&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(WH-585)
EPA-823-B93-001
June 1993
Selecting Remediation
Techniques For
Contaminated Sediment
NO ACTION
MONITORING
I
ASSESSMENT
I
PREVENTION
E
DREDGING
REMEDIATION
-
I
TREATMENT
I
DISPOSAL
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed on paper that contains
at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
-------
SELECTING REMEDIATION TECHNIQUES
FOR CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology
Standards and Applied Science Division
U.S. Environmental Protection agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
and
Office of Research and Development
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45219
-------
-------
ABSTRACT
The objective of this planning guide is to assist federal and state remedial managers, local
agencies, private cleanup companies, and supporting contractors in the remedial decision-making
process at contaminated sediment sites. It attempts to accomplish the following:
• Define the characteristics of contaminated sediments and of surrounding water bodies
that affect remedy selection,
• Provide a streamlined process for selecting an appropriate remedy,
• Describe commonly-selected conventional remedies and potentially applicable innovative
technologies.
Current literature on processing contaminated sediment has provided the generic content in this
guide. This sediment-specific data has been consolidated for easy reference. It brings together
conventional options and potential alternatives appropriate to these sites; it provides treatability study
data and examples drawn from relevant case studies. An excellent companion document to this guide
is Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (USEPA, 1991) which focuses on small site contaminated
sediments remediation with particular emphasis on treatment technologies.
Innovative treatment of contaminated sediment is in the early stages of development. The
remedial manager must be alert to the ongoing development of new remedies, new regulations, and
new policy issues that may affect operations at contaminated sediment sites.
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract i
Figures '....• v
Tables vi
Abbreviations and Symbols viii
Acknowledgments xiii
Executive Summary xiv
1. Introduction 1-1
Purpose and scope of this document 1-1
Use of this document 1-2
Assessing contaminated sediments 1-2
Description of contaminated sediment . . . 1-3
Determining sediment quality 1-4
Regulatory issues 1-5
2. Characterization considerations 2-1
Site characteristics affecting treatment choices 2-1
Sediment characteristics and behavior 2-2
Contaminant characteristics and their behavior in sediment 2-6
Data requirements for treatment evaluation 2-8
3. Selection of remedial options 3-1
Initial screening using generic site conditions 3-1
Selecting the most effective options/identifying marginal
options/determining ineffective options 3-1
Removal and transport 3.9
Removal of contaminated sediment 3-9
Mechanical dredges 3-10
Hydraulic dredges 3-12
Pneumatic dredges 3-14
Comparison of dredge advantages and disadvantages 3-15
Transporting the sediment 3-17
Selecting a compatible dredge and transport system 3-18
v
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Preconditioning/pretreating the sediment 3-18
Dewatering techniques 3-18
Particle classification 3-21
Remedial options commonly applied to sediment 3-23
No action . . . 3-24
Subaqueous capping 3-24
Confined disposal facility (CDF): upland, near-shore, in-water 3-27
Treatments potentially applicable to sediment 3-33
In situ treatments 3-33
Solidification/stabilization 3-34
Biological treatment 3-35
Chemical treatment 3-36
Ground freezing 3-36
Ex situ treatment 3-38
Biological treatment 3-38
Slurry phase biological treatment 3-38
Process description 3-38
Applicability and limitations 3-38
Performance data 3-40
Cost 3-40
Solid phase biological treatment • • • 3-40
Process description 3-40
Applicability and limitations 3-41
Performance data 3-41
Cost 3-41
Dechlorination 3-41
Process description 3-41
Applicability and limitations 3-43
Performance data 3-45
Cost • 3-45
Extraction technologies 3-45
Solvent extraction 3-45
Process description 3-45
Applicability and limitations . . 3-47
Performance data 3-48
Cost • 3-53
Soil washing 3-53
Process description 3-53
Applicability and limitations 3-57
Performance data 3-57
Cost 3-59
Thermal desorption 3-59
Process description 3-59
Applicability and limitations 3-62
Performance data 3-62
Cost 3-62
MI
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Solidification/stabilization treatment 3-62
Process description 3-62
Applicability and limitations /............. 3.55
Performance data 3-66
. Cost ". . . 3-66
Thermal treatment .:.... 3-66
Incineration . 3-66
Process description . . 3-66
Applicability and limitations . . 3.71
Performance data 3.71
Cost -,-. . .' 3_71
Post-treatment of residual streams 3-72
Water treatment . . 3-72
Air emissions control . . . 3-72
Solids treatment 3.72
Disposal 3-73
4. Combining components into a treatment system 4-1
Developing treatment systems using generic examples . . . 4-1
Estimating system costs 4-6
References R-1
Appendices
A. Case studies A-1
Selection and evaluation of treatment technologies
for the New Bedford Harbor Superfund project A-1
Kepone in the James River, Hopewell, VA A-12
PCBs in the Hudson River '. A-22
B. Treatability studies B-1
No action B-1
In situ treatment 5.5
Dredging and disposal B-7
Dredging and treatment B-12
Physical/chemical treatment B-14
Thermal treatment B-23
C. Summary of sediment Records of Decision (1982-1989) ...'.' C-1
D. Contaminant group constituents D_1
IV
-------
-------
FIGURES
Number
Page
2-1 Partition coefficients and aqueous solubilities of
various organic chemicals 2-9
3-1 Applicable remedial options 3-2
3-2 Overview of dredged material treatment 3-19
3-3 Flow chart for screening no action 3-25
3-4 Flow chart for screening CAD 3-28
3-5 Dechlorination process 3-42
3-6 Solvent extraction process 3-46
3-7 Aqueous soil washing process 3-54
3-8 Thermal desorption process 3-60
3-9 Incineration system 3-69
Appendix
A-1 Feasibility Study areas for New Bedford Harbor Site A-2
A-2 Major Feasibility Study components and information flow for
New Bedford Harbor Site A-5
A-3 USEPA's selected remedy at New Bedford Harbor Site A-11
A-4 Kepone in the top 2 cm of channel bottom sediment from
the James River System A-14
A-5 Kepone concentrations in blue crabs and oysters A-15
A-6 Locations of remnant sediment deposits A-27
B-1 Fixation by deep chemical mixing B-6
-------
TABLES
Number
1
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12
3-13
3-14
3-15
3-16
3-17
3-18
3-19
4-1
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
Summary of Remediation Technologies
Federal Water Quality Criteria for Maximum Allowable
Concentrations in Dredged Material
EPA Sediment Classification Criteria of 1977
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Sediment Quality Criteria
Washington State Department of Ecology Marine Sediment Quality
Standards - Chemical Criteria
Sediment Quality Assessment Methods ,
Water Body and Sediment Information Requirements and Sources . . .
Additional Information Sources for Water Body Data . . . .
Absorption Ratings
Technology Data Requirements for Treatment of Dredged Sediment . .
Technology Data Requirements for In Situ Treatment of Sediment . . .
Initial Screening by Contaminant Group
Initial Screening by General Parameters
Parameter Effects
Initial Screening Worksheet
Dredge Comparisons
Descriptions of Capped Disposal Projects
Remediation Technologies for Contaminated Sediment
Summary of In Situ Chemical Treatment
Factors Affecting Biological Treatment
Factors Affecting Dechlorination Performance
Dechlorination Systems '. . .
Factors Affecting Solvent Extraction Techniques
Solvent Extraction Systems
Factors Affecting Soil Washing
Soil Washing Systems
Factors Affecting Thermal Desorption
Thermal Desorption Systems
Factors Affecting Solidification/Stabilization Treatment
Factors Affecting Incineration Techniques
Items That Must Be Considered During Costing
Identification and Screening of Hazardous Waste
Treatment Technologies for New Bedford Harbor
Treatment Technologies Retained for Detailed Evaluation
Technologies for ABB Environmental Bench Test Program
More Promising Nonconventional Treatment Alternatives
Potential Biologic Approaches to the Migration of
Kepone in the James River System
Comparison of Dredging Modes
Proposed Mitigation Alternatives for Kepone Contamination in
Bailey Creek, Bailey Bay, and Gravelly Run Sites
Treatment Cost Estimates for Alternatives on the James River System
Distribution of PCBs in the Hudson River
Heavy Metal Content of Selected Upriver Sediments fo/g/g)
Remedial Actions for Initial Screening
Page
xx
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-8
1-10
2-3
2-5
2-10
2-11
2-15
3-4
3-5
3-7
3-8
3-16
3-31
3-34
3-37
3-39
3-44
3-44
3-48
3-49
3-56
3-58
3-61
3-63
3-67
3-70
4-3
A-6
A-8
A-10
A-17
A-20
A-22
A-23
A-24
A-26
A-26
A-29
VI
-------
TABLES (continued)
A-12 Cost Comparisons for Remedial Alternatives A-32
B-1 Typical Specification for a Treatability Study B-2
B-2 List of Treatability Studies B-3
B-3 Elements of the DAMOS Program B-10
B-4 PCB (1248) Biodegradation B-13
B-5 Bench-Scale Data on NCBC (Gulfport) B-15
B-6 DOD/USATHAMA Treatability Results B-16
B-7 Comparison of Untreated/Treated Soil in a Pilot-Scale Test at a
Minnesota Wood Treating,Site B-19
B-8 Comparison of PCP-Contaminated Untreated/Treated Soil at Site Demonstration . B-19
B-9 Results of Bench-Scale Treatability Testing B-20
B-10 Incineration of Sediment Explosives Levels B-24
B-11 Swanson River Tests: Operating Conditions Tests 1 through 3 B-26
B-12 Swanson River Tests: Operating Conditions Tests 4 through 6 B-26
B-13 McColl Site Tests: Operating Conditions , . B-27
B-14 McColl Site Tests: Metals Partitioning B-28
B-15 Waste Feed Soil Analysis B-29
B-16 Metals Analysis B-30
B-17 Leach Test Results B-31
B-18 Emission Data B-31
B-19 Laboratory X*TRAX™ Synthetic Soil Matrix (SSM-I) B-33
B-20 Laboratory X*TRAX™ Non-PCB Soil, Sludge, and Mixture B-34
B-21 Pilot X*TRAX™ using PCB-Contaminated Soils B-35
B-22 Comparison of Lab and Pilot X*TRAX™ Tests Using PCB-contaminated Soils .... B-35
B-23 Pilot X*TRAX™ TSCA Testing - Vent Emission B-36
C-1 Summary of FY82-FY90 Records of Decision Documenting Sediment Contamination C-1
D-1 Examples of Constituents Within Waste Groups D-1
VII
-------
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
AOC area of contamination
ARARs applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
ARCS alternative remedial contracts strategy
ARCS assessment and remediation of contaminated sediments
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
ATTIC Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center
BCF bioconcentration factor
BOAT best demonstrated achievable technology
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
BTX benzene, toluene, xylene
CAA Clean Air Act
CAD contained aquatic disposal
CDF confined disposal facility
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERI Center for Environmental Research Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cm centimeter
CO2 carbon dioxide
COD chemical oxygen demand
COLIS Computer On-Line Information System
CRP community relations plan
cu yd cubic yard
CWA Clean Water Act
dia diameter
VIII
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS (continued)
DMSO dimethyl sulfoxide
ORE destruction and removal efficiency
EIS environmental impact statement
EP extraction procedure
EP equilibrium partitioning
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ERCS emergency response cleanup services
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
FPXRF field-portable X-ray fluorescence
GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office
GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
GPR ground penetrating radar
H2O water
H2O2 hydrogen peroxide
HCI hydrochloric acid
HNU [manufacturer of] a device for measuring organic vapor concentrations
hr hour
HRS hazard ranking system
HSP health and safety plan
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
IAG interagency agreement
in inch
kg kilogram
KOH potassium hydroxide
ix
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS (continued)
KPEG a dehalogenation process
L liter
Ib pound
LDRs land disposal restrictions
m meter
mg milligram :
mm millimeter
MPRSA Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NaOH sodium hydroxide ; , , • ,
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act •
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOX oxides of nitrogen
NPL National Priorities List
O3 ozone
OERR Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OTTRS Office of Technology Transfer and Regulatory Support
OVA organic vapor analyzer
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PCDD polychlorinated dibenzodioxin
PCDF polychlorinated dibenzofuran
PCP pentachlorophenol
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS (continued)
PEG polyethylene glycol
PNA polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
POHC principal organic hazardous constituent
POTW publicly owned treatment works
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP quality assurance project plan
RAC remedial action contractor
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study
ROD record of decision
RM remedial manager
RREL Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
SAP sampling and analysis plan
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
sec second
SFLN sulfolane
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SVOC semivolatile organic compound
SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act
SWMU solid waste management unit
TCDD tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
TCDF tetrachlorodibenzofuran
xi
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS (continued)
TCL target compound list
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
TOX total organic halogen
tpd ton per day
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TSS total suspended solids
V micron
UCS unconfined compressive strength
//g microgram
COE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USCG United States Coast Guard
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VOC volatile organic compound
WQC water quality criteria
XRF X-ray fluorescence
XII
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This guide was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Sediment Oversight
Technical Committee with assistance from the Office of Research and Development's Risk Reduction
and Engineering Laboratory (RREL). The Sediment Oversight Technical Committee, chaired by Dr.
Elizabeth Southerland of the Office of Science and Technology, has representation from a number of
Program Offices in Headquarters and all EPA Regions. The project was supervised by Richard Griffiths
and Mike Borst at RREL.
Technical support for developing the document was provided by Foster Wheeler Enviresponse,
Inc. (FWEI) under EPA contract number 68-C9-0033.
Comments by the following reviewers, aided greatly in the guide's development:
Daniel Averett
Beverly Baker
Douglas Beltman
Karl E. Bremer
Peter Chapman
David C. Cowgill
Steve Garbaciak
Donald Heller
Jonathan G. Herrmann
Stephen Johnson
Michael Kravitz
Dave Petrovski
Dennis Timberlake
Anne Weinert
Howard Zar
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Section
- EPA, OW/OST, Contaminated Sediment Section
- EPA, Region V, Office of Superfund Technical Support Unit
- EPA, Region V, RCRA Permitting Branch
- E.V.S. Consultants
- EPA, GLNPO, Remedial Programs
- EPA, GLNPO, Remedial Programs
- EPA, Region V, Office of RCRA Ohio Permitting Section
- EPA, ORD/RREL, Physical/Chemical Systems Branch
- EPA, Region V, PCB Control Section
- EPA, OW/OST, Contaminated Sediment Section
- EPA, Region V, Office of RCRA Michigan Permitting Section
- EPA, ORD/RREL, Physical/Chemical Systems Branch
- EPA, Region V
- EPA, Region V, In Place Pollutant Task Force
XIII
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This guide helps remedial managers select appropriate remedial techniques from conventional
or innovative options, preferably already tested at bench, pilot, or field levels with contaminated
sediments and/or soils.
Sediment is the mixture of assorted material that settles to the bottom of a waterbody. It
includes the shells and coverings of molluscs and other animals, transported soil particles from surface
erosion, organic matter from dead and rotting vegetation and animals, sewage, industrial wastes, other
organic and inorganic materials, and chemicals.
Surface waters in the United States receive discharges of various liquid and solid wastes from
three major sources:
• Point sources such as municipal and industrial effluents.
• Non-point sources such as agricultural runoff, soil entrainment, and airborne particles.
• Other sources such as spills, contaminated ground water infiltration, and intentional aquatic
dumping.
Many of these discharges contain toxic/hazardous materials that settle as sediment and persist in the
environment because of their physicochemical properties. The contaminated sediment affects human
health and the environment and causes losses of important resources such as drinking water.
Regulatory Issues
Under the Clean Water Act and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, the U.S. Coast Guard and EPA are mandated to ensure safe cleanup of hazardous waste
discharges and contaminated sediment. The potentially applicable regulations include:
• Clean Water Act (CWA)
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
XIV
-------
• ederal Insecticide, ungicide, and Rodenticide Act (IRA)
• Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)
• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
i
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
• Rivers and Harbors Act
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
• Water Resources Development Act
• International Law
• State Law
SITE CHARACTERIZATION
Site characterization and evaluation are necessary to select an appropriate remedy and identify
the source and nature of the contaminants. Industrial plants and other potential point sources of
contamination near the site should be identified to aid in identifying the type and level of contaminants.
The location of the site and its physical characteristics can affect sediment dredging activities.
Access difficulties may prevent delivery of certain treatment equipment. Congested navigation
channels can make dredging impractical. If the waterbody is a source of drinking water, dredging may
require either extra precautions to prevent the spread of contaminant or provisions for an alternate
water supply.
Waterbody information such as depth and width of waterbody, water current direction and
velocity, wave height, suspended paniculate concentration, sediment type and particle size, sediment
organic carbon content, etc., are necessary to select an' appropriate dredging method and a suitable
remedy.
Sediment Characterization
Sediment particles vary in chemical composition and in physical properties. The constituents
of sediment such as clay, organic matter, hydrated iron, manganese oxides, and associated
characteristics, such as particle size, pH, oxidation-reduction conditions, and salinity of the waterbody
affect the interaction between sediment particles and contaminants.
xv
-------
Sediment particle size influences the association of the contaminants with the sediment and
the potential for contaminant migration. Smaller diameter particles often contain higher concentrations
of contaminants. These small diameter particles remain suspended for longer periods of time, are
easily resuspended in high tides, storms, and floods, and travel further from the contamination source.
Organic carbon content of sediment influences the adsorption capacity of Contaminants such as PCBs.
Particle size and organic content significantly affect the selection of a remedy. Many
technologies cannot effectively remove contaminants that are strongly bound to small particles, while
others have difficulty in processing fine particles. The mineralogy of the particle also affects the
remedy selection.
Contaminant Characterization !;
Contaminants typically found in sediment can be classified as follows:
• Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
• Pesticides
• Chlorinated hydrocarbons
• Mononuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (benzene and its derivatives)
• Phthalate esters , " • e .-,.,...
• Metals
• Nutrients
• Miscellaneous, such as cyanides and organo-metals.
These contaminants enter the waterbody from various sources and contact the sediment particles by
direct sinking and subsequent adsorption on the sediment particles. ;
In most aquatic systems, the suspended sediment and the upper layer of the sediment bed
contain higher contaminant concentrations than the overlying water column. Consequently, sediment
becomes a reservoir of contaminants' that can redissolve or migrate into the water column. The
octanol/water partition coefficient, Kow, has proved useful in predicting soil adsorption. Organic
chemicals of environmental concern usually have very low solubilities in water. The lower the
solubility, the greater the tendency of the organic compound to adsorb to the sediment particles.
XVI
-------
SELECTION OF REMEDIAL OPTIONS
Table 1 displays conventional techniques and new treatments that, based on RODs dealing with
contaminated sediment, may be potentially applicable. No remedial alternative can remove, contain,
or treat contaminated sediment without some disturbance and consequent release of contaminants.
Disturbance of bottom sediment can cause resuspension of contaminants into the water column. The
selection of a remedial option must attempt to minimize such contaminant release.
Removal and Transport
The first step in the remedial selection process is to determine whether to treat the sediment
in situ. Most often, sediment is dredged and either contained or treated ex situ. A primary concern
during the removal and transport of contaminated sediments is the danger of introducing contaminants
into previously uncontaminated areas. The choice of dredging depends on the nature of the sediment,
the types of contaminants, the depth to bottom, the thickness and volume of sediment, the distance
to next operation (e.g., disposal sites), and the available machinery. There are three major categories
of dredging: mechanical, hydraulic, and pneumatic. The method of transportation for dredged material
depends on the distance between the dredging and treatment sites. The principal transportation
methods include: pipelines, barges, railroads, and trucks. Selection of transport options will be
affected by both dredge selection and pretreatment and treatment decisions.
Pretreatment of the Sediment
Most sediment will require dewatering followed by particle classification to remove oversize
material as pretreatment. Dewatering reduces the moisture content of sediment, allows handling and
transport of the material as a solid, and prepares the sediment for a number of treatment and disposal
technologies. Dredged material dewatering is traditionally accomplished in ponds or confined disposal
facilities (CDs), which rely on seepage, drainage, consolidation, and evaporation. These dewatering
methods are generally effective, and low cost, but slow and require large areas. Common industrial
methods include centrifugation, dewatering lagoons, filtration, and gravity thickening. Chemicals such
as flocculating agents are added to accelerate the settling of suspended solids. Particle classification
separates sediment particles based on one or more physical properties such as size, density, mass,
magnetic characteristics, etc. Particle classification technologies include sieves and screens, hydraulic
and spiral classifiers, cyclones, settling basins, and clarifiers.
XVII
-------
Conventional Options
The conventional sediment handling methods are removal and disposal. This option is desirable
when removal will not result in adverse environmental effects, conditions make in-place treatment
ineffective, and when removal is necessary for other purposes. If the sediment presents environmental
problems, it can be contained (e.g., capped in place), left in place (no action), treated in situ, dredged
and treated or placed in a confined disposal facility (CD), or combination of above techniques.
Confined disposal facilities (CD) are engineered structures designed to retain dredged material.
They may be constructed either entirely away from the water, partially in water near the shore, or
completely surrounded by water. They are used for disposal of about 30% of the dredged material
produced by the Corps of Engineers Navigation Program. Costs for disposing dredged material in CDs
range from $5 to $20/cu yd. As with any other structure in water or near shore, CDs are affected by
wind and waves. Properly located and constructed .CDs can fairly well isolate contaminated sediment
from the environment.
Subaqueous capping, also called contained aquatic disposal (CAD), covers contaminated
sediments with cleaner sediment with or without lateral walls. CADs are often deposits of sediments
placed in a depression in the bottom of a water body, or in an excavated cavity which are then capped
with cleaner deposits.1
The no-action option leaves the contaminated sediment in place so that natural sedimentation
will bury and contain pollutants or natural biodegradation will take place. This option is appropriate
when: the pollutant discharge source has been halted; the burial, dilution, or biodegradation process
is rapid; sediment will not be remobilized by human or natural activities; or environmental effects of
cleanup are more damaging than allowing the sediment to remain in place.
Capping is the controlled, accurate placement of contaminated dredged material at an open-water
disposal site, followed by a covering or cap of clean isolating material. Level bottom capping is the
placement of a contaminated material on the bottom in a mounded configuration and the subsequent
covering of the mound with clean sediment. Contained aquatic disposal is similar to level bottom
capping but with the additional provision of some form of lateral confinement (for example, placement
in bottom depressions or behind subaqueous berms) to minimize spread of the materials on the bottom.
XVIII
-------
In situ treatments involve in place addition and mixing of biological organisms or
solidification/stabilization reagents with contaminated bottom sediment. Because of the difficulty in
ensuring the thorough mixing required, in situ treatments have not been very popular.
Potentially Applicable Options
Several remedial options have the potential to treat contaminated sediments, but have limited
supporting field data. The remedial options that can potentially treat contaminated sediments are as
follows:
• Biological treatment
• Dechlorination
• Soil washing
• Solvent extraction
• Solidification/stabilization
• Incineration
• Thermal desorption
Many of these process options are not stand-alone processes, but may be components of a
system that involves multiple treatment steps to address multiple contaminant problems. Waste
preparation for these technologies include screening to remove oversize debris, particle size separation,
dewatering, and pH adjustment. Table 1 presents application, feed stream characteristics,
effectiveness, and cost of these remedial options. The three main waste streams generated in these
treatment options are: air emissions that can be captured and treated; treated solids which if
contaminated can either be treated by another technique or solidified and disposed in a landfill, or
reused as a fill; water which can usually be treated in a conventional treatment system or discharged
to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW).
CONCLUSIONS
Although treatment of contaminated sediments is in the early stages of application, EPA will
use all its existing statutory authorities in a consistent, coordinated manner to pursue remediation of
sediments that are causing ecological harm or posing unacceptable risks to human health. This
document offers guidance on the selection of feasible remedial options for various situations.
XIX
-------
INOLOGIES
0
UJ
H
2
0
,RY 0 REMEDIATI
<
§
CO
t—
UJ
OQ
t
<
$
d
| Effectiver
»
eed stream
characteristic
Application
0
0
r-
O
d)
"
C
1
i
*
-S 3
° is "^
. o
•*£•*-
O 3 O
oo -s m
•CO- .2
£
£
to
"8
m
Depends on the f
characteristics.
S?
o
rv\
pH 4.5 to 8.5
Temperature 59 to 1 67
Moisture content 40 to J
1
a
Tl
O
' — •
0
0
z £
lis
Pesticides, fuels, creosote, PCP,
PCBs, some halogenated volatile
organics, non-halogenated
organics, aliphatics, aromatics,
chlorinated aromatics
c.
I
£
I Biological
c
o
+•
4>
t
I
d)
f
Physical/c
\
^3
s
2
8
98^
been reported for
PCB removal to le
ppm is routinely s
i£
pH >2
Temperature 1 58 to 302
Water content <20%
Chlorinated organics <5
Dioxins, PCBs, chlorobenzenes
. c
_o
1
•c • . •'
_0
• o
•o
CD
s
1
a
8
CM
c
If.
11
P "9
PCB reductions gi
90% on harbor se
Oily organics <40%
Solid content <20%
Particle size < 1 /4 in
PCBs, volatile organics,
halogenated solvents, petroleum
waste, aromatics, metals
c
o
•is
1
tt
M Solvent e>
*
O •
i
s
Q
C^
to-
A
« CO
•10
**
y
*
i
1 = »
5 oT •—
l| §
fl|
Organics <20 - 45 wt%
Semivolatiles <1%
Solids >15%
Oil and grease <10 wt%
Phenols <5%
PAHs <1%
CN <0.3 wt%
Inorganics; some success with
oily sludges' and solvents
.
c
.0
CD
^
CO g)
^ S
O 0
O T5
._ C0
J5 §
"o j:
CO H
e
s
ra
2
in
£^
Z'Z.
o
4-
Greater than 99%
organics.
Moisture content <50%
Particle size 1-2 mm
Alkaline metals <5 wt%
Volatiles, Semivolatiles, PCBs,
pesticides, dioxins/furans, organic
cyanides
c
Ilncineratio!
Halogens <8 wt%
•§.
3
O
s
°
0
*"•
•w-
-1.
a
0
O
99% removal on \
SVOCs.
Solids 1-1.5 in dia.
Organics <10%
Boiling points <800
Moisture content <60%
Volatile and semivolatile organic
compounds
J5
£
J
+J
20%
XX
-------
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS DOCUMENT
This guide describes a selection process for remediation technologies that can be used at sites
containing contaminated sediment. The selection process begins by identifying the following:
Site characteristics that may affect remedy selection:
characteristics of the waterbody and use of the waterbody.
physical/geological
Sediment characteristics and behavior: the sediment particle's tendency to deposit,
resuspend, and adsorb/absorb contaminants, and other pertinent physical characteris-
tics such as size. These characteristics determine the particle's behavior during
dredging and treatment.
Contaminant characteristics and their behavior in sediment: the physicochemical
interaction of contaminants and sediments and how this affects remedy selection, and
the role of physical and chemical characteristics in pre-treatment, treatment, and post-
treatment.
Regulatory issues that affect selection of remedial options: regulations dealing with
contaminated sediment. The Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, and interpretations of existing and emerging regula-
tions.
The remedial option selection process continues with the investigation of appropriate sediment
removal systems, any pretreatment necessary to process the sediment, the primary treatment options,
and secondary treatment, if necessary, of residual streams. Using this information, the remedial
manager can select the treatment alternative most likely to succeed in remediating a specific contami-
1-1
-------
nated sediment site. This document gives the remedial manager guidance in selecting appropriate
remedial techniques either from commonly selected conventional options, or from innovative options,
preferably those already tested at bench, pilot, pr field levels.
This guide covers the methods of selecting remedies for site-specific contaminated sediment
in water bodies such as rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, and harbors. Since some water bodies exhibit
ocean characteristics that could affect remedy selection, such as wave action, deep water, and tidal
movement, this document discusses oceans as extensions of harbors or as disposal sites.
USE OF THIS DOCUMENT
This document is a technical resource for remedial managers providing a brief description of
site, sediment, and contaminant characteristics as they might affect remedy selection, and compares
the technologies that are most likely to be effective in remediating sites with the given characteristics.
Sediment removal, transport, and pre- and post-treatment techniques are also included.
This guide helps a remedial manager select a treatment system based on the specific site
characteristics, thereby streamlining the selection process, and focusing attention on those elements
of a treatment system offering the greatest potential to be effective at the site. This is accomplished
by providing decision trees and comparative tables that help eliminate marginal or inappropriate
technologies and that emphasize potentially successful techniques.
ASSESSING CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
The remedial manager should become familiar with the extent of contaminated sediments and
the environmental effects. A good introduction to the extent of sediment contamination is given mAn
Overview of Sediment Quality in the United States (USEPA, 1987c). To make a correct remedial
decision, the remedial manager should know the state of the art in contaminated sediment treatments,
and the regulatory issues that affect its treatment. Unfortunately, the contaminated sediment problem
is not well defined. Investigations into its extent are only in the early stages and some regulations are
still in their infancy. Some issues that will need to be addressed as the remedial process develops are
the procedures for distinguishing between clean and contaminated sediment, the legal basis for
regulating contaminated sediment, and techniques for defining, testing, and implementing remedies.
1-2
-------
Since there are few widely tested and accepted sediment cleanup techniques, there are, in
turn, no defined performance standards for remedy selection. Issues confronting those responsible for
cleanups,include: the damaging environmental side effects from sediment removal and treatment,
cost, the absence of clear performance criteria, the lack of consensus regarding acceptable disposal
of dredged sediment, little experimental data, and the difficulty of finding appropriate treatment
methods for extremely large volumes of low-level contaminated sediment. Nevertheless, the remedial
manager must define the extent of cleanup, the acceptable cleanup levels for the site, technical
feasibility for each remedy, and the acceptable cost.
Description of Contaminated Sediment
The term "sediment", for the purposes of this document, encompasses the various materials
that settle to the bottom of any water body. It includes the shells and coverings of molluscs and other
water animals, transported soil particles from surface erosion, organic matter from dead arid rotting
vegetation and animals, sewage, industrial wastes, organic materials, inorganic materials, and chemi-
cals. EPA defines sediment as soil, sand, and minerals washed from land into water usually after rain
(USEPA, 1988c). Current regulatory trends tend to separate sediment/soil matrices from sludge.
'Surface waters in the United States receive discharges of various liquid and solid wastes from
industrial and municipal operations, agricultural and urban runoffs, accidental spills, leaks, dumping of
waste, and precipitation carrying pollutants from the atmosphere. In general, there are three sources
of sediment contamination:
« Point sources such as municipal and industrial effluents.
'' • Non-point sources such as agricultural runoff, soil entrainment, airborne particles.
• Other sources such as spills/contaminated groundwater infiltration, aquatic dumping. •
Many of these discharges contain toxic/hazardous materials that settle in sediment and persist
in the environment for long periods of time. This contaminated sediment may affect human health and
the environment and cause losses of important resources such as drinking water. Humans can be
exposed to the contaminants through such means as infiltration into drinking water, accumulation in
the food chain, and direct dermal contact. Animals of the benthic community can absorb toxic
substances from their surroundings. Contaminated sediment can be lethal to them and affect the food
chains of larger animals, fish, birds, and mammals such as mink and man.
1-3
-------
Determining Sediment Quality
The Federal Water Quality Administration developed the first sediment quality guidelines in
1973. These were adopted by the EPA and are called the Jensen Criteria. This first set of sediment
quality criteria involves seven contaminants (Table 1 -1). If the concentration of any of the parameters
exceeds the maximum allowable value, then the sediment is classified as polluted. Very few other
sediment quality guidelines exist.
In 1973, the EPA published criteria and regulations for managing marine-dredged sediment
(Federal Register 38 (1973), Ocean Dumping: Final Regulations and Criteria) (Anon, 1973). Other
early sediment quality guidelines were developed jointly by the EPA and the Corps of Engineers. The
guidelines regulated the disposal of dredged sediments. When coupled with site-specific sediment
bioassays, the joint EPA-Corps of Engineers regulations have been the standard reference for regulating
contaminated sediment. For example, Region V of the EPA developed guidelines to evaluate Great
Lakes Harbor sediments using this combination (Table 1-2). These regulations and guidelines are still
in effect although they do not necessarily reflect current thinking or regulatory direction. They also
do not address bioavailability, a major consideration in today's regulatory trends. Recently, several
agencies developed additional sediment quality criteria. The Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources has developed interim criteria for some metals, PCBs, and a few pesticides but has not been
implemented (Table 1-3). The Washington State Department of Ecology has developed and
implemented Sediment Management Standards for some metals and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(Table 1-4). In the absence of established criteria, EPA recommended additional approaches (USEPA,
1989J).
