and tPAH. The overall increase, however, in samples requiring
further assessment is only 2.3%, due to the fact that samples that
fail for one contaminant often fail for several.
Many dredging programs consider Ni, but the CCME ISQG does
not include a LAL for this metal. To evaluate potential effects for
the inclusion of Ni in a decision framework, TEL SQGs, which in-
clude all the contaminants in the CCME list as well as Ni, were ap-
plied to the dataset. It should be noted that, although many of the
TEL values are the same as the ISQG values (primarily for metals),
there are differences in the organic values; this also affects overall
84 S.E. Apitz, S. Agius / Marine Pollution Bulletin 69 (2013) 76–90

68.7
DaS (current) 0.0
0.0 (31.3)
31.3 (Cd, Hg, PAH, PCB)
35.5
DaS + ISQG metal 33.2
0.0 (64.5)
31.3 (DaS +As, Cr, Pb, Cu, Zn)
33.2 (DaS +As, Cr, Pb, Cu, Zn,
DaS + ISQG metal + ISQG other organics 35.5
0.0 (66.8) 2,3,7,8-TCDD, tDDT,
31.3 Chlordane, Dieldrin)
30.8 (DaS +As, Cr, Pb, Cu, Zn,
CCME ISQG 37.9
0.0 2,3,7,8-TCDD, tDDT,
31.3 (70.2) Chlordane, Dieldrin)

28.7
TEL 40.0
0.0
31.2 (71.2) (CCME + Ni)
30.8
Consensus L1 37.9 (TEL+ tTBT, Lindane,
0.2 (70.0)
% Agree Pass 31.1 Aldrin, HCB)
% More Conservative
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
% Less Conservative
% Agree Fail
Percent of samples (% to Tier 2 in test protocol)

Fig. 3. Potential overall regulatory outcomes of a range of LAL-only chemical test protocols compared to the current DaS protocol. Assignments as in Fig. 3a and Table 2.
Analytes in parentheses are those applied in test protocol; LAL details in Table 2. Numbers in parentheses are the total percentage of samples assigned to Tier 2 based upon
the test protocol.

outcomes. 51% of samples in the database fail based upon the Ni
TEL. This results in a slight increase (2.1%) in overall failure rates,
in spite of a significant decrease in tPAH failures due to a less con-
servative tPAH LAL.
To examine the potential effects of considering pesticides not
currently examined in other dredging programs, there was a need
to draw candidate LAL SQGs from other sources. As stated above,
the Consensus L1 LALs are a compilation of values based either
on a range of international dredging programs, or, when those
are not available (tTBT, lindane, aldrin, HCB), from other marine
sediment SQG sources. An examination of Table 1 reveals that
the CCME ISQG LAL values are significantly more conservative for
many (primarily inorganic) contaminants than are the LAL levels
of other dredging programs, thus calculated Consensus values are
higher for those constituents. Examined together, the combination
of the less conservative LALs for many contaminants and the addi-
tion of four extra constituents results in a slight decrease (2.4%) in
overall failures. However, all added pesticides resulted in some
failures of samples which had passed the DaS protocol (0.4–
14.0% ‘‘More Conservative’’ outcomes). The differences in outcomes
resulting from different degrees of SQG conservatism vs. differ-
ences in analyte lists will be explored in greater depth in the next
section.
3.4. LAL/UAL protocols
Table 3 illustrates the results, in percent of total samples in each
category, for a range of protocols using both LAL and UAL SQGs
based upon the decision tree in Fig. 2b. Fig. 4 illustrates overall out-
comes of these scenarios. Using the decision tree in Fig. 2b (follow-
ing the logic proposed in Fig. 1), these assessments examine
potential regulatory outcomes of a two-level chemical assessment.
In both Table 3 and Fig. 4, the first scenario, the current DaS proto-
col, is not a LAL/UAL protocol, but, as the current approach, is in-
cluded for comparison. Although illustrated differently here, the
DaS results have been described above and will not be discussed
again here.
The first two-level test protocol considers the DaS analyte list,
but applies the CCME ISQG and CCME PEL values for LAL and
UAL SQGs. When compared to the current DaS 1-level protocol, this
results in a 13.9% decrease in samples passing LAL (reflecting the
more conservative ISQG values), a 2.7% increase in samples being
subjected to Tier 2 assessment (in this discussion further chemical
or biological assessment are both termed Tier 2 for simplicity in
spite of their tier separation in Fig. 1), and 11.2% of samples failing
UAL levels and thus being rejected for unconfined ocean disposal.
Interestingly, when only the DaS list of analytes is considered,
while Hg and PAH are the primary causes of UAL failure, Cd and
tPCB are the dominant LAL failures.
The addition of the metals and organics included in the CCME
ISQG LAL and UAL SQGs results in a 24% reduction in LAL passes
and a 13.5% and 10.5% increase in Tier 2 assignment and UAL fail-
ures, respectively. The addition of Ni (and the application of TEL
and PEL values) further reduces LAL passes by 2.1%, reduces Tier
2 assignments by 1.8%, while increasing UAL failures (Tier 3) by
3.9%. This increase in failures is primarily driven by increases in
Ni and tDDT failures, which overwhelm the decreases in tPAH fail-
ures that result from the less conservative PAH UAL levels.
When TEL and PEL SQGs are applied, but with only metals, and
not pesticides, added to the DaS list (i.e., the DaS list plus a full
suite of metals, As, Cr, Pb, Cu, Zn and Ni), there are only very slight
differences from when pesticides are included. The percentage
chemistry passes is unchanged, suggesting that the addition of pes-
ticides to the analyte list does not result in any screening level
(LAL) failures that do not already fail due to metals. There is a very
slight (1.1%) decrease in the number of samples which would go to
Tier 3, and matching increase in Tier 2 samples, suggesting that the
consideration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, tDDT, chlordane and Dieldrin only
makes a very minor difference in the number of Tier 3 outcomes,
given these protocols.
