ASTM E3164-23

Standard Guide for Contaminated Sediment Site Risk-Based Corrective Action – Baseline, Remedy Implementation and Post-Remedy Monitoring Programs

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Intended Users:  
4.1.1 This guide may be used by various parties involved in sediment corrective action programs, including regulatory agencies, project sponsors, environmental consultants, toxicologists, risk assessors, site remediation professionals, environmental contractors, and other stakeholders.  
4.2 Reference Material:  
4.2.1 This guide should be used in conjunction with other ASTM guides listed in 2.1 (especially Guides E3163, E3240, E3242, E3344 and E3382), as well as the material in the References section.  
4.3 Flexible Site-Specific Implementation:  
4.3.1 This guide provides a systematic but flexible framework to accommodate variations in approaches by regulatory agencies and by the user based on project objectives, site complexity, unique site features, regulatory requirements, newly developed guidance, newly published scientific research, changes in regulatory criteria, advances in scientific knowledge and technical capability, and unforeseen circumstances.
4.3.1.1 This guide provides a monitoring plan development, execution and analysis framework based on over-arching features and elements that should be customized by the user based on site-specific conditions, regulatory context, and sediment corrective action objectives.
4.3.1.2 Implementation of the guide is site-specific. The user may choose to customize the implementation of the guide for a particular site, especially smaller, less complex sites.
4.3.1.3 This guide should not be used alone as a prescriptive checklist.  
4.3.2 The users of this guide are encouraged to update and refine (when needed) the conceptual site model, Project Work Plans and Project Reports used to describe the physical properties, chemical composition and occurrence, biologic features, and environmental conditions of the sediment corrective action project.  
4.4 Regulatory Frameworks:  
4.4.1 This guide is intended to be applicable to a broad range of local, state, tribal, federal, or internation...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide pertains to corrective action monitoring before (baseline monitoring), during (remedy implementation monitoring) and after (post-remedy monitoring) sediment remedial activities. It does not address monitoring performed during remedial investigations, pre-remedial risk assessments, and pre-design investigations.  
1.2 Sediment monitoring programs (baseline, remedy implementation and post-remedy) are typically used in contaminated sediment corrective actions performed under various regulatory programs, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Although many of the references cited in this guide are CERCLA-oriented, the guide is applicable to corrective actions performed under local, state, tribal, federal, and international corrective action programs. However, this guide does not provide a detailed description of the monitoring program requirements or existing guidance for each jurisdiction. This guide is intended to inform, complement, and support but not supersede the guidelines established by local, state, tribal, federal, or international agencies.  
1.3 This guide provides a framework, which includes widely accepted considerations and best practices for monitoring sediment remedy efficacy.  
1.4 This guide is related to several other guides. Guide E3240 provides an overview of the sediment risk-based corrective action (RBCA) process, including the role of risk assessment and representative background. Guide E3163 discusses appropriate laboratory methodologies to use for the chemical analysis of potential contaminants of concern (PCOCs) in various media (such as, sediment, porewater, surface water and biota tissue) taken during sediment monitoring programs; it also discusses biological testing and community assessment. Guide E3382 describes the overall framework to determine representative background concentrations (including Conceptual Site Model [C...

General Information

• Status: Published
• Publication Date: 31-Jul-2023
• ICS: 13.060.99 - Other standards related to water quality
• Technical Committee: E50 - Environmental Assessment, Risk Management and Corrective Action
• Drafting Committee: E50.04 - Corrective Action

Relations

• Refers: ASTM E3242-23 - Standard Guide for Developing Representative Background Concentrations at Sediment Sites-Data Evaluation and Development Methodologies
• Effective Date: 01-Dec-2023
• Refers: ASTM E3344-23 - Standard Guide for Developing Representative Sediment Background Concentrations at Sediment Sites-Selection of Background Reference Areas
• Effective Date: 01-Sep-2023
• Refers: ASTM E3242-20 - Standard Guide for Determination of Representative Sediment Background Concentrations
• Effective Date: 01-Jan-2020
• Refers: ASTM E3240-20 - Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action for Contaminated Sediment Sites
• Effective Date: 01-Jan-2020
• Refers: ASTM D4823-95(2019) - Standard Guide for Core Sampling Submerged, Unconsolidated Sediments
• Effective Date: 01-Nov-2019
• Refers: ASTM E3163-18 - Standard Guide for Selection and Application of Analytical Methods and Procedures Used during Sediment Corrective Action
• Effective Date: 01-Sep-2018
• Refers: ASTM D4823-95(2014) - Standard Guide for Core Sampling Submerged, Unconsolidated Sediments
• Effective Date: 01-Jan-2014
• Refers: ASTM D7363-13 - Standard Test Method for Determination of Parent and Alkyl Polycyclic Aromatics in Sediment Pore Water Using Solid-Phase Microextraction and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry in Selected Ion Monitoring Mode
• Effective Date: 15-Mar-2013
• Refers: ASTM D7363-11 - Standard Test Method for Determination of Parent and Alkyl Polycyclic Aromatics in Sediment Pore Water Using Solid-Phase Microextraction and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry in Selected Ion Monitoring Mode
• Effective Date: 01-Dec-2011
• Refers: ASTM D4823-95(2008) - Standard Guide for Core Sampling Submerged, Unconsolidated Sediments
• Effective Date: 01-Oct-2008
• Refers: ASTM E1391-03(2008) - Standard Guide for Collection, Storage, Characterization, and Manipulation of Sediments for Toxicological Testing and for Selection of Samplers Used to Collect Benthic Invertebrates
• Effective Date: 01-Feb-2008
• Refers: ASTM D7363-07 - Standard Test Method for Determination of Parent and Alkyl Polycyclic Aromatics in Sediment Pore Water Using Solid-Phase Microextraction and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry in Selected Ion Monitoring Mode
• Effective Date: 01-Aug-2007
• Refers: ASTM D75-03 - Standard Practice for Sampling Aggregates
• Effective Date: 10-Jul-2003
• Refers: ASTM D4823-95(2003)e1 - Standard Guide for Core Sampling Submerged, Unconsolidated Sediments
• Effective Date: 10-Jun-2003
• Refers: ASTM D4823-95(1999) - Standard Guide for Core Sampling Submerged, Unconsolidated Sediments
• Effective Date: 10-Jun-1999

Overview

ASTM E3164-23: Standard Guide for Contaminated Sediment Site Risk-Based Corrective Action – Baseline, Remedy Implementation and Post-Remedy Monitoring Programs provides a comprehensive framework for planning and implementing monitoring programs at contaminated sediment sites. Developed by ASTM Committee E50, this guide supports regulatory agencies, environmental consultants, site remediation professionals, and other stakeholders in designing monitoring activities before, during, and after sediment remedial actions.

The standard emphasizes a risk-based approach and is applicable across a wide array of regulatory frameworks at local, state, tribal, federal, and international levels. Rather than serving as a prescriptive checklist, ASTM E3164-23 offers a flexible and systematic methodology that can be adapted to the specific objectives and complexities of a given sediment site.

Key Topics

• Framework for Monitoring Programs:
  The guide outlines the structure for developing baseline monitoring (prior to remedy), remedy implementation monitoring (during remediation), and post-remedy monitoring (to assess remedy effectiveness and performance over time).

• Site-Specific Flexibility:
  Recognizing the diverse nature of contaminated sediment sites, the guide encourages users to tailor their monitoring plans according to site characteristics, project objectives, regulatory context, and technical developments.

• Stakeholder Engagement:
  The guide highlights the importance of early and continuous engagement with regulatory agencies, project sponsors, and other stakeholders to ensure technically sound and accepted project outcomes.

• Integration with Other Standards and Guidance:
  ASTM E3164-23 is designed to be used in conjunction with related ASTM standards (such as E3163, E3240, E3242, E3344, and E3382) and relevant technical guidance from agencies like the U.S. EPA.

• Project Planning:
  Essential elements include assembling an experienced project team, compiling existing site data, defining clear project objectives, and establishing robust documentation and reporting protocols.

• Continuous Model Refinement:
  Regular updates to the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) and project documentation are encouraged to account for advances in technical knowledge and changes in site understanding.

Applications

ASTM E3164-23 is used in a variety of contaminated sediment management contexts, including:

• Risk-Based Corrective Action under regulatory frameworks such as CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) as well as state, tribal, and international cleanup programs.
• Remedial Action Planning where monitoring is required to establish baseline conditions, verify remedy execution, and document long-term effectiveness.
• Adaptive Management approaches, enabling practitioners to modify monitoring plans as new data and scientific understanding become available.
• Support for Regulatory Compliance, ensuring that site-specific monitoring activities meet or complement jurisdictional requirements for sediment remediation activities.
• Data-Driven Decision-Making, by providing best-practice frameworks for monitoring design, data quality objectives, and statistical analysis.

Typical users include environmental consultants, project sponsors, risk assessors, government agencies, contractors, and community stakeholders involved in the assessment and remediation of contaminated sediments.

Related Standards

ASTM E3164-23 is part of a suite of standards supporting sediment site management and risk-based corrective action:

• ASTM E3240: Provides an overview of the sediment risk-based corrective action (RBCA) process, including risk assessment.
• ASTM E3163: Focuses on the selection and application of analytical methods and procedures for sediment corrective action.
• ASTM E3242: Discusses the determination of representative background concentrations in sediments.
• ASTM E3344: Details methodologies for selecting background reference areas for sediment sites.
• ASTM E3382: Offers frameworks for developing representative background concentrations with conceptual site model considerations.

Using ASTM E3164-23 in tandem with these and other referenced documents ensures robust, scientifically defensible, and regulatory-compliant sediment site management.

Keywords: contaminated sediment, risk-based corrective action, sediment site monitoring, remedy implementation, baseline monitoring, post-remedy monitoring, ASTM E3164-23, environmental remediation, sediment risk assessment, regulatory compliance.