It appears that the current regulatory trend is to define sediment quality using criteria that
directly measure biological effects. Excellent discussions of these criteria are provided by Chapman
(Chapman, 1989), Baudo (Baudo, etal., 1990), and Fitchko (Fitchko, 1989). Several of these methods
are shown in Table 1-5. These methods are described in detail in Sediment Classification Methods
Compendium (USEPA, 1989J).2
2 Final EPA document no. 823-R-92-006 (September, 1992).
1-4
-------
TABLE 1-1. FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION CRITERIA
FOR MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONCENTRATIONS
IN DREDGED MATERIAL
Parameter
Volatile solids
Chemical oxygen demand
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Oil and grease
Mercury
Lead
Zinc
Criteria
wt% (dry)
6.0
5.0
0.10
0.15
0.0001
0.005
0.005
Source: Federal Register 38 (1973) (Anon, 1973).
Regulatory Issues
The Clean Water Act and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act mandate the U.S. Coast Guard and EPA to ensure safe cleanup of hazardous waste discharges and
contaminated sediment. Congress has recently authorized legislation for EPA to lead an effort to
survey the extent of the contaminated sediment problem (Water Resources Development Act, 1992).
Several coastal pollution measures have provisions addressing sediment pollution. EPA is working
toward the development of nationally applicable sediment-quality criteria for coastal waters. However,
a coordinated Federal effort to address the problem is still in its infancy.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issues disposal permits for dredged material using human
health and marine impact guidelines developed by EPA. During the selection of sites, the permitting
process and through EPA's management and monitoring programs, environmental aspects are
considered. Contaminated sediment may be sent for disposal in aquatic, near-shore, or upland
containment sites. Relatively clean sediment can be discharged into unconfined aquatic sites.
Historically, the ocean has been used to dispose of waste. Over 90% of the material dumped into the
ocean consists of sediment dredged from U.S. harbors and channels (USEPA, 1989f). It was assumed
that the ocean waters had an inexhaustible capacity to assimilate waste without harming their
resources. That assumption has gradually changed to recognize that the ocean's assimilative capacity
1-5
-------
is finite. Pursuant to the Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988, all ocean dumping of sewage sludge and
industrial wastes ended in December 1991.
TABLE 1-2. EPA GUIDELINES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF
GREAT LAKES HARBOR SEDIMENTS
================
Volatile solids
COD
TKN
Oil and grease
Lead
Zinc
L
Mercury
I Ammonia
I Cyanide
Phosphorous
Iron
Nickel
Manganese
Arsenic
| Cadmium
I Chromium
Barium
Copper
Total PCB*
—======== —
Not
polluted
<5%
<40,000
< 1,000
< 1 ,000
<40
<90
—
<75
<0.10
<420
< 17,000
<20
<300
<3
~
<25
<20
<25
Moderately
polluted
5%-8%
40,000-80,000
1,000-2,000
1 ,000-2,000
40-60
90-200
-
75-200
0.10-0.25
420-650
17,000-25,000
20-50
300-500
3-8
--
25-75
20-60
25-50
Heavily
polluted |
>8% II
> 80,000
> 2,000
> 2,000
>60 II
>200 I
& i .0
>200
>0.25
>650
> 25,000
>50
>500
>8
>6
>75
>60
>50
s>10
All concentrations as mg/kg, dry weight.
* Present practice considers 1 mg/kg as
Source: USEPA, 1977.
a screening guideline.
1-6
-------
TABLE 1-3. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES INTERIM
CRITERIA FOR IN-WATER DISPOSAL OF DREDGED SEDIMENTS
Contaminant
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Hepachlor
Endrin
Aldrin
Chlordane
PCBs
Dieldrin
Toxaphene
Lindane
Guideline
ppm (dry)
10.00
1
100
100
50
0
100
100
.00
.00
.00
.00
.1
.00
.00
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.
0.
0.
0.
05
01
05
05
Source: Sullivan, et al., 1985
In general. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) regulations apply to treatment or disposal of sediment if it is any of the following:
RCRA - ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic per 40 CFR 261.20-261.24
RCRA - contains any amount of RCRA-listed substance per 40 CFR 261.30 - Appendix IX
TSCA - contains PCBs in excess of 50 ppm
1-7
-------
TABLE 1-4. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
MARINE SEDIMENT QUALITY STANDARDS-
CHEMICAL CRITERIA1
— — — ^— — •ag^^===
I
I
] Chemical parameter
Arsenic
I
I Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Silver
Zinc
Chemical parameter
LPAH3
mg/kg dry weight
(ppm dry)
57.00
5.10
260.00
390.00
450.00
0 41
\J iT^ 1
6.10
410.00
mg/kg organic carbon
(ppm carbon)2
370.00
rt *•* S\S\
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
2-Methylnaphthalene
99.00
66.00
16.00
23.00
100.00
220.00
38.00
Chemical parameter
mg/kg organic carbon
(ppm carbon)
HPAH4
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Total benzofluoranthenes6
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indenod ,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1.4-Dichlorobenzene
960.00
160.00
1,000.00
110.00
110.00
230.00
99.00
34.00
12.00
31.00
2.30
3.10
1-8
-------
TABLE 1-4. (Continued)
Chemical parameter
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Dimethyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzofuran
Hexchlorobutadiene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Total PCBs
Chemical parameter
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
2,4-Dimethyl phenol
Pentachlorophenol
Benzyl alcohol
Benzoic acid
mg/kg organic carbon
(ppm carbon)
0.81
0.38
53.00
61.00
220.00
4.90
47.00
58.00
15.00
3.90
11.00
1 2.00
//g/kg dry weight
(ppb dry)
420.00
63.00
670.00
29.00
360.00
57.00
650.00
1 Where laboratory analysis indicates a chemical is not detected in a sediment sample, the detection limit shall
be reported and shall be at or below the criteria value shown in this table. Where chemical criteria in this table
represent the sum of individual compounds or isomers, and a chemical analysis identifies an undetected value
for one or more individual compounds or isomers, the detection limit shall be used for calculating the sum of the
respective compounds or isomers.
2 The listed chemical parameter criteria represent concentrations in parts per million, "normalized", or expressed,
on a total organic carbon basis. To normalize to total organic carbon, the dry weight concentration for each
parameter is divided by the decimal fraction presenting the percent total organic carbon content of the sediment.
3 The LPAH criterion represents the sum of the following "low molecular weight polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbon" compounds: naphthalene, acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, fluorene, phenanthrene, and
anthracene. The LPAH criterion is not the sum of the criteria values for the individual LPAH compounds as
listed.
4 The HPAH criterion represents the sum of the following "high molecular weight polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbon" compounds: fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, total benzofluoranthenes,
benzo(a)pyrene, indenod ,2,3-o,d)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, andbenzo(g,h,i)perylene. The HPAH criterion
is not the sum of the criteria values for the individual HPAH compounds as listed.
6 The total benzofluoranthenes criterion represents the sum of the concentrations of the "B", "J", and "K"
isomers.
1-9
-------
TABLE 1-5. SEDIMENT QUALITY ASSESSMENT METHODS
Method
(Chapter)
Bulk
Sediment
Toxicity
Spiked-
Sodimont
Toxicity
Interstitial
Water
Toxicity
Equilibrium
Partitioning
Tissue
Residue
Freshwater
Benthlc
Community
Structure
Marine
Benthlc
Community
Sediment
Quality Triad
Apparent
Effects
Threshold
International
Joint
Commission*
Type
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
D
X
X
X
X
C
X
X
X
Concept
Test organisms are exposed to sediment which may contain unknown quantities of
potentially toxic chemicals. At the end of a specified time period, the response of the test
organisms is examined in relation to a specified biological endpoint.
Dose-response relationships are established by exposing test organisms to sediments that
have been spiked with known amounts of chemicals or mixtures of chemicals.
Toxicity of interstitial water is quantified and identification evaluation procedures are
applied to identify and quantify chemical components responsible for sediment toxicity.
The procedures are implemented in three phases to characterize interstitial water toxicity,
identify the suspected toxicant, and confirm toxicant identification.
A sediment quality value for a given contaminant is determined by calculating the sediment
concentration of the contaminant that would correspond to an interstitial water
concentration equivalent to the U.S. EPA water quality criterion for the contaminant.
Safe sediment concentrations of specific chemicals are established by determining the
sediment chemical concentration that will result in acceptable tissue residues. Methods to
derive unacceptable tissue residues are based on chronic water quality criteria and
bioconcentration factors, chronic dose-response experiments, or field correlations, and
human health risk levels from the consumption of freshwater fish or seafood.
Environmental degradation is measured by evaluating alterations in freshwater benthic
community structure.
Environmental degradation is measured by evaluating alterations in marine benthic
community structure.
Sediment chemical contamination, sediment toxicity, and benthic infauna community
structure are measured on the same sediment. Correspondence between sediment
chemistry, toxicity, and biological effects is used to determine sediment concentrations that
discriminate conditions of minimal, uncertain, and major biological effects.
An AET is the sediment concentration of a contaminant above which statistically significant
biological effects (e.g., amphipod mortality in bioassays, depressions in the abundance of
benthic infauna) would always be expected. AET values are empirically derived from paired
field data for sediment chemistry and a range of biological effects indicators.
Contaminated sediments are assessed in two steps: 1) an initial assessment that is based
on macro-zoobenthic community structure and concentrations of contaminants in sediments
and biological tissues, and 2) a detailed assessment that is based on a phased sampling of
the physical, chemical, and biological aspects of the sediment, including laboratory toxicity
bioassays.
The IJC approach is an example of a sequential approach, or "strategy" combining a number of methods for the purpose of
assessing contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes.
N - Humic type
D - Descriptive type
C - Combination type
Source: Sediment Classification Methods Compendium (USEPA, 1989J)
1-10
-------
• Movement is underway to include contaminated sediment in the mainstream of the regulatory
structure. For example, the interaction among several regulations has been addressed in the CERCLA
Compliance with Other Laws Manual (USEPA, 1989b). EPA is planning to develop sediment
contamination controls for businesses, and is applying Superfund regulations to fifteen underwater
areas to limit sediment pollution. ,
The laws that are potentially applicable to contaminated sediment include the following:
• Clean Water Act (CWA)
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) :
« Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
" • "Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)
• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
• Rivers and Harbors Acts of 1989
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
• Water Resources Development Acts ,
• International Law
• State Law .
The Clean Water Act (CWA)~
Five sections of the Clean Water Act are relevant to contaminated sediment. They are Sections
115,118,307,401,404. Of these, the most significant is Section 404.
Section 115--Section 115 of the Clean Water Act provides a powerful, but generally unused, tool
for cleaning up contaminated sediment. Unlike legislation that primarily regulates placement of dredged
material or provides limited authorization to remove it for economic purposes. Section 115 specifically
authorizes,cleaning up pollutants. It authorizes EPA to identify near shore contaminated hot spots and
to contract with the Corps of Engineers to clean them up.
Section 118--Section 118 is the Great Lakes Amendment to the Clean Water Act. Among other
provisions, it authorizes the EPA Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) to carry out a five-year
study and demonstration project on the control and removal of contaminated sediment in the Great
1-11
-------
Lakes. The Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program is underway.
The ARCS program includes demonstrating methods for assessing in-place pollutants and decision-
making on remedial action alternatives. The ARCS program selected sediment treatment technologies
demonstrations on a bench- and pilot-scale at five areas of concern in the Great Lakes during 1991 and
1992. Areas singled out for special attention include Saginaw Bay, Michigan (Lake Huron); Sheboygan
Harbor, Wisconsin (Lake Michigan); Grand Calumet River, Indiana (Lake Michigan); the Ashtabula River,
Ohio (Lake Erie); and the Buffalo River, New York (Lake Erie).
Section 307-Section 307 of the Clean Water Act requires that any source introducing pollutants
into a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) establish pretreatment standards for the source
category with the designated control authority. The pretreatment standards prevent the discharge of
pollutants that may interfere with, pass through, or otherwise be incompatible with the treatment
works. Several proposals have been made to discharge confined disposal facility effluents to POTWs.
This section of the act allows the designated control authority to establish limits on the pollutants.
Section 401-Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires anyone applying for a federal permit
to conduct any activity resulting in discharges to U.S. waters obtain certification from the state in
which the activity will be conducted. This means that the state water quality agency must certify that
the proposed disposal of the material will not violate state water quality standards, and will not cause
significant water quality degradation. States can require design changes or safeguards in any project
before issuing a permit. The 401 certification ensures that states are involved in sediment disposal.
Section 404--Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged and fill
material into waters of the United States, and establishes a permit program to ensure that such
discharges comply with environmental requirements. This program is administered at the federal level
by the U.S. Army Corps oft Engineers and the EPA. The Corps of Engineers has the primary
responsibility for the permit program and is authorized, after notice and opportunity for public hearing,
to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material. EPA has primary roles in several aspects
of the Section 404 program including developing environmental guidelines to evaluate permit
applications, reviewing proposed permits, prohibiting discharges with unacceptable adverse impacts,
approving and overseeing the state's assumption of the program, establishing jurisdictional scope of
waters of the United States, and interpreting of Section 404 exemptions. Enforcement authority is
shared between EPA and the Corps of Engineers.
1-12
-------
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)--
This 1980 federal law addresses the problem of hazardous waste sites. It authorizes the EPA
to investigate and respond to releases of hazardous wastes. When contaminated sites are discovered,
EPA evaluates them. If listing criteria are exceeded, EPA can place them on the National Priority List
(NPL) for cleanup. Several contaminated sediment sites appear on the NPL (see Appendix C).
When ranking sites for addition to the NPL, EPA generally gives the greatest weight to the
potential for direct human exposure to contaminants such as through contaminated drinking water.
Indirect exposure such as eating contaminated fish or exposure from volatilization of toxics from a
water surface is considered a less serious threat.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)--
EPA reviews and registers all pesticides sold in the United States, It examines data concerning
their toxicity and behavior in the environment to determine the need for restrictions governing the
chemicals' use and disposal. The EPA testing procedure examines the chemicals' persistence in
sediment and soils.
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)--
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, better known as the Ocean
Dumping Act, regulates ocean dumping of any material that may adversely affect human health, the
marine environment, or the economic potential of the ocean. EPA and the Corps of Engineers are
responsible to administer the Act, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is
responsible to monitor the effects of ocean dumping, and the U.S. Coast Guard is responsible to
enforce the Act. Title 3 gives the Secretary of Commerce the authority to establish marine
sanctuaries. MPRSA applies to the ocean and coastal waters, but not to estuarine waters, which are
covered by the Clean Water Act. MPRSA also governs ocean dumping of dredged material. MPRSA
authorizes the Corps of Engineers to choose sites for dredged material dumping and to issue permits
to dump at those sites.
1-13
-------
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, all federal agencies must prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for proposed actions that may have a significant effect on
the environment. EIS preparation provides an opportunity to explore the options available for dredging
and disposal of contaminated dredged material. NEPA's intent is to incorporate environmental
considerations into decision-making at the federal level. All Corps of Engineers EISs are submitted to
the Environmental Review Branch of the appropriate regional EPA office for review and response.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-- • •
RCRA provides for the classification of hazardous waste, the definition of solid and liquid waste,
and the permitting of hazardous and nonhazardous waste landfills. Sediment classified as nonhazard-
ous waste may be disposed in landfills approved under Subtitle D of RCRA; sediment .classified as
hazardous must be disposed in landfills approved under Subtitle C. Liquid wastes, as defined by the
Paint Filter Liquid Test (40 CFR 264.314(c)}, may not be sent to landfills in the United States.
Application of RCRA to contaminated sediment is not completely defined. Dredged sediment
containing listed hazardous waste requires treatment in accordance with 40 CFR §268 and disposal
at a permitted facility meeting the RCRA Minimum Technology Requirements (MTR). Sediment
exhibiting a hazardous waste characteristic requires treatment to the extent that the residue no longer
exhibits the hazardous waste characteristic, or meets applicable treatment standards under 40 CFR
§268; OR disposal in a RCRA facility meeting MTR.
Under the proposed RCRA Subpart S, provisions for corrective action can be applied to any
RCRA-permitted facility if a release of a hazardous substance has occurred or is suspected to have had
occurred. EPA requires including corrective action provisions with RCRA permits since the passage
of HSWA in 1984.
The Rivers and Harbors Act-
The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 authorizes the Corps of Engineers to build harbors and other
projects related to waterborne commerce and to keep these harbors and channels open for traffic.
Section 10 of the Act prohibits the unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable water in the
1-14
-------
United States. Under the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Corps of Engineers has the authority to issue
permits for all private dredging or fill projects in navigable waterways.
The law originally required a local government sponsor to share the costs of constructing a
confined disposal facility (CDF). In the absence of a local sponsor, the Corps of Engineers maintains
its authority to construct the CDF as part of its Federal navigation maintenance routine. The Corps
of Engineers is responsible for all aspects related to the integrity of the CDF's design and construction,
including prevention of adverse environmental effects.
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)- •
Regulations under TSCA, enacted in 1976, require written approval by the regional EPA
administration for disposal of contaminated sediment containing PCBs in concentrations higher than
50 ppm. When the Corps of Engineers intends to dredge an area with sediment containing PCB
concentrations above 50 ppm, it must apply to the EPA Regional Administrator for a TSCA permit.
EPA can withhold the permit if the dredging and disposal plan presents any unreasonable risk for
landfilled materials or inadequate protection for alternate disposal methods. Under TSCA regulations,
any material with PCB concentrations higher than 50 ppm must be incinerated or sent for disposal in
a RCRA-approved facility. TSCA requirements do not apply to PCB concentrations less than 50 ppm.
The TSCA anti-dilution provisions, wherein PCBs are treated as if they were at the original material's
concentration, do not apply to EPA actions at CERCLA sites. However, dredged materials containing
PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm may be disposed by alternate methods approved by the EPA
Regional Administrator. It must be demonstrated that disposal in an incinerator or chemical waste
landfill is not reasonable and appropriate, and that the alternate disposal method will provide adequate
protection to human health and the environment (USEPA, 1990e).
Water Resources Development Act of 19903--
Section 312 of this Act authorizes the Corps of Engineers to dredge outside navigational channel
boundaries to effect environmental cleanup. This act requires a non-federal local sponsor's
participation, and that sponsor must provide half of the dredging costs and 100 percent of the disposal
costs for the material removed from outside the navigation project. . . : -
3 WRDA was also reauthorized in 1992.
1-15
-------
International Law--
International regulations addressing dumping wastes into the marine environment were written
at the 1972 London Dumping Convention on The Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes
and Other Matter. Additionally, the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 between the United States and
Canada committed the two countries to avoid pollution of the others' waters.
State Law—
In addition to the federally-mandated 401 certification, a state may require additional permits for
dredge and disposal projects. Each state has its own set of laws, regulations, and procedures that
pertain to activities affecting water quality and the quality of the environment. A subcommittee of
state environmental administrators, working through the Council of Great Lakes Governors, is
developing new state in-place pollutant programs to ensure consistency among state regulations.
1-16
-------
SECTION 2
CHARACTERIZATION CONSIDERATIONS
Surface waters of the United States receive discharges from sources containing a variety of
liquid and solid materials. Although the compositions and quantities of these discharges are not known
with certainty, many may contain toxic and hazardous chemicals. Because of their physicochemical
properties these toxic chemicals may remain in sediment for long periods of time.
A great deal of monitoring data are available from surveillance and monitoring required by the
Clean Water Act (CWA). However, these data primarily concern effluents and water quality. Since
many contaminants have very low water solubilities, monitoring the water may not reveal the presence
of contaminants in sediment. Navigational dredging and permitting processes under the CWA generate
a significant volume of data, but they do not readily characterize sediment. The data are confined to
sediment in navigational channels and proposed disposal sites. Several current programs require
sediment monitoring that will eventually provide sediment quality data, such as those under the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). In addition, the CWA and the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) oversee aquatic disposal projects and require extensive data collection.
These data will help to identify the contaminants associated with sediment, and appropriate disposal
techniques. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Status and Trends
Monitoring Program will provide sediment information for coastal areas.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING TREATMENT CHOICES
Characterization and evaluation of the site are necessary to select an appropriate remedy and
identify the source and nature of the contaminants. Industrial plants and other potential point sources
of contamination near the site aid in identifying the type and levels of contaminants.
The location of the site and its physical characteristics can affect sediment dredging activities.
Access difficulties may prevent delivery of the proper treatment equipment. Congested navigation
channels can make dredging impractical. If the water body is a source of drinking water, dredging may
require either extra precautions to prevent contaminant spread or an alternate water supply.
2-1
-------
A description of the water body is necessary to select a remedial action. Some important
water body information is presented in Table 2-1. Additional sources of water-body information are
listed in Table 2-2. This information helps the Project Manager select both the most appropriate dredg-
ing method and the most suitable remedy. Remedial selection also requires definition of the nature of
the water column such as its turbidity, total dissolved solids, total dissolved organic matter, and
chemical composition. The use of a water body, such as navigation, recreation, industrial, or municipal
discharge, or a combination of these, determines whether institutional control of the waterway is
feasible. The waterway uses affect the nature of restrictions that may be needed during remediation.
SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIOR
Sediment particles reach water bodies by various routes. They vary in chemical composition
and in physical properties. The constituents of sediment such as clay, organic matter, hydrated iron,
manganese oxides, and associated characteristics (e.g., particle size distribution, pH, oxidation-
reduction condition, and salinity of the water body) all affect the interaction of the sediment particles
with the contaminants. For example, fine-grained sediment often contains more contaminants and
natural organic matter because of its higher surface-area-to-weight ratio than coarse-grained material.
Verschueren (1983) reports that the organic carbon content of sediment influences the adsorption
capacity of contaminants such as PCBs. Means (1980) reports that the sorption of pyrene, 7-12-
dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, 3-methylchloranthracene, and dibenzanthracene is correlated with the
organic matter content of sediment.
Sediment particle size influences the association of the contaminants with the sediment and
the potential for contaminant migration. Smaller diameter particles remain suspended for longer periods
of time, easily resuspend in high tides and floods, and travel farther in the current from the
contamination source. Transport properties of sediment are discussed in detail in a number of articles
and books by Bennett (undated) and Yalin (1977). Although it is recognized that contaminants in a
confined water body, such as a lake, are usually found in fine particles, their distribution is not
necessarily uniform. They often occur in pockets of limited area and in deeper areas of lakes. Also,
the contaminant profile of sediment is affected to a large extent by the benthic organisms occurring
in the water body. These aspects of the sediment behavior are discussed extensively in Sediments
2-2
-------
Containment method selection.
en
• CO
CD
3
Q.
CD
Q.
TJ
0)
o'
C_
Ql
CD
O
0
3
O
CD
2
01
o'
3
Adherence of contaminants to particulat
than settling as sediment.
Need for containment.
8
3
IT
CD
3
CT
CD
to
to
o
CO
CD
5
a
o'
s
CD
CD
01
CD
CO
—.
3
a
CD
Potential for capping/CAD
01
CD
3"
CD
to'
Ability to operate/maneuver dredging eq
c
-a
3
CD
^
CT
CD
to
to
« :>
I c?
o ~*
CD O
CO 3
C CD
CO •-»
n> CD
o o
CD ft
— o'
3
Q)
3
Q.
CD
O
O
Ability of dredging equipment to operate
Predicted movement of discharged subs'
sediment.
01
3
0
CD
CO
0
Predicted movement of discharged subs
sediment.
01
3
O
CD
01
O
-t
if
OT CQ"
""• l-fr
§ 0'
^ .D
| o
ri* 0>
CT ft
CO '
1 =*
a s:
o' ffi
3 |>o
to
D
3'
o
ft
8 3 g
3, 3' °f
CQ' 3 3-
^ C 0
§..3 g
§ 3 a
2.x ^
§-1°
|?f
. o S 5
~" 3 ^
a ° ™
-^ -j
01
0 3
Q. CD_
Potential for capping/CAD
Ability to operate/maneuver dredging eq
Accessibility of site for dredging equipm
CD C
- f
CD
^
30 Z
CD 01
3 <.
0 CQ
it 01
CD rt
CO O
CD 3
5) °
5' 3"
rt
co"
o C
3 en
01 *jy
^ W
rt
0
T3
O
3
3-
o"
o
3"
0}
,
01
tr
CD
ro
to
Predicted movement of discharged subs
sediment.
»t
01
3
O
%
%
Accessibility of site for dredging equipm
CD
3
Ability to operate/maneuver dredging eq
c
•6'
CD
2
f
CQ'
01
o'
3
O
31
0)
^5.
•
^
CT
CD
to
to
•33
CD
O
ft
CD
m
CD
3
CO
3'
CQ
oT
o
3
01
0.5-D
S ^ <&
f» 01 TJ
3 ft ft "
3 CD 3-
CD "^ „
ill
III
I V 1
_ Q)
3O i-f
-*» CD
Q) «- Q.
X- <
§' & CT
^ CD i-+
,3 D- f
3' a. E3
§ _ 01
3 ^ CD
S 5-
a to
CD
-1
Ability of dredges to reach/remove cont
materials. .
01
I.
a
CD
O.
(Q Ol
TiT CQ'
o o>
3 ^.
. 01 o
« 3
O
3-
01
^
D
CD
O
ft
CD
01
CO
C
CD
3
CD
3
30
CD
3
o
CD
CO
CD
3
V
5"
3"
rmation 1
0
§
T"l
ro
m
to
f"
TER BODY AND SEDIMENT INFOR
Application
1
0
~ 30
m
i
30
m
S^
m
.- . Z
™H
C/>
>
2
0 (A
5 o
S i
01 0
m
(A
2-3
-------
c
o
CO
c
°w
c
0)
in
I
t
I
<0
H~
I
I
§0 g,!
s r-N
CM
•S LLI
ti to
CO
CO
I! II
CM
CM
*?
CM
CM
CM
I- =
CM
CM
111!
a
M
1
•= 5
•n &
V ° a
\ i— rs ^
111
c E
» S
|5
8 fe°
o *-• o
• " **
**j :S c
*i w '« +i ^
E4^ 4-»
(j r i
.9- «
£ D)
C T3
O ID
u *-
.2 o
+j -M
8 V,
£ *
•i: w
£ 10
**^ *rr ID
4^" -M m™
.
i-I i II
^•g ^ oS
- ^ o
< D.
— ID
CTJ
CO
-
c ro
ID •=-.
il y
If
co E
co
S
CD _C W
CO a. (0
2-4
-------
m
•a
3-
CD
CD
co'
CU
CL
01
c5'
cu_
3
03
03
C3
Prediction of tidal movemeni
CO
01
CL
CD
5T
3
CU
^
-H
CD
0
CD
CO
cJ
o
Q)
Municipalities an
Q.
c
3_
^"
CD
CO
rt
CD
CO
Historical knowledge of area
knowledge of area.
; environmen
*
03
3
CL
CQ
CD
O
O
CQ
o'
(U
CD
O
O
cu
CO
*
O
CD
T3
03
CD
Data on currents, waves, an
CL
r-f
CL
CD
CO
03
(H"
CD
i Water Departme
1
Data concerning all water sy
CO
CD
CO
1.
r-f
CU
CO
1
O CO
s §.
03 T3
ps Institute of Oc
nographic Institui
CD CD
01
O
CQ
•n
CU
T3
3-
01
3
Q.
$
O
o
CL
CO
o
CD
Data on currents, waves, an
Q_
CD
CO
CD C
CO CO
o •
Department of In
urces
S.
°
cu
CL
of
03
5?
w
o
CD
•o
01
2
CD
O
"^*
^?
0)
s_
Identification and location o1
: endangered
CO
•Q
CD
g
01
3
CL
3^
QJ
D;
01
CO
C
CO
•
National Oceanic
Ql
Q,
o
CO
•a
CD
t
o
«^
CL
3
3'
a
6'
3
Nautical and meteorological
capabilities; modeling of con
data; visual r
taminant traj
CD CD
O 0
°§
^ 3
co'
CO
cu
CD
C
CO
•
-t
<
o
0
•3
en
O
-h
m
CQ
5'
CD
CD
CO
Historical water uses of the
area; navigational charts.
CO
I-t-'
CD
•a
CD
Q.
i
Q.
5"
•O
o>
3
CD
3
CO
o*
CD
C
CO
•
National Weather
CO
CD
^\
o°
CD
Meteorological and nautical
CL
01
01
C
CO
Geological Surve
•<
Topographic maps; data on
features of the site; topogra
•o g.
{U 0
cu o
• CQ_
o'
03
CL
3^
<
CL
B
o
CQ
o'
C
(/)
O
o
cu
en
i-f
Q
c
cu
3.
o
co'
o'
0
o"
CD
CO
Q- :E
1 1
o'
cu
CO
•g.
Q.
01
m
o"
o
9L
3
jteorological
CL
Ol
OJ
O
8
09
3
O
CQ
CU
3-
o'
9 2
C 00
O m
CD m
i
N5
^^
O
D
H
0
|^
P"
— ^
TI
o
30
riON SOURCES FOR WATER
inform
BODY DATA
lation availabi
CD
2-5
-------
of Southern Lake Huron (USEPA, 1980), and Sediments: Chemistry and Toxicity of In-Place Pollutants
(Baudo, et al., 1990). • ..»,,,,
Particle size and organic matter content significantly affect the selection of a remedy. Fine
textured sediments such as silt and clay have a much greater affinity for all classes of contaminants.
Organic matter content, including humic material is important in two respects: the humic material
greatly increases the affinity of sediments for metals and nonpolar organic contaminants, and it serves
as an energy source for sediment microbial populations. Many technologies cannot effectively remove
contaminants that are strongly bound to small particles, while others have difficulty, physically..
processing fine particles. The mineralogy of the particles affect technology selection: For exampje,
it is likely that sediment from Lake Michigan confined by limestones will act differently, and will attach
to contaminants differently than sediment from Lake Superior confjned by_ granites and volcanic rock.
* * ' '"" • , .,„ / •:'
Since this document focuses on procedures to select remedial options, minimum attention is
given to sampling and analytical techniques. Reasons for sediment sampling and analysis include
determination of distribution of specific contaminants, sediment contaminant mobility, existing impacts
on aquatic benthic fauna, disposal alternatives, and treatment alternatives. Such techniques are
described in Removal and Mitigation of Contaminated Sediments (SAIC, 1985), Procedures for the
Assessment of Contaminated Sediment Problems in the Great Lakes (International Joint Commission,
1988), Handbook of Techniques for Aquatic Sediment Sampling (Mudroch, et al., 1991), Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste SW-846 (USEPA, 1986c), Sediments: Chemistry and Toxicity of In-Place
Pollutants (Baudo, et al., 1990), Sediment Classification Methods Compendium (USEPA, 1989j, 1992)
and Confined Disposal of Dredged Material (USAGE, 1987a).
CONTAMINANT CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR BEHAVIOR IN SEDIMENT
Contaminants typically found in sediment can be grouped as follows:
• Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHS)
• Pesticides
• Chlorinated hydrocarbons
• Mononuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (benzene and its derivatives)
• Phthalate esters
• Metals
• Nutrients
• Miscellaneous such as cyanides and organo-metals
2-6
-------
These contaminants enter the water body from various sources and contact the sediment particles by
direct sinking, and subsequent adsorption on the sediment particles.
In most aquatic systems, the suspended sediment and the top part of the sediment bed contain
higher contaminant concentrations than dissolved in the overlying water column. Consequently,
sediment becomes a reservoir of contaminants that redissolves and migrates into the water column.
Sediment-bound contaminants can also undergo various reactions, thereby altering the behavior and
nature of the original chemicals. For example, oxidation of organic matter in sediment frequently
creates conditions favorable to the release of bound metals into the water as their more soluble species
(Luand, 1977). For example, insoluble metal sulf ides may release their metals if the sediment becomes
oxidized during removal and treatment. Other bound trace metals, especially mercury, can be
methylated or converted to other brgano-metallic forms by microorganisms. These organo-metals can
bioaccumulate in fish (Fujita, 1981).
The octanol/water partition coefficient of organic chemicals has proved useful in predicting soil
adsorption. The octanol/water partition coefficient, Kow, is the ratio of the equilibrium concentration,
C, of a dissolved substance in a two-phase system consisting of two immiscible solvents, such as n-
octanol and water: • -
The partition coefficient, theoretically, depends only on temperature and pressure. It is a constant
without dimensions.
. Unfortunately, Kow values for many compounds of environmental concern are not readily
available. The water solubilities of these compounds are usually available from many sources.