When the full TEL analyte list is considered, but Consensus LAL
and UAL are applied, there is a significant (10.1%) increase in LAL
chemistry passes, and decreases in Tier 2 and Tier 3 assignments
of 4.5 and 6.6%, respectively. The lower failure rates for metals
due to the less conservative Consensus UAL and LAL values over-
whelm the higher failure rates for the organic constituents. The
consideration of the full suite of analytes reduces the LAL pass rate
by 8.7%, increases the Tier 2 samples by 1.3% and increases the Tier
Table 3
Potential regulatory outcomes of a range of chemical test protocols applying both LAL and UAL values. Chemistry Pass, Further Interpretation/Tier 2 and Tier 2 percentages are the percent of records with each assignment, for a given
analyte and overall (All), based upon the decision tree in Fig. 2b. LAL values are listed in Tables 1 and 2, UAL values are the SQGs applied to each analyte in the test protocol. n is the number of samples in the database reporting data for a
given analyte. The current DaS protocol is an LAL-only protocol, but is included for comparison. For single analyte evaluations, the Further Interpretation/Tier 2 outcome means that the specific analyte did not fail UAL; failure of any
analyte in suite will lead to Tier 3 for the sample.

Analyte Ag Cd Cr Ni Pb Cu Zn Hg PAH PCB 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ tDDT tTBT Lindane Dieldrin Chlordane Aldrin HCB All
Analyte/SQG units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g –
Protocol DaS (current)
UAL SQG only LAL
Number of samples in test 0 2172 0 0 0 0 0 2195 2196 2196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2196
Chemistry Pass (%) – 68.9 – – – – – 68.7 68.7 68.7 – – – – – – – – 68.7
Further Interpretation/Tier II (%) – 22.5 – – – – – 6.4 19.1 12.6 – – – – – – – – 31.3
Tier III (%) no fail possible
Protocol CCME ISQG, then
CCME PEL; DaS List
UAL SQG – 4.20 – – – – – 0.70 7070 189 – – – – – – – – –
Number of samples in test 0 2172 0 0 0 0 0 2195 2196 2196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2196
Chemistry Pass (%) – 55.2 – – – – 54.8 54.8 54.8 – – – – – – – – 54.8
Further Interpretation/Tier II (%) – 44.1 – – – – 38.3 39.5 42.2 – – – – – – – – 34.0

S.E. Apitz, S. Agius / Marine Pollution Bulletin 69 (2013) 76–90

Tier III (%) – 0.7 – – – – 6.9 5.7 3.1 – – – – – – – – 11.2
Protocol CCME ISQG, then
CCME PEL; CCME List
UAL SQG 41.6 4.2 160.4 – 112.0 108.0 271.0 0.7 7070.0 189.0 – 386.6 – – 4.3 4.8 – – –
Number of samples in test 2183 2172 2192 0 2194 2171 2172 2195 2196 2196 2196 2196 0 0 2174 2196 0 0 2196
Chemistry Pass (%) 30.8 31.1 30.7 – 30.7 30.9 30.9 30.8 30.8 30.8 – 30.8 – – 30.9 30.8 – – 30.8
Further Interpretation/Tier II (%) 68.7 68.2 61.5 – 62.2 58.0 59.3 62.3 63.5 66.2 – 68.9 – – 65.5 63.3 – – 47.5
Tier III (%) 0.5 0.7 7.8 – 7.1 11.1 9.8 6.9 5.7 3.1 – 0.4 – – 3.5 6.0 – – 21.7
Protocol TEL, then PEL; TEL List
UAL SQG 41.6 4.2 160.4 42.8 112.2 108.2 271.0 0.7 16770.0 189.0 – 51.7 – – 4.3 4.8 – – –
Number of samples in test 2183 2172 2192 2163 2194 2171 2172 2195 2196 2196 0 2196 0 0 2174 2196 0 0 2196
Chemistry Pass (%) 28.7 29.0 28.7 29.1 28.7 28.8 28.8 28.7 28.7 28.7 – 28.7 – – 28.8 28.7 – – 28.7
Further Interpretation/Tier II (%) 70.8 70.3 63.5 56.5 64.3 60.1 61.4 64.4 69.5 68.2 – 66.8 – – 67.6 65.3 – – 45.7
Tier III (%) 0.5 0.7 7.8 14.3 7.1 11.1 9.8 6.9 1.7 3.1 – 4.5 – – 3.5 6.0 – – 25.6
Protocol TEL, then PEL; DaS
list plus full metal suite
UAL SQG 41.6 4.2 160.4 42.8 112.2 108.2 271.0 0.7 16770.0 189.0 – – – – – – – – –
Number of samples in test 2183 2172 2192 2163 2194 2171 2172 2195 2196 2196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2196
Chemistry Pass (%) 28.7 29.0 28.7 29.1 28.7 28.8 28.8 28.7 28.7 28.7 – – – – – – – – 28.7
Further Interpretation/Tier II (%) 70.8 70.3 63.5 56.5 64.3 60.1 61.4 64.4 69.5 68.2 – – – – – – – – 46.8
Tier III (%) 0.5 0.7 7.8 14.3 7.1 11.1 9.8 6.9 1.7 3.1 – – – – – – – – 24.5
Protocol Consensus L1, then
Consensus L2; TEL List
UAL SQG 66.0 5.1 255.1 120.8 237.6 123.1 495.8 1.5 6609.9 178.2 – 29.7 – – 4.0 4.3 – – –
Number of samples in test 2183 2172 2192 2163 2194 2171 2172 2195 2196 2196 0 2196 0 0 2174 2196 0 0 2196
Chemistry Pass (%) 39.9 40.2 39.8 40.4 39.8 39.9 39.9 39.8 39.8 39.8 – 39.8 – – 40.0 39.8 – – 39.8
Further Interpretation/Tier II (%) 59.9 59.6 58.3 56.4 58.2 50.9 57.7 57.4 51.1 57.1 – 52.8 – – 56.2 53.6 – – 41.2
Tier III (%) 0.2 0.2 1.9 3.3 2.0 9.3 2.4 2.9 9.1 3.1 – 7.4 – – 3.8 6.6 – – 19.0
Protocol Consensus L1, then
Consensus L2; Full List
UAL SQG 66.0 5.1 255.1 120.8 237.6 123.1 495.8 1.5 6609.9 178.2 3.6 29.7 59.2 1.0 4.0 4.3 9.5 1.0 –
Number of samples in test 2183 2172 2192 2163 2194 2171 2172 2195 2196 2196 2196 2196 1169 2190 2174 2196 2035 1573 2196
Chemistry Pass (%) 31.2 31.4 31.1 31.5 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 30.9 31.1 31.1 31.4 28.5 31.1
Further Interpretation/Tier II (%) 68.6 68.5 67.1 65.2 67.0 59.7 66.6 66.1 59.8 65.8 68.2 61.5 66.5 61.5 65.0 62.4 68.4 60.0 42.5
Tier III (%) 0.18 0.18 1.87 3.28 1.96 9.26 2.39 2.87 9.11 3.10 0.73 7.42 2.40 7.63 3.82 6.56 0.25 11.44 26.46

85
86 S.E. Apitz, S. Agius / Marine Pollution Bulletin 69 (2013) 76–90
3 rate to its highest level, 26.5%, in spite of the less conservative
metal SQGs. Not surprisingly, given the more conservative nature
of the UAL values, organics dominate the UAL failures, although