Standards Content (Sample)

This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
Designation: E3164 − 23
Standard Guide for
Contaminated Sediment Site Risk-Based Corrective Action –
Baseline, Remedy Implementation and Post-Remedy
Monitoring Programs
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E3164; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope to determine representative background concentrations (in-
cluding Conceptual Site Model [CSM] considerations) for a
1.1 This guide pertains to corrective action monitoring
contaminated sediment site; Guides E3344 (methodologies for
before (baseline monitoring), during (remedy implementation
selecting representative background reference areas) and
monitoring) and after (post-remedy monitoring) sediment re-
E3242 (statistical and chemical methodologies used in devel-
medial activities. It does not address monitoring performed
oping representative background concentrations for a sediment
during remedial investigations, pre-remedial risk assessments,
site) complement Guide E3382.
and pre-design investigations.
1.5 Units—The values stated in SI or CGS units are to be
1.2 Sediment monitoring programs (baseline, remedy
regarded as the standard. No other units of measurement are
implementation and post-remedy) are typically used in con-
included in this standard.
taminated sediment corrective actions performed under various
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the
regulatory programs, including the Comprehensive Environ-
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
mental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CER-
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
CLA). Although many of the references cited in this guide are
priate safety, health, and environmental practices and deter-
CERCLA-oriented, the guide is applicable to corrective actions
mine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
performed under local, state, tribal, federal, and international
1.7 This international standard was developed in accor-
corrective action programs. However, this guide does not
dance with internationally recognized principles on standard-
provide a detailed description of the monitoring program
ization established in the Decision on Principles for the
requirements or existing guidance for each jurisdiction. This
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recom-
guide is intended to inform, complement, and support but not
mendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical
supersede the guidelines established by local, state, tribal,
Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
federal, or international agencies.
1.3 This guide provides a framework, which includes
2. Referenced Documents
widely accepted considerations and best practices for monitor-
2.1 ASTM Standards:
ing sediment remedy efficacy.
D75 Practice for Sampling Aggregates
1.4 This guide is related to several other guides. Guide
D4823 Guide for Core Sampling Submerged, Unconsoli-
E3240 provides an overview of the sediment risk-based cor-
dated Sediments
rective action (RBCA) process, including the role of risk
D7363 Test Method for Determination of Parent and Alkyl
assessment and representative background. Guide E3163 dis-
Polycyclic Aromatics in Sediment Pore Water Using
cusses appropriate laboratory methodologies to use for the
Solid-Phase Microextraction and Gas Chromatography/
chemical analysis of potential contaminants of concern
Mass Spectrometry in Selected Ion Monitoring Mode
(PCOCs) in various media (such as, sediment, porewater,
E1391 Guide for Collection, Storage, Characterization, and
surface water and biota tissue) taken during sediment monitor-
Manipulation of Sediments for Toxicological Testing and
ing programs; it also discusses biological testing and commu-
for Selection of Samplers Used to Collect Benthic Inver-
nity assessment. Guide E3382 describes the overall framework
tebrates
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E50 on Environmental
Assessment, Risk Management and Corrective Action and is the direct responsibil- For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
ity of Subcommittee E50.04 on Corrective Action. Current edition approved Aug. 1, contact ASTM Customer Service at [e-mail]. For Annual Book of ASTM
2023. Published September 2023. Originally approved in 2018, Last previous Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
edition approved in 2018 as E3164–18. DOI: 10.1520/E3164–23. the ASTM website.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E3164 − 23
E3163 Guide for Selection and Application of Analytical defined as COCs. Thus, the COCs identified for a sediment site
Methods and Procedures Used during Sediment Correc- are a subset of the PCOCs identified for that site.
tive Action
3.1.8 corrective action, n—the sequence of actions that may
E3240 Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action for Contami-
include site assessment and investigation, risk assessment,
nated Sediment Sites
evaluations of potential remedial action alternatives, interim
E3242 Guide for Determination of Representative Sediment
remedial action, remedial action, operation and maintenance of
Background Concentrations
the remedy, monitoring of progress, making “No Further
E3344 Guide for Selection of Background Reference Areas
Action” determinations, and completion of the remedial action.
for Determination of Representative Sediment Back-
E3240
ground Concentrations
3.1.9 data quality objectives (DQOs), n—the systematic
E3382 Guide for Developing Representative Background
process to develop performance and acceptability criteria by
Concentrations at Sediment Sites — Framework
defining study objectives and the type, quality, and quantity of
Overview, Including Conceptual Site Model Consider-
data needed for site decisions. E3240
ations
3.1.10 natural background, n—naturally occurring sub-
stances present in the environment in forms (and at concentra-
3. Terminology
tions) that have not been influenced by human activity. E3344
3.1 Definitions:
3.1.11 potential contaminant of concern (PCOC), n—a
3.1.1 adaptive management, n—a structured, iterative pro-
contaminant whose sediment concentrations at the site may
cess of robust decision making in the face of uncertainty, with
exceed applicable screening levels; this includes chemicals of
the goal of ensuring effectiveness during remedial action.
potential environmental concern (COPECs) and chemicals of
E3240
potential concern (COPCs). E3242
3.1.2 anthropogenic background, n—human-made sub-
3.1.12 remedial action, n—activities conducted to reduce or
stances present in the environment due to human activities, not
eliminate current or potential future exposures to receptors or
specifically related to current or historical site-related releases
relevant ecological receptors and habitats. E3240
or activities. E3344
3.1.12.1 Discussion—These activities include monitoring,
3.1.3 background (aka “reference”), n—substances,
implementing activity and use limitations and designing and
conditions, or locations that are not influenced by releases from
operating cleanup equipment. Remedial action includes activi-
a sediment site; these are usually a combination of naturally
ties that are conducted to reduce sources of exposure to meet
occurring (consistently present in the environment but not
RAOs, or sever exposure pathways to meet RAOs.
influenced by human activity) and anthropogenic (influenced
3.1.13 remedial action objectives (RAO), n—stated objec-
by human activity but not related to specific current or
tives that describe what the remedial action for a site is
historical activities or releases at the sediment site)
expected to accomplish, based on the CSM and the exposure
components. E3382
pathways that may pose an unacceptable risk as determined in
3.1.4 bioavailability, n—the degree to which a contaminant
a risk assessment; RAOs are specific and achievable goals for
is free to be taken up by an organism. E3240
reducing risk to human health and the environment. E3240
3.1.5 cleanup level, n—the prescribed average or point
3.1.14 representative background concentrations,
sediment concentration of a chemical that shall not be ex-
n—chemical concentrations that are inclusive of naturally
ceeded at the remediated site. E3242
occurring sources and anthropogenic sources similar to those
3.1.6 conceptual site model, n—the integrated representa-
present at a sediment site but not related to current or historical
tion of the physical and environmental context, the complete
site releases or activities. E3382
and potentially complete exposure pathways, and the potential
3.1.15 sediment(s), n—a matrix of porewater and particles
fate and transport of potential contaminants of concern at a site.
including gravel, sand, silt, clay, and other natural and anthro-
E3242
pogenic substances that have settled at the bottom of a tidal or
3.1.6.1 Discussion—The CSM should include both the cur-
nontidal body of water. E3163
rent understanding of the site and an understanding of the
3.1.16 sediment site, n—the area(s) defined by the likely
potential future conditions and uses for the site. It provides a
physical distribution of COC(s) from a source area and the
method to conduct the exposure pathway evaluation; inventory
adjacent areas required to implement the corrective action. A
the exposure pathways evaluated; and determine the status of
site could be an entire water body or a defined portion of a
the exposure pathways as incomplete, potentially complete, or
water body. E3240
complete.
3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
3.1.7 contaminant of concern (COC), n—substances identi-
3.2.1 backfill, n—clean materials placed directly on the
fied as posing a risk based on a tiered risk assessment and that
post-dredge surface to provide cover or bring the post-dredging
warrant corrective action. E3382
surface to a targeted elevation, or both (also see, cover
3.1.7.1 Discussion—Typically, all PCOCs identified for a
material).
sediment site are evaluated in the risk assessment process.
PCOCs that have sediment concentrations greater than risk- 3.2.2 baseline monitoring, n—monitoring to establish physi-
based thresholds identified in the risk assessment process are cal characteristics of the sediment site (such as, sediment
E3164 − 23
mudline elevations), chemical characteristics (such as, COC and biodegradation) to protect the environment and receptors
concentrations in various media) and biological characteristics from unacceptable exposures to contaminants.
(such as, sediment toxicity to select organisms) prior to the
3.2.16 performance monitoring, n—component of a post-
commencement of remedy implementation.
remedy monitoring program conducted to determine if the
3.2.3 benthic community, n—assemblage of aquatic inverte- remedy is performing as designed.
brates that reside in the sediments.
3.2.17 post-remedy monitoring, n—programs that typically