Experimental data show that water solubility, S, and the Kow of an organic compound are correlated
by the following equation (Verschueren, 1983):
Kow = 5.00 - 0.670 log S
where S is the aqueous solubility in micromoles per liter, or
Kow = 4.5-0.75 logS
where S is in ppm
2-7
-------
Figure 2-1 shows the relationship between the aqueous solubilities of various organic com-
pounds and the corresponding Kow values. Table 2-3 uses these data to give an absorption rating. In
the absence of quantitative information, the remedial manager can use Table 2-3 to the advantage of
knowing either the Kovv value or water solubility of the contaminant of concern. A thorough discussion
of the partition coefficient and its use is given in Verschueren (Verschueren, 1983).
The tendency of an organic compound to adsorb onto a sediment particle is related to its
solubility in water: the lower the solubility, the greater the tendency of the organic compound to
adsorb. Studies using natural sediment from Coyote Creek, California, show that organic compounds
are rapidly adsorbed from aqueous streams by suspended solids and bottom sediments.
For inorganic contaminants, no technique similar to those of the organic contaminants is
presently available. Hence, actual chemical analyses and toxicity tests must be performed to evaluate
the potential hazards of inorganic contaminants. However, recent work on the development of
sediment criteria for metal contaminants suggests that measurements of the acid volatile sulfide (AVS)
content of sediment is valuable in assessing the toxicity of divalent metals bound to sediment. It is
anticipated that AVS normalization will provide the basis for development of sediment criteria for metal
contaminants in anoxic sediment.
DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR TREATMENT EVALUATION
Site, sediment, and contaminant-specific physical and chemical data are needed to evaluate
technology performance. One important source of these data is the information collected during
treatability studies. Such data can help identify any pretreatment and posttreatments, optimize the
technology's efficiency, and gather cost and preliminary design data. A source of data types required
to evaluate a technology is presented in the Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA
(USEPA, 1989k). Tables 2-4 and 2-5 present an abbreviated list of characterization parameters for
selected technologies.
Use of the Data
All treatment processes are sensitive to variability in the physical and chemical composition of
the sediment feed stream. Therefore, knowledge of the characteristics of the sediment can be used
to quickly identify the options that are most likely to succeed or fail in treating the particular stream.
2-8
-------
fr-r
BEMZOIC ACJD
Q_
Q.
a
o
ui
o
_J
\SOLU&IL(TY IN WATER mg/L (L06 SCALE)
PHEMYLACETIC
\ «CHLOROFORM
ACID
SALICYLIC ACID
FLUQR06EISZ.EHE
TETRA-
CHLOROETYLEJ1EJ
-CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
• CHLOROBENIENE
FENITROTHIOrtE \MAPHTHALENE
1 \ * » PARATHIONI
ETHEft
DlCAPTHOff « \ .ne-jHYL CHIORPYRIFOS i
DIAL/FOR
eCHLORPYRIFOS
©QICHLOFEMT10M
. 4.V-PCB
DOE
DDT '•
»LEPTOPHOS
2>,5,2'.4', S'.-PCB
LOG Poet =.
-------
TABLE 2-3. ABSORPTION RATINGS
Rating
L (low)
M (moderate)
H (high)
E (extreme)
Octanol/water
partition coefficient
<3
>_3 <5
>_ 5
.
Based on
sediment
adsorption
Absorbs weakly
Absorbs moderately
Absorbs strongly
—
Persistence
95% degradation in
6 months or less
95% degradation in
2 yrs or less
95% degradation in
10 yrs or less
<95% degradation
in 1 0 yrs or more
2-10
-------
- „; • -,. :•;"''• -.,-.. . '-1 . - . : - - '::":".. ,,.... , .. ,,i..
• ,- . ' - .••..- f-
• - - - • • " '' ' ... ,..•'. ••..- .... . ,
1 • ' ' I
Q.
ra o
•1. i.
, v • s. s
2O 0 o O t>
i' t ! II1
- i ? 5 l
2. S o
30
m
O
C
30
m
S
m
z
£
s
30
30
§
S
m
2
o
•n
a
30
m
D
O
in
o
w
m
D
m
2-11
-------
TJ
I
*^
§
O
m
i
5
~
1
O
i
S
o
1
I |
5s
I
8
0)
I
S c '=
2 f s
S § S
!
o
g
-s
1
§|
4 g
11
|
I
i
« 8 1 &
- ~
1 •§ 1 •§ = 1
« o g S -5 5.
> 10 x a. ca w
2-12
-------
o
i
1
f I g 1 1 1 a, | *
s S § 3 f ? e *
f I s.t;fl
" S"-M-S
3" 8 S- -s <
9- •§. • =• a
s 2 8 = ? l
' w g" § D
o — . 3 " 3
II I
|.| |
S 51 i? §• m m m
i I- I i | | 1
= 00 ~ |» S 0
ill f i I i
3OO 2 =- 3 3
I 1 1 f* 1 1
? 3 3 w O
! i 1 * 5 S- r •
i S! 8 I 3 f f
D ft ft » 0 0 1O
3. ' "to X ™ S S
It |f 1 I
3 i »»?•§•
i' , « ? f a a
11 I
-! '
II
S tt
4 §
s. i
?!
« 1
•a 5
as'
i1
«
I
s
i1 S 3 ?
g. 3 £ S
f 1 » =
s >< | S.
I
-•
it>.
a
S
B
3-
mm m 3m
a. a » 2 S
I I I H
i I S If
5 a £ s S
in response to overburden s
i to stress from cap).
's ability to withstand loads <
's stability and bearing capac
/ of treated wastes (freeze-tl
i ? ! I
i I f
t re f
B | m
I |
£ a.
•5 a
— 3
Q.
re
s
a
g
S
i §!
f 3
I1
(A
a
1
TJ
f
O*
f 1 f S
g f §• 1
§' I o S,
" I 1 3
"< C9
SL
»
m p o O
i I § |
! ! i 1
l : s 1
1 i i1 1
handling methods (e.g., crui
:e area available for binder cc
mnt of water addition/removi
in density between untreate
6. =• 5 S.
|=|?
~ § S 1
» 3 =• a.
f ! I ?
I * f i
1 8 ° 1
S a
ii
c
f
5
o
§.
3> E S >
ill
* " 1
i I
i f
n
3
O O
3
requirements.
S H
i- 1
o 3
II
I
o
f Parameter
'urpose and con
§
1
00
rn
o
o
«-*•
_.
(D
Q.
2-13
-------
a
CO
i
^
a
c
1
1
1 1
i 1
Affects heating value and material rwmdlnfl.
Determine the amount of ash that must be sent for dhposal or further trea
Prevent high-temperature slagging problems using Inorganic salts having la
' I
i S
1 2 '|
1 ' S *
1 I 1
1
1
S.
1
S
1
£
1
O.
I
•a
1
c
S
€
Particle-size
AddltJonal energy required by low heating value materials.
«
Heating vali
IH s-
ii j~
i
1
a
1.
1
O
u
w
f)
i
1
o
1
1
5.
i
|
|
8
1
o
1
1
1
s
1
1
•3
1
o
1
i
1
•s
K
1
1
c
3
11
II
11 I
1
«
a
c*
"o
•3
I
V
i
s
I
1
c
o
1
o
a
•B
|
i
0)
™
1
i
To.tal chioril
?
O
£
jU
c
o"
•g
a
o"
U)
"o
o
•«
1
1
i
I
'C
f
*£
•a
£
f
£
I
|
•5
s
Total sulfur
•8
o
a
S
s
1
I
1?
o
o
w
Q.
jo -
•n
i
i
£•-
SI
• • '
I Phosphorus
••-.
^_
-S:
o
u
i
£
Determine the feasibility of incineration. (99.9999% ORE required for PCI
ations; incineration is required if greater than BO ppm PCBs present.)
1
•e
"JT
03
I
V)
1?
Polychlor.ni
(If suspecte
a =
? °
= s 1
^ j: ,13
.»- o Jo
•g JS {J
£ *« tt
"Poo,
w -° g
Determine- special treatment needs. (Volatile metals (Hg, Pb. Cd. Zn, Ag,
treatment; other metals may cohcejttrate in ash. Trivalent chromium may
valent chromium, which is more toxic. Presence of inorganic alkali salts.
Metals
I!
1
:!
1
4!
i
|
1
2-14
-------
CO
o
I
CD
CO
m
CD
CO
CD
So
= si
N' 5s
QI n
c+ Q>
Q A
3 5'
. 3
to CO
O CD
= Q.
• 3'
CD
i~t-
i ' *
• CO
o'
. ' Q)
1" c? "CD ?--§F 7
0-0 0 (Q -3. ^
-• g: 5" <° s; CD
. " rt — ° CO D
S -°li 1
•o S Q-: Q- §•
5'' £L co' w j*
,5 - • " " • o
1Q CD
•§? ?£
• s ^ is
,3 55 to
3 QJ g.
CD 3 -H
O . r+ CD.
, r- CO CO
i- •• s.
• CD cr
D. =
CD
•o o^
17 0)
o o.
-* CD
=t ^
CD o)
^ CD
3 <
CD
3 • -Q.
<-*• CD
CD
§'
CO
Q>
, 9-
3
x"
3'
(Q
' '?3
> > 0
3 ' —
If
. ^
S'
CO
g1
o
(Q
CD
3
0)
' Q.
O
> '
Treatmen'
technolog
•< -
1
S
§•
H
00
m
s
i
p
1
1
30
m
|
m
^>
m
2
CO
s
CO
H
^n
5
H
m
O
•n
CO
S
g
m
H
2-15
-------
-------
SECTION 3
SELECTION OF REMEDIAL OPTIONS
INITIAL SCREENING USING GENERIC SITE CONDITIONS
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act and CERCLA direct the U.S. Coast Guard and the
Environmental Protection Agency to ensure safe cleanup of hazardous chemical discharges, including
sediment, in United States waters. In addition, the Corps of Engineers is charged with keeping the
commercial waterways navigable by removal of sediment, which may or may not be contaminated.
Certain remedial actions are routinely taken by the Corps of Engineers; others are currently
under investigation by EPA. Both the traditional options selected by the Corps of Engineers - such as
confined disposal facilities, confined aquatic disposal, in situ capping, ocean disposal, etc. - as well
as the soil/sludge remediation techniques being investigated by EPA under Superfund or enforcement
may be applicable to cleanup of sediment.
The first step in the selection process is characterizing the site and sediment. These data
enable the remedial manager to decide whether the sediment is contaminated and whether it poses a
potential threat to human health or the environment. If the sediment does not pose a threat, then no
action is required. If the sediment is contaminated and does pose a threat to human health or the
environment, then some action is required.
Selecting the Most Effective Options/Identifying Marginal Potions/Determining Ineffective Options
Section 1 provides several sediment quality criteria to assist the remedial manager in determin-
ing whether or not sediment is contaminated. For contaminated sediment, Figure 3-1 displays
conventional techniques and new treatments that may be potentially applicable, based on RODs dealing
with contaminated sediment (see Appendix C). Table 2-4 indicates the principal parameters that are
needed to properly evaluate a technology. Finally, Appendices A and B contain relevant case studies
and treatability studies, respectively.
3-1
-------
^< raqund? y' """" ^™"~ """"
TV 1 i_ ^ ^
V | „ 1_ | T««t No
[»fc I^Sc^l
*— I ' 1
•coon 1 Cap
„ M> J in ptae*
JT *
Y I Long t*rm monitoring j
/ '• . X tln
^. YWIU? /
I* it •eooonmlV
to tre«t
dradged m«t»nal?
Perform initial
to»*ning
(T>blM 3-1 and 3-2)
I Biological I | DtcMonMHon TJwona) d«»ofplioo
Figure 3-1. Applicable remedial options.
3-2
-------
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 assist the remedial manager to screen out less appropriate remedial
methods. The remaining methods can then be pursued in detail in the feasibility study. At present it
is difficult to assign numeric values to the low, medium, and high categories presented in Table 3-2.
When available, qualitative and quantitative values are listed in Table 3-3 to further assist the remedial
manager. Additional parameters can be found in the text under the section describing the specific
technology. Using Figure 3-1, the remedial manager can determine whether conventional options or
innovative technologies or some combination are appropriate to the site. Table 3-4 is a worksheet to
assist the remedial manager in evaluating the parameters in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. Once completed, the
worksheet will indicate one of four general conditions:
A preferred technology choice, indicating that the selected technology
may be appropriate for the site-specific conditions.
A less than clear-cut choice, indicating that some parameters must be
adjusted to fit the technology to the site conditions.
An array, indicating that the site conditions are so varied that several
technologies may be required to remediate the site.
The absence of a choice, indicating that none of the listed technologies
is appropriate to the site.
The remedial manager can then move toward, technology selection. The selection process is
outlined below. Relevant examples are detailed in Section 4 of this guide.
• Use Tables 1-1 through 1-4 to aid in determining if sediment is contaminated.
- . ... • Refer to Figure 3-1 to preliminarily screen the treatment options.
• Review Table 2-4 for the principal parameters affecting technology
performance.
,.«.-*..{
• Screen less appropriate technologies using Tables 3-1 and 3-2.
• Use Table 3-4 as a worksheet for your specific site;
• Determine an appropriate overall treatment system from the technology
description sections of the text.
3-3
-------
I
=
0
DC
a
1
2 1
II
i
<
2
8
si
o
z
2
s II
col
_J
<
p
=
—
^
I 1
CO
LLJ V
m
^
c
— o
CO ~
§ &
0) O
^1
c
2
CD
'5
§"~" c
.- .2
,0 _N
^: co
0 UJ
C/3
C
c °
CU o
^ CO
o i;
W x
0)
0)
o 1
1
c
_o
*'§
.£
o
.c
CD
O
"5 c
.2 «
o i
•^ to
.2 «
CQ 4=
Contaminam
group
OOOO +OOXO
+ + + + +O+OO
XXX
x x O
1
XXXX OOX + O + + +
OOOO +OOOO
+ +OO OOOOO
XXX
O O O
y~N _!_ \s _1_ f^\ -4- i^ 5£ X X 5^
OO + + ooxx +
co
CO CD
_CD :=
w £ -^
CD -2 0
1 > 1 | «
§ 1 S 1 g 1 |
•°
>
+±
15
CO
*-*
CO
£
•*-*
"5
H—
CO
CO
CD
o
O
C/)
..
CO
CO
CD
C
CD
CD
tf_
CD
CO
CO
C
o
CD
Q
+
t technology will work
CO
•*-*
c
0
'c
'o.
o
•M
CD
£
LU
•D
CD
CO
•*-<
CO
c
o
0)
73
0
^
_f)
co
CO
CD
C
m
effectivi
co
'S
CD
o
Q.
0
CO
co
CD
CD
1
CD
CD
T3
CD
O
CD
Q.
X
CD
O
z
X
c"
g
*•»-'
CO
D
CO
CD
CD
£
D
cr
CD
T3
CO
O
M—
_CD
_CO
'co
CO
CO
CO
-o
•I-"
c
'o
it
10
c
T3
_CD
'o
CD
a
CO
c
ID
^
E
—
-^
•-
•^
"°"
o
o
05
t~
.a
00
00
O5
a.
LLJ
C/D
^3
0)
o
3
O
cyj
3-4
-------
ipf i IP1 nil ipi i fif IP!
1 | "* 1 3°ig|g||
3, g 3 3 CD
CD CD rt
3 3
+ + + CX+X O++ XXX + + + OO +
O++ ++ + x x+o xxx OO+ xo +
00+ OO+O +Ox xo+ OO+ XO +
x++ OO+O + + O xxx OO+ xo +
+ + + OO++ O+x + + + + + + O+ +
XO+ ++ + 0 O+O XO+ + + + xO +
XO+' ++ + O O+O xo+ + + + xo +
Paramete
-^
=t CO
CD 5-
Q) °
3.2
£? o'
S SL
0
3-
O
-^
5'
Q)
r+
s*
3
8> w
3- O_
_. __
(O
CD
!? O
a|
o s.
3
jag5
u ~
T Q. ;
~ Si i
N O .
S S. :
5' 5' '
- i
;
^—^_^^_ i
3*
5'
D
I
5'
3
*.
If
5' SL
3
CD
N
1
H
en
O
30
m
m
Z,
O
o
m
rn
m
3-5
-------
1
!
_
(continued!
.
Csl
(O
01
^
<
H
C ""*"*
E S-
to o
•C (/)
1— o>
•o
I
.1
J
"c c
.2 .0
a a
.0 _N
s "i
w w
Solvent
extraction
O)
— .£
w|
•
1 c
c
I
-
1
Q
11
0 I
•5 ra
•2 S
Parameter1
x O + ++ + O x
O + + ++ +OX
C + + ++ ++O
O + + + O x x
O + + +O ++O
Q + + ++ +OX
+ + + +O O+O
» §
c 2 o c
a g § s |
S 1 .111 ! 1
CQ *" ^— ^j ^^ C QJ d) > "O L^"*
•*• 5 Q3 O) P o ni ^ri S ^ ^
c
O
O
CD
(/>
O
o
f-*
CJ
CD
CD
+-*
C
•D
CD
W
(O
3
0
CO
S
CO
CD
E
CO
CO
Q.
•o
o
O)
CD
C/5
05
i_
CD
O)
CO
a:
TO
0)
a
c
o
CO
o>
a>
CO
cr
03
TJ
_cu
XI
CO
CO
«
o
0)
Q. 4->
X C
U5 W 05 .9
(ft O5 (ft H—
CD ?) ^ t;
-§ S &
-Q 5 c
S str .S
*
+ o x
3-6
-------
1
{?
o
o
3
Content outsid
40-80% inhibit
activity
en CD
If >20% require
higher reagent u
en in
CB
O
CD
O
Affects choice
of solvent
No known effect
If high, affects
feed handling i
energy
requirements
i.
Affects energy use
||
S*
CB
n
o
3
•o
Q
en
If heterogeneo
can affect sus-
tained activity
c
en
Certain chlorinat
aliphatics may
produce potentic
explosive compc
C — CD
3 < 0-
Q.
en
Affects waste solu
tion formulations
Affects choice
of solvents
If heterogeneous, <
affect bonding
o
to
3
Can affect ene
requirements i
heterogeneous
- - a
Can affect energy
requirements if het-
erogeneous
I
51
w
o
o
3
CD
3
Depends on th
process type
CD
Affects reagent
c
en
CD
No apparent effect
No apparent
effect
If <15%, requires
higher reagent use
Most efficient
content increa
SIS
en
CO
Most efficient as conte
increases
3
in
sz
o
o
3
a
3
No apparent ei
CD"
O
O
3
O
3
0
r+
Affects efficiency
Affects effi-
ciency
May affect bondin
CQ
Can be carried
through proce:
m —
en
Can be carried through
process
CD.
5'
"<
Microorganism
must be adapt
to high salt co
centration
3 tD en
1 Q.
Affects reagent
c
en
CD
No apparent effect
2, z
11
O
May affect bondin
CQ
No known eff<
IB
3
3
O
3
nT
s
•a
I
u ^
3 0
CQ en
CD "
* 2.
tn c?
CO 3
I
. V
Affects choice of
reagents
Affects choice
of solvent
pH is automaticall
adjusted
•<
If low, can cai
acid attack
C
en
CD
If outside 5 to 1 1 can
cause corrosion
-»
o
CD
en
sr
If non-uniform
affect activity
0
fu
No apparent eff
CD
R
Fines difficult to re
move from wash
solution
i
c
S-
o-
CD
A
If < 200 mesh or
>i/4" can affect
bonding
Fines can be
carried throug
the process
3-
Fines can be carried
through the process
CD
to
rr
en
0
CD
3
Can be toxic t
croorganisms
o
3
Increases use o
reagent
Does not remove i
soluble metals
3
Does not
removal in-
soluble metals
Does not remove
leachable metals
Volatile metal
can vaporize
en
Volatile metals can
vaporize
X
c
3.
o'
n
o
3
CD
3
No apparent e
CD*
O
Increases reacti
time
o
3
Inhibits contamina
removal
3
No apparent
effect
If >45% (wt)car
affect bonding
o
CD
I
o
3 '
O
5.
ef
3
1
o
o
3
CD
No known eff
CD
O
Increases reacti
time
o
3
Impedes contam-
inant removal
Affects solvent
use and
efficiency
No known effedt
No known eff
CD
3'
Can effect removal eff
ciency
T'
-o
Q)
•n
B)
3
CD
r*
•fl>
Biologic
treatmei
A SL
Dechlorina
o'
..3
**
|o
to
Solvent
extraction
Solidificatio
stabilizatio
5!
00
m
to
w
13
^RAMETEREI
' 1 1
s
3
3
' *
Incinerati
§
Thermal
desorption
3-7
-------
fc
HI
X
C/5
tc
O
5
CD
Z
Ul
0
CO
<
fc
z
i
CO
UJ
m
^^
c
I '•*
u o
|5 83
•o
c
o
1
01
c
5
"5 c
0 0
'•£ '-^
(u (o
|1
CO
c
g -B
"5 i3
OT S
a)
D)
m **™
wf
5
c
•|
1
^
u
a>
a
ra c
.0 (U
o £
o ^^
S ^
0)
D)
C
i»
1
5
ro
a.
•^ c ^ o *~"
<-• *- S Q> S Q. a
HIM , i H §
CX^OT— £»O?nCD 1-
ro ° .H -^ _o ~ o -o *^ c Q
C ro"p aS ^-p^i;^ "'•Sj
CJOX^O- Q.C/)COCO>'w5
3-8
-------
REMOVAL AND TRANSPORT
The first step in the remedial selection process is to determine whether to treat the sediment
in situ. Most often, sediment is excavated/dredged, and contained. The process of selecting removal
and transport technologies should be driven by treatment and/or disposal decisions. This is because
treatment/disposal options typically have the higher costs and are more controversial from a social,
political, or regulatory perspective.
A primary concern during the removal and transport of contaminated sediments is the danger
of introducing contaminants into previously uncontaminated areas. Contamination during these steps
occurs primarily from the resuspension of sediments during removal and from spills and leaks during
transport.
Removal of Contaminated Sediment
Most contaminated sediment research and regulatory empTiasis have focused on dredging and
disposal. The choice of whether to dredge depends on the nature of the sediment, the types ,of
contaminants, the depth to bottom, the thickness and volume of sediment, the distance to next
operation (e.g., disposal sites), and the available machinery. Dredging and transport are appropriate:
when the environmental effects of the no action alternative are unacceptable; when environmental
conditions such as wave action, flooding, or erosion transport prohibit leaving the sediment in place;
or when sediment lies in navigation waterways that must be dredged. Dredging costs for all types of
sediment range from $1.00 to $25.00/cubic yd, while costs for dredging contaminated materials
typically range from $5.00 to over $25.00/cubic yard.
Dredging costs depend on the volume of material removed, the location of the material
(contiguous areas as opposed to isolated hot spots), the type of waterway (navigation channel,
constricted natural river, etc.), the time restrictions placed on dredging, the type of dredge, and any
special restrictions placed on the operation (e.g., the use of silt curtains, special equipment, hours of
operation, etc.)
Dredging causes resuspension of sediment. However, the spread of resuspended sediment can
be limited through the use of silt curtains. Silt curtains create an underwater obstacle that extends
below the water's surface, sometimes to the bottom. Oil booms lie on the surface and block material
moving on top of the water.
3-9
-------
Dredging methods are divided into three major categories: mechanical, hydraulic, and
pneumatic. The water content of the sediment is an important variable in the design, operation, and
handling costs of contaminated material. Mechanical dredging produces a material with a water
content near that of in situ sediment. The high solid content reduces the size requirements for trans-
port, treatment, and disposal equipment. Although mechanical dredging offers the advantage of high
density recovery, it generates high resuspension of bottom sediment, particularly in the fine-grained
range. Since the fine-grained sediment is often highly contaminated, the higher resuspension can
cause increased contaminant release. The expected levels of suspended sediment must be compared
to the background levels of suspended material in the water. Higher velocity currents can transport
particles as large as 10 mm diameter to greater distances. The significance of any effects from this
resuspended material must be considered in the context of other activities that may cause similar
resuspension, such as ship traffic and storm events.
Mechanical Dredges-
Mechanical dredges include clamshells, dippers, bucket ladder dredges, draglines, and
conventional earthmoving equipment. They remove bottom sediment through directly dislodging and
excavating material at almost in situ density. Such techniques have been used extensively.
Clamshells--A clamshell is a highly precise digging tool efficient in close quarters such as dock
and pier areas. Hinged clamshells range in capacity from 1 to 20 cu yd. They can recover all types-
of material except highly consolidated sediment, and can excavate to practically any depth, restricted
only by the crane lifting capacity. Clamshell dredges operate at 20 to 30 cycles per hour, depending
on working depth and sediment characteristics. Because they excavate a high percentage of solids,
they can lower the cost of subsequent dewatering. If the sediment will be deposited in a confined
facility, lower water content will promote rapid settling and reduce the escape of sediment with
effluent water.
The clamshell is attached by a cable to a crane mounted on a flat-bottomed barge. The
anchors can move the barge short distances after it is in position, but must be moved by a tug during
any longer trips. The crane operator drops the clamshell into the water in the open position. After the
bucket hits bottom, the operator closes the bucket, scooping up the sediment. The operator then
raises the bucket of contaminated sediment through the water column and above the water, swings
it over a barge or scow, opens the jaws, and dumps the sediment. If properly operated, conventional
clamshells can remove sediment with minimal loss of sediment. Modifications to the conventional
3-10
-------
clamshell, known as a closed-bucket clamshell, use welded plates and rubber gaskets to improve the
seal when bucket closes. Closed-bucket clamshells are routinely used in contaminated sediment
dredging projects by the Corps of Engineers in the Great Lakes, and reduce the amount of resuspended
material by 30 to 70 percent (McLellan, 1989).
Draglines-Draglines employ the same basic equipment as the clamshell dredge; the major
differences being the control cable arrangement, the excavating bucket, and the method of operation.
The dragline bucket is loaded by being pulled by a drag cable through the material being excavated and
toward the crane. Dragline dredges generally offer a longer reach than clamshell dredges operated by
the same crane (Merritt, 1976). Draglines have limited production rates and a high degree of sediment
resuspension caused by agitation and bucket leakage. •
Bucket Ladder Dredaes-A bucket ladder dredge is composed of a submersible ladder which
supports a continuous chain of buckets that rotate around two pivots. As the buckets rotate around
the bottom of the ladder, they scoop up the material to be dredged and transport it back up the ladder
to be discharged into a storage area on the dredge. Bucket ladder dredges are most commonly used
abroad in minirig operations such as sand and gravel production. Although production rates are higher
than for other mechanical dredges, the bucket ladder generates considerable turbidity due to
mechanical agitation of sediments and leakage out of the buckets. Therefore, it is not recommended
for dredging of hazardous materials or contaminated sediments {Hand, et al., 1978).
Conventional Earthmovinq Equipment-Conventional earthmoving equipment such as backhoes
and front-end loaders have limited applications in the removal of contaminated sediments. Backhoes
are normally used for trench and other subsurface excavation and are capable of reaching 40 ft or more
below the level of the machine (Merritt, 1976 and Church, 1981). Backhoes can be barge-mounted
or operated from land, although the lateral reach is limited, as is the vertical reach, by the boom length.
Loaders are normally used to excavate loose or soft materials in a narrow vertical range of
operation a few feet above and below grade. Loaders must be in close proximity; both horizontally and
vertically, to the materials being-excavated, and shore-based and barge-mounted operations are hot
practical. Operations in shallow water may be practical if sediments are sufficiently loose or soft:
Dippers-The 'dipper is a powered shovel designed for digging out rock and other very hard,
compacted material. It operates with a violent digging action, and tends to drop small particles.
Dipper capacities range from 8 to 12 cu yd. Dippers usually achieve a production rate of between 30
3-11
-------
to 60 cycles per hour. They are well suited to excavation of soft rock and highly consolidated
sediment within a working depth of 50 ft. Since this technique allows extensive contaminant releases,
its application to most contaminated sediment is limited.
Hydraulic Dredges-
Hydraulic dredges are usually barge-mounted systems that use centrifugal pumps to remove
and transport the sediment/water mixture. Pumps may be either barge-mounted or submersible.
Standard hydraulic dredging commonly produces slurries of 10 to 20% solids by wet weight.
Economic operating depths range between 50 and 60 ft.
Hydraulic dredges generally exhibit higher production rates and lower resuspension than
mechanical dredges. They are also capable of removing liquid contaminants. However, they are
susceptible to damage by debris and clogging with weeds. Hydraulic dredges include portable dredges,
hand-held dredges, plain suction dredges, cutterhead dredges, dustpan dredges, and hopper dredges.
Portable Hydraulic Dredges-Portable hydraulic dredges are defined as dredge vessels that can
be moved easily over existing roadways without major dismantling. Dredging capabilities range from
10 to 50 ft. Vessel draft is generally less than 5 ft (many less than 2 ft). Production rates average
between 50 to 500 cu yd/hr depending on model, size, and site conditions. These dredges are
particularly useful for projects in isolated water bodies, such as lakes and inland rivers, because they
an be easily moved to sites over land. Their shallow drafts make them effective in shallow water.
Portable dredges cannot operate in waves higher than 1 ft or in water shallower than 2 ft.
Hand-Held Hydraulic Dredqes-Hand-held hydraulic dredges are assembled using readily
available equipment designed for other applications. They can be operated either underwater or above-
water. Underwater hand-held dredges are normally operated by divers, which can operate to depths
of 1,000 ft with an excavation rate of 250 cu yd/hr. Above-water hand-held dredges can be operated
from above the water surface in water bodies less than 4 ft deep with sufficiently firm bottom
materials to allow wading by workmen. Hand-held dredges cannot be operated in strong currents or
high-flow velocities.
Plain Suction Dredges-Plain suction dredges are the simplest form of hydraulic dredges, relying
solely on the suction created by a centrifugal pump to dislodge and transport sediments. The dredge
head is attached to the end of a ladder and its position is controlled vertically and horizontally by the
3-12
-------
movement of cables attached to the ladder. Plain suction dredges are most effective in the removal
of relatively free-flowing sediments such as sands, gravels, and unconsolidated material. Hard and
cohesive materials such as clays or firm native bottom soils are not readily removed by plain suction,
as no mechanical dislodging devices are employed. Slurries of 10 to 15 percent solids by weight can
be achieved in appropriate applications. Production rates average between 1,000 and 10,000 cu
yd/hr. Vessel draft is on the order of 5 to 6 ft.
Hopper dredaes-A hopper dredge is a self-propelled ship with excavating equipment mounted
amidships. Two hinged suction pipes, called drag arms, extend down and back from the sides of the
vessel. Intakes at the lower ends of these pipes scrape along the bottom scooping up sediment that
is then drawn up into open hoppers on board. Product rates range from 500 to 2,000 cu yd/hr, at
depths up to 60 ft. Vessel drafts range from 12 to 31 ft. The vessel can operate in waves up to 7
ft. When the hoppers are full the hopper dredge takes the accumulated sediment to a disposal site.
Hopper dredges are used in heavily trafficked environments, or in open water where waves are too
high for stationary dredges. Their advantages are self-containment, mobility, and seaworthiness.
Hopper dredges have a number of drawbacks. The intake head is inefficient and imprecise,
leaving behind large amounts of uncollected, resuspended sediment. The turbulence created by the
ship's propeller increases resuspension. The on-board hoppers are often allowed to overflow as a
means of eliminating excess water, adding more turbidity and contaminant to the water column. This
procedure is inappropriate for contaminated sediment.
Cutterhead Dredqes-The configuration and principle of operation of the cutterhead dredges are
similar to those of the plain suction dredge with the exception of the addition of a mechanical device
for dislodging material; this device is called a cutterhead. The cutterhead is located at the intake of
the suction pipe and rotates to dislodge sediment, allowing sediment to be removed by suction through
the suction pipe. Slurries up 10 to 20 percent solids by weight are typically achieved. Production
rates vary according to pump size and can be as large as 2,500 cu yd/hr. Vessel draft is between 3
and 5 ft. Cutterhead dredges are capable of reaching materials up to 50 ft below the water surface.
They are highly efficient in removing all types of materials, including very hard and cohesive sediments.
Dustpan Dredqes-The dustpan dredge is also similar in configuration and operation to the plain
suction dredge. The dustpan has a widely flared head containing high-pressure waterjets which
dislodge sediments. The dustpan dredge works best in free-flowing granular material and is not suited
for use in fine-grained clay sediments. Slurries of 10 to 20 percent solids by weight are typically
3-13
-------
achieved. Production rates range between 200 and 15,000 cu yd/hr, depending on the discharge pipe
diameter and the discharge velocity. Vessel draft varies between 5 and 14 ft.
Pneumatic Dredges--
Pneumatic dredges use compressed air and/or hydrostatic pressure to remove sediments.