this division is not as clear-cut for LAL failures.
4. Discussion
4.1. Chemical action lists
In most regulatory programs, including DaS DM programs, a
specific list of contaminants or substances of priority concern is
identified for analysis and evaluation within a regulatory decision
framework. These priority substances are subject to the establish-
ment of action levels against which sediments to be evaluated
are compared. However, more than 14 million commercially
available chemicals and countless environmental transformation
products and unintentionally formed compounds exist (Brack
et al., 2009; Daughton, 2002). Lahr et al. (2003) observed a poor
correlation between sediment bioassay results and priority pollu-
tant concentrations in some sites in the Netherlands, possibly
due to agricultural runoff of pesticides, which are not routinely
measured in sediments, as well as to confounding factors. Brack
et al. (2007) reviewed key toxicants identified in European river
basins; in many cases, the compounds identified could only ex-
plain a small proportion of measured effects. Given the millions
of potential compounds, only a small proportion of which are
even extractable or measurable, it is not possible to determine
all the anthropogenic and natural toxicants that might be present
in a sample, or to fully explain observed toxicity in a sample,
based upon the chemicals that are identified. The questions of
how best to select the chemicals to track and regulate, and
whether complete chemical identification is a realistic goal, or a
necessary objective in a sediment framework are yet to be re-
solved (Apitz, 2011).
The priority pollutant lists used internationally are not neces-
sarily the most risky or important contaminants. Wagner (1995)
describes a ‘‘skewed prioritization system’’ pointing out that, while
many believe that ‘‘. . . agencies assign priority to the worst risks
first’’, a careful examination reveals that agencies ‘‘. . . appear to de-
fault to an ad hoc system in which the substances with more scien-
tifically established health effects are selected over less-studied
substances, many of which are believed to present greater risks
at lower concentrations’’, showing a preference for regulating the
relatively small number of substances for which evidence of toxic-
ity has been demonstrated on humans, whether through clinical
trials or epidemiological studies. Even if most active chemicals
can be identified, a substantial level of research is required before
enough is known about their risk and bioavailability, so that this
information can be included in standard assessment lists. There
is growing concern that effects may result from countless com-
pounds yet to be identified in sediment samples, and that some
of these compounds may cause biological impacts that are not eas-
ily detected with the standard bioassay methods developed to cor-
relate with the toxic effects of priority pollutants. All these issues
pose concerns about a tiered assessment approach that allows
for a pass or fail of sediments based upon a chemical screen, and
future work investigating these issues may be warranted.
It has been suggested that one of the reasons that this vast array
of unexamined potential contaminants has not caused a complete
failure of standards-based sediment assessment is that many con-
taminants that associate with sediments associate with the same
sediment fractions (fine-grained, organic-rich sediments), and
thus, if contaminants are sorbed onto particles from the same
water, contaminants may co-occur in the same sediments (Apitz
et al., 2004, 2005b; Wenning et al., 2005). In that case, contami-
nants in action lists may be considered as ‘‘sentinel’’ compounds
that signal the presence of other contaminants overall. In spite of
the plethora of unexamined contaminants, empirically-derived
SQGs are frequently successful in predicting acute toxicity and
non-toxicity in sediments even when only a few contaminants
are considered. This may be because they are based upon the crit-
ical levels of a given contaminant in sediments at which toxicity is
observed as a function of that contaminant and all other contami-
nants that co-occur in the sediment (Wenning et al., 2005). Thus, if
the causes of toxicity are not all among the measured contami-
nants, but there is a general covariance of these contaminants in
sediments used for the database, the evaluation of a few ‘‘sentinel’’
contaminants may be effective in flagging those sediments of po-
tential concern, whatever the contaminants causing the actual im-
pact. The success of empirically-derived SQGs in a broad variety of
areas bears this assumption out in many cases.
On the other hand, if toxicity which is caused by these unexam-
ined toxicants is not acute toxicity, but rather is some mode of tox-
icity that is not detected by the standard suite of bioassays, or if
samples are encountered where the unexamined contaminants
do not co-vary with those generally monitored, this assumption
breaks down. Clearly, if the SQGs being used are mechanistic rather
than empirical, this assumption would also fail. Thus, it is possible
that sediment or DM managed based upon standard acute toxicity
assays and traditional priority pollutant measurements will not be
protective for effects of genotoxicity, estrogenicity, bioaccumula-
tion, biomagnification and other factors at some sites.