include performance monitoring (to demonstrate the remedy is
3.2.4 biologically active zone (BAZ), n—the zone of greatest
organism-sediment interaction. performing as designed) and effectiveness monitoring (to
determine whether COC concentrations in affected media met
3.2.4.1 Discussion—Typically, at a sediment site the BAZ is
the top 10–15 centimeters (cm) of surficial sediment below the RAOs, or are expected to meet RAOs in an acceptable time
frame).
sediment – surface water interface. The BAZ is site-specific
and in some cases can be deeper than 15 cm. 3.2.17.1 Discussion—A post-remedy monitoring program
may have both short-term and long-term performance and
3.2.5 biota, n—the flora and fauna living in a habitat (1).
effectiveness monitoring goals (such as, meeting RAOs).
3.2.6 capping, n—the process of placing a material over
3.2.18 porewater, n—water located in the interstitial voids
contaminated sediments to mitigate risk posed by those
(between solid-phase particles) of bulk sediments.
sediments.
3.2.19 remedial investigation, n—the contaminated site in-
3.2.7 cover material, n—alternative term for “backfill”.
vestigation performed prior to remedial alternative selection to
3.2.8 effectiveness monitoring, n—component of a post-
determine if the nature and extent of contamination is at
remedy monitoring program to confirm the RAOs are being
unacceptable levels and warrants any potential remedial action.
met or are trending towards being met in an acceptable time
3.2.20 remedy implementation monitoring, n—monitoring
frame.
of conditions during remedy execution to determine if design
3.2.9 environmental dredging, n—the removal of contami-
criteria have been achieved and if regulatory requirements have
nated sediment at a sediment site; typically during the remedy
been met.
implementation stage of the corrective action.
3.2.20.1 Discussion—If an active remedy has been chosen,
3.2.10 enhanced monitored natural recovery (EMNR), n—a
this is often referred to as “construction monitoring”. In many
remediation practice that applies clean material to the sediment
cases, there will be permit requirements during the implemen-
surface to accelerate natural recovery processes.
tation of the remedy and monitoring may be required to ensure
compliance with these requirements.
3.2.11 fish community, n—an assemblage or association of
populations of two or more fish species occupying the same
3.2.21 residuals, n—untreated contamination that remains
geographical area (such as, stream reach) during a particular
in the surface sediment after the completion of sediment
time frame.
dredging operations.
3.2.12 in situ treatment, n—application of amendment ma-
4. Significance and Use
terials to the sediment, so they may be mixed (either naturally
or mechanically) into the sediments and reduce the bioavail-
4.1 Intended Users:
able fraction of contaminants in porewater.
4.1.1 This guide may be used by various parties involved in
3.2.13 in situ solidification, n—a remediation approach that sediment corrective action programs, including regulatory
mixes solidification agents (such as Portland cement) into agencies, project sponsors, environmental consultants,
impacted sediments; the intended result is to reduce sediment toxicologists, risk assessors, site remediation professionals,
environmental contractors, and other stakeholders.
permeability and the mobility of contaminants within the bulk
sediment.
4.2 Reference Material:
3.2.14 monitoring, n—the collection and analysis of re-
4.2.1 This guide should be used in conjunction with other
peated observations or measurements to evaluate changes in
ASTM guides listed in 2.1 (especially Guides E3163, E3240,
condition and progress towards meeting documented program
E3242, E3344 and E3382), as well as the material in the
objectives.
References section.
3.2.14.1 Discussion—Monitoring is the collection of data
4.3 Flexible Site-Specific Implementation:
(that is physical, chemical, biological) over a sufficient period
4.3.1 This guide provides a systematic but flexible frame-
of time and frequency, so that data analysis can determine
work to accommodate variations in approaches by regulatory
trends in one or more environmental parameters or character-
agencies and by the user based on project objectives, site
istics and compare their status to remedy objectives.
complexity, unique site features, regulatory requirements,
3.2.15 monitored natural recovery (MNR), n—a remediation
newly developed guidance, newly published scientific
practice that relies on natural processes (such as, sequestration
research, changes in regulatory criteria, advances in scientific
knowledge and technical capability, and unforeseen circum-
stances.
4.3.1.1 This guide provides a monitoring plan development,
The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end of
this standard. execution and analysis framework based on over-arching
E3164 − 23
features and elements that should be customized by the user Guides E3242, E3344 and E3382 contain extensive informa-
based on site-specific conditions, regulatory context, and tion concerning that topic.
sediment corrective action objectives. 4.7.4 In this guide, “sediment” (3.1.15) is defined as a
matrix being found at the bottom of a water body. Upland soils
4.3.1.2 Implementation of the guide is site-specific. The
of sedimentary origin are excluded from consideration as
user may choose to customize the implementation of the guide
sediment in this guide.
for a particular site, especially smaller, less complex sites.
4.7.5 In this guide, only COC concentrations are consid-
4.3.1.3 This guide should not be used alone as a prescriptive
ered. Residual background radioactivity is out of scope.
checklist.
4.3.2 The users of this guide are encouraged to update and 4.8 Structure and Components of This Guide:
refine (when needed) the conceptual site model, Project Work
4.8.1 The user of this guide should review the overall
Plans and Project Reports used to describe the physical structure and components of this guide before proceeding with
properties, chemical composition and occurrence, biologic
use, including:
features, and environmental conditions of the sediment correc-
Section 1 Scope
tive action project. Section 2 Referenced Documents
Section 3 Terminology
4.4 Regulatory Frameworks: Section 4 Significance and Use
Section 5 Components of a Generic Monitoring Program
4.4.1 This guide is intended to be applicable to a broad
Section 6 Generic Considerations for Sediment Site Monitoring
range of local, state, tribal, federal, or international
Programs
Section 7 Types of Sediment Remedial Action Monitoring Programs
jurisdictions, each with its own unique regulatory framework.
Section 8 Baseline Monitoring Programs: General Considerations
As such, this guide does not provide a detailed discussion of
Section 9 Remedy Implementation Monitoring Programs: General
the requirements or guidance associated with any of these Considerations
Section 10 Post-Remedy Monitoring Programs: General Considerations
regulatory frameworks, nor is it intended to supersede appli-
and Program Planning Examples
cable regulations and guidance. The user of this guide will need
Section 11 Keywords
to be aware of (and comply with) the regulatory requirements
Appendix X1 Discussion of Monitoring Program Development, Data Quality
Objective Development and Statistical Analysis of Data
and guidance in the jurisdiction where the work is being
Processes
performed.
Appendix X2 Case Study: Monitoring of Sediment Remediation Activities
References
4.5 Systematic Project Planning and Scoping Process:
4.5.1 When applying this guide, the user should undertake a 5. Components of a Generic Monitoring Program
systematic project planning and scoping process to collect
5.1 Framework Overview:
information to assist in making site-specific, user-defined
5.1.1 This section presents the six key steps recommended
decisions for a particular project, including assembling an
in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance
experienced team of project professionals. These practitioners
for developing various types of monitoring plans (2); this
should have the appropriate expertise to scope, plan, and
process (as applied to sediment sites) is used in sediment-
execute a sediment monitoring program. This team may
specific guidance prepared by USEPA (3). The steps in this
include, but is not limited to, project sponsors, environmental
process are:
consultants, toxicologists, site remediation professionals, ana-
5.1.1.1 Step 1—Identify Monitoring Plan Objectives
lytical chemists, geochemists, and statisticians.
5.1.1.2 Step 2—Develop the Monitoring Plan Hypothesis
5.1.1.3 Step 3—Formulate Decision Making Rules
4.6 Stakeholder Engagement:
5.1.1.4 Step 4—Design the Monitoring Plan
4.6.1 The users of this guide are encouraged to engage key
5.1.1.5 Step 5—Conduct Monitoring, Analysis and Charac-
stakeholders early and often in the project planning and
terize Results
scoping process, especially regulators, project sponsors, and
5.1.1.6 Step 6—Establish the Management Decision
service providers. A concerted ongoing effort should be made
5.1.2 In the absence of any regulatory requirements or
by the user to continuously engage stakeholders as the project
guidance regarding monitoring program development in a
progresses in order to gain insight, technical support and input
jurisdiction, it is recommended that this USEPA process be
for resolving technical issues and challenges that may arise
used to develop various monitoring programs at sediment sites.
during project implementation.
5.1.3 The six-step USEPA monitoring program develop-
4.7 Other Considerations:
ment process relies heavily upon the USEPAs seven-step data
4.7.1 The over-arching process for risk-based corrective
quality objective (DQO) process (4). The DQO process defines
action a sediment sites is not covered in detail in this guide.
the type, quality and quantity of data necessary to make
Guide E3240 contains extensive information concerning that
rational monitoring decisions. Application of the DQO process
process.
leads to an optimized data collection plan for a monitoring
4.7.2 Sediment sampling and laboratory analyses is not
program.
covered in detail. Guide E3163 contain extensive information
5.1.4 A detailed discussion of the six-step USEPA monitor-
concerning sediment sampling and laboratory analysis meth-
ing program development process is provided in X1.1. The
odologies.
relationship between the six-step USEPA monitoring program
4.7.3 Developing representative background concentrations development process and the seven-step USEPA DQO process
for the sediment site is not covered in detail in this guide. is also discussed X1.1.
E3164 − 23
TABLE 1 Measurement Method Summary and References
6. Generic Considerations for Sediment Site Monitoring
Programs Type of Measurement References
Physical Measurements
6.1 Scope:
Bathymetric Survey (16)
6.1.1 At contaminated sediment sites, monitoring is con-