Pneumatic dredges are commonly barge-mounted. They produce slurries of higher solid concentrations
than hydraulic dredges and cause less resuspension of bottom materials. Common pneumatic dredges
include airlift dredges, the "Pneuma" (developed in Italy) and the "Oozer" (developed in Japan).
Pneumatic dredges have been used extensively in Europe and Japan; they have only limited availability
in the United States. Pneumatic dredges also require a minimum of 7.5 ft of water - deeper than for
mechanical or hydraulic dredges -- to function properly.
Airlift Dredges-Airlift dredges used compressed air to dislodge and transport sediments.
Compressed air is introduced into the bottom of an open vertical pipe that is usually supported and
controlled by a barge-mounted crane. As the air is released, it expands and rises, creating upward
currents which carry both water and sediment up the pipe. The applied air pressure must be sufficient
to overcome the hydrostatic pressure at operating depths. Higher ajr pressures and flow rates result
in higher transport capacity. Air can also be introduced through a special transport head which can
be vibrated or rotated to further dislodge more cohesive sediments. Slurries of 1:3 solid/water ratio
can typically be achieved with airlift dredges (Hand, et al., 1987). Airlift dredges are usually operated
from barges with drafts between 3 and 6 ft. Airlift dredges are used primarily in underwater mining
of sand and gravel and are well-suited to deep dredging applications for excavating loose granular
materials, primarily sand. Any depth for which sufficient pipe and air pressure can be provided can be
dredged by this method.
Pneuma Dredges-The Pneuma dredge is a pump which is lowered by a crane to be in direct
contact with the sediments being dredged. The pump is driven by compressed air and operates by
positive displacement. The body of the pump contains three cylindrical vessels, each with an intake
opening on the bottom and air port and a discharge outlet on top. The air ports can be opened to the
atmosphere through air hoses and valves. The three discharge outlets join in a single discharge hose.
When operating, the pump is lowered into the sediment with its intakes buried. An air port valve is
opened, creating a pressure differential between the sediment (at hydrostatic pressure) and the cylinder
(at atmospheric pressure) and inducing flow of sediment and water into the cylinder. When the
cylinder is nearly full, compressed air is introduced into the cylinder, closing a check valve at the intake
3-14
-------
opening and forcing the slurry through the discharge outlet in the discharge hose. The three cylinders
operate in parallel, each one-third cycle ahead and behind the other two cylinders and are controlled
by an air distributor located on the control vessel (Richardson, et al., 1982).
Pneuma dredges are most applicable to loosely packed sediment. Pneuma dredges are normally
suspended from a crane cable and pulled into the sediments being dredged by a second cable. Vessel
draft is between 5 and 6 ft. Production rates range between 60 and 300 cu yd/hr.
Oozer Dredaes-The Oozer dredge is a pump that is similar in concept to the Pneuma;
significant differences are as follows:
• The pump body consists of two cylinders.
• A vacuum is applied to the cylinders to increase the differential pressure and flow
between the sediment and the cylinders.
• The pump is usually mounted at the end of a ladder.
• The dredge tracks in a cutterhead-swing-type motion, alternating speeds.
• Sediment thickness detectors are attached close to the suction mouth.
• Underwater television cameras and a turbidimeter are attached near the suction mouth
for monitoring turbidity.
• Suspended oil can be collected by a hood attached on the suction mouth.
« Cutters can be attached for dislodging hard soils.
The Oozer dredge is capable of operating at depths up to 60 ft and pumping slurries of 30 to
70 percent solids (near in situ densities) at rates of 500 to 800 cu yd/hr, while keeping resuspension
of sediments low (Barnard, 1978).
Comparison of Dredge Advantages/Disadvantages-
The three types of dredges discussed above vary in capabilities according to the types of sites
in which they operate most efficiently, their production rates, sediment resuspension rates, and
operating depths. Table 3-5 compares these major characteristics. Handbook: Responding to
Discharges of Sinking Hazardous Substances (USEPA, 1987b), Field Studies of Sediment Resuspension
Characteristics of Selected Dredges (McLellan, et al., 1989), Literature Review and Technical
Evaluation of Sediment Resuspension During Dredging (Herbich, et al., 1991) and Contaminated
3-15
-------
en
o
I
CD
c
o>
m
CO
00
CD
c
3
03
E+.
O
I
i
5'
CD
o
Oi
3
o'
01
3 -o £ £> 33"°
1 < -• I I I <
C/l t?1 —« U. r* CD ^
O (Q <
01
orco o.(Q cro eo 3;
OCDCDOQ-tCDm
O oi OCDCDOO
— » —tO IT- ^ -^
^ Q..
01 CD
Q.
CD
CD
S * 5 co
_ 01 — o 3
a S;3
" 3 S
=!. Q.
3-3
S 3 S:
O to
S 3
^ O
0)
CD
O —•
Q. O.
CD 2.
^ S. co 3
3 *n" "^
CD
C (Q
< ~
01
3 CD
< 5' ^ a. <
o ==
Q. O OJ -i CD — O
CD O ~ ..--.—
= _. S 5* 9?:
CO 3 O
en 3 =-
3w
o
CD 3
3 C*
r+ CD
SO 3
§ S3" _
rt- O- 2 en
01
co 3- o 7;- co CD
2 m' <
CD X Q
|1*I
Q. CD 01
w "O 5+
CO O)
^ c
cn
CD
a.
3' ® 3 o. §
CD
S' CD 01 =n
=: 3 !? O
CD
"
CD
Q. X -•
•£ 2 *§"
c S 5
"
D" CD
5- a
tf.
o
S §-3
-r 3 CD
A 2 co
lll°-l
£5 2. O CO
53" w "S
i o
o rj
i&
S a
CD 3
Q. O
CO
oo
O1
CO
S2.
§
sr
ID
c o
II.
ii
(D
CO
on
m
D
G)
m
O
3-16
-------
Dredged Material - Control, Treatment, and Disposal Practices (Cullinane, et al., 1990) discuss and
illustrate dredge types, capacities, and capabilities.
Transporting the Sediment
The method of transportation for dredged material depends on the distance between the
dredging and treatment sites. Selection of transport options will be affected by both dredge selection
and pretreatment and treatment decisions. The primary emphasis during transport is towards spill and
leak prevention. During transport, spills occur during the loading and unloading of sediments and
special care should be taken during these operations; pipelines also leak sometimes. The principal
transportation methods for moving dredged materials include the following:
Pipelines: Commonly used to transport dredged materials over relatively short distanc-
es (up to 3 mi for navigation dredging; as long as 15 mi for commercial land
reclamation and fill operations).
Barges or scows: The most widely used method of transporting large quantities of
dredged material over long distances. They use controls to prevent the spread of
contamination: decontamination of equipment; fugitive emissions control; procedures
for loading and unloading; route and navigation precautions against hazards.
Railroads: Normally used when distances to disposal sites exceed 50 mi. Control of
dust during transport is essential.
Trucks: Appropriate when the distance to the disposal site lies between 15 and 50 mi.
Federal, state, and local regulations control the movement of hazardous materials via
truck. The high water content of contaminated sediment adds weight and cost to
trucking.
Hopper dredges: Mobile dredges that transport sediment dewatered during filling of the
dredge. Clean excess water can overflow the hopper, leaving space for additional sediment.
Equipment is routinely used to dredge contaminated materials.
A more thorough discussion of contaminant control during dredging and transport is given in
Contaminated Dredged Material - Control, Treatment and Disposal Practices (Cullinane, et al., 1990).
3-17
-------
Selecting a Compatible Dredge and Transport System
Two additional factors to consider when selecting appropriate dredge and transport system are
distance to the disposal/treatment site and compatibility with disposal/ treatment processes. For
example, if the technology is more effective with dewatered material, and if the material does not drain
readily, then mechanical dredging, which produces a drier sediment slurry than hydraulic dredging,
would probably be selected. The drier, mechanically dredged material would then be transported by
barge and/or truck, rather than by pipe.
PRECONDITIONING/PRETREATING THE SEDIMENT
Several technologies may be able to treat contaminated sediment partially. However, it is
unlikely that a single treatment scheme will totally remediate a particular contaminated sediment. More
often, treatment stages are required. For example, most sediment will require dewatering followed by
particle classification {which removes oversize material). The remedial manager must now
accommodate three components, any of which may or may not be contaminated: the sediment, the
oversized materials, and the separated water. In addition to discussing the treatment options for the
separated sediment component, it is necessary to address dewatering, and water effluent treatment.
Figure 3-2 summarizes the major activities that are undertaken in treating contaminated sediment.
Dewaterinq Techniques
Dewatering is normally required to reduce the moisture content of sediment, enhancing the
handling characteristics, and preparing the sediment for further treatment and disposal. The water
generated during dewatering generally contains low levels of contaminants and require treatment.
Dredged material dewatering is traditionally accomplished in ponds or CDFs, which rely on seepage,
drainage, consolidation, and evaporation. This is generally effective and economical, but slow.
Common industrial methods of dewatering slurries or sludges include centrifugation, dewatering
lagoons, filtration, and gravity thickening.
Some of these are appropriate to dewater sediment. Method selection depends on the volume
of sediment, land space available, solid content of the waste stream, and the degree of dewatering
required. A good compendium on dewatering techniques is given in Handbook: Responding to
Discharges of Sinking Hazardous Substances (USEPA, 1987b). Sediments vary in percent solid,
depending on location and dredging technology. Mechanical and pneumatic dredges remove sediment
3-18
-------
(0
o
'v>
to
e
0)
CO
o
'55
_w
CD
c
0
II
co"55
°-8
0
, . -• - t
°1)
CO £^
ffl^
E5
» "D-D
N -2
2S
CD i=
O.g
08
1
Q
t
CD 4_f
3 C CO •
•O CD «
III
^ ^_ CDT3
*•* ^3
.'***
is
V
§£
cc
•a w
CO «^~
0 0
£<0
^
M
(-
0
•a! •*—
1 If
Hi
™ ffl
^^
> I
c
.0
o
? In
'c „ «.o
.2 § w o
"2 E Sis
*" o « w OB
S =0*5 w
^ i.11
i • • •
M
^
CD
£ OB'S
ogg
•n ** Q.
r* w CO
— *• cofi-o
CD §"J2
^y «3 CO
lo
2
§!
"O CO
— * §1
s S1
to*1
Q-X
(U
.2
™
O
•*•«
CO
o
O)
•o
o
CO
3-19
-------
at or near in situ solid concentrations, while hydraulic dredges remove sediments in a liquid slurry and
are more likely to require dewatering. Variations in clay and organic matter content can influence the
percent solid achieved by the various dewatering technologies.
Centrifugation--
Centrifugal dewatering uses the force developed by fast rotation of a cylindrical drum or bowl.
Solids and liquids separate by density differences under the influence of centrifugal force. Centrifuges
are relatively compact and are therefore well suited to areas with space limitations. They can achieve
a product composed of 10 to 35 percent solids, but removal efficiencies are drastically reduced for
particles less than 10 micron. Centrifuges are unsuitable for streams containing tars, small particle
sizes, low density particles, large objects, or fibrous materials thereby possibly limiting their application
to contaminated sediment. They are not as effective as filtration or dewatering lagoons/CDFs, and
have high operating costs, energy use, and maintenance. Costs for centrifugation have been reported
to include $500,000 capital and $85,000/yr operating expenses at a 50 Ib/hr (dry) throughput (USEPA,
1986d).
Dewatering Lagoons/CDFs-
Industrial dewatering lagoons can remove sediment from gravel size to fine silt measuring 10
to 20 micron, if flocculation is used. They correspond closely to CDFs. Particles settle according to
their own settling velocity, which varies according to the particle diameter and specific gravity. These
lagoons/CDFs also provide temporary storage for dredged materials. They can use a gravity or
vacuum-assisted underdrainage system to remove water. This system can achieve up to 40 percent
solids content after 10 to 15 days. Vacuum-assisted systems may produce a dry cake in a shorter
retention time. Vacuum-assisted dewatering lagoons reportedly increase the rate of dewatering by
about 50 percent.
Dewatering lagoons have high capital costs. They require a large land area and involve a long
construction time. Settled solids accumulate on the bottom basins where they are temporarily stored.
As the volume of accumulated solids increases, the capacity of the basin decreases, reducing its
effectiveness and efficiency. Accumulated solids must be periodically removed and treated.
3-20
-------
Filtration--
Filtration is a physical process in which liquid is forced through a permeable medium, retaining
dewatered solids on the membrane. Filtration dewaters fine-grained sediment over a wide range of
solids concentrations. Effectiveness depends on the type of filter, the particle size, and the solids
concentration in the influent.
Three commonly used types of filter systems are belt press filtration, vacuum filtration, and
pressure filtration. Belt presses process slurries from 1 to 40 percent solids by weight, and generate
solid streams with 12 to 50 percent solids by weight. They can process up to 25 t/hr. Vacuum filters
can process streams of 10 to 20 percent solids by weight, and capture 85 to 99 percent of the solids
material. Because information on the use of filtration for dewatering sediment is limited, it is difficult
to predict its effectiveness in such applications. Typical ranges of solids concentrations in dewatered
municipal wastewater treatment sludges are as follows (USEPA, 1987b):
Belt press filtration - 15 to 45 percent
Vacuum rotary filtration - 12 to 40 percent
Pressure filtration - 30 to 50 percent
Gravity Thickening-
Gravity thickening concentrates solids in a tank similar to a conventional sedimentation tank
or clarifier. They concentrate dredged material slurries of any grain size, at nearly any flow rate, and
produce a solids concentration ranging from about 2 to 15 percent. Thickened material is then further
dewatered using other methods to reduce the hydraulic load on other process stages. Gravity
thickening is not cost effective when the solids concentration exceeds 6 percent. Therefore, gravity
thickeners have very limited potential application to contaminated sediments, only in rare cases when
solids content is very low in hydraulic dredging operation.
Particle Classification
Particle classification separates sediment particles based on one or more physical properties,
such as differences in size, density, mass, magnetic characteristics, etc. Particle classification
technologies include sieves and screens, hydraulic and spiral classifiers, cyclones, settling basins, and
clarifiers. Particle classification separates sediments according to grain size or removes oversize
3-21
-------
material that is incompatible with subsequent processes. Classification by grain size is important in
managing contaminated dredged material when contaminants adsorb onto or are held in fine-grained
sediment such as clay and organic matter. The small grain solids of a specific size or less can be
treated while the relatively non-contaminated, coarser sediments can be disposed of with minimal or
no additional treatment.
Grizzlies are vibrating or fixed separation units, reliable for the removal
of oversized material. They improve the reliability and efficiency of
subsequent solids separation technologies and reduce maintenance
costs of downstream equipment.
Moving screens provide large capacity throughput and high efficiency.
They can be arranged to permit progressively finer separation with less
area requirements. Vibrating screens separate particles from 1 /8 to 6
in. dia. High speed models range from 4 to 325 mesh. These screen-
ing techniques are best suited to dry materials; modifications to handle
wet materials are costly.
Stationary screens differ from moving screens in that they have no
moving parts. One stationary screen that has potential application to
solids separation at hazardous waste sites is the wedge-bar screen.
They operate easily with little maintenance, and require only a small
operating area. Wedge-bar screens are less efficient than the moving
screen since the oversized materials that are discharged contain a
considerable amount of fines. They may be operated preceding the
moving screen to provide more efficient solid separation than either
process alone.
Hydraulic classifiers remove and classify sand and gravel from slurries.
They can remove and classify solids ranging in size from 3/8 in. to 105
micron (150 mesh) to 74 micron (200 mesh). They are not suited for
removal of particles larger than 1.0 in., or smaller than 74 micron.
Their solids-handling capabilities are generally limited to 250 to 300
t/hr.
3-22
-------
Spiral classifiers use rotating screws mounted in an inclined vessel to
wash, dewater, and classify sand and gravel up to 3/8 in. dia.
Maintenance requirements are minimal, and operation is easy to learn.
Hydrocyclones are widely used to separate solids from water, especial-
ly in situations with limited space. They remove particles in the 10 to
2000 micron range. In general, hydrocyclones do not effectively
separate slurries with a solids concentration greater than 30 percent.
Conventional clarifiers are used in domestic sewage and industrial
wastewater treatment. They can remove particles down to 10 to 20
micron with the use of flocculants, and produce sludge with a solids
content of 4 to 12 percent. They are best suited for small to moderate
scale cleanup operations. They cannot remove solids with a diameter
less than 10 micron. Clarifiers are not suitable for locations with space
limitations.
A good compendium of screening techniques is given in Handbook: Responding to Discharges
of Sinking Hazardous Substances (U.S."EPA, 1987b).
REMEDIAL OPTIONS COMMONLY APPLIED TO SEDIMENT
No remedial alternative can remove/contain, or treat contaminated sediment without some
disturbance and consequent release of contaminants. Disturbing sediment causes resuspension of
contaminants in the water column. The remedial option must minimize the contaminant release.
The conventional sediment handling methods are removal and disposal. This option is
desirable: when it will not result in adverse environmental effects; when conditions such as currents,
wave action, etc. make ih-place treatment or capping ineffective; or when removal is necessary for
other purposes. If the sediment presents environmental problems, it can be contained (e.g. capped
in place), left in place, treated in situ, dredged and treated, placed in a CDF, or some combination of
these technologies. An excellent discussion of contaminant control and treatment using these
techniques is given in Review of Removal, Containment, and Treatment Technologies for Remediation
of Contaminated Sediment in the Great Lakes (Averett, Daniel E.; Perry, Bret D.; Torrey, Elizabeth J.;
and Miller, Jan A., 1990), Miscellaneous Paper EL-90-24, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
3-23
-------
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. A companion document stressing management strategies and
conventional methods of dredged material disposal is given in Management Strategy for Disposal of
Dredged Material: Contaminam Testing and Controls (USAGE, 1985).
No Action
No action consists of leaving the contaminated sediment in place with the hope that natural
sedimentation will bury or contain pollutants. The no-action option is appropriate when the pollutant
discharge source has been halted, burial or dilution processes are rapid, sediment will not be
remobilized by human or natural activities, and environmental effects of cleanup are more damaging
than allowing the sediment to remain in place. This option relies on natural processes such as the input
of uncontaminated sediments from the drainage basin and their integration with in-place contaminated
material through dispersion, mixing, burial, and biological degradation. The greatest advantages of the
no action option are low cost and the low risk of contaminant spread. A monitoring program should
be established to insure that the rates of contaminant release and the area of influence of the
contaminants are not accelerating. Some guidance on the no-action option is presented graphically
in Figure 3-3.
Subaqueous Capping
Current interest has focused on subaqueous containment, called contained aquatic disposal
(CAD), which uses underwater capping (covering) of contaminated sediments with cleaner, less
contaminated sediments with or without lateral walls. Although it is technically feasible to cap
contaminated sediments in-place, at their original location, conflicting uses such as navigation may
dictate that contaminated sediments be moved from their original site of deposition. Capping is
appropriate if:
• The no action alternative does not provide sufficient protection.
• Point source discharges have been halted.
• The costs and environmental effects of moving/treating contaminated sediment are too great.
• Suitable capping materials are available.
• Hydrologic conditions will not disturb the site.
• Bottom will support the cap.
• The area is amenable to dredging.
3-24
-------
Is
contaminant
biodegrading?
la dredging
required for
er reasons?
Is
natural
sediment
cover
building?
No action is
not appropriate
Is it
fast
enough?
Is cover
buildup
physically
accessible?
Yes
No
Figure 3-3. Flow Chart for Screening No Action
3-25
-------
If dredging is necessary it may be possible simply to deposit sediments in the bottom of a natural
depression or to dig a hole in the bottom and place the sediment in it. The preferred deposition
methods are by hydraulic pipeline with or without a submerged diffuser, direct placement with a
clamshell, or release from a bottom-dump scow. The success of capping operations is dependent on
the following:
Selecting the dredge equipment - Subaquatic placement is controlled through careful
selection and operation of the dredging equipment. Although either mechanical or
hydraulic methods may be used to dredge and place contaminated sediments into the
underwater hole, each case should be evaluated based on sediment and capping
material characteristics and disposal site considerations. While mechanical dredging
and placement can result in the deposition of a highly consolidated mass of materials,
there is a certain amount of sediment resuspension into the overlying water column as
the materials fall through the water column. Hydraulic pipelines which are outfitted
with diffuser discharge heads provide minimum discharge velocities, and, therefore,
rapid settling of the discharge solids and their associated contaminants.
Transportation of the contaminated material to the disposal site - It is advantageous
to avoid multiple sediment handling steps. If possible, the sediment should be
transported in the same device from which it will be discharged.
Choice of the disposal and capping site - The effects of the water body at the site
{such as currents, water depth, bottom contours, etc.) can affect the placement
accuracy and the integrity of the mound. Bed slope (e.g., slope sloughing) needs to
be considered to prevent site failure and contaminant release. There is a tendency for
sediments to flow because of the momentum generated during placement and slope
impacts. Basic current information should be collected at disposal sites to identify site-
specific conditions. However, based on observations at several sites, Bokuniewicz, et
al., (1978), concluded that the principal influence of currents in the receiving water is
to displace the point of impact of the descending jet of material away from the bottom
by a calculated amount. They stated that even strong currents observed at a Great
Lakes site need not be a serious impediment to accurate placement, nor do they result
in significantly greater dispersion during placement. Long-term effects of currents at
the site may still need to be investigated, and little information is available on the
transport of sediment from disposal mounds. Water velocity which results from wind-
3-26
-------
driven currents decreases with depth. High velocity currents are theoretically sufficient
to transport discrete particles as large as 10 mm In diameter, but discrete particle
movement is frequently masked by the effects of cohesive forces among particles.
Aside from the effect of water depth on currents, there appears to be little additional
short-term influence on disposal. The initial thickness of the spreading surge above the
bottom has been shown to be a function of water depth.
Selection of capping material - Compatibility of the capping material with the sediment,
its thickness and integrity, and its capability to fall quickly and directly over the
material to be capped, all affect the efficiency of the procedure.
Placement techniques for the contaminated material and cap - The accuracy of place-
ment is directly dependent on the techniques used for placement. If the material is
bottom dropped from a scow, the sediment could resuspend and travel in the water
column, affecting the efficiency of the capping operation. Site conditions might require
more direct placement, such as with a submerged diffuser, which allows for careful
placement of hydraulically dredged material while limiting water column impacts.
Effectiveness of monitoring methods - Monitoring the cap is essential to ensure that
its integrity has not been compromised by water body and other effects.
A sufficient number of completed capping projects have proven that the concept is technically
and operationally feasible. Table 3-6 describes some features of capping projects reported in the
literature. Note that 70 feet deep sites were most often chosen; clamshell dredges were selected for
dredging, and scows used for placement. Thickness of the caps ranged from 1 to 13 feet. However,
the remedial manager must evaluate the capping site, dredge, placement method, and cap thickness
based on the characteristics of the specific site and dredged material. Figure 3-4 presents a flow chart
for screening GAD.
Confined Disposal Facility (CDF): Upland, near-shore, and in-water
CDFs are engineered structures designed to retain dredged material. The Corps of Engineers
use CDFs to hold about 30% of the dredged material produced by the navigation program (USEPA,
1989g). They can be constructed entirely away from the water, partially in water near the shore, or
completely surrounded b'y water. Costs for disposing dredged material in CDFs in the United States
3-27
-------
Figure 3-4. Flew Chart for Screening CAD.
3-28
-------
range from $5.00 to $20.00/cu yd. A thorough discussion of CDF siting considerations, construction
techniques, and costs is given in Standards for Confined Disposal of Contaminated Sediments
(Parametrix - undated) and Confined Disposal of Dredged Material (USAGE, 1987a).
The primary goal of CDF design is containment and solids retention. Contaminants are
potentially lost via leachate through the bottom of the CDF, seepage through the CDF dikes,
volatilization to the air, and uptake by plants and animals living or feeding in the CDF. The walls for
a diked disposal area can be made from most types of soil materials (USAGE, 1987a). In the Great
Lakes, the dikes that form the CDF walls are usually made of limestone covered by boulder-size stones
to protect the core of the dike from waves. Inside the dikes the typical CDF has a large cell for
disposal of material, and adjoining cells for retention and decantation of turbid, supernatant water. As
with any structure in water, near shore and in water CDFs are subject to movement from wind and
waves. CDFs are almost always constructed as permeable dikes - not as sealed, impermeable landfills.
Water loss is therefore inherent in the structure. Some facilities have tried fabric and plastic liners to
prevent seepage through the dike walls, with little success. Sand, soil, or sediment linings can reduce
permeability, and sediment particle migration into the dike interstices can also act as a seal. Clay or
bentonite-cement slurries are the most effective seal. Caps are the most effective way to minimize
contaminant loss from CDFs through contaminant volatilization and plant and animal uptake.
Upland disposal sites are located away from the water body and outside the influence of tidal
fluctuations. They usually require overland transport of the dredged material. The primary opportunities
for contaminant loss occur during dredging, during transport and rehandling, and during containment
by migration through the media. Upland sites allow sediment to settle and compact in a natural
dewatering process.
Near-shore disposal facilities are located at sea level and within the area water body influence.
Sediment may lie above or below the water table. Near-shore sites usually receive dredged sediment
transported directly from a nearby site. Sediment can be deposited to a depth that promotes long-term
anaerobic conditions. Contaminants migrate principally through the confinement media, groundwater,
tidal movements, and surface runoff. Near-shore disposal sites have several advantages such as
smaller transport distances, reduced water-column contamination during emplacement, accurate
emplacement, and easier monitoring.
Siting CDFs is becoming more difficult because of the lack of suitable space in the midst of
major ports and harbors, problems in acquiring permits, transportation expenses, the potential for
3-29
-------
contaminant migration into groundwater and surface drainage of contaminated water, and plant and
animal uptake of contaminants.
CDFs offer an attractive, cost effective method of dredged material disposal. If properly
located and constructed, they can isolate contaminated sediment from the environment fairly well.
Some treatments can be effected in the CDF, such as biodegradation.
3-30
-------
Ic: D »" o
co to' 5" 2
-j-o 3 3
CO O Q. T
SS «*•
>! §•
CD Q. (Q
Q)
i £• 3 3 < »
01 o i § 3
S 3 3 ? 3"
i- I|i
T3 C^ ™ CD
^3
- i w
HI
CO
i
Q
10)
1
I
w
o
o
O)
C71
i
I
^
•o
8
0
|
CD
a.
3
a.
o
CD
A o m
i i
f |J
i? 1
si.?
3 ' o
5 f
to 5
CD
CQ
Generally flat
bottom
-80-90 ft dee|
o>3
PP 0 CO
i-t C o>
i1 S.P
2. CD O
c?§
O
0}
n
3"
CO
o
o
CO
s I •«
SII
"5 0
» O
3
CD
S >
m <
& -i
3 «g
3 °
CO
Q. CO
l§
•i-5
f
•o
CD
-g g
S. o
CQ <
0)
•II
a
5-8 ?
CO 3 g.
^O M
O . - DO
^
1 3 S. § §• O
0 CD =*• 3. § 3
-t, 3. O Q> 3 CO
•-> C0_ CO Q. 3 3
Q. ^ — « ^*
CD ^. 3 re g
3
z
"Z.
^
CO
3
Q.
w"
3"
cp_
b)
I to T3 j* CO CQ (")
i 3 1 i. 3 | <
L CD o » 5 •<: ^
' ™^" S ??
•"25'
3
a> Q) w
3 "3 c
rr 3
ill
!•§•«
«^1
-; z x 30
sill
ri 5 1
CO Q. 3- 3
CO, W 0> .
gflSf- gill
3 s 1 1st
O> -T*
M 10
o o
b p
0 O
8
—, 1? (0 ^J
3 1 §.1
3" O3
0- 3 (Q
s u
to "D
O CD
3 TJ 3 TJ
5> -a CD §
to 2- t3 3
a g Q.O
"•CD ". c
Q. M Q. f
2s §• 5 c
to to T
CD CD
"^
a ' a !
< t
to ro
CO CO
f 5? fff
CD O CD O
8. -* 8. -s
§ If s?
CD 3 CD 3
to, to
CD §'
•g 2 Q- > 5' co
° o i = » =
'fill Ii
Q. W
•^ tn < a
co g c? g
™ S ? i
SS ?
>
Existing sub-
aqueous de-
pression
-70 ft deep
o
o
{-j
S"
3-
CD_
M
O
O
S
u
o
0
"a?
CO
3
Q.
CO
» W
!|
3-
CQ
^
3
3
5' w
u c
rveying
truments
- ,_ •
3
Site
characterise
co1
_ <
3 o
•< s =•
°u& 3
'*!
3 B
m 0)
||
•D
3 5-
» 2
•* (D
3" 3
§J
-
<
— E"
) ••
\
1 1
31 a
a
TJ
D
:8
d>
°-3
Positioning II
method
TJ
o
CO*
2
*
CD
m
o |«
I I*
B)
3
Q.
Q}
CO
i!
o
i>
3IH*
3
*
3"
O
rn
V)
O
2
3
1
o
«•
Ti
O
•o
TJ
m
a
a
53
TJ
o
CA
£
1
rn
O
CO
3-31
-------
D>
S -a
II
13
D)
/§
O
co
LU
ll
•
Q
O
is
Si
9^. 1
fc w S
S g.3.
O CO
S o>
iff I
3 O O
cn o 'a
CO
8-gsr
•
.
•^f 3 ;^ O
• 0 T.
"2 co ^
£ c "2 E *
S co
W I
13
a ~o CD
o 3 <
_j o _
_ co ">
O J2 15 C
o
m
o
ca
CO
i E 8 o
.iA =
51
0)
'5
o>
'5.
a.
S
0)
re
ie
e
CO
eme
CO
a>
o
00
O)
.S= LU
£> °
re f/«
cu
O
o
o
o
o
co
o
£ E ob
-
HP
-
>• re
1 I
W T3 °-
^ £ «
re g" c
I £'
1 = 1
S- o
> -
IIP
re ~ a> 05
„ c != »—
00
O)
g 5
CO
<»
LU
o
S 5
re
_i w «. 2; —
— co p 3 >7
2 -a o -I «- ^
•M C Q. C <» °°
CO
3-32
-------
TREATMENTS POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE TO SEDIMENT
Several remedial options have the potential to treat contaminated sediments, but have limited
supporting field data. The options selected for discussion in this guide are as follows:
• In situ treatment
• Biological treatment
• Dechlorination
• Soil washing
• Solvent extraction
• Solidification/stabilization treatment
• Incineration
• Thermal desorption
The remedial options discussed in this guide are presented in terms of the process description,
applicability and limitations, performance data, and costs. Many of these process options are not
stand-alone processes, but may be components of a system that involves multiple treatment steps to
address multiple contaminant problems. The type of remedial actions selected for 103 CERCLA sites
are shown in Table 3-7, and are summarized in Appendix C.
In Situ Treatments
In situ sediment treatments include capping, solidification/stabilization, biological treatment,
chemical treatment methods, and ground freezing. Capping, as discussed earlier in this section, has
been the focus of considerable research in recent years. The major advantage of in situ treatment is
that these methods eliminate the need to remove contaminated sediments. In situ treatment methods
are most effective to low flow streams where the flow can be diverted while the treatment takes place.
The primary disadvantages of chemical and biological treatment methods are the possibility for
secondary contamination and the difficulty of ensuring complete mixing of the treatment reagents with
the contaminated sediments. Ground freezing can be used to isolate and remove contaminated
sediments. The high cost of implementing it will greatly limit the use of this method.
3-33
-------
TABLE 3-7. REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT
Remediation technology
Number of sediment
CERCLA sites
selecting the technology
Biological treatment
Biodegradation
Landfarming
7
1
Physical/chemical treatment
KPEG dechlorination
Solvent extraction
Soil washing
Solidification/stabilization
2
2
6
19
Thermal treatment
Incineration
Thermal desorption
Vitrification
26
3
1
Containment
Off-site disposal
On-site disposal
On-site storage
14
18
2
No action
11
Soiidification/Stabilization-
In situ solidification/stabilization treatments immobilize sediment and contaminants by treating
them with reagents to solidify or fix them. These fixatives neutralize or bind the pollutants to reduce
contaminant mobility, usually via leaching. Another method covers sediment with barriers or sorbents
to reduce transfer of the pollutants to water and biota.
, ' ' : ' '1 > ' '
Several problems associated with in situ solidification/stabilization are inaccuracies in reagent
placement, erosion, long-term monitoring requirements, the inability of the procedure to
remove/detoxify contaminants, and the difficulty in adjusting solidification mixtures/agents for
subaqueous settings. Little is known about the costs of large-scale treatments, their effectiveness,
3-34
-------
or their possible toxic by-products. This technique has not yet been proven or accepted for treatment
of contaminated sediment. It would not be feasible in any area where the solidified mass cannot be
tolerated (e.g., future construction or dredging).