While the relationship between chemically-based sediment
classification and standard and innovative bioassays is outside
the scope of the current phase of this project, the current assess-
ment did, to some extent, test the assumption of a short list of
analytes acting as ‘‘sentinels’’ for un-measured chemicals, and
found it to be only partially true. When compared to the current
DaS list (Cd, Hg, tPAH and tPCB), it was observed that every addi-
tional analyte resulted in some change in chemical regulatory
outcomes – the more contaminants in the action list, the lower
the number samples which passed a LAL-only or LAL/UAL assess-
ment, and the greater number that went to Tier 2 assessment, or
in the case of LAL/UAL protocols, failed the chemical screen alto-
gether. The most significant increase in chemical failure rates was
caused by an increase in the number of metals in the action list,
but each added organic constituent increased failure rates as well.
However, the overall increased failure rates were much lower
than the contaminant-by-contaminant increases in failure rate,
suggesting that for many samples, those that failed due to addi-
tional analytes in the action list had already failed for other com-
pounds as well. Although this assessment only evaluated
outcomes for analytes with established SQGs, it can be assumed
that these outcomes can be extrapolated to some extent to a
range of other chemicals. Thus, not surprisingly, the assumption
of co-association was partially correct; relatively short action lists,
depending on their composition, are able to identify a large pro-
portion of ‘‘average’’ sediments also contaminated by other com-
pounds; there will be samples with unusual combinations and
levels of contaminants that these sentinel lists will not correctly
classify. This study indicates that, in many cases, decisions would
be different if a broader suite of contaminants were taken into
consideration than the current four contaminants on the regu-
lated DaS action list. It should be noted that for current DaS appli-
cations, there is also a requirement to do a case by case
evaluation of ‘‘other chemicals of concern’’ based on site-specific
information and the effects of this have not been evaluated here.
To determine if this second step would have resulted in the
assessment of an appropriately broad range of analytes will re-
quire a deeper level of analysis.
The evaluations reported here do not address the likelihood of
chemical protocols to predict toxicity, but rather compare the out-
 S.E. Apitz, S. Agius / Marine Pollution Bulletin 69 (2013) 76–90 87

68.7
DaS LAL; DaS list 31.3 (Cd, Hg, PAH, PCB)
Only LAL - no fail possible
54.8
CCME ISQG LAL, CCME PEL UAL DaS list 34.0 (DaS)
11.2
30.8 (DaS +As, Cr, Pb, Cu, Zn,
CCME ISQG LAL, CCME PEL UAL; CCME list 47.5 2,3,7,8-TCDD, tDDT,
21.7 Chlordane, Dieldrin)

28.7
TEL LAL, PEL UAL; TEL list 45.7 (CCME + Ni)
25.6
28.7 (DaS +As, Cr, Pb, Cu, Zn, Ni)
TEL, then PEL; DaS list plus full metal suite 46.8
24.5
39.8
Concensus LAL and UAL; TEL list 41.2 (TEL)
19.0
31.1
Concensus LAL and UAL; full list 42.5 (TEL+ tTBT, Lindane,
26.5 Aldrin, HCB)
Chemistry Pass
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Further Interp./ Tier 2
Percent of samples
Tier 3

Fig. 4. Potential overall regulatory outcomes of a range of chemical test protocols that apply both LAL and UAL SQGs. Assignments as in Fig. 3b and Table 3. Analytes in
parentheses are those applied in test protocol; LAL and UAL details in Tables 2 and 3. The current DaS protocol is an LAL-only protocol, but is included for comparison.

comes of various chemical protocols. It is recommended that an
evaluation be undertaken of how these protocol outcomes corre-
late with toxicity test outcomes. However, implicit in this discus-
sion is the continuing discussion about whether the early tiers of
a tiered assessment should be based only on chemistry or whether
some bioassays should also be included in a first tier (Agius and
Porebski, 2008; Apitz, 2010, 2011), as in Fig. 1. The argument for
a bioassay is that, since not all chemicals are measured, even in
an expanded analytical list, a bioassay in the first tier might detect
the toxic effects of contaminants not measured in the action list.
However, the validity of this argument depends upon the contam-
inants in the sediment, their modes of toxicity, and the bioassays
considered; Apitz (2010, 2011) review these issues in light of DM
and other decision frameworks. Although this issue is outside the
scope of this phase of the analysis, it is important to note that ulti-
mately, the potential regulatory outcomes of a range of potential
chemical assessment protocols in a DaS framework will also de-
pend upon when and how bioassessment is applied in the tiered
framework.
4.2. Regulatory approaches and decision outcomes
The objectives of Canada’s Disposal at Sea Program and of re-
lated national and international legislation mirror the London Con-
vention, and more specifically, the London Protocol objective ‘‘to
protect and preserve the marine environment from all sources of
pollution and take effective measures, according to their scientific,
technical, and economic capabilities, to prevent, reduce, and where
practicable eliminate pollution caused by dumping or incineration
at sea of wastes or other matter.’’ CEPA Part 7, Division 2 defines
marine pollution as ‘‘the introduction by humans, directly or indi-
rectly, of substances or energy into the sea that results, or is likely
to result, in (a) hazards to human health; (b) harm to living re-
sources or marine ecosystems; (c) damage to amenities; or (d)
interference with other legitimate uses of the sea.’’ The 1996 Pro-
tocol to the London Convention, Article 1, paragraph 10 states that
‘‘. . . pollution means the introduction, directly or indirectly, by hu-
man activity, of wastes or other matter into the sea which results
or is likely to result in such deleterious effects as harm to living re-
sources and marine ecosystems, hazards to human health, hin-
drance to marine activities, including fishing and other legitimate
uses of the sea, impairment of quality for use of seawater and
reduction of amenities’’. CEPA (1999) states that: ‘‘pollution pre-
vention’’ means the use of processes, practices, materials, products,
substances or energy that avoid or minimize the creation of pollu-
tants and waste and reduce the overall risk to the environment or
human health.