Sediment Geophysical Characterization (11, 13)
ducted to accomplish various goals. These may include (3):
(1) Assess compliance with remedy design and perfor-
Current Velocity (17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
mance standards (that is, remedy implementation monitoring
Hydrodynamic Characteristics (19, 22, 23)
and post-remedy performance monitoring).
(2) Assess short-term remedy performance and effective-
Sediment Settlement Plate (11)
ness in meeting sediment cleanup levels (that is, post-remedy
Sediment Trap (19, 22, 24, 25)
performance and effectiveness monitoring).
(3) Evaluate long-term remedy effectiveness in achieving
Sediments Profile Photography (11, 12, 19)
Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) and reducing risk to
Sediment Shear Stress (22)
human health and the environment (that is, a combination of
baseline and post-remedy effectiveness monitoring).
Sediment Erosion (22, 26, 27)
6.1.2 The considerations discussed in this section can be
Suspended Sediment Monitoring (22, 27)
applied to all types of monitoring programs typically associ-
Chemical Measurements
ated with sediment remedial actions.
Surface Water Samples (12, 13, 19, 28, 29,
30, 31, 32, 33, 34)
6.2 DQO Development:
6.2.1 DQOs describe the performance and acceptance crite-
Subsurface Sediment Samples Guide D4823, (6)
ria for the data collected. DQOs are established for each type
Surface Sediment Samples Guide E1391, (6, 35)
of monitoring conducted. USEPA has a systematic process for
developing DQOs (4).
Rapid Sediment Characterization Tools (15, 30)
6.2.2 The relationship between DQOs and the six-step
Seepage Meter/Flux Sampler (19, 23, 36, 37, 38,
monitoring program development process are discussed in
39)
more detail in X1.1.1.
Porewater Sampling Test Method D7363,
6.2.3 Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (5) and
(6, 31, 40, 41, 42, 43,
USEPA (3, 6) discuss applying the USEPA DQO process to
44, 45, 46, 47)
sediment monitoring programs.
Air Sampling (12)
6.3 Decision Rules:
Biological Measurements
Benthic Surveys & Community Analysis Guide E1391, (19, 48)
6.3.1 A decision rule describes how the data will be evalu-
ated and how decisions will be made. A decision rule describes
Caged Organisms (19)
what action will be taken for a given monitoring result.
Aquatic Invertebrate Samples (19)
Decision rules are often expressed as “if/then” statements.
6.3.2 Decision rules form the basis for decisions to
Fish Community or Terrestrial Wildlife Census (13, 19)
continue, modify, or stop the monitoring, or recommend taking
Vegetation Survey (13, 19)
additional corrective action.
6.3.3 Decision rules are discussed in detail in X1.1.4.
Tissue Sampling (19, 49)
6.4 Types of Sediment Monitoring Measurements:
Toxicity Testing Guide E1391, (19, 48,
6.4.1 Sediment monitoring typically includes three types of
50, 51, 52)
measurements:
6.4.1.1 Physical measurements (that is, physical properties
of sediment and surface water).
6.4.1.2 Chemical measurements (that is, chemical proper-
(FSAPs), and standard operating procedures (SOPs). Data
ties of sediment, porewater, surface water, and biota).
analysis, including appropriate statistical procedures, is used to
6.4.1.3 Biological measurements (that is, biological charac-
evaluate various aspects (such as achieving RAOs, trend
teristics of organisms and communities of organisms).
analysis of data) of remedial activities (4, 53).
6.4.2 Methods for collecting physical, chemical, and bio-
logical measurements are described in Battelle (7), EPRI (8), 6.5 Periodic Review of the Monitoring Plan:
ITRC (5), National Research Council (9), Space and Naval
6.5.1 Periodic review of the monitoring program is an
Warfare (SPAWAR) Systems Center (10), USACE (11, 12, 13), important aspect of the program. For example, at CERCLA
and USEPA (3, 14, 15). Table 1 presents common monitoring
sites USEPA performs formal reviews every 5 years. Periodic
methods and provides references to guidance documents on review facilitates a scheduled interaction with the regulator, so
how to perform various physical, chemical, and biological
decision making can be coordinated. Modifications to the
measurements. monitoring plan (such as, reduced frequency of monitoring)
6.4.3 All data collection efforts need to adhere to the DQOs, may be appropriate to optimize the monitoring plan, based on
quality assurance plans, field sampling and analysis plans the periodic review of the data collected.
E3164 − 23
7. Types of Sediment Remedial Action Monitoring 7.3 Remedy Implementation Monitoring:
Programs
7.3.1 Remedy implementation monitoring takes place dur-
ing field execution of the remedy. For more active remedies,
7.1 Stages of Monitoring:
this is sometimes referred to as “construction monitoring”.
7.1.1 Monitoring associated with sediment remediation is
7.3.2 Remedy implementation monitoring is performed to
divided into three stages: baseline, remedy implementation,
determine if design criteria (as defined in the drawings and
and post-remedy (Fig. 1).
specifications) and the permit requirements (or substantive
7.2 Baseline Monitoring:
permit requirements) were achieved during the remedy execu-
7.2.1 Baseline monitoring is performed prior to implemen-
tion.
tation of an active remedy, or prior to the commencement of a
7.3.3 Remedy implementation monitoring is discussed in
compliance monitoring program, for the purpose of obtaining
more detail in Section 9.
initial data before future data acquisition efforts. Baseline
7.4 Post-Remedy Monitoring:
monitoring determines existing conditions that can be used as
reference data for comparative purposes during remedy imple- 7.4.1 Post-remedy monitoring takes place after remedy
mentation and post-remedy monitoring.
implementation is completed. The post-remedy monitoring
7.2.2 Data collected during remedial investigation, risk period begins as soon as the remedy implementation phase has
assessment, and pre-design investigation may have different
been completed. Post-remedy monitoring includes both perfor-
DQOs than baseline monitoring and may not be adequate for mance monitoring and effectiveness monitoring.
characterizing baseline conditions. Alternatively, the DQOs for
7.4.1.1 Note that performance and effectiveness monitoring
these historical investigative activities may be the same as for
programs can have both short-term and long-term components.
baseline monitoring, but insufficient data are available to
7.4.2 Performance monitoring is conducted to determine if
characterize the baseline conditions. Finally, these historical
the remedy is performing as designed. It evaluates the perfor-
data may have been collected a long time ago and may not
mance of the remedial technology (such as, chemical isolation
represent current site conditions. Therefore, monitoring may be
for capping or natural recovery for MNR).
warranted to define baseline conditions, prior to remedy
7.4.3 Effectiveness monitoring is conducted to confirm the
implementation.
RAOs are met or that conditions are trending in the right
7.2.3 Baseline monitoring may include evaluating represen-
direction for RAOs to be met within an acceptable time frame.
tative background concentrations, which is discussed in 8.4.
7.4.4 Post-remedy monitoring is described in more detail in
7.2.3.1 Remedy implementation monitoring data are com-
Section 10. Examples of the application of the six-step moni-
pared to baseline data to evaluate if construction is modifying
toring program development process for post-remedy perfor-
baseline conditions to an unacceptable level.
mance monitoring for various sediment remedial technologies
7.2.3.2 The post-remedy effectiveness monitoring results
and post-remedy effectiveness monitoring in various environ-
are compared to the baseline conditions to evaluate if the
mental media are presented in Section 10.
completed remedy is meeting the RAOs (or is trending towards
meeting the RAOs within a reasonable time frame).
8. Baseline Monitoring Programs: General
7.2.4 Baseline monitoring is discussed in more detail in
Considerations
Section 8.
8.1 Purpose of Baseline Sampling Programs:
8.1.1 Baseline sampling is an essential component of a
monitoring program that evaluates the long-term success of a
FIG. 1 Monitoring Program Stages During Sediment Site Remedy
E3164 − 23
sediment remediation project. Sometimes, the baseline sam- data set sufficient to document conditions both before and after
pling is conducted during the site characterization or remedial remedy implementation, as well as data trends after remedy
investigation phase of a project. In other situations (such as, implementation.
under the conditions described in 7.2.2) the baseline monitor- 8.3.4 The baseline sampling effort should reflect the size,
complexity, and overall scope of the sediment remediation
ing program is conducted just before remedy implementation.
project.
8.1.2 Once the RAOs for the site are defined, a baseline
8.3.5 Samples should be collected from all relevant media,
sampling program may be developed to ensure appropriate data
for all relevant contaminants. This will vary by site. The
are collected to meet long-term monitoring objectives. Appen-
sampled media should be consistent with the conceptual site
dix X2 provides a simplistic case study example demonstrating
model and the findings from the risk assessments (both human
how a baseline monitoring program can be designed and
health and ecological).
executed.
8.3.5.1 The baseline sampling program need not (and usu-
8.2 Importance of Baseline Data:
ally does not) monitor all parameters that data was collected for
8.2.1 The data collected during the baseline sampling pro-
in the site investigation phase of the sediment site corrective
gram need to be sufficient (in quality and quantity) to allow action program.
comparison to post-remedy monitoring data to determine if the
8.4 Determination of Representative Sediment Background
remedy was a success, whether the RAOs will be met within an
Concentrations for the Sediment Site:
acceptable timeframe and if additional adaptive management
8.4.1 Establishing representative background concentra-
actions are warranted. To facilitate this comparison, baseline
tions in sediments by sampling a background reference area (or
data need to reflect the variability, uncertainty, and complexity
areas) provides a local or regional baseline against which to
of the system being remediated. The baseline data should be
compare data from a contaminated sediment site (Guide
consistent with the conceptual site model (CSM examples are
E3382). Typically, the background reference area(s) is identi-
provided in Guide E3240) and risk assessment findings,
fied during the remedial investigation phase. The background
including documentation of media concentrations (such as,
reference area(s) selected for developing background concen-
sediment, surface water, porewater and biota) and other mea-