Biological Treatment-
Biological treatment can effectively treat a wide range of organic contaminants, but it does riot
clean up inorganics. Partial degradation products (for example, degradation of trichloroethene, resulting
in the formation of vinyl chloride) may be more soluble or toxic than the original contaminants making
these limited in application. The degradation process can be impeded by high organic concentrations,
oxygen deficiency, lack of nutrients, and low temperature. An excellent discussion of biological
degradation can be found in Sediments: Chemistry and Toxicfty of/n-P/ace Pollutants (Baudp et al.,
1990) and Biological Remediation of Contaminated Sediments with Special Emphasis on the Great
Lakes (Jafvert, et al., 1991).
Aerobic biological treatment has effectively treated soils contaminated with organic materials.
The aerobic organisms require oxygen and nutrients to survive. Nitrogen and phosphorous are the
most common nutrient sources. Other possible nutrients include iron, trace metals, magnesium,
potassium, calcium, sodium, sulfur, and manganese. Aerobic biodegradation requires that the sediment
have a continuous supply of oxygen. Hence, this is not feasible for bottom sediments in areas where
organic concentrations and oxygen demands are high.
Anaerobic biological treatment uses organisms that survive in an oxygen-deficient environment.
The primary mechanism in anaerobic degradation of halogenated organics is removal of chlorine atoms
by reductive dehalogenation. A redox potential of -250 mv or less, presence of nitrates and sulfates
but the absence of oxygen, are required. Mpst in situ sediment is anaerobic; it can degrade
contaminants under ambient conditions (USEPA, 1989f), Anaerobic degradation is slower than
aerobic, and applies to fewer compounds.
Some compounds, such as PCBs, can be most effectively treated in a system that provides
both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Fortunately, nature provides both processes - often in close
juxtaposition.
3-35
-------
Chemical Treatment--
In situ chemical treatment is an area of emerging new technologies. The in situ methods that
are most applicable to treating contaminated sediments include neutralization, precipitation, oxidation,
and chemical dechlorination. Several potential problems are associated with the use of these chemical
methods. Table 3-8 summarizes the problems specific to each of these treatment methods. All in situ
chemical methods have the potential for secondary impacts, whether it be as a direct result of toxic
treatment reagents or as a result of potentially toxic degradation products. Consequently, in situ
treatment is limited to situations where the contaminated area can be contained during treatment or
where stream flow can be diverted for the duration of treatment. Another problem with all in situ
methods is the problem of ensuring that the treatment reagents are completely mixed with the
contaminated material. Because of the above-mentioned problems, chemical treatment without stream
diversion have limited application.
Ground Freezing-
Ground freezing has been successfully used for years in construction of dams and tunnels in
order to cut off water and support loads. It has recently come into consideration as a potential
technique for containing and facilitating the removal of contaminants in sediments. The process
involves placing refrigeration probes in the sediments at close intervals and cooling them from a
portable refrigeration unit. Ice crystals grow until they coalesce and form a wall of frozen sediment.
The process is extremely slow because each probe can freeze only a small zone about 1.5 feet in
diameter. This method is also costly because of high energy requirements. These limitations would
preclude the use of ground freezing for large volumes of contaminated sediments (USEPA, 1985a).
3-36
-------
C/)
CO
00
en
II
1 ° =r
0 CD
2; 3
2 I
3 0>
01
3
If
O -i.
p°
& =
|- 8
CO Q>
~ 0
tS
01
o*
CO
I-o
2.
•s
I
CD
3
CD
CO.
O
o_
m
3
Q.
•o
O
CO
c"
I
5
X
oJ
CD
• •
Treatment system can tolerate some water bu
limits have not been established.
Degradation is temperature dependent and ma
proceed slowly at ambient temperatures.
< "-!•
o
X
CL
01
5'
3
£J ° — $
333"^-
~ C 0 CO
2 i-f S
Q] CO ^ CD
S 01 3* O
_ 3 0) -"
§ °- CD 0
••> 3 Q- (3
< *• 01
1? i-
CO -°!
c
CD
CL
*
S> x
CD 3
• m
a
5"
o
o
3
CD
01
3
Q.
f
O
CQ
CD
3
• • • *
Oxidation can result in more mobile degradatil
products.
Both ozone and hydrogen peroxide may react
with organics in the water column or sedimen
which are not target compounds, thereby
reducing effectiveness.
Compounds which are sorbed to sediments m
be difficult to oxidize.
Ozone will decompose back to oxygen rapidly
the presence of organics; stability of hydroger
peroxide is not well known.
O! *•* O
3 •< CO 3
TJ
CD
o
•5'
i-f'
A
O
3
5"
o
CQ
01
3
o'
O
01
s.
o'
3
CO
01
3
CL
m
3
6'
5
•
Sulfide precipitation is most promisin
since metal sulfides are the least soli
metal compounds likely to form over
broad pH range. Calcium sulfide, iroi
sulfide, or sodium sulfide may be use
Q. -• 0 & tQ
CD
.
Potential for formation of H2S gas; likelihood
increase as the reactivity of sulfide and metal
decrease.
Effective only under reduced conditions,
oxidation to more soluble sulfide species coul
occur under aerobic conditions.
Q. CO
•z.
CD
C
01
I
o'
D
O
a."
CO
0)
a
cr
01
CO
CD
CO
• •
Weak acids and bases
To neutralize acids: calcium carbona
sodium carbonate, or sodium bicarbo
limestone or greenstone may be appi
as active cover material.
°- S -°
1 Toxicity to pH-sensitive benthos if not propei
placed on the spill
1 Use of ferric sulfate under aerobic conditions
result in the formation of hydrous iron oxides
which can scavenge heavy metals from wate
and may coat the gills of bottom feeders.
" 3 <
Q]
H
S
0)
3
«
2
3
to
I
^
CO
S
"a
Si
»
3
o-
5"
Treatment reagents
H
^™
m
(0
00
SUMMARY OF IN SITU CHEM
O
r~
30
EATMENT
3-37
-------
EX SITU TREATMENT
Biological Treatment
Process Description-Biological treatment is the bio-oxidation of organic matter by microorg-
anisms. This technology uses bacteria, fungi, or enzymes to break down PCBs, pesticides, and other
organic constituents into less toxic or innocuous compounds. Slurry-phase and solid-phase treatments
are effective on soils, sludges, and sediment. Biological processes can generate residue streams that
may require additional treatment (e.g., wastewater and air emissions). Products of biodegradation may
be more soluble and toxic than the original materials.
Slurry Phase Biological Treatment--
Process Descriotion-The term "slurry phase treatment" describes the biological treatment of
contaminated soil or sludge in a large, mobile bioreactor. While the system maintains intimate mixing
and contact of microorganisms with the hazardous compounds, it also creates the environmental
conditions required for optimal microbial degradation. Slurry phase treatment has the potential to treat
a wide range of contaminants such as pesticides, fuels, creosote, PCP, PCBs, and some halogenated
volatile organics. However, the presence of heavy metals can inhibit microbial metabolism. Soil
washing and metal extraction, using weak acids and chelating agents, can be combined with biological
treatment by coupling two separate slurry-phase reactors in series.
A typical soil slurry feedstock contains about 50 percent solids by weight. The slurry is
mechanically agitated in a reactor vessel to keep the solids suspended and to maintain the appropriate
environmental conditions. Nutrients, oxygen, and acid or alkali are added to maintain optimum
conditions. The toxicity of heavy metals and chlorides may inhibit microbial metabolism.
Applicability and Limitations-Slurry phase reactors operate from 59° to 167 °F. Control of the
activity of organisms responsible for contaminant destruction is resolved by maintaining adequate
moisture (40-80%) pH in the range of 4.5 to 8.5, the dissolved oxygen content at near saturation with
air (approximately 8 mg/L), and nutrients (C:N:P = 100:10:1 to 100:1:0.5) (Table 3-9). Microor-
ganisms, added initially to seed the bioreactor, may be supplemented continuously to maintain the
correct biomass concentration. The residence time in the bioreactor varies with the soil or sludge
matrix, the physical and chemical nature of the contaminant, and the biodegradability of the
3-38
-------
TABLE 3-9. FACTORS AFFECTING SLURRY-PHASE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Factor
Contaminant solubility
Heavy metals, highly
chlorinated organics, some
pesticides, inorganic salts
Moisture content
Nutrients
Oxygen
Particle size
pH
Temperature
Variable waste composition
Microbial population
Effect
Low solubility components more
difficult to biodegrade
Can be toxic to microorganisms
A moisture content of greater
than 80% affects bacterial
activity and availability of oxygen.
A moisture content below 40%
severely inhibits bacterial activity.
Affects activity if lacking nutrients
(C-N-P)
Lack of oxygen is rate limiting.
If nonuniform, can affect contact
with microorganisms
Inhibits biological activity outside
range.
Larger, more diverse microbial
population present in this range.
Inconsistent biodegradation
caused by variation in biological
activity.
Insufficient population results in
low biodegradation rates.
Typical range
•--••'• '
' '
40-80%
C:N:P
100:10:1-100:1:0.5
~ 8 mg/L
1 ' -
4.5-8.5
59°-167?F
.
~
3-39
-------
contaminants and typically range from hours to days. Once the contaminants have biodegraded, the
treated slurry is dewatered. The residual water may require further treatment before disposal.
Performance Data-Several firms market slurry-phase biological treatment systems. The MoTec
technology has treated pentachlorophenol and creosote wastes, oil field and refinery sludges, and
pesticide wastewaters. Ecova applied its full-scale slurry-phase bioremediation to soil containing
pesticides and diesel fuel, and its pilot-scale system to soil contaminated with PAHs (USEPA, 1988b).
ECOVA's application to treat PCP-contaminated wastes has resulted in a 99 percent reduction in PCP
concentrations over a period of 24 days. Biotrol conducted treatability studies on soils contaminated
with oil, pentachlorophenol, and creosote from wood preserving sites (Arkwood, Inc., AR, Coleman
Evans Site, FL, and MacGillis and Gibbs Site, MM) (USEPA, 1989h). At Arkwood, Inc., Arkansas, after
98 days of treatment, the PCP and PAHs were not detected in TCLP leachate from biologically treated
solids (ERM, 1990). Detox Industries, Inc. applied its pilot-scale treatment to PCBs. Approximately
0.75 tons of sludge containing 2,000 ppm PCBs were reduced within four months, to below 4 ppm -
- a 99.8 percent removal (USEPA, 1989e). Remediation Technologies, Inc.'s (ReTec) full-scale slurry
biodegradation system was used to treat wood preserving sludges at a site in Tennessee. The system
achieved greater than 99 percent removal efficiency for PCP and PAHs (USEPA, 1990c).
Cost-Cost for slurry-phase treatment ranges from $80 to $150 per cu yd (USEPA, 1989e).
Solid-Phase Biological Treatment-
Process Description-This above-grade process treats soils using conventional soil management
practices to enhance the microbial degradation of contaminants. The system uses a treatment bed
lined with cleanup sand over a high-density liner. A drainage system collects water. Contaminated
material is distributed over the prepared bed. Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous are added,
and the soil tilled to facilitate the transport of oxygen through the migration system. Wastes are
typically mixed to a depth of 6 to 12 inches, where the biochemical reactions take place.
Solid-phase treatment is one of the oldest and most widely used technologies for hazardous
waste treatment. Its success has been demonstrated throughout the United States, especially at
petroleum refinery sites treated under RCRA, and at wood preserver sites with creosote-contaminated
sludges and soils (Torpy, 1989).
3-40
-------
Applicability and Limitatioris-This technology can treat soils, sludges, and sediments
contaminated with pesticides, fuels, creosote, PCP, PCBs, some halogenated volatile organics, non-
halogenated organics such as gasoline, aliphatics, aromatics, chlorinated aromatic organic compounds.
Process residuals for most biological treatment systems include the treated solids, process
water, which may be treated in a conventional water treatment system, and possible air emissions.
Performance Data-Theoretically. biological organisms will digest organics until no food source
(contaminant) is left. However, efficiencies depend on the presence of appropriate microorganisms,
adequate concentrations of essential nutrients, contaminant effects on microbial population activity,
etc.
Ecova has used solid-phase biodegradation at full-scale to treat soil containing PCP and PAHs
at a wood preserver site (Josyln Manufacturing and Supply Co., Redmond, WA).
Cost-Cost for the solid-phase treatment ranges from $50 to $80 per cu yd (Torpy, 1989).
Dechlorination
Process Description-The KPEG dechlorination process is potentially effective in detoxifying
specific types of aromatic organic contaminants, particularly dioxins and PCBs. The process heats and
mixes contaminated soils, sludges, or liquids with an alkali metal-hydroxide-based polyethylene glycol
reagent in a batch reactor. Figure 3-5 presents a schematic flow diagram of a typical KPEG process.
The mixture of contaminated medium and reagent forms a homogeneous slurry. The reagent
contains potassium or sodium hydroxide (KOH or NaOH) and polyethylene glycol (PEG). The addition
of other reagents, such as dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) or sulfolane (SFLN) may improve the efficiency
of the process. When simultaneously heated to between 212°F to 302°F and mixed, the slurry's
halogenated contaminants decompose into less toxic glycol-ethers and water-soluble chloride
compounds. Residence time in the reactor ranges from 0.5 to 2 hours ~ depending on the contaminant
type, its initial concentration, water content, humic and clay content, and the required removal
efficiency. Water is vaporized in the reactor and collected in a condenser. Additional treatment of
sediment may be required to desorb both reaction by-products and reagent. This treatment churns the
dehalogenated sediment and water in successive washing cycles. The residual wastewater may
3-41
-------
o
CO
o
1
=5
co
TB
Eg
Ii
111
UJ
§
•O
8-
CO
1-
w
u
CO
8
*
o
o
DC
li
SI
I
8
o
1
I
o
in
CO
I
o>
iZ
o>
§
I
I
"8
3-42
-------
require treatment before disposal. Further post-dechlorination options include biodegradation, precipita-
tion, or incineration (USEPA, 1989c).
In considering development of a treatment system, the remedial manager can refer to Figure
3-3 to determine the system components needed to pre-treat, treat, and post-treat the sediment. In
combination with the factors affecting the technology's performance {Table 3-10), an overall
conceptual treatment system can be developed. For the dechlorination process, the following steps
might apply:
• Removal and transport. This step can generate a water stream that can be combined with the
process water residue for further treatment,
• Waste preparation can include screening to remove oversize debris, particle size separation,
dewatering, and pH adjustment. At this point, the remedial manager may consider pre-
treatment to remove metals. This is a case-Where another technology such as soil washing
may be used as a pretreatment step. Each of the pretreatment steps generates additional
residue streams that should be combined with other process streams for final treatment and
disposal.
• The principal treatment includes mixing, reacting, separating, washing, and dewatering the
Sediment to remove the contaminant. The air emissions'generated during treatment can be
captured and treated. The treated soil can be reused if it is clean, or if contaminated it may
be solidified or treated further before land disposal. Water can usually be treated in a
conventional treatment system, and oversize materials can be disposed or solidified for
disposal. '
Applicability and Limitations-Dechlorination techniques are primarily used to treat and destroy
halogenated aromatic compounds such as dioxins, PCBs, and chlorobenzenes. If additional contami-
nants are present, other options should be considered.
The reaction time needed in the dechlorination process depends on contaminant type and initial
concentrations, water content, humic/clay content, and the presence of other reactive materials. It
is retarded by the presence of aliphatic organics and inorganics such as metals. It cannot process
highly concentrated contaminants. A water content less than 20 percent, a pH above 2, and chlorinat-
ed organics concentrations < 5 percent facilitate the process.
3-43
-------
TABLE 3-10. FACTORS AFFECTING DECHLORINATION PERFORMANCE
Factor
Aliphatic organics, inorganics,
metals
Aluminum and other alkaline
reactive metals
Chlorinated organics
Clay and sandy soils
Humic content
Moisture content
PH
Effect
Proves most effective with aromatic
halides (PCB, dioxins, chlorophenols,
chlorobenzenes)
Requires increased use of reagent; can
produce H2 gas
Requires use of excessive reagent
Increases reaction time
Increases reaction time
Uses excessive reagent with higher
water content
Process not effective when pH <2;
pretreat to raise pH
Range
"
—
<5%
~
-
<20%
>2
Source: USEPA, 1988b.
TABLE 3-11. DECHLORINATION SYSTEMS
Vendor/Site
Galson Remediation Corporation
(GRC)
P.W.C. Guam
Technology description
Successful full-scale glycolate dehalogenation at two PCB-
contaminated waste oil sites.
Full-scale reactor batch capacity: 80 cu yd. Designed to
treat 1 60-200 cu yd/day.
Treatment costs: $200 to $500/cu yd. Actual costs
contingent upon site-specific characteristics (USEPA,
1990h).
Mobile glycolate dehalogenation unit field tested on soils
contaminated with Aroclor 1 260 (concentrations from 300
ppm to 2,200 ppm treated to levels below 2 ppm within 5
hours).
3-44
-------
Performance Data-With efficiencies greater than 98 percent reported, PCB removal to less than
1 ppm has been routinely achieved. Several factors limit the effectiveness of KPEG chemical
dechlorination: highly concentrated contaminants (greater than 5%), high water content, low pH, high
humic content, and the presence of other alkaline-reactive materials such as aluminum. Treatability
tests will determine the effectiveness of the KPEG process for specific site conditions. Factors
affecting performance are listed in Table 3-10. Two applications of the dechlorination process are
shown in Table 3-11.
;ost--Costs for the dechlorination technology range from $200 to $500/cu yd (USEPA, 1990h).
Extraction Technologies
Solvent Extraction--
Process Description-Solvent extraction does not destroy wastes. It separates the hazardous
contaminants from soil, sludge, and sediment, thereby reducing the volume of the hazardous waste
that must be treated. This volume reduction technique leaches contaminants from the sediment with
organic solvents. Figure 3-6 shows a schematic diagram of a typical solvent extraction process. This
process has been effective in treating semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) such as PCBs, volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), halogenated solvents, and petroleum wastes. It is not generally effective
for inorganic contaminants. It is often selected as a pre-treatment technique for use with other
processes. Solvent extraction uses organic chemicals as solvents, and therefore differs from soil
washing, which uses water or water with additives. Suitable solvents include kerosene, hexane,
methanol, ethanol, isopropanol, furfural, dimethyl formamide, dimethyl sulfoxide, ethylene diamine, and
freon and supercritical fluids, such as carbon dioxide, propane, and butane. Success in extracting
organic pollutants depends strongly on the nature of the solvent. Treatability tests can determine
which solvent, or combination of solvents, is best suited for the site-specific contaminants. Most
processes require multiple extraction cycles to achieve high removal efficiencies. A key advantage of
an extraction process is the recovery and reuse of the solvent. Its toxicity must also be considered.
Solvent extraction generates three main product streams: concentrated contaminants,
separated solvent/water, and treated sediment. The extract retains a smaller volume of concentrated
solvent-free contaminants for post-treatment. Depending on the presence of metals or other inorganic
contaminants additional treatment of the sediment by another technique may be necessary. The
3-45
-------
S
I
Q.
0)
CO
i t
Concentrated
organic
contaminants
r
Post treatment
-•Biological
- Incineration
to"
Ul
I
II
Is
III
il
CCCO
to
CD
CD
I
g>
u_
it
1-
3-46
-------
separated water must be analyzed to determine whether treatment is necessary before discharge
(USEPA, 19901).
Using Figure 3-2 as a guide to identify the components of a possible treatment system for
overall remediation using solvent extraction, and referring to Table 3-12 to determine the factors
affecting technology performance, the remedial manager can develop a conceptual treatment system.
The system may contain the following major components: , •
• Removal and transport. This step generates a water side stream that needs to be combined
with other water residue streams and sent to a conventional water treatment system for
treatment.
• Waste preparation includes the pretreatment steps needed to condition the feed stream to
optimize system performance. For solvent extraction, this can include removal of oversize
.; -
material and debris, particle classification, dewatering, and pH adjustment. Each of these steps
requires additional equipment, and generates streams of solids and liquids that can be recycled
to the principal treatment, combined with other residue streams being treated down-stream,
or post-treated for disposal.
• The extraction stage may be most efficient if metals are removed prior to organics extraction.
Additional solids, water, and concentrated organics streams are generated in these steps. The
solids stream may be clean enough to be reused as fill, or if still contaminated may be solidified
for land disposal. The organics stream will need further treatment using biological methods or
incineration. . ''•"',
System components will vary depending pn the waste composition, site specific contaminants, and
the waste matrix.
Applicability and Limitations-Solvent extraction techniques are suitable for treatment of PCBs,
volatile organics, halogenated solvents (such as TCE, trichloroethane, petroleum waste), and aromatics
(such as benzene, toluene, cresol, chlorinated phenols).
Pumpable feed streams with less than 40 percent (wt) oily organics and greater than 20
percent (wt) solids are favorable. (CF Systems and the B.E.S.T.™ process can treat materials up to
20 percent solids; most others require more thorough dewatering). Particles with a diameter greater
3-47
-------
than 1/4 in. must be screened because the equipment is incapable of handling large diameter particles.
The process does not efficiently extract inorganics and metals. In many cases, multiple extraction
cycles are needed to achieve high removal efficiencies.
TABLE 3-12. FACTORS AFFECTING SOLVENT EXTRACTION TECHNIQUES
Factor
Complex waste mixtures
Metals
Particle size
pH of waste
Separation coefficient
Volatiles
Oil concentration
Effect
Affects solvent selected
Does not remove metals
Equipment used in the process not
capable of handling large particle size
Must be in range compatible with
extracting solvent (e.g., B.E.S.T.™
process, pH j>.1 0)
Requires multiple extraction steps if
contaminant is strongly bound
May require multiple extraction steps if
present in high concentrations
Adversely affect oil/water separation
Range
--
-
<1/4"
—
-
~
<40%
Source: USEPA, 1988b.
Performance Data-Pilot-scale study at Bedford Harbor, MA showed that PCB concentration in
the dredged sediment can be reduced by 90-98 percent. Factors affecting performance are listed in
Table 3-12.
Solvent extraction systems are at various stages of development. The CF System and the
B.E.S.T.* process are being evaluated under the USEPA SITE Program. A brief review of six systems
is given in Table 3-13.
3-48
-------
TABLE 3-13. SOLVENT EXTRACTION SYSTEMS
Vendor/Site
Technology description
CF Systems
Uses liquefied carbon dioxide and
hydrocarbon gases such as propane
and butane as solvents to separate
organic contaminants from soils, sludg-
es, and sediment.
Heavy metals and inorganics are not
amenable to this treatment.
Feed material is generally pretreated
through the addition of water to ensure
its pumpability.
pH may be adjusted to maintain the
metallurgical integrity of the system.
Feed material is typically screened to
remove particles with a diameter
greater than 1 /4 in.
Large particles may be reduced in size
and then returned to the extraction unit
for processing.
In 1988, it was demonstrated under
the auspices of EPA's SITE program at
a Superfund site in New Bedford Har-
bor, Massachusetts.
Contaminated sediment was treated in
a unit with a design capacity of 1.5
gal/min. A mixture of liquefied propane
and butane was used as the extraction
solvent. PCB extraction efficiencies of
90-98% were achieved for sediment
originally containing from 350 to 2575
ppm.
Projected cost of applying the technolo-
gy to a full-scale cleanup at New Bed-
ford Harbor ranges from $148 to $4477
ton ($200-$600/cu yd) (McCoy and
Associates, 1989).
3-49
-------
TABLE 3-13. (Continued)
Vendor/She
Technology description
The Resources Conservation
Company (RCC) Basic Extractive
Sludge Treatment (B.E.S.T.™)
Uses aliphatic amines (triethylamine) as
solvents to separate and recover contaminants.
Feed materials are screened to remove
particles of greater than 1 in. diameter.
pH is adjusted to an alkaline condition
(pH 10).
Process operates at or near ambient
temperature and pressure.
Solvent can be recycled from the resid-
ual liquid via steam stripping because
of its high vapor pressure and low
boiling point azeotrope formation.
Process has been evaluated at the
bench-scale on Indiana Harbor and New
Bedford Harbor sediment.
PCB removal efficiency for the New
Bedford sediment was greater than 99
percent.
PCB removal efficiency for the Indiana
sediment was greater than 90 percent
with a 0.5 ppm residual (USEPA, 198-
9g).
Pilot-scale equipment has been used at
a gulf coast refinery treating various
refinery waste streams.
Treated PCB-contaminated soils at an
Ohio industrial site in 1989.
Full-scale unit with a nominal capacity
of 70 ton/day was used to process
3,700 tons of PCB-contaminated petro-
leum sludge at the General Refining
Superfund Site in Savannah, Georgia
during 1987.
Cost estimates are about $130/m3
($100/cu yd) for a unit that would treat
520 m3 (680 cu yd) a day (Sullivan,
1989).
3-50
-------
TABLE 3-13. (Continued)
Vendor/Site
Technology description
The Low Energy Extraction Process
(LEEP)
Intended to remove organic contaminants/
from either soil or sediment.
Uses common hydrophilic and hydrophobic
organic solvents to extract and further
concentrate organic pollutants such as PCBs.
Can conceptually process sediment containing
up to 50% water. Efficiencies up to 85% can
be achieved.
Successful operation of the system depends on
selection of the proper solvents.
Acetone has been selected as the hydrophilic
solvent for PCB removal because it is miscible
with water, immiscible with kerosene, and
highly efficient for removing PCBs.
Acetone has a low density and viscosity that
promote efficient solids separation, has a low
boiling point and retains a latent heat of
vaporization that facilitates solvent recovery
and it is also relatively inexpensive.
Kerosene is highly effective in removing
organics and it is readily available and
inexpensive.
Assuming that the PCB-contaminated
solvent is incinerated and that the
residual PCB concentration in sediment
is five ppm, the unit operating cost
would be $58/m3 ($45/cu yd) of
sediment processed (McCoy and
Associates, 1989).
The Acurex Solvent Wash Process
The process is said to remove 50 per-
cent of PCBs using freon-type solvents,
with each wash down to a residual
level of two ppm.
Uses a proprietary solvent tailored to
the waste content of the sediment.
No information is available on the
amount of solvent that remains in treat-
ed sediment.
3-51
-------
TABLE 3-13. (Continued)
Vendor/Site
Technology description
The Acurex Solvent Wash Process
(continued)
Sediment entering the treatment pro-
cess can contain as much as 40 per-
cent water.
Fine-grained sediment causes
difficulties in materials handling; many
remain in the solvent after settling.
Cost estimates range from $ 130 to
$390/m3 (§100 to 300/cu yd).
Pilot tests have been completed; field
tests are planned (Sullivan, 1989).
The O.H. Materials Extraction Process
Process uses methanol as a solvent.
Sediment must be dewatered to less than 5
percent moisture and then slurried with
methanol, separated, and redried.
Solvent is cleaned for reuse using activated
carbon, or it may be incinerated.
Dried, treated sediment is spread out in the
open air and periodically turned until any
remnants of the methanol are degraded.
Fine-grained materials and water in wastefeed
present problems for this process.
Claimed efficiencies are 97 percent with an
estimated residual level less than 25 ppm.
Field tests are currently underway.
Cost estimates range from $400 to $514/m3
($300 to 395/cu yd) including degradation and
transport (Sullivan, 1989).
The Light Activated Reduction of
Chemicals (LARC) Process
Isopropanol is mixed with sediment containing
25 percent water. The liquid is decanted, and
the process repeated.
Sodium hydroxide pellets are then add-
ed to the PCB extract to form a two
percent solution. The solution is
placed in a reactor, hydrogen gas is
added, and the mixture is subjected to
ultraviolet light for up to two hours.
Several extractions may be necessary
to sufficiently reduce PCB levels.
3-52
-------
TABLE 3-13. (Continued)
Vendor/Site
Technology description
The Light Activated Reduction of
Chemicals (LARC) Process
(continued)
Efficiency is estimated to be greater
than 99 percent.
This process has been tested only in
the laboratory.
Cost estimates are about $150/m3
($115/cu yd) (Sullivan, 1989).
Cost-Costs that have been developed range from $148 to $447/ton ($200 to $600/cu yd).
Soil Washing-
Process Description—Soil washing is a water-based process for mechanically scrubbing
excavated soils and sediment to remove contaminants. Figure 3-7 presents a schematic diagram of
a typical soil washing process. This technology has the potential to treat a wide variety of
contaminants such as heavy metals, halogenated solvents, aromatics, gasoline, fuel oils, PCBs, and
chlorinated phenols. It is most effective on coarse sand and gravel and least effective on clay and silt.
Fine silt tends to pass through the process, and clay strongly binds contaminants - making soil
washing inefficient. Treatability tests can determine its feasibility of for site-specific target contami-
nants.
Soil washing removes contaminants from sediment either by dissolving or suspending them in
a wash solution, which is later treated by conventional wastewater treatment methods. It can also
concentrate them into a smaller volume through particle size separation, similar to techniques used in
sand and gravel operations. A combination of these processes offers the greatest promise for washing
sediment contaminated with a wide variety of heavy metals and organics.
3-53
-------
0)
8
8
O)
(0
to
0)
CO
CD
O>
3-54
-------
Typical soil washing fluids are composed solely of water, or of water in combination with
organic solvents, chelating compounds, surfactants, acids, or bases. The concept of reducing
sediment contamination through particle size separation rests on the tendency of most organic and
inorganic contaminants to bind, either chemically or physically, to clay and silt particles. The clay and
silt, in turn, attach to sand apd gravel particles by physical processes - primarily compaction and
adhesion. Washing processes that separate the fine clay and silt particles from the coarser sand and
gravel particles effectively concentrate the contaminants into a smaller volume that can be more
efficiently treated or sent for disposal. The larger fraction, now clean, can be returned to the site.
These assumptions form the basis for the volume-reduction concept at the root of most soil washing
technologies.
* '
Soil washing can be used either as a stand-alone technology or in combination with other
treatment technologies. In some cases, the process can deliver the performance needed to reduce
£
contaminant concentrations to .acceptable levels. In other cases, soil washing is most successful when
combined with other technologies. It is a cost-effective pre-treatment step in reducing the quantity
of material to be processed by another technology, such as incineration. It can also transform soil
feedstock into a more homogeneous material for subsequent treatment.
Soil washing generates three waste streams: contaminated solids from the soil washing unit,
wastewater, and wastewater treatment residuals. Contaminated clay fines and sludges from the
process may receive further treatment by incineration, solidification/stabilization, or thermal desorption.
Wastewater may require treatment prior to disposal. As much water as possible should be recovered
for reuse in the washing process.
. i -
The remedial manager can refer to Figure 3-2 to determine the system components needed to
pre-treat, treat, and post-treat the contaminated sediment, and to Table 3-14 to determine the factors
affecting the soil washing process efficiency. In doing so, the remedial manager may develop a
treatment system similar to Figure 3-7, consisting of the following components:
• A removal and transport step in which sediment is excavated and moved to the treatment
process. This process can generate a water side stream that can be treated along with process
wastewater.
3-55
-------
TABLE 3-14. FACTORS AFFECTING SOIL WASHING
Factor
Clay content
Complex waste mixtures
High humic content
Metals concentration
Mineralogy
Particle size distribution
Separation coefficient
Wash solution
Effect
Difficult to remove contaminants.
Affects formulations of suitable wash fluids.
Inhibits contaminant removal.
Does not remove insoluble metals. (Some
metals can be solubilized and removed.)
Can affect process behavior and con-
taminant binding.
Affects removal from wash fluid; oversize
debris requires removal.)
If highly-bound contaminant, excessive
leaching required.
Solution may be difficult to recover or
dispose.
Range
-
~
—
-
-
0.063-2 mm
~
-
Sourc«: USEPA, 1988b.
3-56
-------
• A sediment preparation stage to screen oversize debris and provide particle size separation.
The oversize debris or oversized particles may be reduced and returned to the front end of the
process.
• The soil washing process in which the sediment is washed with appropriate additives to
enhance contaminant removal. The first stage of this process may be metals removal, followed
by additional stages to remove organics. Note that several stages may be required dependent
on the complexity of the contaminant mixture. The treated sediment may be reused, disposed
in a landfill, or solidified/stabilized for disposal. Waste water can be treated in a conventional
waste water treatment system. The contaminated sludges or fines that were separated during
treatment, can be further treated using incineration, thermal desorption, biological treatment,
or solidification/stabilization. Each of these technologies is discussed in this document.