A careful examination of the wording of the London Protocol re-
veals that the programmatic objectives focus upon the prevention
or elimination of pollution per se, and not of its effects. However,
the definitions of pollution imply that a substance only becomes
a pollutant when and if it has unpleasant or harmful effects. Much
of the discussion above makes clear that many potential pollutants
have natural levels, harmless levels, or both, in sediment systems.
As such, whilst the objective of the protection of the marine envi-
ronment from pollution may be considered a risk-based objective,
the protection from ‘‘sources of pollution’’, and the objective of
eliminating pollution, appear much more absolute. Many DM
frameworks use SQGs that are background-based for their LALs.
This allows them to focus on the objective of elimination of pollu-
tion, in an absolute sense. However, many tiered decision frame-
works are specifically designed to evaluate lines of evidence to
determine whether constituents present in a sediment pose a risk,
and allow for both background-based evaluation (to compare con-
taminant levels with regional background conditions) but also bio-
availability-based evaluation, to determine if constituents in place,
whether natural or anthropogenic, pose a risk to human health and
the environment. In these cases, SQGs selected for use are gener-
ally risk-based rather than background-based. The selection of
the level and basis of SQGs, and how they are used within the deci-
sion framework, are critical factors in how a decision framework
supports programme objectives (Apitz, 2008).
The framework being considered for Canada’s DaS Program, like
many DM frameworks, utilizes two SQGs – a Lower Action Level
(LAL) and an Upper Action Level (UAL). Sediments which have con-
taminant levels below the LAL are deemed to pose negligible risk,
and permits for uncontrolled open water disposal are granted
without further analysis. Between the LAL and UAL, a tiered assess-
88 S.E. Apitz, S. Agius / Marine Pollution Bulletin 69 (2013) 76–90
ment examines lines of evidence to determine whether contami-
nants present a risk, and above the UAL, sediments would go
straight to a comparative risk assessment (CRA) to evaluate dis-
posal options other than open water disposal. This framework al-
lows for risk-based assessment, and thus it is designed to
support risk-based (and not just reference-based) decisions. How-
ever, the application of both LAL and UAL allows for a separate
evaluation of SQG selection at two levels in the decision process.
As these two levels have different purposes and interpretive goals,
the best choice of SQG type for one might not be the same as that
for another.
The addition of chemicals to the DaS action list in a LAL-only
protocol resulted in a significant increase in the proportion of sed-
iments that would require Tier 2 assessment to receive DaS per-
mits; the degree to which this occurred depended upon the level
of conservatism of the LALs applied. Similarly, a greater number
of analytes added to a potential UAL action list had the same ef-
fects; the level of conservatism of the UAL values affected the pro-
portion of sediments going to Tier 2 or failing.
It can be argued that the pollution prevention objectives of a
DaS framework could lead regulators to choose more conservative
SQGs for LAL values, and less conservative SQGs for UAL values,
understanding that Tier 2 assessments will provide a level of pro-
tection. However, as the DaS framework is designed, a consider-
ation of potential consequences of changes must be borne in
mind. Discussions with Canadian regulators during the 2006 work-
shop revealed that, due to concerns about the complexity or uncer-
tainty of Tier 2 assessments, potential applicants to the DaS
program sometimes withdrew their applications when an initial
screen revealed that sediments would require a Tier 2 assessments,
and chose instead either not to dredge (potentially inhibiting
development) or to go directly to land-based disposal, which falls
into a different regulatory framework, but which may or may not
have less fewer ecological and economic impacts. This concern
over potentially unintended consequences is one driver for the
2006 workshop recommendation to develop a national dredging
strategy that encompasses decisions beyond ocean disposal. It is
not clear to what extent the larger levels of Tier 2 and Tier 3 out-
comes will affect the decisions and behavior of applicants, but
the role of potential outcomes within regional planning should
be considered. If the full workshop recommendations are taken
up, sediments failing Tiers 1 and 2 will require a comparative
assessment for the selection of DM management strategies. If
properly designed, these comparative assessments may help sup-
port national or regional strategies, but these may also be a source
of uncertainty and expense to applicants, and thus should be
developed, validated and refined in time to be of use to applicants
who may see a substantial shift in their DM disposal options under
new DaS assessment approaches.
As the DaS assessment framework changes, proponents may
be required to spend more on sediment characterization to pro-
vide data for a broader list of contaminants, which will poten-
tially trigger further toxicological or other analyses before a
permit decision can be made. The results of this work to date
suggest that additional costs to proponents for the analyses of
many of the pesticides examined in this study may not be war-
ranted, as they do not significantly change the degree of conser-
vatism in regulatory outcomes. However, before the addition of
these pesticides to the action list can be ruled out, an examina-
tion of toxicological results associated with chemical data must
be completed as this may reveal that these contaminants are
particularly good predictors of toxicity, in which case the cost
of adding them to the action level might be justified. Conversely,
asking for additional information about metals does appear to
provide a more conservative first tier and therefore seems justi-
fied, particularly since additional information about metals will
incur minimal extra costs for proponents. This argument would
be further strengthened if future analyses of the results pre-
sented here in conjunction with co-associated biological results
demonstrate that they are good predictors of toxicological or
other biological risk as well.