trations should be as similar as possible in the physical,
sures of environmental quality (such as, ecotoxicity, habitat
chemical, geological, biological, and land use characteristics as
structure and function) that will be affected by the site remedy.
the site being investigated, but not affected by current or
Insufficient baseline sampling data may limit the ability of
historical site-related activities or releases (Guide E3344, 53).
decision makers to determine if post-remedy issues (such as,
Further guidance on the selection of background references
no decline in biota tissue COC concentrations) are due to the
areas is provided in Guide E3344.
failure of the remedy or have been caused by other factors.
8.4.2 Once data has been collected from the background
references areas, the process outlined in Guide E3242 can be
8.3 When to Collect Baseline Data:
used to develop representative background concentrations for
8.3.1 Baseline data are collected prior to implementing the
sediment site COCs.
remedial action. The baseline data collection parameters rep-
8.4.3 Once established, representative background concen-
resent the information needed to determine the effectiveness of
trations may be applied as cleanup levels at sites where these
the remedy to meet RAOs. The following items should be
concentrations are greater than risk-based cleanup levels,
considered when collecting a baseline data set:
thereby setting the scope and scale of the sediment site
8.3.1.1 The baseline sampling program should be site-
corrective actions. “The reasons for this approach include
specific and augment recently collected data.
cost-effectiveness, technical practicability, and the potential for
8.3.1.2 Sufficient data need to be collected to document
recontamination of remediated areas by surrounding areas with
spatial variations in conditions, or temporal trends, or both.
elevated background concentrations” (53).
8.3.1.3 Baseline sampling programs need to be statistically
8.5 Selection of Sampling Media:
designed and sufficiently rigorous.
8.5.1 The baseline sampling program should include all
8.3.1.4 Data need to be developed to support the evaluation
relevant environmental media and measures of environmental
of the remedial endpoints that risk managers establish.
quality that will be affected by the remedy and are related to the
8.3.2 Data should be related to the human health (such as,
risks that are being mitigated by the remedial actions. The
safe consumption levels of fish and crab) and ecological risk
specific media that are sampled are selected on a site-specific
assessments (such as, biota tissue concentrations, ecotoxicity,
basis.
measures of community structure and function), where risk
8.5.1.1 The media included in the baseline sampling pro-
drivers are the basis for a proposed remedy, as described in the
gram may change as the remedial, feasibility and pre-design
risk-based corrective action approach.
investigation progress. These changes should focus on limiting
the baseline sampling program to the scope that is necessary to
8.3.3 Data collected during the remedial investigation, fea-
sibility and pre-design phases of the sediment site corrective support relevant risk management decisions and not include
monitoring components that are superfluous to making those
action may be sufficient to establish the baseline (subject to the
conditions outlined in 7.2.2). Otherwise, additional baseline decisions.
data should be collected following the selection of the remedy 8.5.1.2 Specific environmental media that should be consid-
(but before remedy implementation) to focus on establishing a ered for sampling include surface sediment, subsurface
E3164 − 23
sediment, native material, porewater, surface water, groundwa- obtained that the data sets provide the statistical power to
ter and biota tissue concentrations. identify meaningful differences in the two data sets.
Alternatively, analysis might be performed to confirm a trend
8.5.1.3 Data may include information on physical factors
in the post-remedy data (such as, that COC concentrations in
(such as, net sedimentation rates, sediment stability, and grain
surface sediments are decreasing in a MNR program and are
size) that support assessing the validity of model predictions,
predicted to meet the RAOs in a reasonable time frame).
as well as trends toward RAOs for monitored natural recovery
(MNR) and other remedial alternatives. Baseline data to
9. Remedy Implementation Monitoring Programs:
support the evaluation that RAOs have been achieved may
include bioavailability (via porewater COC concentrations), General Considerations
sediment COC concentrations, surface water COC concentra-
9.1 Purpose of Remedy Implementation Monitoring Pro-
tions, benthic community structure, benthic toxicity, fish com-
grams:
munity assessment, and fish tissue COC concentrations. In
9.1.1 Remedy implementation monitoring (also commonly
cases where the remedy will impact sensitive habitats, mea-
referred to as construction monitoring for active remedies)
sures of community structure, diversity and function should
takes place during remedy execution and immediately follow-
generally be obtained during baseline sampling as a basis of
ing remedy completion, to determine if the established short-
comparison for post-remedy evaluation of restored habitats.
term remedy design objectives have been adequately achieved.
In remedy implementation monitoring programs the measures
8.6 Chemical Sampling and Analysis:
of success can be identified in terms of both remedy perfor-
8.6.1 Where COC concentrations in one medium are linked
mance (are design criteria being met) and compliance (are
to one or more other media, it is usually important to include
regulatory criteria met during the remedy implementation
all relevant media in the baseline sampling program plan. For
phase of the corrective action).
example, where crab tissue COC concentrations are identified
9.1.1.1 Depending upon the scope of the project and the
as the primary exposure pathway in the risk assessments, it
remediation technology utilized, remedy implementation
may be important to continue to monitor surface sediment and
monitoring activities can take many different forms and typi-
surface water concentrations, to evaluate if these media are
cally will include multiple matrices. A well-developed sam-
sources of the COCs that are having a significant effect on
pling plan is vital to obtaining the best remedy implementation
tissue concentrations.
monitoring data possible; data that will ultimately be used to
8.6.1.1 In cases where biota tissue COC concentrations
make critical decisions during the remedy implementation
exceed risk-based criteria (as identified in the human health
phase.
and ecological risk assessments) and the organism spends a
9.1.1.2 Data interpretation and decision making needs to be
large portion of its lifetime in contaminated areas outside the
documented in the development of the monitoring plan. Ap-
sediment site boundaries, it is unlikely that the remedial action
pendix X2 provides a simplistic case study example demon-
taking place at the sediment site will result in tissue COC
strating how a remedy implementation monitoring program can
concentrations being reduced to the point where they meet the
be designed and executed.
risk-based criteria.
9.2 Design of Remedy Implementation Monitoring Pro-
8.7 Sampling Frequency:
grams:
8.7.1 Frequency of sampling should consider daily,
9.2.1 The scope of the remedy implementation monitoring
seasonal, and long-term (that is, multi-year) variability that are
program should be identified and described in the associated
related to site conditions (such as, tidal flow and seasonal flow
remedy design documents. These documents should also
regimes). For certain parameters, both wet weather and dry
clearly articulate the goals of any such monitoring, along with
weather conditions may need to be evaluated. For some biota
related implementation methods. Sections 5, 6 and X1.1
(such as certain fish species), natural spatial (such as, the range
provide further guidance regarding the pertinent planning and
of the organism) and temporal (such as, migration patterns of
implementation for such sampling/monitoring operations.
the organism) variability may need to be established and
9.2.2 Remedy implementation monitoring activities typi-
separated from trends associated with implementation of the
cally take place at multiple points in time during project
remedy when analyzing the data.
execution, which should be specified in the related work plans.
8.8 Selection of Sampling Locations:
Since remedy implementation monitoring will be conducted
8.8.1 Sampling locations for the collection of baseline data
during performance of the remedy (or immediately following
should be developed on a site-specific basis. In addition,
this), it is important to understand how remedy-related activi-
sampling locations should consider the conceptual site model,
ties could impact sampling (and vice versa) when planning the
exposure pathways, system dynamics, and the proposed rem-
monitoring program. This is important, not only from a data
edy. Sampling procedures, such as compositing samples, may
quality standpoint, but also to ensure the field work can be
be considered to better represent exposure concentrations. completed safely.
8.8.2 The number of sampling locations is often determined 9.2.2.1 Sampling plans should build in the proper flexibility,
using statistical tools such as power analysis (3, 54, 55). Often so that field adjustments can be made as needed during remedy
data collected at a point in time after remedy implementation is implementation activities. This could include sampling fre-
compared to the baseline monitoring data set using statistical quency and locations, as well as the various parameters
tests or trend analysis. Thus, enough data points must be monitored. Because remedy execution is inherently
E3164 − 23
unpredictable, flexibility and contingency planning in terms of further, this residual layer can play an important part in
sampling is a key consideration in any remedy implementation determining whether dredging operations can be considered
monitoring plan. complete.
9.3.3 Once deemed acceptable per the specifications, the
9.2.3 Flexibility may also be needed in terms of scope. For
dredged area is often covered with clean backfill, including
example, the exceedance of permit criteria could force addi-
aggregate or armoring materials. These materials can serve to
tional sampling for that media. Likewise, it may also be
not only bring the final surface to a desired elevation and act as
possible to reduce sampling frequency or the number of
an isolation layer for dredging residuals, but they can also
sampling locations, when monitoring results consistently meet
provide erosion protection. In some cases, the installation of
decision rules. These “if/then” decision rules need to be
engineered caps have been used
...