Applicability and Limitations-Soil washing techniques can treat sediment contaminated with
soluble metals, halogenated solvents, aromatics, gasoline, fuel oils, PCBs, chlorinated phenols, and
pesticides. Insolubles such as metals and pesticides may require acid or chelating agents for
successful treatment. The process cannot efficiently treat fine particles such as silt and clay, low-
permeability packed materials, or sediment with high humic content. Different minerals behave
differently and can affect the binding forces between contaminant and particle. A feed mixture of
widely ranging contaminated concentrations in the waste feed make selection of suitable reagents
necessary. Sequential washing steps may be needed to achieve high removal efficiencies. Residual
solvents and surfactants can be difficult to remove after washing.
Performance Data-Soil washing has documented 90-99% removal of volatiles and 40-90%
removal of semivolatiles. The factors affecting the technology's performance are listed in Table 3-14.
The vendors listed in Table 3-15 claim to have successfully applied soil washing to various
waste types and offer the technology for pilot- and/or full-scale operations.
The Bureau of Mines (BOM) and EPA have been working closely to determine the effectiveness
of soil washing in separating contaminants. Initial studies have concentrated on soil washing using
various leachants to recover lead from waste battery scrap and contaminated soil at battery breaking
operations. The BOM work could be very important in identifying soil washing as a strong candidate
for use in remediating contaminated sediment. However, much work still needs to be done. The
Bureau of Mines has been conducting extensive tests of the application of mineral and metal
3-57
-------
TABLE 3-15. SOIL WASHING SYSTEMS
Vendor/Site
Technology description
MTA Remedial Resources, Inc.
(MTARRI)
Process uses technologies developed
for mining and enhanced oil recovery to
remove and concentrate organic
contaminants from soils and sludges.
Treatment residues consist of clean soils which
are returned to site, and concentrated organics
which require landfilling, incineration, or other
treatment.
MTARRI has treated various metallic
compounds with acidic washing
solutions. ,
Company states that 5 tons (5 percent)
of contaminated treatment residue is
generated per 100 tons of soil treated.
BioTrol, Inc.
BioTrol has constructed a mobile soil
washing pilot-plant capable of
processing 500 Ib/hr of contaminated
soils.
Process is most effective on soils
containing a high percentage of sand,
with particles coarser than 200 rnesh.
Unit has been used to treat
contaminated soil at a wood preserving
site. Removal rates for
pentachlorophenol range from 90 to 95
percent; removal rates for PAHs
averaged greater than 95 percent.
Approximately 77 percent of the feed
material was recovered as wash soil.
Oversized material ( + 14 mesh),
consisting primarily of woody debris,
constituted 11 % of the original feed.
Contaminated silt/clay formed the
remaining 12 percent of the feed,
EPA
Developed a mobile soil washing
system designed for waste extraction
of a broad range of hazardous materials
from contaminated soils.
Normal processing rate is 4 to 18 cu yd
of contaminated soil, depending on the
average particle size.
Treatability costs range from approximately
$20,000 to over $100,000 per test.
3-58
-------
processing technologies to contaminated sediments as part of the ARCS Program and may identify
lower-cost treatment or pre-treatment alternatives (Allen, 1992).
Cost-Vendor treatment costs range from $200 to 400/cu yd (USEPA, 1990k).
Thermal Desorption—
Process Description-Thermal desorption is a method of removing volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) from contaminated sediment. Figure 3-8 ;
illustrates a typical thermal desorption process. It is not appropriate for treating inorganics. Volatile
metals, however, may be removed by higher temperature thermal desorption systems. The treatment
consists of heating the soil matrix at a temperature below combustion, typically 200 to 1 ,OOOF, evap-
orates the VOCs and some SVOCs and drives off water. The vaporized VOCs can then either by
destroyed in a high temperature secondary combustion chamber, or recovered by condensation or
activated carbon adsorption. This results in a large reduction in waste volume. Sediment is dredged
and objects greater than 1.5 inches are removed. The sediment is heated and highly volatile
components and water are driven off. Off gas from the desorption step is processed to remove
participates and to condense the volatile contaminants. The off gas is further scrubbed, as needed,
before release.
This technology typically creates up to six process residual streams consisting of the treated
media, oversize media rejects, condensed contaminants and water, emission gas dust, clean off gas, .
and spent carbon. Thermal desorption is more effective than some other processes, such as solvent
extraction because it volatilizes more organics due to its higher operating temperatures. However, it
is not as effective as high .temperature incineration because it only evaporates the VOCs and some
SVOCs, while incineration destroys all the organics.
The remedial manager can use Figure 3-2 to determine the potential components of an overall
treatment system, and Table 3-16 to determine the parameters most favorable to efficient thermal
desorption treatment. With these aids, the remedial manager may develop a treatment system similar
to Figure 3-8, consisting of the following components:
• Removal and transport of the sediment. This step can generate a water side stream that can
be treated in a conventional water treatment system.
3-59
-------
o
0} «-
I i
at
v>
8
Ol
L
-------
TABLE 3-16. FACTORS AFFECTING THERMAL DESORPTION
Factor
Tightly aggregated particles
Clay content
Mercury content
Metals, inorganics, low volatile
organics
Moisture content
PH
Silt content
Volatile organics
Solid content
Particle size
Effect
Can result in inadequate volatilization
of contaminants.
Fugitive dust emissions during
handling.
Boiling point of mercury (673F) close
to operating temperature for process.
Most effective for highly volatile
organics.
Requires additional energy and increase
treatment costs.
Can cause corrosion.
Can be carried through system
resulting in high particulate loading.
Limited by some systems although
volatile organics are the primary target
compound.
Facilitate placement of the waste
material into the desorption equipment.
Poor processing performance due to
caking.
Range
~
~
.
Up to 800-
1,OOOF
Boiling point
<60%
5-11
-
Up to 10%
At least 20%
Less than 1-1 .5
in.
Source: USEPA, 1988b.
Waste preparation in which large debris is screened, and particle size separation is effected.
Each operation requires separate equipment, and generates residual streams. Similar residual
streams can be combined with streams from other unit operations in the system and treated
together.
Desorption is the principal treatment. It volatilizes the organic contaminants, effecting removal
from the sediment. This process generates two streams: the concentrated organic vapor, and
the treated sediment. The treated sediment is evaluated to ascertain the appropriateness for
reuse as fill, or for further treatment or disposal. The vapor phase is treated for particulate
removal and condensation or capture of the organic vapors. Solids from dust control can be
3-61
-------
combined with other system solids residual streams. Condensed organic material must be
further treated using techniques such as incineration or biodegradation. Organic material
captured on carbon is either incinerated or desorbed and treated further.
Applicability and Limitations-Thermal desorption is applicable to the separation of organics
from refinery wastes, coal tar wastes, wood treating wastes, creosote contaminated sediment, and
hydrocarbon contaminated sediment and any contaminant with boiling point up to 1,000°F.
Contaminated sediment, for material handling purposes, must contain at least 20 percent
solids. Sediment that is tightly aggregated or hardpan, or that contains rock fragments or particles
greater than 1 to 1.5 inches can result in poor performance. High fractions of fine silt or clay can
generate fugitive dusts, causing greater dust loading on downstream air pollution control equipment.
Performance Data-Temperature control and residence time are the primary factors affecting
performance in thermal desorption. Although this technology can produce treated sediment that meets
BOAT treatment levels, but may not reach the desired levels in all cases. Primary factors affecting
performance are listed in Table 3-16.
Thermal desorption systems by X'Trax™ Low-Temperature Treatment Process, the Low-
Temperature Thermal Aeration System (LTTA) and the Low-Temperature Thermal Treatment (LT3)
System are presented in Table 3-17.
Cost-Processing cost, documented by several vendors ranges from $80 to $350/ton ($110
to $470/cu yd). Costs are very dependent on site size, quantity of waste to be processed, moisture
content, organic content of the contaminated medium, and cleanup standards to be achieved.
Solidification/Stabilization Treatment
Process Description-Solidification/Stabilization is a technique that mixes reactive materials with
solids, semi-solids, and sludges to immobilize contaminants. Solidification produces a monolithic block
of waste with high structural integrity by adding materials such as fly ash or blast furnace slag to limit
the mobility or solubility of waste constituents (USEPA, 1982). Combinations of solidification and
stabilization techniques are often used.
3-62
-------
TABLE 3-17. THERMAL DESORPTION SYSTEMS
Vendor/site
Technology description
Chemical Waste Management
X*TRAX™
Company has developed the X*TRAX™ mobile
thermal desorption system.
System uses a separation process to
remove volatile or semivolatile com-
pounds from a solid matrix.
Solid feeds must be screened to a di-
ameter less than 1-1/4 in.
Feed stream organics must contain less
than 10 percent organics with boiling
points less than 800°F, and less than 60
percent moisture.
System is composed of two main ele-
ments: a dryer that heats the solids and
volatilizes the water and organic
contaminants and a gas treatment sys-
tem that condenses and collects the
volatilized compounds and serves as the
air pollution control portion of the
system.
System operates under negative pres-
sure in an inert environment.
The solids are treated at a temperature
between 450 and 850 °F.
Residence time ranges from 60 to 300
minutes.
System claims to be effective for treat-
ing contaminants with high boiling
points such as PCBs.
Residuals from the process include
bottom ash from the dryer, spent carbon
from treatment of off-gases, condensed •.
oil, and sludge from the phase separator.
Costs range from $200 to $470/cu yd,
($150 to 350/ton) depending on site
size.
The first commercial X*TRAX™ system
unit became available in 1990. It has a
design capacity of 95 cu yd/day based
on a feed material with 30 percent mois-
ture.
3-63
-------
TABLE 3-17. (Continued)
Vendor/site
Technology description
Chemical Waste Management
X*TRAX™, continued
System reports a 99 percent removal
(wt) of VOCs and SVOCs (Johnson,
1989).
Canonie Environmental Services
LTTA System
Used to remediate soils containing chlo-
rinated solvents and non-chlorinated aro-
matic hydrocarbons.
System removes VOCs from excavated
soils by forcing heated air counter-cur-
rent to the flow of the soils in a rotary
drum dryer.
Was used for remediation of the Ottati
and Goss Superfund site in New Hamp-
shire.
Equipment is capable of processing
between 30 to 50 tons/hr.
Costs range from $80 to $150/ton
($110-$200/cu yd) depending on soil
characteristics and treatment criteria
(Johnson, 1989).
Roy F. Weston LT3 System
Organic contaminants in the soil are
stripped and incinerated without ex-
pending the energy necessary to heat
the soil to combustion temperatures.
Process involves indirectly transferring
heat to the wastes in a multiple screw
conveyor to volatilize the contaminants.
Process is capable of accepting a wide
range of soil matrices.
It has been demonstrated successfully
on VOCs, semivolatile compounds, and
petroleum hydrocarbons.
Treatment costs are estimated to be
$100 to $120/ton ($135 to $160/cu yd)
based on 20 percent moisture and
10,000 ppm organics.
It is planned to evaluate the unit for
remediation of PCB-contaminated soils
(Johnson, 1989).
3-64
-------
Several variations of solidification/stabilization that are available in today's market include
cement-based solidification, silicate-based solidification, and microencapsulation. Of these, cement-
based and silicate-based solidification techniques have been more successful in treating hazardous
wastes than thermoplastic-based or organic polymer-based techniques. The cement-based processes
mix the waste directly with portland cement. In silicate-based solidification, a siliceous material such
as fly ash together with lime, cement, and suitable setting agents are mixed with waste. Data suggest
that silicate additives can stabilize a wider range of materials than cement. Several vendors use
organophilic proprietary compounds as silicate additives to bind organics to the solid matrix. These
vendors claim success treating oily sludges and solvent-contaminated sludges and soils, but
solidification/stabilization technologies have been most successful to inorganic waste streams. Pre-
treatment adjusts the pH of the slurry or sludge to insolubilize heavy metals, thereby reducing their
mobility. The highly alkaline agents neutralize acidic leachate, keeping the heavy metals in their
insoluble, less mobile form.
There are many critical parameters in stabilization: the selected stabilizing agents, other
additives, the waste-to-additive ratio, mixing variables, and curing conditions. They all depend on the
chemical and physical characteristics of the waste. Bench-scale treatability tests must be conducted
to select the additives, ratios, and curing time. Leaching and compressive strength tests determine
ths integrity of the product.
The short-term environmental effects of stabilizing most wastes are encouraging, and a long-
term (6 years) study (Lechjch and Roethel, 1988} have shown that stabilized metals, and dioxins and
furans in cement blocks do not leach out even when these stabilized blocks are exposed to marine
environment for prolonged periods. Any leachate produced as a result of the curing process should
be collected and analyzed to determine the necessity for treatment before disposal. Gas monitoring,
collection, and treatment may be necessary for wastes containing ammonium ions or volatile organics.
Applicability and Limitations-Solidificatibn/stabilization techniques are most successful in
wastes with inorganics and metals. Developers claim some success with oily sludges and solvents.
S/S is not effective on volatile organics.
Maintaining an organic concentration less than 20 percent (wt), semivolatiles less than 1
percent, oil and grease concentrations less .than 10 percent, cyanide concentrations less than 0.3
percent, phenols less than 5%, and PAHs less than 1 percent is favored. Fine particle sizes and halides
retard setting and borates, sulfates, carbohydrates, and soluble salts of manganese, tin, zinc, copper,
3-65
-------
and lead interfere with settling. Process success is very dependent on the selection of proper
stabilizing agents, their mix ratios, proper mixing, and curing. Volume increase exceeding 20 percent
can result.
Performance Data-Performance of solidification/stabilization systems is usually measured by
the evaluation of leachates. the technique provides virtually total containment of insoluble metals, but
it's effectiveness on organics or other leachables is inconclusive. Factors for the most effective
treatment are listed in Table 3-18. ,
Cost—Treatment costs for solidification/stabilization have been determined to be $30 to
$165/cu yd (USEPA, 1986a).
Thermal Treatment • ........
Incineration--
Process Description-Incineration is the most widely used method for destroying organic
contaminants. Incineration is commercially proven and widely available from many vendors. It is
effective in treating soils, sediments, sludges, and liquids containing primarily organic contaminants
such as halogenated and nonhalogenated volatiles and semivolatiles, PCBs, pesticides, dioxins/furans,
and organic cyanides. In incineration organic contaminants are volatilized at temperatures greater than
1000F in the presence of oxygen resulting in combustion, and destruction of the contaminants.
r .,' J !h ~' '.
Varying incinerator designs use different mechanisms to attain the furnace temperature control,
the exposure time, and generate the turbulence required to ensure complete combustion. Three
common incineration systems are the rotary kiln, circulating fluidized bed, and infrared:
• The rotary kiln is a slightly inclined cylinder that rotates on its longitudinal axis. Waste
feeds into the high end of the rotary kiln and passes through the combustion chamber
by gravity. A secondary combustion chamber destroys organicsjn the flue gases.
• Circulating fluidized bed incinerators use high air velocity to circulate and suspend the
fuel/waste particles in a combustor loop. Flue gas is separated from heavier particles
in a solids separation cyclone. Circulating fluidized beds do not require an afterburner.
3-66
-------
TABLE 3-18. FACTORS AFFECTING SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION TREATMENT
Factor
Coal or lignite content
Cyanides content
Halide content
Inorganic salts content
teachable metals content
Oil and grease content
Organic content
Particle size
Semivolatile organics
Sodium arsenate, borates,
phosphates, iodates, sulfide,
carbohydrates concentrations
Solids content
Volatile organic concentrations
Effect
Can cause defects in product.
Can affect bonding of waste materials.
Retards setting; leached easily.
Soluble salts of manganese, tin, zinc,
copper, and lead reduce product
strength and affect curing rates.
Not effectively immobilized.
Weaken- bonds between waste particles
and cement by coating the particles.
Can interfere with bonding of waste
materials.
Small particles can coat larger particles
and weaken bonds; small insoluble
particles can delay setting and curing;
large particles are not suitable.
Can interfere with bonding.
Retard setting and affect product
strength.
Requires large amounts of cement and
other reagents; greatly increase the
volume and weight of the end product.
Not effectively immobilized.
Range
—
<0.3 wt%
—
.
—
< 1 0 wt%
20-45 wt%
<1 wt%
—
>15%
-
Source: USEPA, 1988b.
Infrared processing systems use electrical resistance heating elements or indirect fuel-
fired radiant U-tubes to generate thermal radiation. Waste is fed into the combustion
chamber by a conveyor belt and exposed to the radiant heat. Exhaust gases pass
through a secondary combustion chamber.
3-67
-------
Offgases from the incinerator are treated by the air pollution control equipment to remove
participates and capture and neutralize acids.
The remedial manager needs detailed information on the physical and chemical characteristics
of the waste matrix to assess the matrix impact on incinerator type, its performance, size, and cost;
waste preparation, handling, and feeding; air pollution control type and size; and residuals handling.
Key physical parameters include the feed's physical characteristics such as type of matrix, physical
form, handling properties, particle size, moisture content, and heating value. Dredged material may
require particle size reduction prior to feeding incinerators. Key chemical parameters include the type
and concentration of organic compounds such as PCBs and dioxins, inorganics (metals), halogens,
sulfur, and phosphorous.
Heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium, and chromium are not destroyed by
combustion. As a result, some will be present in the ash while others (such as arsenic, mercury) are
volatilized and released into the flue gas.
Incinerator generates three major waste streams: solids from the incinerator and flue gas
system, gaseous emissions from the incinerator, and water from the scrubber system (Figure 3-9). The
incinerator flue gases are often treated by scrubber systems such as electrostatic precipitators or
venturi scrubbers before discharge through a stack. Scrubber system solids may contain high
concentrations of volatile metals, ash, and treated solids from the incinerator combustion chamber.
The ash and treated solids may be contaminated with heavy metals. If these residues fail leachate
toxicity tests, they can be further treated by a process such as stabilization/solidification and disposed
of onsite or in an approved landfill. Liquid waste from the scrubber system may contain caustics,
chlorides, volatile metals, trace organics, metal- and inorganic particulates. The liquid wastes may
require neutralization, chemical precipitation, reverse osmosis, settling, evaporation, filtration, or carbon
adsorption before discharge.
Figure 3-9 helps determine the potential incineration system components; Table 3-19 gives
factors limiting the technology's performance. From these the remedial manager can construct a
conceptual overall treatment system. A system might consist of the following components:
• Removal and transport equipment, with the attendant oversize debris removal and size
reduction equipment.
3-68
-------
"2.2
•215
(0.2
SS
\-
«i
n
5
1
12
8.1
o
i
!1
s
tlj
CO
a 2
,28
.0,
•1
®ffl
CD
I
o
I
CD
'o
9
CO
§
o>
iZ
-
I*
"
II
O C
Is
3-69
-------
TABLE 3-19. FACTORS AFFECTING INCINERATION TECHNIQUES
Factor
Ash fusion temperature
Halogenated organic
compound concentration
Heating value
Metals content
Moisture content
Organic phosphorous
content
Particle size
PCBs, dioxins
Alkaline metals such as
sodium and potassium
Halogens {Cl compounds)
Effect
Can result in melting and agglomeration.
Form acid gases.
Requires additional energy use.
Can vaporize; are difficult to remove from
emissions (volatile metals (As, Cd, Zn, Ag,
Hg, Pb, Sn)).
Affects feed handling and energy
requirements.
Can form acid gas (high concentrations).
Cannot be processed (oversized debris);
fiiies can be carried through the process
resulting in high particulate loading.
Must ensure sufficiently high temperature
for destruction.
Can cause several refractory attack.
Can contribute to refractory attack, and
slagging problems.
Range
-
> 8,000 BTU
-
**~
Up to 50%
—
1-2 inches
•• • ,
<5% dry weight
<8% dry weight
Waste preparation includes screening to remove oversize debris and dewatering. Depending
on the requirements of the incinerator type for sediments, various equipment is used to obtain
the necessary feed size. Blending is sometimes required to achieve a uniform feed size and
moisture content. ' "
Incineration, with its ash, water, air emissions, and treated solids residual streams. The ash
and residual solids stream may be able to be land filled directly, or may require treatment
before disposal. The water stream can be fed to a conventional water treatment system. The
flue gases must be treated in an air pollution control device before release to the environment.
The treated solids can generally be reused or landfilled.
3-70
-------
Applicability and Limitations-Incineration techniques have been applied to halogenated and non-
halogenated volatiles, semivolatiles, PCBs, pesticides, dioxins/furans, organic cyanides, and organic
corrosives. It is not effective on heavy metals and is expensive.
Favorable feed stream characteristics include a particle size large enough hot to pass through
the system, low moisture content to prevent costly vaporization of water, materials which have a good
heating value, absence of volatile metals, elevated levels of halogenated organics, sulfur, or elevated
levels phosphorus compounds.
Performance Data-Incinerators typically achieve greater than 99% destruction for organics.
Factors affecting the technology's performance are listed in Table 3-18.
Rotary kiln incineration by International Technology Corporation has been used at two sites
(Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant, Grand Island, Nebraska, and Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant,
Shreveport, Louisiana) by the Department of Defense (DOD) to decontaminate lagoon sediments
contaminated with explosives (TNT, DNT, etc.). Roy F. Weston, Inc. owns and operates a
transportable incineration system (TIS) to treat solids contaminated with organic compounds .and
polychlorinated biphenyls {PCBs). In Beardstown, Illinois, 8,500 tons of PCB-contaminated soil from
an abandoned salvage yard was successfully treated by this unit.
O.H. Materials used a Shirco Infrared unit at the Peak Oil site in Florida to treat 7,000 tons of
waste (Johnson, et al., 1989). EPA conducted two evaluations of the infrared system developed by
Shirco Infrared Systems. In both cases, at standard operating conditions, PCBs were reduced to less
than 1 ppm in the ash, with a ORE for air emissions greater than 99.99%. Economic analysis suggests
a cost range from $180/ton to $240/ton ($245 to $325/cu yd), excluding waste excavation, feed
preparation, ash disposal costs, and vendor profit. Total costs including these elements may be as high
as $800/ton (USEPA, 1989h).
A circulating fluidized bed incinerator developed by Ogden Environmental Services, Inc. has
treated PCB-contaminated sediments from the Swanson River Oil Field, Alaska in field demonstrations.
Cost-The cost of fluidized bed incinerator depends on the technology, the type of waste
treated and the size of the site. On the average, the costs can vary from $350/ton ($475/cu yd), for
a large site to $1,000/ton ($1,350/cu yd) for a very small site (USEPA, 1990J).
3-71
-------
POST-TREATMENT OF RESIDUAL STREAMS
Water Treatment
Water removed from contaminated sediments may require treatment to remove dissolved and
colloidal contaminants before disposal. Some treatment techniques include activated carbon adsorp-
tion, biological treatment, ion exchange, neutralization, precipitation, flocculation, ultrafiltration, and
ozonation/ultraviolet radiation. Since standard, well established wastewater treatment methods can
be applied to the separated water component, they will not be addressed further in this document.
A good reference to water treatment is Handbook: Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites (USEPA,
1985b).
Air Emissions Control
The remedial manager can assume that most, if not all, treatment technologies produce vapors
that must be captured and treated. The potential for noxious emissions during sediment removal and
treatment cannot be overlooked.
Dredging and transporting contaminated sediment, dewatering and particle classification
techniques can release entrained gases. Preconditioning or pretreating the sediment can result in
reactions between the treatment agents and the contaminants. Each principal treatment method, with
the possible exception of the extraction technologies, can generate gases during processing. This
applies to biological treatment, dechlorination methods, solidification/stabilization, incineration, and
thermal desorption. As the remedial manager delves more deeply into the details of the selected
technology or treatment system, each point in the process that could release or generate toxic gases
must be identified and appropriate control measures taken to capture, treat, or destroy the emissions.
Solids Treatment
Solids streams from the treatment process or system must be analyzed to ensure that they
meet established cleanup levels. This applies most importantly to soil washing technologies. Soil
washing technologies are usually phase separation techniques and are not intended to destroy
contaminants. The solids residues from these processes will probably require additional treatment
before disposal. If the contaminants are PCBs, the remedial manager must ascertain that all TSCA
3-72
-------
regulations are satisfied. TSCA regulations apply to contaminants having PCB concentrations
exceeding 50 ppm.
The solids residues from biological treatment, dechlorination, solvent extraction,
solidification/stabilization, incineration, and thermal desorption will usually meet cleanup levels if the
proper technology is selected, and operates at optimum conditions. If cleanup levels are not achieved,
or heavy metals are present in the waste, a second treatment such as solidification/stabilization may
be needed before disposal.
Disposal
Generally, residual solids and sludges from treatment are disposed in landfills. A landfill is a
waste disposal facility where waste materials are placed in or on a controlled land area and are covered
in the manner that isolates them from the environment. There are two types of landfills: sanitary and
hazardous. Highly contaminated wastes must be disposed of in hazardous landfills which are designed
to meet regulatory criteria. Landfilling of hazardous materials is becoming increasingly difficult and
expensive due to growing regulatory control. Under TSCA, PCB-contaminated materials exceeding 50
ppm cannot be accepted unless than landfill has EPA approval for disposal of PCBs.
3-73
-------
-------
SECTION 4
COMBINING COMPONENTS INTO A TREATMENT SYSTEM
In order to assist the remedial manager in using this guide to select appropriate components
of an adequate treatment system, four generic scenarios have been developed. These scenarios are
as follows:
• A site and contamination that facilitate the section process, and provide a reasonable
choice of system components.
• A site and contamination that require pretreatment of feedstock or adjustment of
technology components to constitute the preferred system.
• A site and contamination that provide a poor application for this guide, indicating the
need for additional information, treatment, or a technology or choice beyond those in
this guide.
• A site and contamination that are outside the scope of this guide, indicating the need
for research into other technologies.
DEVELOPING TREATMENT SYSTEMS USING GENERIC EXAMPLES
The four scenarios that have been chosen as examples to illustrate use of the guide's Figures
and Tables are as follows:
• Scenario #1: A deep, open water body with high concentrations of complex organic
contamination, and a sediment with high clay content.
• Scenario #2: A shallow, slow moving water body with Pentachlorophenol
contamination and a sandy sediment.
• Scenario #3: A harbor with high traffic, waves, and tides. Contaminants are PCBs and
metals in a sandy/silty sediment.
• Scenario #4: A wide, deep river. Contaminants are pesticides and nonvolatile metals
in a silty, small particle size matrix.
4-1
-------
Scenario #1
From Figure 3-1, determine the appropriate principal treatment method. If the material is to
be treated in situ, the remedial manager can consult the text for the available, recommended methods.
If dredging is chosen, selection of a treatment system begins.
From the "Materials Handling Considerations" discussion, and using Table 3-4, determine the
most appropriate dredge for the site. Since this site is a deep, open water body, an appropriate dredge
selection is the hydraulic type, used in lakes and inland rivers. Hydraulic dredges also have the
advantage of processing high volumes of sediment, with moderate resuspension. The remedial
manager is cautioned that other site-specific conditions may favor the use of a different dredge.
Next a transport method must be selected based on the distance to the treatment or disposal
site, and the current costs of transport.
From Table 3-1, a technology can be selected based on the specifics of the site contaminant
group. For this site, it can be determined that the technologies should be categorized as follows:
High probability
Incineration
Marginal success
Biological
Solvent extraction
Thermal desorption
Not Likely to be effective
Dechlorination
Solidification/stabilization
Refining these selections using Table 3-2, it can be seen that the clay content further eliminates
soil washing, solvent extraction, and thermal desorption, leaving incineration as the preferred choice,
and biological treatment as a secondary choice. Referring to the costing worksheet, Table 4-1, the
substantially higher cost of incineration makes biological treatment the favored choice.
The remedial manager can now consult the section of this document that deals with biological
treatment if the site conditions are favorable, or determine what needs to be done to condition the
sediment for successful biological treatment. Treatability studies will aid in determining sediment
conditioning requirements and optimum operating parameters. The remedial manager should anticipate
the possibility that treatability studies may prove an inappropriate choice. Then the selection process
becomes iterative - selecting another technology and again performing treatability studies.
4-2
-------
TABLE 4-1. COSTING WORKSHEET
System component
Cost range
(cu yd)
Site-specific costs
Dredging
Transport
Preconditioning/pretreatment
Dewatering
Particle classification
Treatment
CDF
CAD
Biological
In situ
Ex situ - solid phase
Ex situ - slurry phase
Dechlorination
Solvent Extraction
Soil washing
Solidification/stabilization
In situ
Ex situ
Incineration
Low temperature thermal
desorption
Posttreatment
Water treatment
Air emissions control
Solids treatment
Disposal
$1-$25
TBD
TBD
TBD
$5.00-$20.00
TBD
TBD
$50-$80
$200-$600
$100-$300
$200-$600
$200-$400
TBD
$30-$ 165
$475-$1,350
$110-$470
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
4-3
-------
Having screened a likely technology, the remedial manager can consult pre-treatment and post-
treatment techniques for the chosen technology and arrange a treatment system designed to meet
established cleanup goals. Although the screening process has presented a favorable principal
technology, the remedial manager should be aware that certain technologies, although "screened out"
may be appropriate pre-treatment or post-treatment phases of an overall system - the "treatment train"
approach.
This technique is intended to be a screening process to indicate a preferred treatment or series
of treatments to address site-specific conditions. The real work of verifying the screened selection,
and designing, installing, and operating the final solution is really just beginning.
Scenario #2
As before, consult Figure 3-1 to determine an appropriate principal treatment.
Since the site water body is shallow and slow moving, a pneumatic dredge is chosen for its
preferred operation in interior waterways and in shallow depths. Its low resuspension rate is also a
plus since a fast moving water body would quickly entrain and spread contamination. The fact that
pneumatic dredges can obstruct traffic may be a drawback, requiring another selection.
Now select a transport system. It is likely that we are close to shore, so a direct pumping to
land transport is probable. .......
t . >
The major contaminant at this site is pentachlorophenol. Appendix D of the guide indicates
that this compound is a halogenated semi-volatile. Reference to Table 3-1 suggests that the
technologies can be categorized as follows:
High probability of success
Soil washing
Incineration
Marginal success
Biological
Dechlorination
Solvent extraction
Thermal desorption
Not likely to be effective
Solidification/stabilization
4-4
-------
Table 3-2 provides no further refining of the selected technology. However, referring to the
text's technology descriptions for both soil washing and incineration, it can be seen that sandy
sediment can be processed well by both. Again, reference to the cost work sheet, Table 4-1, indicates
that incineration, though technically superior, is far more costly, leaving soil washing as the preferred
technology choice. After verification of optimum technology operating parameters, dewatering, pre-
treatment and post-treatment considerations can be made, based on the soil washing technology
description in the text.
Scenario #3 • • ,
The selection process continues for the harbor water body site with high traffic, waves and
tides. Reference to the guide's materials handling section indicates that a mechanical dredge is
preferred since it can operate well in harbors, in rough water, and in confined areas. •
In selecting an appropriate treatment technology from Table 3-1, it can be assumed that the
metals component will contain volatile and non-volatile metals. Referring to Table 3-1, it is seen that,
while dechlorination, solvent extraction, and incineration are the preferred choices for PCB treatment,
none is recommended for metals treatment. Biological treatment is marginally acceptable for PCBs,
but not acceptable for metals. The remedial manager is therefore left with choosing among three
marginal choices - soil washing, solidification/stabilization, and thermal desorption. However, the
concentration of PCBs may well determine the technology of choice. TSCA provisions may apply to
the site, or the EPA Regional Administrator may select an alternative that satisfies human health and
environmental protection considerations. Two good sources of information on PCB regulatory issues
and treatment studies are: Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination
(USEPA 1990a3) and PCB Sediment Decontamination - Technical/Economic Assessment of Selected
Alternative Treatments (USEPA 1986a1).
Referring to Table 3-2, the soil washing and thermal desorption options become questionable
because they cannot, as stand-alone technologies, treat all the contaminants.
Solidification/stabilization, although the preferred option is also not a "strong" candidate. In such
cases, the remedial manager is faced with selecting several technologies arranged in a treatment
sequence to satisfy the site conditions, or researching technologies not covered in this guide.
For example, in the given scenario, soil washing can be used to separate PCBs, fines, and
metals. The PCB component can then be treated, depending on the level of contamination, using
4-5
-------
dechlorination or incineration. The separated fines and metal components could use
solidification/stabilization. Once the treatment train components are initially selected, treatability tests
can determine preferred operating conditions. Reference to the text for each technology will determine
the pre-treatment and post-treatment techniques needed to optimize the technology's performance.