5. Conclusions
This project was the first phase of a study that seeks to assess
and integrate the advice provided to Environment Canada on po-
tential changes to their DM DaS regulatory framework at a 2006
workshop on DM management and since that time. We developed
a database of North American coastal and estuarine sediment con-
taminant levels, and applied a range of potential chemical assess-
ment protocols to it, and drew conclusions about the potential
changes in regulatory outcomes from changes in the Canadian
DM DaS Chemical Protocols summarized in Agius and Porebski
(2008).
The first 2006 workshop recommendation was that EC consider
the inclusion of a broader suite of metals (or even a full metal scan)
rather than just Cd and Hg, in Tier 1 assessments. Although this re-
view only evaluated the effects of the addition of metals addressed
in other DM programs rather than a full scan, study results indi-
cated that the current DaS protocol has the potential to miss a sig-
nificant number of samples that are potentially affected by metal
contamination. Using mined datasets, the two metals (Cd and
Hg) currently considered failed to serve as sentinel analytes that
captured other metal-contaminated sediments. Including other
metals in the DaS chemical action list would likely improve the
overall detection of metal-contaminated sediments. The precise
SQG levels for currently used and potential new analytes do not ap-
pear to have nearly as much influence on the conservatism of reg-
ulatory outcomes as the list of analytes itself. Therefore, the
decision to add metals to the list of analytes would be immediately
beneficial to the DaS program’s decision making ability. A review of
the appropriate SQG levels might also be considered but as a lower
priority. However, if such a review is carried out, it will be impor-
tant to ensure that SQGs considered have been developed using
sample preparation, extraction and analytical methods that are
compatible with the DaS protocols.
Whilst a final selection of LAL and UAL levels will be a policy
decision, we recommend that the implications of these differences
are reviewed in due course. Although there are strong arguments
for greater conservatism at LAL levels and less conservatism at
UAL levels, these choices also have cost implications for applicants,
and may affect applicant behavior as well as environmental out-
comes. Given their performance relative to other SQGs in this
study, the DaS program could consider the use of consensus SQGs
as a starting point.
The second workshop recommendation was that EC consider
the expansion of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
examined in Tier 1 from the 16 parent compounds to include a fo-
cus on the more persistent and toxic alkylated PAHs, which are of-
ten present at higher concentrations. Our review found that the
DaS list of PAHs generally captured a significant proportion of
the total PAHs (based upon those reported in the database), and
that tPAH based upon the DaS subset correlated strongly with
the tPAH based upon all measured. Thus, the current 16 PAHs mea-
sured is a good predictor of PAH presence in the sample, and is rep-
resentative of the PAH list for which SQGs are generally available.
However, this review could not assess whether this subset was a
good predictor of overall PAH toxicity, which will be a function
of the specific combination, levels and bioavailability of PAHs in
a sample.
 S.E. Apitz, S. Agius / Marine Pollution Bulletin 69 (2013) 76–90
A third workshop recommendation was that EC consider the
examination of PCBs based upon the measurement of individual
congeners rather than aroclors, since these compounds provide a
better platform of information with which to evaluate toxicity
and assess bioaccumulation potential. The current DaS aroclor-
based LAL could not be used with the congener data reported in
the study database for a critical assessment of this recommenda-
tion. However, a hypothetical conversion of this SQG to a conge-
ner-based one suggested that it was comparable in its outcomes
to other DM PCB LALs. We found that most congener-based PCB
SQGs were based upon the ICES7 list of PCBs, and that the sum
of these correlated well with total PCBs for a sample reported in
the database, though this was biased by the fact that these congen-
ers were by far the most reported ones. EC will likely wish to give a
high priority to the review of the basis for PCB evaluation in the
DaS program, and provision of congener-based action levels and
guidance similar to that used in other countries.
A fourth workshop recommendation was that EC further con-
siders the question of inclusion of a broader range of organic com-
pounds in the assessment. Although the addition of extra
pesticides on the CCME list had a minor impact on the conserva-
tism of an assessment protocol when compared to the expansion
of a metals list, the addition of the extra pesticides (lindane, aldrin
and HCB) and tTBT in the Consensus SQG list did result in a signif-
icant increase in conservatism. Thus, we found that the addition of
some organic compounds for which SQGs were available signifi-
cantly increased the proportion of samples assigned to Tier 2 or
Tier 3, though the degree to which this happened depended upon
the conservatism of the LAL and UAL levels. It should be noted that,
due to the approach applied, this review focused only on organic
contaminants for which SQGs were generally available, primarily
a set of pesticides, but it is possible that a broader range of organic
analytes (assuming data and SQGs were available) would provide
similar results. There may be benefits therefore in the DaS program
expanding the list of organic chemicals in its action list, but as the
addition of extra organic analyses to a chemical protocol is likely to
increase cost to applicants, this recommendation should be criti-
cally evaluated in light of whether these or other extra analytes in-
crease the ability of chemical results to predict toxicity and other
effects. The exact list to be used may require further consideration,
and perhaps the development of new LAL and UAL levels; a balance
will be needed between the degree of extra protection and the
added cost to applicants.
Due to a lack of data and SQGs, this assessment did not address
the effects of the consideration of a broader range of emerging con-
taminants such as the vast variety of human and veterinary drugs,
both prescription and over-the-counter, diagnostic agents, neutra-
ceuticals, and other consumer chemicals such as fragrances and
sun-screen agents, with many modes of action and toxicity, includ-
ing endocrine disruption, which are widespread, pseudo-persistent
(due to continual inputs), and have the potential for both cumula-
tive and synergistic effects. Clearly, it is not reasonable, affordable,
or possible to address all possible chemicals in the chemical por-
tion of a tiered assessment scheme, but the present study indicates
that the current approach has the potential to miss a range of po-
tential modes of toxicity that may (or may not) pose risks at dis-
posal sites. One possible approach to addressing this, that was
recommended in the 2006 workshop, is to introduce a screening
bioassay in the Tier 1 assessment, as in Fig. 1 (Agius and Porebski,
2008; Apitz, 2010, 2011), but the choice, placement, role and impli-
cations of such a test (including its effect on the optimal choices for
a chemical protocol) must be carefully reviewed. While EC could
proceed with changes to its chemical protocol for metals in the
short term, it appears that addressing these questions before fur-
ther expanding the action list used in the DaS chemical protocol
would be prudent.