This document is not an ASTM standard and is intended only to provide the user of an ASTM standard an indication of what changes have been made to the previous version. Because
it may not be technically possible to adequately depict all changes accurately, ASTM recommends that users consult prior editions as appropriate. In all cases only the current version
of the standard as published by ASTM is to be considered the official document.
Designation: E3164 − 18 E3164 − 23
Standard Guide for
Contaminated Sediment Site Risk-Based Corrective Action –
MonitoringBaseline, Remedy Implementation and Post-
Remedy Monitoring Programs
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E3164; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope
1.1 This guide pertains to corrective action monitoring before (baseline monitoring), during (remedy implementation monitoring)
and after (post-remedy monitoring) sediment remedial activities. It does not address monitoring performed during remedial
investigations, pre-remedial risk assessments, and pre-design investigations.
1.2 This guide pertains to corrective action monitoring before, during and after sediment remediation activities. It does not address
monitoring performed during remedial investigations, risk assessments performed before the corrective action, and pre-design
investigations. This standard primarily focuses on the approach for remedial actions performed under the Sediment monitoring
programs (baseline, remedy implementation and post-remedy) are typically used in contaminated sediment corrective actions
performed under various regulatory programs, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA). Thus,Although many of the references cited are CERCLA oriented. The standard is also applicable to
remedialin this guide are CERCLA-oriented, the guide is applicable to corrective actions performed under state, federal and
international cleanup programs, but the standard does not describe requirements local, state, tribal, federal, and international
corrective action programs. However, this guide does not provide a detailed description of the monitoring program requirements
or existing guidance for each jurisdiction. The requirements for the regulatory entity under which the cleanup is performed should
be reviewed to confirm they are met.This guide is intended to inform, complement, and support but not supersede the guidelines
established by local, state, tribal, federal, or international agencies.
1.3 This guide provides a framework, which includes widely accepted considerations and best practices for monitoring sediment
remedy effectiveness. The monitoring sediment standard guide is intended to complement and support the selection of monitoring
techniques, not supersede local, state, federal or international community regulations.efficacy.
1.4 This guide is related to several other guides. Guide E3240 provides an overview of the sediment risk-based corrective action
(RBCA) process, including the role of risk assessment and representative background. Guide E3163 discusses appropriate
laboratory methodologies to use for the chemical analysis of potential contaminants of concern (PCOCs) in various media (such
as, sediment, porewater, surface water and biota tissue) taken during sediment monitoring programs; it also discusses biological
testing and community assessment. Guide E3382 describes the overall framework to determine representative background
concentrations (including Conceptual Site Model [CSM] considerations) for a contaminated sediment site; Guides E3344
(methodologies for selecting representative background reference areas) and E3242 (statistical and chemical methodologies used
in developing representative background concentrations for a sediment site) complement Guide E3382.
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E50 on Environmental Assessment, Risk Management and Corrective Action and is the direct responsibility
of Subcommittee E50.04 on Corrective Action. Current edition approved May 1, 2018Aug. 1, 2023. Published August 2018September 2023. Originally approved in 2018,
Last previous edition approved in 2018 as E3164–18. DOI: 10.1520/E3164–18.10.1520/E3164–23.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E3164 − 23
1.5 Units—The values stated in SI or CGS units are to be regarded as the standard. No other units of measurement are included
in this standard.
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility
of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of
regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization
established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued
by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTM Standards:
D75 Practice for Sampling Aggregates
D4823 Guide for Core Sampling Submerged, Unconsolidated Sediments
D7363 Test Method for Determination of Parent and Alkyl Polycyclic Aromatics in Sediment Pore Water Using Solid-Phase
Microextraction and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry in Selected Ion Monitoring Mode
E1391 Guide for Collection, Storage, Characterization, and Manipulation of Sediments for Toxicological Testing and for
Selection of Samplers Used to Collect Benthic Invertebrates
E2616E3163 Guide for Remedy Selection Integrating Risk-Based Corrective Action and Non-Risk ConsiderationsSelection and
Application of Analytical Methods and Procedures Used during Sediment Corrective Action
E3240 Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action for Contaminated Sediment Sites
E3242 Guide for Determination of Representative Sediment Background Concentrations
E3344 Guide for Selection of Background Reference Areas for Determination of Representative Sediment Background
Concentrations
E3382 Guide for Developing Representative Background Concentrations at Sediment Sites — Framework Overview, Including
Conceptual Site Model Considerations
2.2 Referenced Documents:
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, Framework for Long-Term Monitoring of Hazardous
Substances at Sediment Sites, Sediments Group, January 2009
Bridges, T. S., K. E. Gustavson, P.R. Schroeder, S. J. Ells, D. Hayes, S. Nadeau, M. R. Palermo, and C. Patmont, “Dredging
Processes and Remedy Effectiveness: Relationship to the 4 Rs of Environmental Dredging,” Integrated Environmental
Assessment and Management, Vol 6, No. 4, October 2010, pp. 619–630
Burgess, R. M., S. B. Kane Driscoll, A. Burton, P. M. Gschwend, U. Ghosh, D. Reible, S. Ahn, and T. Thompson, Laboratory,
Field, and Analytical Procedures for Using Passive Sampling in the Evaluation of Contaminated Sediments: User’s Manual,
EPA/600/R-16/357, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., February 2017
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Sediment Capping Resource Guide for Manufactured Gas Plant Sites, EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA, November 2008
Magar, V. S., D. B. Chadwick, P. C. Fuchsman, J. M. Conder, T. J. Dekker, J. A. Steevens, K. E. Gustavson, and M. A.
Mills, Technical Guide, Monitored Natural Resource at Contaminated Sediment Sites, ESTCP Project ER-0622, Environ-
mental Security Technology Certification Program, Alexandria, VA, May 2009
Gustavson, K. E., and M. Greenberg, Chapter 14, Monitoring Remedial Effectiveness, In: Reible, D.D. (ed.), Processes,
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments, Springer Science + Business Media, New York, NY, 2014
Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC), Contaminated Sediments Remediation: Remedy Selection for Contami-
nated Sediments, Guidance Document, ITRC, Washington, D.C., August 2014
National Research Council, Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites: Assessing Effectiveness, National Academies Press,
Washington, D.C., 2007
National Research Council, Environmental Cleanup at Navy Facilities: Adaptive Site Management, National Academies Press,
Washington, D.C., 2003
Palermo, M.R. T. Fredette, and R.E. Randall, “Dredging Research Technical Notes: Monitoring Considerations for Capping,”
DRP-5-07, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, June 1992
Patmont, C. R., U. Ghosh, P. LaRosa, C. A. Menzie, R. G. Luthy, M. S. Greenberg, G. Cornelissen, E. Eek, J. Collins, J. Hull,
T. Hjartland, E. Glaza, J. Bleiler, J. Quadrini, “In situ sediment treatment using activated carbon: A demonstrated sediment
cleanup technology,” Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, Vol. 11, Issue 2, January 6, 2015, pp. 195-207
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or contact ASTM Customer Service at [e-mail]. For Annual Book of ASTM Standards
volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on the ASTM website.
E3164 − 23
U.S. Navy Space and Naval Warfare (SPAWAR) Systems Center, Interactive sediment remedy assessment portal. (2010).
Available at https://frtr.gov/pdf/meetings/jun08/kirtay_presentation.pdf.
U.S. Navy Space and Naval Warfare (SPAWAR) Systems Center and Battelle, Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Implementation Guide for Assessing and Managing Contaminated Sediment at Navy Facilities, U.S. Navy SPAWAR Systems
Center, San Diego, CA, 2003
U.S. Navy Space and Naval Warfare (SPAWAR) Systems Center Pacific and ENVIRON International Corporation, Long-Term
Monitoring Strategies for Contaminated Sediment Management, February 2010
2.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Palermo, M. R., J. E. Clausner, M. P. Rollings, G. L. Williams, T. E. Myers, T. J. Fredette, R. E. Randall, Guidance for
Subaqueous Dredged Material Capping, Technical Report DOER-1, Dredging Operations and Environmental Research
Program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., June 1998
Palermo, R., P. R. Schroeder, T. J. Estes, and N. R. Francingues, Technical Guidelines for Environmental Dredging of
Contaminated Sediments, ERDC/EL TR-08-29, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS, September 2008
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering and Design: Dredging and Dredged Material Management, Manual No.
1110-2-5025, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., July 2015
2.4 U.S Environmental Protection Agency:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under
CERCLA, EPA/540/G-89/004, OSWER Directive 9355.3-01, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington,
D.C., October 1988
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RCRA Corrective Action Plan (Final), OSWER Directive 9902.3-2A, Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement, Office of Solid Waste, May 1994
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data
Review, EPA540/R-99/008, OSWER 9240.1-05A-P, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.,
October 1999
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: Practical Methods for Data Analysis, EPA
QA/G-9, QA00 Update, EPA/600/R-96/084, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, D.C., July 2000
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/R-5, EPA/240/B-01/
003, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, D.C., March 2001a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, EPA 540/R-01/007, Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C., June 2001b
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Methods for Collection, Storage and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical and
Toxicological Analyses: Technical Manual, EPA-823-B-01-002, Office of Water, Washington, D.C., October 2001c
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA Analytical Operations/Data Quality Center (AOC): National Functional
Guidelines for Chlorinated Dioxin/Furan Data Review, Final, EPA 540-R-02-003, OSWER 9240.1-37, Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C., August 2002a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance for Comparing Background and Chemical Concentrations in Soil for
CERCLA Sites, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA 540-R-01-003, OSWER 9285.7- 41, September 2002b
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Handbook: A Compendium of Chemical, Physical and Biological Methods for Assessing
and Monitoring the Remediation of Contaminated Sediment Sites, Battelle Memorial Institute, Duxbury, MA, February 2003a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Five-Year Review Process in the Superfund program,” Fact Sheet, EPA 540-F-02-004,
OSWER 9355.7-08FS, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington D.C., April 2003b
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance for Monitoring at Hazardous Waste Sites: Framework for Monitoring Plan
Development and Implementation, OSWER Directive No. 9355.4-28, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation, Washington, D.C., January 2004a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Guidelines for the OSRTI Review of Consideration Memos on Tier 1 Sediment Sites,”
USEPA OSRTI Sediment Team and Contaminated Sediment Technical Advisory Group, March 1, 2004b
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data
Review, EPA 540-R-04-004, OSWER 9240.1-45, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Washington,
D.C., October 2004c
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Measurement and Monitoring Technologies for the 21st Century,” Fact Sheet, USEPA
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, April 2005a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites, EPA-540-
R-05-012, OSWER 9355.0-85, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C., December 2005b
Available from United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460,
http://www.epa.gov.
The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end of this standard.
E3164 − 23
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA
QA/G-4, EPA/240/B-06/001, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, D.C., February 2006
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Sediment Assessment and Monitoring Sheet (SAMS) #1: Using Fish Tissue Data to
Monitor Remedy Effectiveness,” OSWER Directive 9200.1-77D, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation and Office of Research and Development, July 2008
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Operating Procedure: Sediment Sampling, SESDPROC-200-R3,” USEPA Region 4,
Science and Ecosystem Support Division, Athens, GA, August 2014a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Resource Document on Monitored Natural Recovery, EPA/600/R-14/083,
Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, April 2014b
3. Terminology
3.1 Definitions:
3.1.1 adaptive management, n—a structured, iterative process of robust decision making in the face of uncertainty, with the goal
of ensuring effectiveness during remedial action. E3240
3.1.2 anthropogenic background, n—human-made substances present in the environment due to human activities, not specifically
related to current or historical site-related releases or activities. E3344
3.1.3 background (aka “reference”), n—substances, conditions, or locations that are not influenced by releases from a sediment
site; these are usually a combination of naturally occurring (consistently present in the environment but not influenced by human
activity) and anthropogenic (influenced by human activity but not related to specific current or historical activities or releases at
the sediment site) components. E3382
3.1.4 bioavailability, n—the degree to which a contaminant is free to be taken up by an organism. E3240
3.1.5 cleanup level, n—the prescribed average or point sediment concentration of a chemical that shall not be exceeded at the
remediated site. E3242
3.1.6 conceptual site model, n—the integrated representation of the physical and environmental context, the complete and
potentially complete exposure pathways, and the potential fate and transport of potential contaminants of concern at a site. E3242
3.1.6.1 Discussion—
The CSM should include both the current understanding of the site and an understanding of the potential future conditions and uses
for the site. It provides a method to conduct the exposure pathway evaluation; inventory the exposure pathways evaluated; and
determine the status of the exposure pathways as incomplete, potentially complete, or complete.
3.1.7 contaminant of concern (COC), n—substances identified as posing a risk based on a tiered risk assessment and that warrant
corrective action. E3382
3.1.7.1 Discussion—
Typically, all PCOCs identified for a sediment site are evaluated in the risk assessment process. PCOCs that have sediment
concentrations greater than risk-based thresholds identified in the risk assessment process are defined as COCs. Thus, the COCs
identified for a sediment site are a subset of the PCOCs identified for that site.
3.1.8 corrective action, n—the sequence of actions that may include site assessment and investigation, risk assessment, evaluations
of potential remedial action alternatives, interim remedial action, remedial action, operation and maintenance of the remedy,
monitoring of progress, making “No Further Action” determinations, and completion of the remedial action. E3240
3.1.9 data quality objectives (DQOs), n—the systematic process to develop performance and acceptability criteria by defining
study objectives and the type, quality, and quantity of data needed for site decisions. E3240
3.1.10 natural background, n—naturally occurring substances present in the environment in forms (and at concentrations) that
have not been influenced by human activity. E3344
3.1.11 potential contaminant of concern (PCOC), n—a contaminant whose sediment concentrations at the site may exceed
applicable screening levels; this includes chemicals of potential environmental concern (COPECs) and chemicals of potential
concern (COPCs). E3242
E3164 − 23
3.1.12 remedial action, n—activities conducted to reduce or eliminate current or potential future exposures to receptors or relevant
ecological receptors and habitats. E3240
3.1.12.1 Discussion—
These activities include monitoring, implementing activity and use limitations and designing and operating cleanup equipment.
Remedial action includes activities that are conducted to reduce sources of exposure to meet RAOs, or sever exposure pathways
to meet RAOs.
3.1.13 remedial action objectives (RAO), n—stated objectives that describe what the remedial action for a site is expected to
accomplish, based on the CSM and the exposure pathways that may pose an unacceptable risk as determined in a risk assessment;
RAOs are specific and achievable goals for reducing risk to human health and the environment. E3240
3.1.14 representative background concentrations, n—chemical concentrations that are inclusive of naturally occurring sources and
anthropogenic sources similar to those present at a sediment site but not related to current or historical site releases or activities.
E3382
3.1.15 sediment(s), n—a matrix of porewater and particles including gravel, sand, silt, clay, and other natural and anthropogenic
substances that have settled at the bottom of a tidal or nontidal body of water. E3163
3.1.16 sediment site, n—the area(s) defined by the likely physical distribution of COC(s) from a source area and the adjacent areas
required to implement the corrective action. A site could be an entire water body or a defined portion of a water body. E3240
3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
3.1.1 adaptive management, n—a structured, iterative process of robust decision-making uncertainty, with an aim to reducing
uncertainty over time via monitoring.
3.2.1 backfill, n—clean materials placed directly on the post-dredge surface to provide cover and/oror bring the post-dredging
surface to a targeted elevation. (Also elevation, or both (also see, cover material.material)).
3.1.3 background conditions (aka reference conditions), n—substances, conditions, or locations that are not influenced by releases
from a site; are usually naturally occurring (consistently present in the environment, but not influenced by human activity) or
anthropogenic (influenced by human activity, but not related to specific activities at the site).
3.2.2 baseline monitoring, n—abiotic and biotic monitoring to establish ambient concentrations physical characteristics of the
sediment site (such as, sediment mudline elevations), chemical characteristics (such as, COC concentrations in various media) and
biological characteristics (such as, sediment toxicity to select organisms) prior to the commencement of remediation.remedy
implementation.
3.2.3 benthic community, n—assemblage of aquatic invertebrates that live/residereside in the sediments.
3.1.6 bioavailability, n—the relationship between external (or applied) dose and internal (or resulting) dose of the chemical(s)
being considered for an effect (NRC 2003).
3.2.4 biologically active zone (aka biotic zone), (BAZ), n—the zone of greatest organism-substrate interaction (Determination of
the Biologically Relevant Sampling Depth for Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecological Risk Assessments, Ecological Risk Assessment
Support Center [EPA], October 2015).organism-sediment interaction.
3.2.4.1 Discussion—
Typically, at a sediment site the BAZ is the top 10–15 centimeters (cm) of surficial sediment below the sediment – surface water
interface. The BAZ is site-specific and in some cases can be deeper than 15 cm.
3.2.5 biota, n—the flora and fauna living in a habitat (Glossary (1of ).BioassessmentTerms, Wetland Bioassessment Fact Sheet
10 [EPA843-F-98-001e], Office of Water [EPA], July 1998)
3.2.6 capping, n—the process of placing a material over contaminated sediments to mitigate risk posed by those sediments.
E3164 − 23
3.1.10 conceptual site model, n—the integrated representation of the physical and environmental context, the complete and
potentially complete exposure pathways and the potential fate and transport of chemicals(s) of concern at a site. The site conceptual
model should include both the current understanding of the site and the understanding of the potential future conditions and uses
for the site. It provides a method to conduct the exposure pathway evaluation, inventory the exposure pathways evaluated, and
determine the status of the exposure pathways as incomplete, potentially complete, or complete. (ASTM E50.04, E2616)
3.1.11 corrective action objectives (CAOs), n—describes what the corrective action is expected to accomplish, based on the
conceptual site model and the exposure pathways that pose an unacceptable risk as determined in a risk assessment. CAOs are
specific and achievable goals for reducing risk to human health and the environment.
3.2.7 cover material, n—alternative term for “backfill”.
3.2.8 effectiveness monitoring, n—component of a post-remedy monitoring program to confirm the RAOs are being met or are
trending towards being met in an acceptable time frame.
3.2.9 environmental dredging, n—the removal of contaminated sediment to reduce risks to human health and the environment.at
a sediment site; typically during the remedy implementation stage of the corrective action.
3.2.10 enhanced monitored natural recovery (EMNR), n—a remediation practice that applies clean material or amendments to the
sediment surface to accelerate natural recovery processes.
3.1.15 data quality objectives (DQOs), n—the monitoring goals for collecting data. DQOs include the performance and acceptance
criteria that define whether data meet the monitoring goals.
3.2.11 fish community, n—an assemblage or association of populations of two or more fish species occupying the same
geographical area (for example,(such as, stream reach) during a particular time.time frame.
3.1.17 freely dissolved contaminants, n—the concentration of the chemical that is dissipated in water and bioavailable to biota,
excluding the portion sorbed onto particulate and dissolved organic carbon (kg of chemical/L of water).
3.1.18 groundwater-surface water transport, n—process by which surface water readily exchanges with groundwater through the
subsurface volume of sediment and porous space.
3.2.12 in situ treatment, n—application of amendment materials to the sediment intended to mix sediment, so they may be mixed
(either naturally or mechanically) into the sediments and reduce the bioavailable fraction of contaminationcontaminants in
porewater.
3.2.13 in situ solidification, n—a remediation approach that mixes solidification agents (for example,(such as Portland cement)
into impacted sediments that are intended sediments; the intended result is to reduce sediment permeability and the mobility of
contaminationcontaminants within the bulk sediment.
3.2.14 monitoring, n—the collection and analysis of repeated observations or measurements to evaluate changes in condition and
progress towards meeting documented program objectives.
3.2.14.1 Discussion—
Monitoring is the collection of data (that is physical, chemical, biological) over a sufficient period of time and frequency, so that
data analysis can determine trends in one or more environmental parameters or characteristics and compare their status to remedy
objectives.
3.2.15 monitored natural recovery (MNR), n—a remediation practice that relies on natural processes (such as, sequestration and
biodegradation) to protect the environment and receptors from unacceptable exposures to contaminants.
3.2.16 post remedy monitoring, (aka long-term monitoring), performance monitoring, n—monitoring to determine whether
contaminants of potential environmental concern (COPECs) concentrations in affected media met CAOs, or continue to decrease
E3164 − 23
and are expected to meet CAOs in an acceptable time frame.component of a post-remedy monitoring program conducted to
determine if the remedy is performing as designed.
3.1.22.1 performance monitoring, n—post remedy monitoring conducted to determine if the remedy is performing as designed.
It evaluates the remedial technology.
3.1.22.2 effectiveness monitoring, n—post remedy monitoring to confirm the CAOs are met.
3.2.17 post-remedy monitoring, n—programs that typically include performance monitoring (to demonstrate the remedy is
performing as designed) and effectiveness monitoring (to determine whether COC concentrations in affected media met RAOs, or
are expected to meet RAOs in an acceptable time frame).
3.2.17.1 Discussion—
A post-remedy monitoring program may have both short-term and long-term performance and effectiveness monitoring goals (such
as, meeting RAOs).
3.2.18 porewater, n—water located in the interstitial voids (between solid-phase particles) of bulk sediments.
3.2.19 remedial investigation, n—the contaminated site investigation performed prior to remedial alternative selection to
determine if the nature and extent of contamination is at unacceptable levels and warrants any potential remedial action.
3.2.20 remedy implementation monitoring, (aka construction monitoring), n—monitoring of conditions during remediation
remedy execution to determine if design criteria have been achieved. achieved and if regulatory requirements have been met.
3.2.20.1 Discussion—
If an active remedy has been chosen, this is often referred to as “construction monitoring”. In many cases, there will be permit
requirements during the implementation of the remedy and monitoring may be required to ensure compliance with these
requirements.
3.1.26 representative background concentrations, n—a chemical concentration that is inclusive of naturally occurring sources and
anthropogenic sources similar to those present at a site, but not related to site releases and site-related activities.
3.2.21 residuals, n—untreated contamination that remains in the surface sediment after dredging sediment.the completion of
sediment dredging operations.
3.1.28 sediment(s), n—a matrix of pore water and particles including gravel, sand, silt, clay and other natural and anthropogenic
substances that have settled at the bottom of a tidal or non-tidal body of water.
4. Significance and Use
NOTE 1—This standard should be used in conjunction with other reference material to guide the user in developing and implementing sediment corrective
action monitoring programs.
4.1 Activities described in this guide should be conducted by persons familiar with current sediment site characterization and
remediation techniques.
4.1 This guide may be used by various parties involved in sediment corrective action programs, including regulatory agencies,
project sponsors, environmental consultants, toxicologists, risk assessors, site remediation professionals, environmental
contractors, analytical testing laboratories, data validators, data reviewers and users, and other stakeholders, which may include,
but are not limited to, owners, buyers, developers, lenders, insurers, government agencies, and community members and
groups.Intended Users:
4.1.1 This guide may be used by various parties involved in sediment corrective action programs, including regulatory agencies,