Scenario #4
Again, from Table 3-4 select an appropriate dredge type. Then select an appropriate transport
method.
From Table 3-1 review the potentially effective treatment technologies, remembering that
several technologies may be needed to prepare, treat, and post-treat the site specific contaminants and
media. Note that no clear cut choice as a preferred treatment is indicated. The selection categories
are as follows:
High Probability of success
None
Marginal success
Soil Washing
Solidification/
stabilization
Not likely to be effective
Biological
Dechlorination
Solvent Extraction
Incineration
Thermal desorption
Refining these selections using Table 3-2, it can be seen that the high silt content and small
particle size eliminate the two selections having a marginally successful rating. This leaves the
remedial manager with no choices from the listed technologies. The remedial manager must now
consider if any pre-treatment can be done to make the sediment more amenable to treatment. Little
can be done to change silt and small particles to more treatable conditions. This is a case in which
none of the technologies discussed in this document are suitable to the contaminant/media matrix.
The remedial manager is left no choice but to exit the document and begin review of other technologies
outside this text.
ESTIMATING SYSTEM COSTS
Cost ranges for each component of the treatment system are given in Table 4-1. Caution is
advised in using these costs out of context since they are based on varying years. Also, costs are
highly variable dependent on the volumes of sediment to be processed, system efficiencies, and
support equipment, utilities, and materials required.
4-6
-------
REFERENCES
ABB Environmental Journal. 1990. Spring/Summer. Vol. 4, Nos. 1 and 2.
Allen, D. C. and A. J. Ikalainen. 1988. Selection and Evaluation of Treatment Technologies for the New
Bedford Harbor (MA) Superfund Project. In: Proceedings of the 9th National Conference, HMCRI, Silver
Spring, Maryland.
Allen, James P. 1991. Mineral Processing Pretreatment of Contaminated Sediments. ]n Progress. Bureau
of Mines, Salt Lake City, UT.
Anderson, M. L. Thesis, University Microfilms International. No. GAX80-25646. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
1980.
Anon. 1973. "Ocean Dumping: Final Regulations and Criteria." U.S. Federal Register 38 (198).
Atlantic Research Corp. Engineering and Development Support of General Decon Technology for the U.S.
Army's Installation/Restoration Program. Prepared for USATHAMA. Contract No. DAAK-11-80-
C0027.
Averett, D. E., B. D. Perry, and E. J. Torrey. 1989. Review of Removal, Containment, and Treatment
Technologies for Remediation of Contaminated Sediment in the Great Lakes. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL. Environmental
Laboratory, Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Barnard, W. 1978. Prediction and Control of Dredged Material Dispersion Around Dredging and Open-Water
Pipeline Disposal Operations. T.R. DS-78-13, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Baudo, R., Giesy, J.P., Muntau, H. 1990. Sediments: Chemistry and Toxicity of In-Place Pollutants. Lewis
Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Ml.
Bennett, J. P. Undated. Simulation and Transport-Related Properties. Circular No. 969:64-68, U.S.
Geological Survey.
Boem, P. D., and D.L. Fiest. 1983. "Dredged Material Disposal in the Ocean." Wastes in the Ocean. Vol.
2. John Wiley and Sons, New York. pp. 151-169.
Bokumiewicz, H.J., et al., 1978. Field Study of the Mechanics of the Placement of Dredged Material at Open-
Water Sites. Technical Report D-78-7, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS,
Brossman, M. W., K. M. Mackenthun, J. A. Kohler, and C. R. Terrel. 1978. Mitigation Feasibility for the
Kepone-Contaminated Hopewell/James River Areas. EPA/540/5/78/004.
Brown, Mark. 1988. Upper Hudson River Site, Toxic Sediments - Approaches to Management. PTI Sciences.
Chapman, P.M. 1989. Current Approaches to Developing Sediment Quality Criteria. 0730-7268/89. Envi-
ronmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 8, pp 589-599.
Church, H. 1981. Excavation Handbook. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
R-1
-------
Culinane, M.J., Averett, D.E., et al. 1990. Contaminated Dredged Material - Control, Treatment, and
Disposal Practices. Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, NJ.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Disposal Alternatives for PCB-Contaminated Sediments from Indiana
Harbor, Indiana, Volumes 1 and 2, Miscellaneous Paper EL-87-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
ERM-Southwest, Inc. 1990. Feasibility Study Report on Arkwood, Inc. Site, Omaha, Arkansas.
Fleming, Elizabeth C., Averette, Daniel E., Channel, Michael G., and Perry, Bret D. 1991. An Evaluation
of Solidification/Stabilization Technology for Buffalo River Sediment, Miscellaneous Paper EL-91-11,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Fisher, J. B., R. L. Petty, and W. Lick. 1983. Environmental Pollution. Series 6, 5:121-132.
Fitchko, J. I989. Criteria for Contaminated Soil/Sediment Cleanup. Pudvan Publishing Co., Inc.,
Northbrook, IL.
Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. 1989. Cleaning Excavated Soil Using Extraction Agents.
EPA/600/2-89/034. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Fujita, M., and K. Iwashima. 1981. Estimation of Organic and Total Mercury in Seawater Around the
Japanese Archipelago. Environmental Science and Technology. 57:929-932.
Hallett, Douglas J., Kelvin R. Campbell, and Wayland R. Sawin of ELI Eco Technologies, Inc. 1990.
Thermal Gas Phase Reduction of Organic Hazardous Wastes in Aqueous Matrices. Presentation at the
USEPA Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and Inter-
national. EPA/540/2-90/010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Develop-
ment, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Hand, T.D., A.W. Ford, P.G. Malone, D.W. Thompson, and R.b. Mercer. 1978. A Feasibility Study of
Response Techniques for Discharges of Hazardous Chemicals that Sink. CG-D-56-78, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Prepared for: U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, D.C.
Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute. 1988. Superfund '88 - Proceedings of the 9th National
Conference, Washington, DC. HMCRI, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Helz, G. R. and R. J. Hugget. 1987. Pennsylvania Academy of Science Publication, pp. 270-297.
Herbich, John B., and Brahme, Shashikant B. 1991. Literature Review and Technical Evaluation of
Sediment Resuspension During Dredging. Contract Report HL-91-1. Prepared by Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas for the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Huggett, R. J. and M. E. Bender. 1980. Kepone in the James River. Environmental Science and
Technology. Volume 14/8:918-923.
Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute (HMCRI). 1989. Superfund '89 - Proceedings of the 10th
National Conference, Washington, DC. HMCRI, Silver Spring, Maryland.
R-2
-------
International Joint Commission, Great Lakes Regional Office. 1988a. Options for the Remediation of
Contaminated Sediments in the Great Lakes. Report from Sediment Subcommittee and its Remedial
Options Work Group, Windsor, Ontario.
International Joint Commission, Great Lakes Regional Office. 1988b. Procedures for the Assessment of
Contaminated Sediment Problems in the Great Lakes. Report from Sediment Subcommittee and its
Assessment Work Group, Windsor, Ontario. - ;
Jafvert, C.T., and Rogers, J.E. 1991. Biological Remediation of Contaminated Sediments with Special
Emphasis on the Great Lakes. EPA/600/9-91/001. Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA.
Johnson, N., and M: Cosmos. 1989. Thermal Treatment Technologies for Hazardous Waste Remediation.
Pollution Engineering. , ; ,
Klein. 1982. James River Dredging Demonstration in Sediments Contaminated with Kepone. U;S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Norfolk, Virginia. ,
Lechich, A. F. and F. J. Roethel. 1988. Marine Disposal of Stabilized Metal Processing Waste. J. Water
Pollution Control. January. P. 93 - 99.
Luand, J. C. S., and K. Y. Chen. 1977. Migration of Trace Metals in Inter-faces of Seawater and
Polluted Surficial Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology. 11:174-181.
Majumdar, S. K., L. W. Hall, Jr., and H. M. Austin. 1987. Contaminant Problems and Management of
Living Chesapeake Bay Resources. Pennsylvania Academy of Science Publication.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Investigation of Conditions Associated with the Removal Fort Edward Dam. Fort
Edward, New York. .
Means, J. C., S. G. Wood, J. J. Hassett, and W. L. Banwart. 1980. Sorption of Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons by Sediments and Soils. Science and Technology. 14:1524-1528. ..
M'eritt, F. 1976. Standard Handbook for Civil Engineers. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
McCoy and Associates, Inc. 1989. The Hazardous Waste Consultant. Volume 7, Issue 6.
McLellan, T.N., Hairs, R.N., Hayes, Donald F., and Raymond, Gene L. 1989. Field Studies of Sediment
Resuspension Characteristics of Selected Dredges. Technical Report HL-89-9, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. ,
Mudroch, Alena, and Macknight, Scott D. 1991. Handbook of Techniques for Aquatic Sediment Sampling.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments - Assessment and Remediation.
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 89-62967. Report from Committee oh Contaminated Marine
Sediments. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
NUS Corporation. 1983. Feasibility Study - Hudson River PCB Site, New York. USEPA Work
Assignment 01-2V84.0. Contract No. 68-01-6699.
R-3
-------
Parametrix, Inc. undated. Standards for Confined Disposal of Contaminated Sediments. Development
Documentation, Bellevue, Washington.
Richardson, T. et al. 1982. Pumping Performance and Turbidity Generation of Model 600/100 Pneuma
Pump. T.R. HL-82-8, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Roethel, F. J. et al. 1990. Mobility of Dioxins and Furans Associated with Stabilized Incineration Residues
in the Marine Environment. Proc. of the 16th Annual RREL Hazardous Waste Symposium.
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). 1985. Removal and Mitigation of Contaminated
Sediments. Prepared under Contract 68-03-3113 to U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous
Waste Engineering Research and Development, McLean, Virginia.
Stinson, M. K., and S. Sawyer. 1988. In Situ Treatment of PCB-Contaminated Soils. Superfund'88 -
Proceedings of the 9th National Conference, Washington, DC. HMCRI, Silver Springs, Maryland.
Sullivan, J., J. Ball, E. Brick, S. Hausmann, G. Pilarski, and B. Sopcich. 1985. Report of the Technical
Subcommittee on Determination of Dredged Material Suitability for In-Water Disposal. Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin.
Sullivan, J. and A. Bixby. 1989. A Citizen's Guide: Cleaning up Contaminated Sediment. Support
provided by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Lake Michigan Federation.
Torpy, M. F., H. F. Stroo, and G. Brubaker.
Engineering.
1989. Biological Treatment of Hazardous Waste. Pollution
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material
into Navigable Water. Interim Guidance for Implementation of Section 404{b)(1) of Public Law 92-500
(Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972). Miscellaneous Paper D-76-17. Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Implementation Manual for Section 103 of Public Law 92-532 (Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972). Document 1-EZ. Environmental Effects
Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1985. Management Strategy for Disposal of Dredged Material:
Contaminant Testing and Controls. Miscellaneous Paper D-85-1. Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987a. Confined Disposal of Dredged Material. EM 1110-2-5027. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. 1987b. Environmental Effects of
Dredging - Technical Notes. Engineering Considerations for Capping Subaqueous Dredged Material
Deposits - Background and Preliminary Planning. USAEWES, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1990. Acushnet River Estuary Engineering Feasibility Study of Dredging
and Dredged Material Disposal Alternatives. Report #12. New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project.
USEPA. 1977. Guidelines for the Pollutional Classification of Great Lakes Harbor Sediment.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Chicago, IL.
U.S.
R-4
-------
USEPA. 1978. Environmental Pathways of Selected Chemicals in Fresh Water Systems. Part 2.
Laboratory Studies. EPA/600/7-78/074. Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, Georgia.
USEPA. 1980. Sediments of Southern Lake Huron. EPA/600/3-80/080.
USEPA. 1982. Guide to Disposal of Chemically Stabilized and Solidified Wastes. SW-872. Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1985a. Removal and Mitigation of Contaminanted Sediments. Draft Report Prepared by Science
Applications International Corporation for Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
USEPA. 1985b. Handbook: Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites. EPA/625/6-85/006. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1985c. Remedial Action Costing Procedures Manual. EPA/600/8-87/049. Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1986a. Handbook for Stabilization/Solidification of Hazardous Wastes. EPA/540/2-86/001.
Hazardous Waste Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
USEPA. 1986b. PCB Sediment Decontamination - Technical/Economic Assessment of Selected
Alternative Treatments. EPA/600/2-86/112. Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory,
Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH.
USEPA. 1986c. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. SW-846. Third Edition. Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1986d. Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund Wastes. EPA/540/2-86/003(f). Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1987a. A Compendium of Technologies Used in the Treatment of Hazardous Wastes.
EPA/625/8-87/014. Center for Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, Ohio.
USEPA. 1987b. Handbook: Responding to Discharges of Sinking Hazardous Substances.
EPA/540/2-87/001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, HWERL, Cincinnati, Ohio and Environ-
mental Technology Branch, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1987c. An Overview of Sediment Quality in the United States. EPA/905/9-88/002
(PB88-251384). Office of Water and Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1988a. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA.
Interim Final. EPA/540/G-89/004. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1988b. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges.
EPA/540/2-88/004. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1988c. Glossary of Environmental Terms and Acronym List. OPA-87-017. Office of Public
Affairs, Washington, DC.
R-5
-------
USEPA. 1989a. Guide to Treatment Technologies for Hazardous Wastes at Superfund Sites.
EPA/540/-89/052. Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology Demonstration, Washington,
DC., and Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio.
USEPA. 1989b. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual. Part 1, EPA/540/G-89/006 and Part 2,
EPA/540/G-89/009. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response and Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1989c. Innovative Technology: G/ycolate Dehalogenation. Directive 9200.5-254FS. Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, Cincinnati, Ohio.
USEPA. 1989d. Innovative Technology: In Situ Vitrification. Directive 9200.5-251FS. Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Cincinnati, Ohio.
USEPA. 1989e. Innovative Technology: Slurry-Phase Biodegradation. Directive 9200.5-252FS. Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Cincinnati, Ohio.
USEPA. 1989f. Marine and Estuarine Protection Programs and Activities. EPA/503/9-89/002. Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1989g. Review of Removal, Containment, and Treatment Technologies for Remediation of
Contaminated Sediment in the Great Lakes. Draft Report prepared by Department of the Army,
Waterways Experiment Station, Corp of Engineers, Vicksburg, Missouri.
USEPA. 1989h. The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles.
EPA/540/5-89/013. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 19891. Superfund Treatabifity Clearinghouse Abstract. EPA/540/2-89/001. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1989j. Sediment Classification Methods Compendium. Watershed Protection Division,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1989k. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies under CERCLA. EPA/540/2-89/058. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1990a. Managing Contaminated Sediments: EPA Decision-Making Processes.
EPA/506/6-90/002. Sediment Oversight Technical Committee, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1990b. Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Work Plan. Great Lakes
National Program Office, Chicago, Illinois.
USEPA. 1990c. Engineering Bulletin - Slurry Biodegradation. EPA/540/2-90/016. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, and Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
R-6
-------
USEPA. T990d. Engineering Bulletin - Soil Washing Treatment. EPA/540/2-90/017. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, and Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
USEPA. 1990e. Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination. OSWER
Directive 9355.4-01. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1990f. ROD Annual Report: FY 1989. EPA/540/8-90/006. Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1990g. The Superfund Innovative Technology Program. Progress and Accomplishments, Fiscal
Year 1989. Office of Research and Development and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1990h. Treatment Technology Bulletin - Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: APEG. Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
USEPA. 1990i. Treatment Technology Bulletin -Low Temperature Thermal Desorption. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, and Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
USEPA. 1990j. Treatment Technology Bulletin - Mobile/Transportable Incineration. Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
USEPA. 1990k. Treatment Technology Bulletin - Soil Washing.' Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
USEPA. 19901. Treatment Technology Bulletin - Solvent Extraction. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory,
Edison, NJ.
USEPA. 1990m. Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies.
EPA/540/2-89/010.
USEPA. 1990n. Treatment Technology Bulletin: Low-Temperature Thermal Desorption. Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1990o. Workshop on Innovative Technologies for Treatment of Contaminated Sediments - June
13-14,1990. Summary Report. EPA/600/2-90/054. Office of Research and Development, Washing-
ton,' DC. -•••••'•-
USEPA. 1991. Handbook - Remediation of Contaminated Sediments. EPA/625/6-91/028. Office of
Research and Development, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1992.. Sediment Classification Methods Compendium. EPA/823-R-92-006. Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
Verschueren, K. 1983. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals. Second Edition.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York.
Yalin, M. S. 1977. Mechanisms of Sediment Transport. Second Edition, Pergamen Press.
R-7
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
CASE STUDIES
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
CASE STUDIES
SELECTION AND EVALUATION OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE NEW BEDFORD HARBOR
SUPERFUND PROJECT
The New Bedford Harbor Superfund site is located in southeast Massachusetts at the head of
Buzzards Bay. Industrial process wastes containing PCBs were discharged into the Harbor between
1940 and late 1970s. Later studies showed PCB concentrations in the marine sediments ranging from
below 1 ppm to over 100,000 ppm. The sediment also contained heavy metals {cadmium, copper,
and lead) from less than 1 ppm to as high as 5,000 ppm (Allen and Ikalainen, 1988). Since 1979 the
area has been closed to all fishing.
Sediment Characterization
The New Bedford Harbor feasibility study is divided into three geographical study areas: the
hot spot, the Acushnet River Estuary, and the lower harbor and upper Buzzards Bay (Figure A-1). The
hot spot is an area of approximately 4 acres on the western bank of Acushnet River. The PCB content
of sediments in this area varies from 4,000 to 100,000 ppm while the metals (cadmium, copper, and
lead) from less than 1 to 4,000 pprn. The potential volume of the contaminated sediment ranges
between 10,000 to 15,000 cu yd.
The Acushnet River Estuary area, excluding the hot spot, is approximately 200 acres. The
potential volume of sediment requiring treatment for this area varies from 600,000 to 1,200,000 cu
yd.
Physical characterization tests showed that sediments from the hot spot and Acushnet River
Estuary were predominantly organic silts and marine clays, 40 to 80 percent of which were finer than
200 mesh. The organic carbon content of the sediment was between 1.71 to 14.03 percent with an
average of 8.94 percent. The moisture content of the sediment ranged from 30 to 60 percent.
A-1
-------
HOT SPOT
ESTUARY
LOWER
HARBOR
UPPER BUZZARDS "3AY
'(,000 MET
Figure A-1. Feasibility Study areas for New Bedford Harbor site.
Source: Allen and Ikaiainen, 1988.
A-2
-------
The lower harbor area's (approximately 750 acres) sediments were less contaminated -- the
PCB content varied from below detection limit to over 100 ppm. Metal concentrations in the
sediments ranged from below detection limit to approximately 3,000 ppm. The potential volume of
the sediment requiring treatment ranged from 7,000 to 1,500,000 cu yd. The physical nature of the
sediment is predominantly silty sands.
Dredging Method Selection
The USACE, at the request of EPA, conducted an engineering study to evaluate the feasibility
of dredging and to select disposal alternatives for the contaminated sediments at this site.
The technical approach for the engineering feasibility study (EPS) included field data collection,
literature reviews, laboratory studies, and analytical and numerical modeling techniques to assess the
feasibility and to develop conceptual alternatives for dredging and dredged material disposal. This
approach was built around the contaminant testing and controls presented in the USACE "Management
Strategy for Disposal of Dredged Material." Technical and engineering issues addressed by the EPS
included baseline mapping, geotechnical investigations, hydrodynamics, sediment resuspension and
transport, contaminant releases to surface and groundwater, dredged material confinement in disposal
areas, effluent treatment, and cost estimates.
The results of the EPS were presented in a series of 12 reports. Reports 1 to 11 presented
detailed results of field investigations, laboratory studies, and engineering analyses (Averett and Otis,
1990).
In the report, USACE recommended that a cutterhead dredge be used for removing con-
taminated sediment based on the cutterhead's ability to minimize sediment resuspension. USACE also
suggested monitoring the CDF and CAD cells that were constructed and filled with contaminated
sediments during the pilot-scale study.
USACE also conducted a bench-scale solidification/stabilization treatability study (Allen and
Ikalainen, 1988) using the New Bedford Harbor sediment. Three stabilization technologies were tested
as follows:
• Portland cement
• Portland cement along with Firmex - a proprietary additive
• Silicate Technology Corporation's FMS silicate additive
A-3
-------
The sediments studied contained two levels of PCBs - 7,500 and 2,167 ppm. The results of
the study show that all three processes reduced PCB leachability by factors of 10 to 100. The
teachability of cadmium and zinc were reduced significantly, but copper and nickel were not
immobilized - their leachability was increased by factors of 3 to 27 and 7 to 41, respectively. The
bench-scale treatability tests were performed on sediment samples using distilled-deionized water.
ABB Environmental (formerly E.G. Jordan, Eastern Region/C-E Environmental), under EPA,
completed the hot spot feasibility study in July 1989. In this study, several organizations were
involved with different responsibilities. The attached organization chart (Figure A-2) shows the major
feasibility study (FS) components and information flow for New Bedford Harbor.
In the FS document, 56 treatment technologies (Table A-1) were identified for initial screening.
After the initial screening, 14 technologies (Table A-2) were retained for detailed evaluation. Following
the detailed evaluation, six technologies (Table A-3) were retained for bench-scale testing.
Because of the PCB and metal content of the sediment, several permits were needed to perform
these bench-scale tests.. Although Massachusetts does pot regulate PCBs as RCRA hazardous waste,
both TSCA and RCRA regulations apply to the New Bedford Harbor sediment because of the heavy
metal content. As a result of these requirements, the CF Systems Corporation (who Jacked TSCA R&D
permits) elected not to participate in this treatability study program. The bench-scale studies were
delayed six months while the selected vendors applied for the TSCA permits^
Only four technologies: solvent extraction, alkali metal dechlorination, advanced biological
treatment, and vitrification were tested (ABB Journal, 1990). Only solvent extraction (B.E.S.T.™
process), was retained as a viable treatment technology. Alkali metal dechlorination was not retained
because of poor recoveries of reagent and sediment solids. The vitrification process was not
considered further because of lack of demonstrated performance at the pilot-scale. The results of the
advanced biological treatment study showed that considerable process development will be necessary
before this technology can be used for treating PCB-contaminated sediments.
EPA eventually selected incineration as the best alternative (for the hot spots) because of the
balance of effectiveness, reliability, availability, cost, and level of PCB destruction. The USEPA's
official Record of Decision (ROD) documenting the remedy was signed in April 1990. The overall
remedial option process is summarized in Figure A-3.
A-4
-------
SattellePNL
Hvdroovnamic & Sediment i
, Transnon Model
! Hydroaual. Inc.
U.S. Army Cores of
Engineers (U.S. ACE)
Engineering Feasibility
Study of Dredging and '
Dredged Material Disposal I
Alternatives
t-.
U.S. ACE NEDAVES
A8B Environmental
'• Suoponmg Field Studies
Food Chain Model
ABB Environmental
ABB Environmental
Public Health &
Environmental Risk
i Assessment
Feasibility Studies
• Hot Soot - ,
• Estuary/Lower Harbor
. &8ay
—
ABB Envi
Treatment
Bencn-Sc;
i
U.S. ACE
U.S. EPA Site Program
Liauified Gas Extraction
.Pilot Study
Dredging & Disposal Pilot
Study
Rgure A-2. Major Feasibility Study components and information flow for New Bedford Harbor site.
Source: ABB Environmental Journal, 1990.
A-5
-------
cc
o
ca
cc
^*
x
o
cc
0
u.
Q
LU
ca
Z
CC
s
w
txi
CD
O
0
JL
III
H
£
LU
CC
U)
•i
o ^*
"a. o
a. e
* 1
(/)
0) ea
«Q co ca
HI
- fe
ti & .fa
|s£
tf: 'S 5
gS E
C O m
£ « < 0 JJ
•m »- CN CN CO IO
XX XXXXXXXX
XX X X
XX X X X
XX X XX
ooo|oooo|| o|ooo|ooo oo||o
Jj||U|i|i |i|i||||J ^iiil
WQWWWQQQQW O^OSOOOO/n mSo>Q>^
> »> > > > > >
oSooggg«go jgoooggjooo ooooo
Z>_ZZ>_>_>->->-Z ^.ZZZ^.>-ZZZ ZZ2.22
0 0 = CO
'5 *= ~ 'w
.S S s „ >
Co. J= *- Pc"3
C O ,S? Q O WJ c "•*•* ffl ^ "™ • O TO > tO ^j ^~ M O tt
i fiiUlpil !l|illl|l
A-6
-------
CD
3
M
3
Q.
B
CO
00
00
|s|| |&af||li||
||||.i|||||||||
Ptill ill1 Is
x o 5'
w o
5? £
2.2
w o
5'
CQ
. .
0 0
•z. z
o o
oooooooooooooo
XX
X
XXX XX
XXXXX XXXX
A-7
X
Tech
log
S I'
* a or
00
m
I
» ^ 2
III
5T
-------
CC
1
§
O
tS
.2 o
~
re
o
•o £.
•S s °
03 ±: .. .2 ,_
~ = « S €
C
03 Q. 03
o s
o w o
IS' § I
03 °- 03
+- S > w *-
J3 Q. W W .03
w .-
03
c.s §
o
re .£
O m :=
a>
•
.
co CD
re
03
co I
•g i
re
T3 O
12
W3 eo E < w
I
03
C/3
O
UJ
CO
§
0)
CD
O
o
o
CO
o
ca
O
oa
Cfl
o
03 CO
o -o
re
03
51 S
i-
-------
CO
o
I
CD
CD
0)
a.
5?
a>
CD
CO
CO
CO
£
30
CD
CO
3'
0)
cr
CO
o
5'
3
T3
O
00
w
3
CD
01
CO
Aqueous si
suspended
co 3
° SR
~ O)
Q. 3
co oj
5"
%
Demonstrated for
specialized use on
specific compounds
Determine if
for PCBs. C
effective
ost data.
particulate removal
parameters.
costs.
o
3
o
CO
o"
i
03
3
CO
CD
CD
S.-
CO
Aqueous st
suspended
CO ' ^
o ®
5; 3
CO y>
o"
s
Demonstrated on full
scale for metals and
Bench-scale
determine pi
£B CD
SS.
leg
S
particulate removal
parameters.
costs.
o
"S
03
O
, Ni
I?
II
s a
LJ. •-*
if
-i
o
•o'
g
5"
3
TJ
O
CD
w
3
CD
at
CO
Aqueous si
suspended
co =r
o
o-
CO
o
•3
o'
3
TJ
O
OD
CO
Aqueous s
suspended
to "
O CD
=: O>
to y>
5"
S
Demonstrated on full
scale with PCBs and
other compounds
o 2 oo
03 < CD
Kt 92. 3
05 c o
o o?. :f
=> CD g
o 2, SL
CO ^ CD
"t!
•< ='
5 (D
s
o
O CO
_• "•
03 CD
— o
3 S"-
s
s
03
r4-
CD
.. '",
T3
O
00
CO
,>:''
"
CO
C
•<
S.
CO
CD
Q.'
3"~"
CD
f^
i-f
CD
Demonstrated for
waste streams
containing PCBs
Further infoi
effectivenes
feasibility, a
^"1
s =••
I i
» 0
sediments
CO
30
.O
£
5"
5'
o.'>
CD
3.
5'
3
TJ
O
CD
CO
Sediments
Demonstrated on full
scale for PCBs in
S ?
to -i
C? 3^
CD
-n
I
1.
o
o
CO
• 5"
3
3-
D.
O..
CD
• 3
5' .
TJ
: O
OD
CO
CO
CD
Q.
CD
Demonstrated on full
scale for PCBs in
sediments
8 ?
W "1
r* £2^
C/) IT
•
N)
8
CD
n.
A-9
-------
TABLE A-3. TECHNOLOGIES FOR ABB ENVIRONMENTAL BENCH TEST PROGRAM
Technology Vendor Description
Solvent extraction
(B.E.S.T.™ process)
Resources Conservation Co.
Bellevue, Washington
B.E.S.T.™ process uses
inverse miscibility properties
of aliphatic amines (e.g.,
triethylamine) to separate
oils (PCBs) and organics
from sludges and
contaminated soils.
Alkali metal dechlorination
(KPEG)
Galson Research Corporation
East Syracuse, New York
KPEG process uses an
alkaline reagent consisting of
potassium hydroxide in
polyethylene glycol (KPEG).
KPEG reagent mixed with
contaminated material and
heated to 150° to
dechlorinate PCBs.
Vitrification
(modified in situ)
Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratories, Richmand,
Washington
Battelle process applies an
electric current to electrodes
inserted in contaminated
material which is heated to
>3600°F. Material
converted to molten state;
organics (PCBs) are
pyrolyzed.
Advanced biological
treatment
Radian Corporation,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Microorganisms from New
Bedford harbor are
selectively cultivated in a
nutrient-rich medium,
acclimated to biphenyl, then
exposed to PCB-sediments
from New Bedford Harbor.
Supercritical fluid extraction
(propane)
CF System Corporation
Waltham, Massachusetts
Gases (typically carbon
dioxide and propane) are
heated and compressed to
the critical point where they
exhibit the diffusivity
characteristics of a gas and
the solvency of a liquid.
Source: Allen and Ikalainen, 1988.
A-10
-------
;
.
|
o : -r i
1 1 ! TpT l 1 1
L^_ r j \J) f"^
< i ! < ,
CO LL
t— 1
o
CO
•1 "
1
<^
^ 2
*" w
F
1 !•
SEDIMENT
INCINERATION
t
[
0
i .c
1
1
1
i
*r-
— »
LU
H—
<
| "•*
s
LU
d
i
1
0
i— i
O
a
LU
a
. h-
Cu
^^ ^
< <
^LU
Q£
1 —
•^
CCUJ
j— )— »•
^LU
1—
CO
<
o
o
o
o
LU
_I
a
LUac
1-0
< CD
So
ffl
'w
CO
i
*
m
(0
>.
1
1
0)
2
IU
CO
op
<
1
an
8
i
A-ll
-------
KEPONE IN THE JAMES RIVER, HOPEWELL, VIRGINIA
Information contained at the James River case study was obtained primarily from the report
prepared by Science Applications international Corporation (SAIC, 1985) and Robert J. Huggett's paper
"Kepone and the James River" [National Research Council, 1989].
The James River originates in the Allegheny Mountains of Western Virginia and flows generally
in an easterly direction through Richmond and Hopewell (south of Richmond) to Chesapeake Bay. The
river is unnavigable above Richmond. Beyond the city of Richmond, the river is navigable. Between
Richmond and Hopewell, a large number of industries are located on either banks of the river. A
navigational channel 7-8 m deep is maintained to permit river traffic. The James River in this area
flows at an average of 200 cu m/sec. This tidal section of the river is characterized by a sandy/silty
bottom] Both fresh and salt water species inhabit the river, and fishery resources are diverse and
productive. Beyond the Richmond-Hopewell area the only major populated area along the downstream
river is at the river's mouth -- Newport News, Hampton, Portsmouth, and Norfolk.
Between 1966 and 1975, Allied Life and Science Company manufactured kepone, a pesticide
for ant and roach control. The State of Virginia Department of Health closed the kepone manufacturing
plant in July 1975 after finding that many workers were suffering from kepone poisoning.' In response
to requests by the governors of Virginia and Maryland/EPA initiated the Hopewell/James River Kepone
Mitigation Feasibility Project. The study showed that kepone was released to the environment
principally from four sources:
• Atmospheric releases from drying and bagging operations.
• Routine daily wastewater discharges.
• Releases to sanitary sewers from spills and intentional discharges.
• Bulk liquid and solid discharges to land around Hopewell.
The wastewater and sewer discharges were the primary sources of kepone. Analyses of
oysters and fishes from the river showed elevated levels of kepone. It was estimated that between
1.2 to 1.7x10B kg of kepone had entered into the environment, of which 4.4 to 8.4x104 kg were
found in the river sediments. Because of its highly refractory nature, no significant natural degradation
of kepone had occurred.
A-12
-------
The bottom sediments of the James River were contaminated with kepone to varying degrees.
The main factors controlling the concentrations appeared to be made up of the sediments and the
currents of the overlying water. Kepone associates with the organic portion of the bottom sediments.
The distributions of the pesticide in the top two cm of bottom sediments in the channel of the river
in 1977 and 1979 are shown in Figure A-4. In 1977 the highest concentrations were found in the
vicinity of the maximum turbidity zone. By 1979, surface sediment concentrations diminished greatly.