89
A fifth workshop recommendation was that EC considers the
inclusion of chemical UALs in the Tier 1 assessment. This re-
view examined the potential regulatory outcomes of a range
of chemical protocols that applied both LAL and UAL SQGs. Pro-
tocols with an expanded list of analytes (as is recommended)
resulted in 19–26% of samples failing a UAL, and 41–47%
being subjected to Tier 2 assessment. EC might wish to give
serious consideration to the addition of chemical UALs to its
chemical protocol. The basis and derivation of these UALs is a
policy decision, but less conservative (higher) UALs will reduce
the risk of Type I errors; Tier 2 assessments can still result in
overall UAL failures for samples posing risk. Such an approach
could streamline the decision process by rejecting samples most
likely to fail without first requiring the expense of a Tier 2
assessment. If desired, a decision framework can allow appli-
cants to opt for a Tier 2 assessment even after a chemical
UAL failure if the potential cost of a Type I failure is too high
(Apitz et al., 2005a).
A final workshop recommendation was that EC considers dif-
ferent decision rules (as opposed to the current one out, all out
rule) for a potentially expanded list of contaminants. Although
this review only examined potential regulatory outcomes based
upon a one out, all out rule, there are a range of potential deci-
sion rules that can be used; these are reviewed by Apitz (2008,
2011). EC could develop a subset of potential decision rules and
test their potential using the database tool developed for this
project.
It is important to note that this work assumes that the sedi-
ments analyzed in this US-based database are representative of
what might be encountered in the Canadian DaS program. Also,
this work considered potential outcomes using chemical data,
but did not consider outcomes in the context of a full decision
framework that would employ multiple, weighted lines of evi-
dence before yielding a decision. As EC progresses in updating
its sediment characterization processes, and considers the man-
agement, under permit, of ‘contaminated’ DM, it will have to inte-
grate as much science as possible and make a number of policy
decisions that reflect the level of uncertainty that is tolerable
and the level of certainty that is affordable. To assist with these
endeavors, future work to test alternative decision rules, validate
the effectiveness of current toxicity test methods in a regulatory
context and to examine potential roles for other biological lines
of evidence will be completed. Also, efforts to integrate as much
Canadian data as possible, including provincial data, into the
dataset, will be made. As this work proceeds, specific outcomes
may differ, but this review suggests that the efficiency and degree
of protectiveness of the EC DM DaS framework could be signifi-
cantly improved by expanding the list of chemical analytes and
adding a chemical UAL.
Disclaimer
This paper does not necessarily represent the views of the Envi-
ronment Canada or any affiliations represented by the authors. Ref-
erences to brand names and trademarks in this document are for
information purposes only and do not constitute endorsements
by Environment Canada, or the authors. It is not the intention of
the authors to suggest conclusions on the potential ecological risk
or regulatory status of the sediments from which the database was
drawn; these samples were not collected for the assessment of
ocean disposal and this review represents an analysis of only a
small fraction of the data available. These data are only used to
provide a dataset that might realistically represent the range of
sediment types that might be encountered by the Canadian DaS
program, in order to evaluate the potential performance of a range
of DM DaS decision rules.
90 S.E. Apitz, S. Agius / Marine Pollution Bulletin 69 (2013) 76–90
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by Environment Canada, Marine Protec-
tion Programs. The Coastal and Oceanographic Assessment, Status
and Trends (COAST) Branch, part of NOAA’s National Centers for
Coastal Ocean Science in the Center for Coastal Monitoring and
Assessment (CCMA) is gratefully acknowledged for making its
extensive datasets available online. We thank Gunnar Lauenstein
and his associates for their support in resolving questions on the
datasets. Thanks also to all those who answered our requests for
data.
References
Agius, S.J., Porebski, L., 2008. Towards the assessment and management of
contaminated dredged materials. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage. 4, 255–260.
Apitz, S.E., 2008. The Derivation and Application of Sediment Quality Guidelines
(SQGs) and Bioaccumulation Models in the Screening and First Tier of the
Assessment of Sediment Quality. Report for the Canadian Disposal at Sea
Program. SEA Environmental Decisions, Ltd., Little Hadham, UK, p. 90.
Apitz, S.E., 2010. Review of the Use of Bioassays for Canada’s Disposal at Sea
Programme. Final Report to Environment Canada. SEA Environmental Decisions,
Ltd., Little Hadham, UK, p. 180.
Apitz, S.E., 2011. Integrated risk assessments for the management of contaminated
sediments in estuaries and coastal systems. In: Wolanski, E., McLusky, D.S.
(Eds.), Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science. Academic Press, Waltham, UK,
pp. 311–338.
Apitz, S.E., Ayers, B., Kirtay, V.J., 2004. The Use of Data on Contaminant/Sediment
Interactions to Streamline Sediment Assessment and Management. Technical
Report 1918. SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego, San Diego, CA, p. 122.
Apitz, S.E., Barbanti, A., Bocci, M., Carlin, A., Montobbio, L., Bernstein, A.G., 2007. The
sediments of the Venice Lagoon (Italy) evaluated in a risk assessment and
management approach. Part I – application of international sediment quality
guidelines (SQGs). Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage.
Apitz, S.E., Crane, M., Power, E.A., 2005a. Use of Sediment Quality Values (SQVs) in
the Assessment of Sediment Quality. Final Report to the Environment Agency of
England and Wales. Crane Environmental, Faringdon, UK.
Apitz, S.E., Davis, J.W., Finkelstein, K., Hohreiter, D.L., Hoke, R., Jensen, R.H., Kirtay,
V.J., Jersac, J., Mack, E.E., Magar, V., Moore, D., Reible, D., Stahl, R., 2005b.