project sponsors, environmental consultants, toxicologists, risk assessors, site remediation professionals, environmental
contractors, and other stakeholders.
4.2 This guide is not intended to supplant applicable regulations. Instead this guide may be used to complement and support such
regulatory requirements.Reference Material:
E3164 − 23
4.2.1 This guide should be used in conjunction with other ASTM guides listed in 2.1 (especially Guides E3163, E3240, E3242,
E3344 and E3382), as well as the material in the References section.
4.4 This guide provides a decision framework based on over-arching features and elements that should be customized by the user
based on site-specific conditions, regulatory context, and sediment corrective action objectives. This guide should not be used alone
as a prescriptive checklist.
4.3 This guide provides a systematic, but flexible decision framework to accommodate variations in approaches by regulatory
agency and by the user based on project objectives, site complexity, unique site features, regulatory requirements, newly developed
guidance, newly published scientific research, changes in regulatory criteria, advances in scientific knowledge and technical
capability, and unforeseen circumstances.Flexible Site-Specific Implementation:
4.3.1 This guide provides a systematic but flexible framework to accommodate variations in approaches by regulatory agencies
and by the user based on project objectives, site complexity, unique site features, regulatory requirements, newly developed
guidance, newly published scientific research, changes in regulatory criteria, advances in scientific knowledge and technical
capability, and unforeseen circumstances.
4.3.1.1 This guide provides a monitoring plan development, execution and analysis framework based on over-arching features and
elements that should be customized by the user based on site-specific conditions, regulatory context, and sediment corrective action
objectives.
4.3.1.2 Implementation of the guide is site-specific. The user may choose to customize the implementation of the guide for a
particular site, especially smaller, less complex sites.
4.3.1.3 This guide should not be used alone as a prescriptive checklist.
4.3.2 The users of this guide are encouraged to update and refine (when needed) the conceptual site model, Project Work Plans
and Project Reports used to describe the physical properties, chemical composition and occurrence, biologic features, and
environmental conditions of the sediment corrective action project.
4.4 Implementation of the guide is site-specific. The user may choose to customize the implementation of the guide for particular
types of sites, especially smaller, less complex sites.Regulatory Frameworks:
4.4.1 This guide is intended to be applicable to a broad range of local, state, tribal, federal, or international jurisdictions, each with
its own unique regulatory framework. As such, this guide does not provide a detailed discussion of the requirements or guidance
associated with any of these regulatory frameworks, nor is it intended to supersede applicable regulations and guidance. The user
of this guide will need to be aware of (and comply with) the regulatory requirements and guidance in the jurisdiction where the
work is being performed.
4.5 When applying this guide, the user should undertake a systematic project planning and scoping process to collect information
to assist in making site-specific, user-defined decisions for a particular project. Planning activities should include the following
factors: (a) Assemble an experienced team of project professionals; (b) Identify the applicable regulatory program(s); (c) Engage
stakeholders early and often in the planning process; (d) Define, agree on, and document clearly stated project objectives and
intended outcomes;
(e) Recognize that sediment programs are complex, uncertainty is high, that an appropriate project-specific approach may be
developed with the investment of time and effort, and that compromise and uncertainty are inherent in the process;
(f) Compile existing site data; and (g) Establish a plan for documenting and reporting key decisions and results. These project
planning and scoping activities should be carried forward as the project progresses.Systematic Project Planning and Scoping
Process:
4.5.1 When applying this guide, the user should undertake a systematic project planning and scoping process to collect information
to assist in making site-specific, user-defined decisions for a particular project, including assembling an experienced team of project
professionals. These practitioners should have the appropriate expertise to scope, plan, and execute a sediment monitoring
program. This team may include, but is not limited to, project sponsors, environmental consultants, toxicologists, site remediation
professionals, analytical chemists, geochemists, and statisticians.
E3164 − 23
4.8 The users of this guide should consider assembling a team of experienced project professionals with appropriate expertise to
scope, plan and execute a sediment data acquisition program. The team may include: regulatory agencies, project sponsors,
environmental consultants, toxicologists, risk assessors, site remediation professionals, environmental contractors, analytical
testing laboratories, and data reviewers, data validators, data users, and other stakeholders.
4.6 The users of this guide are encouraged to engage key stakeholders early and often in the project planning and scoping process,
especially regulators, project sponsors, and service providers. A concerted ongoing effort should be made by the user to
continuously engage stakeholders as the project progresses in order to gain insight, technical support and input for resolving
technical issues and challenges that may arise during project implementation.Stakeholder Engagement:
4.6.1 The users of this guide are encouraged to engage key stakeholders early and often in the project planning and scoping
process, especially regulators, project sponsors, and service providers. A concerted ongoing effort should be made by the user to
continuously engage stakeholders as the project progresses in order to gain insight, technical support and input for resolving
technical issues and challenges that may arise during project implementation.
4.7 The users of this guide should establish a plan for documenting and reporting the results of the project planning process,
including: key challenges, options considered, decisions taken, analytical approach details, data acquisition results, and project
outcomes relative to project objectives.Other Considerations:
4.7.1 The over-arching process for risk-based corrective action a sediment sites is not covered in detail in this guide. Guide E3240
contains extensive information concerning that process.
4.7.2 Sediment sampling and laboratory analyses is not covered in detail. Guide E3163 contain extensive information concerning
sediment sampling and laboratory analysis methodologies.
4.7.3 Developing representative background concentrations for the sediment site is not covered in detail in this guide. Guides
E3242, E3344 and E3382 contain extensive information concerning that topic.
4.7.4 In this guide, “sediment” (3.1.15) is defined as a matrix being found at the bottom of a water body. Upland soils of
sedimentary origin are excluded from consideration as sediment in this guide.
4.7.5 In this guide, only COC concentrations are considered. Residual background radioactivity is out of scope.
4.8 The users of this guide are encouraged to continuously update and refine the conceptual site model and Project Work Plans
and Reports used to describe the physical properties, chemical composition and occurrence, biologic features, and environmental
conditions of the sediment corrective action project.Structure and Components of This Guide:
4.8.1 The user of this guide should review the overall structure and components of this guide before proceeding with use,
including:
Section 1 Scope
Section 2 Referenced Documents
Section 3 Terminology
Section 4 Significance and Use
Section 5 Components of a Generic Monitoring Program
Section 6 Generic Considerations for Sediment Site Monitoring
Programs
Section 7 Types of Sediment Remedial Action Monitoring Programs
Section 8 Baseline Monitoring Programs: General Considerations
Section 9 Remedy Implementation Monitoring Programs: General
Considerations
Section 10 Post-Remedy Monitoring Programs: General Considerations
and Program Planning Examples
Section 11 Keywords
Appendix X1 Discussion of Monitoring Program Development, Data Quality
Objective Development and Statistical Analysis of Data
Processes
Appendix X2 Case Study: Monitoring of Sediment Remediation Activities
References
E3164 − 23
4.12 This guide supports users in the identification of key considerations for designing and implementing sediment program data
acquisition plans, including the applicability and use limitations and considerations that may be necessary to achieve project data
usability objectives.
5. Components of a Generic Monitoring Program
5.1 Framework Overview:
5.1.1 This section presents the six key steps recommended in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance for
developing various types of monitoring plans (2); this process (as applied to sediment sites) is used in sediment-specific guidance
prepared by USEPA (3). The steps in this process are:
5.1.1.1 Step 1—Identify Monitoring Plan Objectives
5.1.1.2 Step 2—Develop the Monitoring Plan Hypothesis
5.1.1.3 Step 3—Formulate Decision Making Rules
5.1.1.4 Step 4—Design the Monitoring Plan
5.1.1.5 Step 5—Conduct Monitoring, Analysis and Characterize Results
5.1.1.6 Step 6—Establish the Management Decision
5.1.2 In the absence of any regulatory requirements or guidance regarding monitoring program development in a jurisdiction, it
is recommended that this USEPA process be used to develop various monitoring programs at sediment sites.
5.1.3 The six-step USEPA monitoring program development process relies heavily upon the USEPAs seven-step data quality
objective (DQO) process (4). The DQO process defines the type, quality and quantity of data necessary to make rational monitoring
decisions. Application of the DQO process leads to an optimized data collection plan for a monitoring program.
5.1.4 A detailed discussion of the six-step USEPA monitoring program development process is provided in X1.1. The relationship
between the six-step USEPA monitoring program development process and the seven-step USEPA DQO process is also discussed
X1.1.
6. Generic Considerations for Sediment Site Monitoring Programs
6.1 Scope:
6.1.1 At contaminated sediment sites, monitoring is conducted to accomplish various goals. These may include (3):
(1) Assess compliance with remedy design and performance standards (that is, remedy implementation monitoring and
post-remedy performance monitoring).
(2) Assess short-term remedy performance and effectiveness in meeting sediment cleanup levels (that is, post-remedy
performance and effectiveness monitoring).
(3) Evaluate long-term remedy effectiveness in achieving Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) and reducing risk to human
health and the environment (that is, a combination of baseline and post-remedy effectiveness monitoring).
6.1.2 The considerations discussed in this section can be applied to all types of monitoring programs typically associated with
sediment remedial actions.
6.2 DQO Development:
6.2.1 DQOs describe the performance and acceptance criteria for the data collected. DQOs are established for each type of
monitoring conducted. USEPA has a systematic process for developing DQOs (4).
6.2.2 The relationship between DQOs and the six-step monitoring program development process are discussed in more detail in
X1.1.1.
E3164 − 23
6.2.3 Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (5) and USEPA (3, 6) discuss applying the USEPA DQO process to sediment
monitoring programs.
6.3 Decision Rules:
6.3.1 A decision rule describes how the data will be evaluated and how decisions will be made. A decision rule describes what
action will be taken for a given monitoring result. Decision rules are often expressed as “if/then” statements.
6.3.2 Decision rules form the basis for decisions to continue, modify, or stop the monitoring, or recommend taking additional
corrective action.
6.3.3 Decision rules are discussed in detail in X1.1.4.
6.4 Types of Sediment Monitoring Measurements:
6.4.1 Sediment monitoring typically includes three types of measurements:
6.4.1.1 Physical measurements (that is, physical properties of sediment and surface water).
6.4.1.2 Chemical measurements (that is, chemical properties of sediment, porewater, surface water, and biota).
6.4.1.3 Biological measurements (that is, biological characteristics of organisms and communities of organisms).
6.4.2 Methods for collecting physical, chemical, and biological measurements are described in Battelle (7), EPRI (8), ITRC (5),
National Research Council (9), Space and Naval Warfare (SPAWAR) Systems Center (10), USACE (11, 12, 13), and USEPA (3,
14, 15).Table 1 presents common monitoring methods and provides references to guidance documents on how to perform various
physical, chemical, and biological measurements.
6.4.3 All data collection efforts need to adhere to the DQOs, quality assurance plans, field sampling and analysis plans (FSAPs),
and standard operating procedures (SOPs). Data analysis, including appropriate statistical procedures, is used to evaluate various
aspects (such as achieving RAOs, trend analysis of data) of remedial activities (4, 53).
6.5 Periodic Review of the Monitoring Plan:
6.5.1 Periodic review of the monitoring program is an important aspect of the program. For example, at CERCLA sites USEPA
performs formal reviews every 5 years. Periodic review facilitates a scheduled interaction with the regulator, so decision making
can be coordinated. Modifications to the monitoring plan (such as, reduced frequency of monitoring) may be appropriate to
optimize the monitoring plan, based on the periodic review of the data collected.
7. Components of a Monitoring ProgramTypes of Sediment Remedial Action Monitoring Programs
7.1 This section discusses developing data quality objectives (DQOs), decision rules, and monitoring plans and the stages of
sediment remediation monitoring. United States Envir
...