Assessing and managing contaminated sediments. Part II – evaluating risk and
monitoring sediment remedy effectiveness. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage. 1,
e1–e14 (online-only).
Apitz, S.E., Meyers-Schulte, K.J., 1996. The effects of substrate mineralogy on the
biodegradability of fuel components. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 15, 1883–1893.
Brack, W., Apitz, S.E., Borchardt, D., Brils, J., Cardoso, A.C., Foekema, E.M., Gils, J.v.,
Jansen, S., Harris, B., Hein, M., Heise, S., Hellsten, S., Maagd, P.G.-J.d., Muller, D.,
Panov, V.E., Posthuma, L., Quevauviller, P., Verdonschot, P.F., Ohe, P.C.v.d., 2009.
Toward a holistic and risk-based management of European river basins. Integr.
Environ. Assess. Manage. 5, 5–10.
Brack, W., Klamer, H.J.C., Alda, M.L.d., Barceló, D., 2007. Effect-directed analysis of
key toxicants in European river basins: a review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 14,
30–38.
Buchman, M.F., 2008. NOAA Screening Quick Reference Tables, NOAA OR&R Report
08-1. Office of Response and Restoration Division, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA, p. 34.
CCME, 2002. Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic
Life, Summary Tables Update 2002. <http://www.ccme.ca/publications/
ceqq_rcqe.html> (accessed 10.07.12
CEPA, 1999. Canadian Environmental Protection Act. 1999. Statutes of Canada.
<http://www.ec.gc.ca/CEPARegistry/the_act/Schedules_6.cfm> (accessed
09.07.12, chapter 33, schedule 6).
Daughton, C.G., 2002. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) as
environmental pollutants – pollution from personal action. In:
daughton.christian@epa.gov (Ed.), Environmental Sciences Division, National
Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, Las
Vegas, NV.
EC, 1998. Biological Test Method: Reference Method for Determining Acute
Lethality of Sediment to Marine or Estuarine Amphipods. Reference Method
EPS 1/RM/35. Method Development and Applications Section, Environment
Technology Centre, Environment Canada, Ottowa, ON, p. 75.
EC, 2001. Biological Test Method: Test for Survival and Growth in Sediment Using
Spionid Polychaete Worms (Polydora cornuta). EPS 1/RM/41. Method
Development And Applications Section, Environment Technology Centre,
Environment Canada, Ottowa, ON, p. 132.
Golder, 2008. Literature Review of Risk Assessment Tools Relevant to Dredged
Material Disposal Options. Draft Report. Golder Associates Ltd., North
Vancouver, BC, p. 106.
IMO, 2009. Guidance for the Development of Action Lists and Action Levels for
Dreged Material. London Convention, London Protocol, International Maritime
Oganization, London, England, p. 36.
Lahr, J., Maas-Diepeveen, J.L., Stuijfzand, S.C., Leonards, P.E.G., Druke, J.M., Lucker, S.,
Espeldoorn, A., Kerkum, L.C.M., van Stee, L.L.P., Hendriks, A.J., 2003. Responses in
sediment bioassays used in the Netherlands: can observed toxicity be explained
by routinely monitored priority pollutants? Water Res. 37, 1691–1710.
Long, E.R., Macdonald, D.D., Smith, S.L., Calder, F.D., 1995. Incidence of adverse
biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and
estuarine sediments. Environ. Manage. 19, 81–97.
MacDonald, D.D., Carr, R.S., Calder, F.D., Long, E.R., Ingersoll, C.G., 1996.
Development and evaluation of sediment quality guidelines for Florida
coastal waters. Ecotoxicology 5, 253–278.
MdA. 1993. Critiri di sciurezza ambientale per GLI interventi di escavazione
transporto e reimpiego dei fanghi estratti dai canali di Venezia. Rome, Italy:
Ministero delle Ambiente. Report nr art. 4, comma 6, Legge 360/91.
Mudroch, P., Agius, S., 2011. Assessment of Canada’s Disposal at Sea Sediment
Evaluation Framework. Draft Report. Marine Protection Programs, Environment
Canada.
Narquis, C.T., Hyatt, J.E., Prignano, A.L., 2007. Generating the Right Data:
Determination of Aroclors Versus PCB Congeners. Prepared for the U.S.
Department of Energy, Assistand Secretary for Environmental Management.
Fluor, Richalnd, WA, p. 13.
Newman, J., Becker, J., Blondina, G., Tjeerdema, R., 1998. Quantitation of arolors
using congener-specific results. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17, 2159–2167.
NS&T, 2012. National Status and Trends Program Download Page. <http://
ccma.nos.noaa.gov/about/coast/nsandt/download.aspx> (cited 02.02.12).
Ogden, 1997, 1998. Pearl Harbor Sediment Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study,
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, Fact Sheets. US Navy, Ogden, Pearl City Public Library,
Pearl City, HI.
Turcotte, D., 2008. Toxicity and Metabolism of Alkyl-Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons in Fish. Chemistry. Queen’s University, Ontario, Canada, p. 227.
USEPA, 1993. Guidance Manual: Bedded Sediment Bioaccumulation Tests-EPA/600/
R-93/183. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Vogt, C., 2009. International Review of Practices and Policies for Disposal in Ocean
and Coastal/Estuarine Waters of Contaminated Dredged Material. Craig Vogt
Inc., p. 152.
Wagner, W.E., 1995. The science charade in toxic risk regulation. Columbia Law Rev.
95, 1613–1723.
Wenning, R.J., Batley, G.E., Ingersoll, C.G., Moore, D.W., 2005. Use of Sediment
Quality Guidelines & Related Tools for the Assessment of Contaminated
Sediments (SQG). SETAC Press, Penasacola, FL, p. 783.