Analyses of sediment cores at varying depths showed that kepone was becoming diluted and buried
by newly deposited material rather than being transported away or decomposing. This trend has
continued since then, but in areas where the sedimentation rate is low, kepone is most concentrated
near the surface. Where the sedimentation rates are high, concentrations of kepone increases with
depth (Helz, and Huggett, 1987)., This reduction is reflected in the residue concentrations in edible
tissues of crabs and oysters (Figure A-5). The data are interesting in view.of Jhe fact crabs obtain
most of their kepone from food whereas the oysters accumulate kepone both from solution, and
suspended particles. , , ,
Conventional and nonconventional techniques were considered in the evaluation of remedial
action alternatives for the Hopewell/James River kepone contamination. Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratories reviewed nonconventional remediation techniques while USAGE (Norfolkdistrict) evaluated
other potential methods of dredging and potential disposal sites .along the river. The nonconventional
techniques reviewed by Battelle were as follows:
• Dredged material fixation. Four fixation agents were evaluated: silicate base, organic
base, sulfur base, and asphalt base. All evaluations considered the agent's ability to
isolate the contaminant and its ability to maintain physical integrity.
• Elutriate, leachate, and/or the dredged material slurry treatment. Seven treatment
techniques were evaluated: photochemical degradation, amine photosensitization,
chlorine dioxide treatment, ozonation, radiation, catalytic reduction, and carbon
adsorption.
• Two in situ treatments were selected: sprbents ancl polymer films (for laboratory
testing).
. A-13
-------
j
0-2-i
Turbidity
MQ* imum
Zone
Chesaceafce Bay
140 120
100 80 6O 4O 30
DISTANCE UPSTREAM
Rgure A-4. Kepone in the top 2 cm of channel bottom
sediment from the James River system.
Source: Huggett and Bender, 1980.
A-14
-------
Yearly Mean of James River
Kepone Residues
~ 0.8 J
(X -Blue Crab
(O-Oysters)
rO.2
o
0.6-
s. Q*4
CD
O
d
OJ
0.2-
-O.I
76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
Year
Figure A-5. Kepone concentrations in blue crabs and oysters.
Source: Majumdar, Hall, Austin, 1987.
85
A-15
-------
• Biological treatment appeared to offer no significant mitigation of kepone in the river.
Examination of this technique was confined to literature review and limited laboratory
testing. Tables A-4 and A-5 summarize these studies.
It was concluded that none of these options was appropriate to remediate this site. USAGE
(Norfolk) performed three tasks for this project:
• Evaluation of all potential dredging techniques.
• Investigation of conventional means for checking kepone inflows from Hopewell area
into the James River system.
• Preliminary estimates for removing kepone from the lower James River by dredging.
Alternate Dredging Technology
USAGE evaluated several dredging technologies of both domestic and Japanese manufacturers.
After further study it was decided to test the cutterhead dredged which has been used in the James
River for decades, and the dustpan dredge currently being used in the Mississippi River. The objectives
of this test were to minimize dredge-induced turbidity and achieve maximum containment of the
contaminated sediment at or near in-place density. During this demonstration, the overboard disposal
areas were monitored for the release of kepone in conjunction with state and federal agencies. Table
A-6 summarizes the results of this study. USAGE'S water monitoring data showed that dissolved
kepone levels for the cutterhead averaged more than three times the levels during dustpan operations
(11.7 ppt and 3.2 ppt, respectively). According to USAGE, the higher levels, according to ACE, are
perhaps due to the fact that cutterhead operation removed more than five times the amount of material
moved by the dustpan dredge. Although there were elevations in contaminant and turbidity levels,
both remained within accepted limits and the elevations were short-term and confined to designated
disposal areas. It was estimated that the dredging cost would be about $3/cu yd. The overboard
disposal proved to be both economical and without serious environmental effects.
Alternatives for Checking Kepone Inflows
The evaluation of alternatives for controlling kepone flows from the Hopewell area involved the
development of 18 engineering options shown in Table A-7. Because of the low levels of kepone in
the Gravelly Run area, it was concluded that options 1 through 6 should not be considered further.
Based on in-depth analyses involving costs and levels of contamination only alternatives 8, 14, and
A-16
-------
;.-
~»
o 5
""** CO
§-"••
2. CD
3
0)
5'
."CO
r-f
13
. , - ,
•o >
o 3
?T -3
• Co CD
CD
3
CO
N'
6'
3
Degradation oc
exposed surfac
CD O >
CO C
55
Q)
<—f
O ID CD
CD
3
S
3
CD
3
CO
5_'
o
CO
o'
9L
Q.
CD
CQ
5
Q.
01
5'
Promising stain
and mold
CO
a.
— h
3
CQ_
2
O
<-+
Q.
CD
•8
CD
Q.
Not suffiently developed.
CO
c
ZZ£
."^
o-
01
CO
CD
co
S" 5' •<
m 7T 2.
^"* CD Q.
w T3 CO
§ -.
CD CD
CF 3;
^r w
oT 3
e* Q.
CD c
S
o
3
•co-
co
0
CO
x"
CD
Q.
Molten sulfur-effective bul
serious environmental
impacts could result. Sulfi
is readily available, has
good effectiveness, and
requires greater than or
equal to 50% solids..
c
-^
Resists leachin
response to eli
test
3s*
CU -a
9 §
""*
z,
2
a.
1
3'
CD
Q.
Dowell M 1 79 - Effective
for percolation control.
consistent; requires greate
than or equal to 50%
solids.
-*
O
CO
so
- 3
o'
O"
01
CO
CD
CO
3' :<
y- CD
CD Q.
"O CO
CD O
CD" o]
« 3
Q.
S
o'
•CO-
ro
CJl
CO
co
Q.
For Rok Epoxy sealant ma
be production limited;
results slightly more
•<
operational large scale in-
place fixation technology
presently available.
feels their process can be
further refined for kepone
and are still making
modifications. Only
CO
•a
g_
-*~
x"
01
<-t
6'
CO
o>
r-f
CD
CT
C\t
\U
CO
CD
CO
S"5
•Q CQ
o =•
Si
CO
, , 0
c
g;
N'
CD
CO
Estimated
•CO-
O
Ol
Q.
co ,
Promising to date; the
Japanese firm, Takenaka,
^
•a
•a
5
a
o
3-
^
if
•*
I
CD
30
1
'*'':
o
o
in
S
Comments
H
m
,
.^
•
y*
O
30
m
•o
30
O
CO
ING NONCONVE
H
O
2
i—
_i
•REATMENT
>
m
30
^
H
<
m
CO
VESTIGATED
A-17
-------
1
I
a
CO
Comments
i
5
Results
CD
>
'€
1
j.
:D
c
01
to
CD . —
*•• • o co
CO „ C
1o -E-2
O CO =
"•al
Sg°?
S2^
i
^J
are $2.2 million/yr) $0.1
I 0.20/yd3 preliminary)
rn
Requires further testinj
Not determined
echlorinates, by-
D
c
O
.2
2
CO
E
CO
a
T3
roducts unidentifie
a.
Requires direct testing,
Not determined
m
0
a.
E
o
it
if
0 &
E
CO
0)
.a
II
S.a
QJ ^3
ED 2
0
Effective, does not des
concentrate kepone.
•o
0)
CO
_lr. CO
c ^ Q
O O CD
CD CD «
in CM c
•CO- -W O
u
"HM
cu
CO
T5
C
CO
c
O CO
CO %
i \ vs
U u-
c
o
•+3
&
O
CO
•o
+J
Q>
to
c^
Q
a
o
X
CD
O
CO
•CO-
emporary
H
co O)
i- m .£ .£
°§f|«§2™£23c
"°'5-§a5--oa.'TS*2
— E—'gtJ^gcB-S^c
CO
8
CO
CD
4-*
CO
CD
o to
^3 >
1- CO
1.1
.2 a
to o
s-s
sP (0
o •
•j3 CD
0 C
3 0
T3 Q.
2^
^ >
3 0
-Q *=
5 8
M= "0
11
I «
£ §
HI -o
^
CD
1-S
a. t-
co <•
o O
= 0
c in
«D
o S
r- in
•CO- •«>
a)
;emoves particulati
epone
cc ^
f—
.0
CD
CO
O
O
JO
o
o
A-18
-------
o
I
CD
DO
3
CO
to
0>
CD
i-f
Q>
CO
xj
00
In all in situ processes
environmental impacts
require serious
consideration.
coal and retrievabi
sorbents
CD
availability but not rerr
kepone.
CD
O
03
CD
Q.
O
0>
3-
o
Intermediate betw
CD
CD
•CO-
CO
CJ1
NS
w
Effective - will retard
needed perforatior
render ineffective
Q)
due to requirements.
Applicable only to
embayments.
"T3
Q
^3"
3
CD
_h
E1
CO
Holding action onl'
•<;
•CO-
0
b
3?
u
Effectiveness question
CD
Q_
advantages
n
0
9L
5]
5T
Q.
0)
£
CO
CO
(Q
CD
CO
fn
V/3
3
O
•CO-
0
b
CO
^
to
Requires further study
media not currently
commercially available
•
regeneration productio
3
a
3
i
52.
c
zj
o
o
CD
CO
CO
CD
CO
30
CD
=t
CD'
<
03
CT
CD
CO
0.
^
CD
3
to
Specific sorbents
capable of remova
^™
•to-
p
CO
0
•^
Effective but requires
incineration and
f,
•o
•a
3
8
3"
Sm
<£
3
§.
<
CD
Results
O
o
Comments
DO
§
(B
A-19
-------
UJ
CO
EC
UJ
CO
Ul
Ul
X
£=
Ul
O
CL
LU
O
2
O
Ul
CO
Ul
X
o
I
o
3
O
m
Ul
in
CQ
c
03
.=
03
r w
0
n.
S
I"
TJ
§
O
CD
CO
®
I
Sediment
5
e
1
.£3
'E
CO
o>
0
03
n
'55
CO
03
+e
o
2
„, °>
Qj ^
E 2
3 .0
0 IE
.> O
CO CL
£ «
CO •-
g"§
-g-5
3 0"
co £
03
JQ
'03
CO
2 ^£ g
g^S-t
5 E2 >-
°w .=co
J£ Q> W C
4., £ TJ t
0 jo c o •
C 3 3 C "3
8 ! ! s -i
|§i§§
DC co o -i=. 5=
Leaf surfaces may
accumulate kepone.
However, this is not a
practical alternative.
co
.£2
^_»
C/3 c
c '5
CO CO
CL>:
J- 03
co to
if 5
03
"o
^3
3
S
C
5
§ g
•^ o
s &
2 ^
N
•
"o
S3
CO
1
2
C
ll
If
i - H-
03 =5 c C cf
-Q o £ -2 .9
03 IQ o co to
co o o. N 42
os ti _ •= ^
M- as g E 2
•M JS o '<= co
O C «- o. m
2 < 03 O -0
CD .2 .2
C CO CO
C O O O o
•o 5 .2 8 §• o "5 ^
3^to> .^Ia.15. ^-
5^2S0 "ores «S MO
'oiajcBcuSj. o"cBo3 ^03 So,:
m§2| isa sa soj
0 „ M- fl> fl3 CO 3 o, CO .CO .03 « a, CO
.ll|t|l life §S III
^t *.« ^ ^^ {Q "Q ^^ ^3 tC OQ hpT ^^ (0 ^3
03 C
atco^ -|" ^o"J
ii§ Jc! 1 = . _g J" 1 ' >
"o 2 1 ^ „ §J g 'o'l-c
»l«l|o !l l^lcS'l
OO^oj 2° 2'J=O— QiP
W^Q}CacO 0303 a>SlE''5C:'*=
fl>>.co=oa3 S -° c«otat|ci
-CCOC'^u.iS. ^o ^ O 03 — 34^
H-CQcoSCOcO <° .= 03>03 >03 E*' =)'*3^>tO^
>_03^C >_tmCOOQ.r;
oco--o ococ.2(0o>>cc2
— OQ.COQ. — O — nr-oCOc"^*-"c*g|
*?-B|5 . lSl.o1§|^l>£8|
Q3+J-. 03 m * *^ CO 3 ' fl> *S S COS —
O3C03O^^i O3C-ni-="':>a3+Jcto'ti
«S33co^ co82|:i'g-5§lg||^
Sc^feS1! 8g»88i£»SiS§|
pf| u "5U CO TD H"« CQ O ^3 CO CL O flJ ,^ O" CO -Q O — i-
.2
•5 s
C 0
£
-------
CO
o
o
CD
ro
o
CO
CO
3
Ql
3
CD
CO
-J
00
~~ CQ
O 0>
-h CD
$
CD
01
O"
O
CD
•T7 — ; H 01 00
£2 ~; S3 0 CD
CD 3"O
? % s 11
5 OJ oT CD
1 § 1 la'
o sr eg 8.9
CQ f J CQ 1 °>
3 ai § '5:3
§ a. 1 33
3 g . !». jj[ <
S CD •• St. ' 3 y • g
a.
01 O CU_ 2
^ »i?i fu r^ :
$D Q CD -h
O 3" Q 5
^T *< Q) ^
§•!« 1
?"if
.. it
CD
co cr I
= ' 3g«
, 5T o CD
-« 52 eo
0 £ 3-
o 3 o
3 £. S
•a 01 3
3 3 0
8" ° —
• "* CD"
rt
1
CD
01
CO
CT
CD
O
"*
(a
01
3_
w"
3 -
f
CO
1
I
^^£
S
5
CO
CP
i
3
CO
§•'
CO
8
3
f
0)
o
**
00
>
eii
8
n.
A-21
-------
TABLE A-6. COMPARISON OF DREDGING MODES
Parameter
Resuspension at head (mg/1 above background)
Vacuum (inches Hg)
Pressure (Ibs/sq in)
Velocity (ft/sec)
Density (Ibs/cu ft)
Output (cu yds/dredging hour)
Overall production {cu yds/operating hour)
Average value for parameter
Dustpan
32.0
16.8
69.7
18.3
68.4
1,163.0
300.0
Cutterhead
12.0
17.1
100.0
21.0
71.1
1,855.0
700.0
Source: Klein, 1982.
17 were selected for final consideration.
James River Alternatives
Table A-8 shows the treatment costs developed by Battelle and USAGE, for various remedial
options for the James River.
The kepone levels in organisms in the James River in 1988 were found to be below the EPA
and FDA action levels [National Research Council, 1989] and all fishing restrictions were lifted. It was
concluded that any remedial action to remove kepone would be expensive and environmentally unwise.
This decision, however, restricts normal dredging operations.
PCBs IN THE HUDSON RIVER
Information about the Hudson River site was obtained from Removal and Mitigation of
Contaminated Sediments (SAIC, 1985), a paper by Mark Brown (Brown, 1988); John E. Sanders paper
PCB Pollution in the Upper Hudson River (National Research Council, 1989); and a conversation with
John Mulligan, Malcolm Pirmie, Albany, NY and Richard F. Bopp of New York Sate Dept. of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
A-22
-------
TABLE A-7. PROPOSED MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR
KEPONE CONTAMINATION IN BAILEY CREEK,
BAILEY BAY, AND GRAVELLY RUN SITES
Alternative
Number
Proposed Action
1 Dam and possible treatment plant at mouth of Gravelly Run; treat flows up to and
including the 100 year flood level
2 Dam mouth of Gravelly Run exclude spillway and divert flow to Bailey Creek for
treatment
3 Seal contaminated flood plain areas of Gravelly Run; elevate stream channel, rip rap
creek bed, construct control structure at mouth
4 Relocate existing channel in Gravelly Run into a concrete channel or closed conduit;
cover contaminated flood plain with 3 ft. minimum impervious cover
5 Dredge new channel adjacent to existing channel of Gravelly Run; seal side slopes of
new one and cover contaminated flood plain. Place flow control structure at mouth
6 Dredge all contaminated material in Gravelly Run and place spoil in disposal site 14 in
Bailey Bay
7 Dam and possible treatment plant at mouth of Bailey Creek; treat flows up to and
including the 100 year flood level
8 Seal contaminated flood plain of Bailey Creek with 3 ft. minimum layer of native
cohesive material; flow structure downstream to prevent seepage
9 Relocate existing channel in Bailey Creek into concrete conduit; cover and seal
contaminated flood plain-3 ft. minimum of impervious cover
10 Dredge new channel in Bailey Creek adjacent to existing channel; seal side slopes of new
one and cover contaminated flood plain. Place flow control structure at mouth
11 Dredge all contaminated material in Bailey Creek and place spoil in disposal site 14 in
Bailey Bay
12 Reduce flows and treatment needs via impounding and diversion of upstream flows up to
100 year flow level in Bailey Creek, above old sewage treatment plant; diversion via
overland pressure conduit to Chappel Creek or gravity conduit to the James River. This
alternative would be combined with another to solve the Kepone problem in polluted
stream portion below old treatment plant
13 Dredge all contaminated material from all of Bailey Bay. The top 15 inches would be
dredged. Bailey Creek would be impounded and the spoil placed behind the dam
14 Construct a 14,250 ft. levee across Bailey Bay from 1 mile east of City Point to Jordan
Point and treat entire discharge from Gravelly Run, Bailey Creek, and Bailey Bay
15 Construct dam near mouth of Bailey Creek; dredge all of Bailey Bay; place spoil behind
Bailey Creek dam; construct dam at mouth of Gravelly Run and divert discharge to Bailey
Creek; treatment facility at mouth of Bailey Creek to treat all effluent from the disposal
area
16 Construct levee from 1 mile east of City Point across Bailey Bay to Jordan Point; use
confined area for maintenance dredging of James River; treat effluent from disposal area
17 Construct levee from Jordan Point to east side of Bailey Creek; use confined area for
disposal; dredge remainder of Bailey Bay, Bailey Creek, and Gravelly Run; proposed spoil
site is number 14, judged to be the best
18 Cover all contaminated areas of Bailey Bay, Bailey Creek, and Gravelly Run with
impervious blanket; allow drainage patterns to develop
A-23
-------
TABLE A-8. TREATMENT COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVES ON THE JAMES RIVER
Method
Coras of Enaineers (COE)*
Dredging with Oozer Dredge
Molten Sulfur Stabilization
TJK Fixation with Removal
Elutriate Treatment - UV-ozone
Elutriate Treatment - temporary scheme
filtration/carbon absorption
UV-ozone for Sediments
Battelle*
In situ Application of Retrievable Sorbents
In situ Application of Coal
In situ Application of Activated Carbon
Costs
Without Dredging
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
N/A
6.2 x 109
1. 8-2.6 x109
12.4 x106
40.3 x 108
26.6-53.1 x 108
6.2 x 109
2.2 x 108
3.6 x 109
With Dredging
$
$
$
$
$
$
1.0x 109
7.2 x 10"
2.8-3.6 x 10"
1.01 x 109
1 .04 x 1 09
1.03-1.05 x109
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A - Not applicable.
* The areas used by the COE for determined dredging alternative costs were slightly different than
those used by Battelle in determining non-conventional alternative costs. This difference does affect
the cost ranking.
Source: Brossman, et. al., 1978
USAGE is responsible for maintaining the waterborne traffic in the Hudson River. The Hudson
River is divided into two sections: the upper Hudson which covers the 40-mile reach between Glenn
Falls and the Federal Dam at Troy, and the lower Hudson - 150-mile stretch between Albany and the
mouth of the river in the upper New York Harbor.
The General Electric Company (GE) owned and operated two capacitor manufacturing plants
in Glenn Falls for 25 years (ending in 1977). During this period it is estimated that the plant discharged
about 500,000 pounds of PCBs into the Hudson River. Gross contamination of Hudson River fish was
noted in the early 1970s. Health advisories for fish consumption from the lower river, and a complete
ban on fishing from the upper river have been in effect since the mid-1970s. Extensive sampling by
various authorities indicates that nearly two-thirds of the PCB-contaminated sediments in the upper
Hudson River are over a 40-mile section between Fort Edward and the Federal Dam at Troy. Most of
this sediment had accumulated behind the Fort Edward Dam. In 1973 the dam was removed allowing
large quantities of the contaminated sediments to be transported down-river. Some of the sediments
A-24
-------
that had collected along the edges of the river behind the dam became exposed as the river lowered.
These exposed contaminated sediments were classified as remnant deposits. Table A-9 sHows the
distribution of PCB-contaminated sediment jn the Hudson River. As the data indicates, 26 to 33
percent.of the total PCB mass is in the lower Hudson sediments. ,.'-,-
Sampling of the upper Hudson River sediments was carried out by the New York "State!
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and other consultants. Using the sampling
results,, "hot spots" of PCB-contaminated sediment were identified. PCB concentrations of 50 ppm
or more were the primary criterion to define hot spots. Areas containing less than 50 ppm of PCBs
were termed "cold spots". Forty "hot spots" were identified within a 40-mile section of the river
between Roger Island and Mechanicsville. These "hot spots" contained 58 percent of the total
contaminated sediments covering only 8 percent of the area (13.1x106 ft2). The average,PCB con--
centration within the "hot spots" was 127 ppm.
The mapping operations were done in 1978. In 1983 as part of the Superfund (Remedial
Action Master Plan, the areas were reexamined. This new study showed that the total amount of
PCBs in the Hudson River sediment was 504,000 pounds. The majority of the PCBs (95 percent) were
found in the top 0.5 m of the sediment and 99;91 percent in the top 1 meter. The study also showed
that the "hot spots" had not moved and did not contribute to the PCB's transport to the lower Hudson
River.
Although PCBs are the major contaminants in the Hudson River sediments, they also contain
elevated levels of toxic heavy metals, for example, lead, mercury, copper, cadmium, and nickel. Table
A-10 shows the heavy metal content of some selected sediments. These heavy metals most likely
originated from the Marathon Battery Plant, the Hercules Chemical (now CIBA-Geigy) plant, or other
sources. Large lead discharges from the Hercules plant occurred at the same time as PCB discharges
from the GE plants. :, ,
Cleanup of the contaminated area began in several phases. As a result of the 1976 Settlement
Agreement, GE stopped discharging PCBs into the River on July 1, 1977. -They also constructed
wastewater treatment facilities at the capacitor manufacturing plants and .replaced PCBs in the
capacitor with alkyl phthalates. , , ;••;;..,•
A-25
-------
The Department of Transportation responsible for routine channel maintenance undertook two
clean-up operations at Fort Edward to mitigate remnant river bank deposits exposed (Figure A-6) by
floods.
TABLE A-9. DISTRIBUTION OF PCBs IN THE HUDSON RIVER
Location
PCB mass estimates (pounds)
Remnant deposits
Upper Hudson River sediments
Hot spots
Cold areas
Subtotal
Lower Hudson River sediments
TOTAL
47,000 - 140,000
170,000
120,000 - 180,000
290,000 - 350,000
169,000
506,000 - 659,000
Source: NUS Corporation, 1983.
TABLE A-10. HEAVY METAL CONTENT OF SELECTED UPRIVER SEDIMENTS (//g/g)
Sample
Fort Edward Dam
Remnant deposits
Area 3A
Area 4
Area 5
Lead
234-3630
<3 to 5600
20-480
40-1100
Cadmium
14-138
6 to 110
<4-12
<4-93
Copper
27-159
Mercury
0.28-1.28
Arsenic
3.2-22
Zinc
74-2950
Source: Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
NYSDEC constructed rip-rap above 1,100 feet of riverbank (at a cost of $75,000). In addition,
the slope leading to the river along 2,800 ft of bank was graded and planted at a cost of $72,000.
The highly contaminated sediments from area 3A were excavated and encapsulated.
During the period 1977-1978, 200,000 cu yd of contaminated sediments was dredged from
the Hudson River near the PCB discharged plant and placed in a clay-lined landfill. The original remedial
plan called for dredging of 1.5 million cu yd from the Upper Hudson River, removal of contaminated
A-26
-------
REMNANT JLREA S
SARATOGA COUNTY
12*40 =EUMANr AfifA JA
i "i X
^\
/ REMNANT 4BEA I -^—
COVEHED 8T THE ICO TEtfl FLOOD
Source: NUS
Figure A-6. Locations of remnant sediment deposits.
A-27
-------
river bank deposits, and transfer of previously dredged sediment to a secure landfill. The cost (pre-
RCRA) of this plan was estimated to be S40 million. However, because of the RCRA legislation, this
cost estimate is no longer valid and the original plan has been pared down significantly.
A broad range of alternatives was considered in the feasibility study for the cleanup or isolation
of contaminated sediments and remnant deposits. Table A-11 summarizes these alternatives. The
estimated costs for these operations are shown in Table A-12. Based on the detailed evaluation of
alternatives, the following recommendations were made:
• Containment of those remnant deposits with an average PCB content of 50 ppm or
higher, and restricted access to the others. A remedial investigation would be
performed to accurately delineate the areas to be covered. Those areas to be covered
would have a 1-1/2 ft-thick layer of subsoil covered by a 6-in layer of topsoil. The
• cover would then be graded and seeded to minimize erosion. Where needed, bank
stabilization would be placed along the riverbank to prevent scour. The restricted areas
would be fenced and posted to prevent unauthorized entry. The estimated cost for the
remedial action was $1,050,000, and for the remedial investigation was $200,000.
• Based on the data available on PCBs in the Hudson River, a 1984 ROD "no remedial
action" alternative was selected. The limited threat to the public health did not justify
the large expenditure of money required to remove the contaminated sediments. The
1984 ROD has recently been reopened and a new one is expected to be issued in
1992.
• The following remediation techniques were proposed for the cleaning up of the dredged
sediments: biodegradation, incineration, dechlorination, low energy solvent extraction,
and stabilization/solidification (using an organic polymer).
A-28
-------
TABLE A-11. REMEDIAL ACTIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE INITIAL SCREENING
Remedial Action
Passed Initial
Screening
Rationale for
Eliminating
SEDIMENTS
1. No action, but continue routine
dredging required for navigation
and treat contaminated water
2. No action, but continue routine
dredging with no water treatment
3. No action, no routine dredging
River sediment dredging
a. Bank-to-bank dredging
b. Full-scale dredging of 40 hot
spots -
c. Reduced dredging of portipns
of hot spots
Control river flow to reduce F'CB
migration during high flow periods
In-place detoxification ,
a. UV ozonation
b. Chemical treatment
c. Bioharvesting
d. Activated carbon adsorption
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
In-river containment of hot spots
a. Earthen dikes or berms
b. Spur dikes
c. Bulkheads
d. Sheet pilings
e. Impermeable liner
In situ detoxification in
combination with control of river
flow
Dredging (full-scale or partial)
together with control of river flow
Dredging (full-scale or partial)
together with in-place containment
Control of river flow and in-place
containment
Combination of partial dredging,
in-place detoxification, in-place
containment and control of river
flow
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Sediment-blocked channels
would result in cessation of
commercial shipping
a. Cost prohibitive;
b. Difficult to implement;
c. Destructive to ecology
Cost prohibitive; offers on clear
advantage over some less costly
alternatives
Technologies not proven for in-
place treatment
High monitoring and
maintenance costs;
effectiveness of capping has not
been demonstrated for rivers
Construction of dams to control
flow is cost-prohibitive
Cost-prohibitive
In-place containment with
dredging offers no advantage
over dredging alone
Cost-prohibitive
Cost-prohibitive
A-29
-------
TABLE A-11 (continued)
Remedial Action
Passed Initial
Screening
Rationale for
Eliminating
REMNANT DEPOSITS
1. No action
2. Restricted access
3. In-place containment
a. Placement of impermeable
cover
b. Construction of protective
blanket composed of graded
material
c. Construction of curtain wall to
prevent groundwater
infiltration
4. Removal of contaminated materials
a. Complete removal
b. Partial removal of Areas 3 and
5
c. Complete removal of Areas 3
and 5
5. Partial removal of deposits
together with in-place containment
6. Partial removal of deposits
together with restricted access
7. Partial removal of deposits
together with detoxification
8. In-place containment together with
restricted access
9. In-place containment together with
in-place detoxification
10. Restricted access is combination
with in-place detoxification
11. Combination of removal, restricted
access, and detoxification
12. Combination of removal, restricted
access, and partial in-place
containment
13. Combination of removal, partial in-
place containment, in-place
detoxification, and restricted
access
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Not possible to determine the
appropriateness of each method
given the existing data base
Not possible to determine the
appropriateness of each method
given the existing data base
Not possible to determine the
appropriateness of each method
given the existing data base
A-30
-------
TABLE A-11 (continued)
Remedial Action
Passed Initial
Screening
Rationale for
Eliminating
TREATMENT/DISPOSAL OF DREDGED
SEDIMENTS
1. Acurex process - dechlorination
using a sodium reagent in a
nitrogent atmosphere
2. Biological degradation
3. Goodyear process - uses sodium
naphthalide in an inert atmosphere
to destroy PCBs
4. Hydrothermal process -
decomposition of PCBs at 570°F,
2560 psi, in presence of methanol
and sodium hydroxide
5. KOHPEG process - destruction of
PCBs using polyethylene glycols
and potassium hydroxide at 170-
250°F
6. NaPEG process - uses molten
sodium metal in polyethylene
glycol to effect decomposition
7. PCBX process - uses sodium salts
of organic compounds in an amine
solution to effect destruction
8. Plasma arc - PCB destruction by
molecular fraction
9. Pyromagnetics incineration
10. Rotary kiln incinerator
11. Thagard high-temperature fluid
wall incinerator
12. Wet air oxidation
13. Secure landfill disposal
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Process difficult to use; not
permitted by EPA for treatment
of PCBs in sediments
Not proven effective for PCBs
Process is non-mobile; solvent
extraction of sediments is
required
Developmental
Process performance is sensitive
to presence of impurities
Not EPA-approved for treatment
of PCB-contaminated sediments;
requires solvent extraction
Developmental
Developmental
Non-mobile; cost-prohibitive
A-31
-------
to
ui
ui
EC
O
u.
U
15
o
u
CM
CO
1
CO
CO
CM
00
o
CO
CO
•*— *
8
CM
in
•^^
8
00
en
in
•CO-
CO
en
CD
co
en
co
•CO-
CM
co
•CO-
CO
co
•co-
CO
CO
00
00
CM"
•OT-
CD
(0
CD
00
CM
•to-
-co-
CO
co
CO
CD
CD
CM
CM
r>.
CO
CD
CO
-co-
CM
CM
00
CM
CM
CO
CO
00
CD
O3
CD
CO
CD
•CO-
CO
en
03
co"
CD
co
co
co
r-
CM
•CO-
IS)
IS)
08
CO
CM
o
CM
CM
•CO-
CO
a>
ca
u
in
in
co
ca
CM
CM
CM
CO
CO
0)
0)
CD
CO
CM
CM
•CO-
oo
r»-
oo
oo
co
CO
CD
C/J
CD
O
o
t 8.
en
o
in
oo
00
•CO-
CM
CM
CD
•.
CM
CO
CO
CO
CO
in
en
co
CM
•CO-
CO
in
co
CD"
co
CO
a>
ca
•a
o
CO
a.
co
co
"•
en
oo
CM
C3
LU
1
(1}
1
V)
en
•co-
•CO-
CD
tn
CO
oo
•co-
en
•CO-
•CO-
CM
CO
CO
CO
en
s i
CO
C/)
0)
A-32
-------
APPENDIX B
TREATABILITY STUDIES
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
TREATABILITY STUDIES
A large number of physical, chemical, and biological processes have been developed to treat
contaminated solids, air, and water at sites that contain hazardous wastes. Some of these
technologies were developed for specific sites and/or specific wastes. Others are adaptations of
techniques that are used to treat process wastes and wastewater streams.
When a preliminary evaluation shows that one or more of these technologies might be effective
at a specific hazardous waste site, a treatability study is usually required. Treatability studies - which
can be bench-scale, pilot-scale, or both -- determine whether a technology can meet the technical,
environmental, and cost expectations developed in the preliminary evaluation. The EPA guidance
document - Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA, Interim Final, EPA/540-2-89/058
- discusses in detail the various aspects of a treatability study. Generally, the remedial action
contractor (RAC) responsible for the site RI/FS, under the guidance of the RPM, also identifies the need
for treatability studies and for specifying the goals of the treatability study.
In some cases, the RAC will also specify the procedures to be followed in conducting the
treatability studies. In other cases the technology to be evaluated requires specialized equipment and
techniques for a treatability study. In such cases the procedures are established by the equipment
manufacturer or technology developers. Table B-1 summarizes a typical specification for a treatability
study.
Various treatability studies - laboratory-, bench-, and pilot-scale -- have been conducted with
contaminated sediments. Since sediments can be considered water slurries of soils, and after dewater-
ing, as wet soils, the remediation technologies applicable to soils are also potentially applicable to
sediments. Therefore, several treatability studies conducted with soils have also been included among
these studies. A list of treatability studies conducted are shown in Table B-2.
No Action
James River, Virginia-
Kepone was produced between 1966 and 1974 by Allied Chemical Corporation at Hopewell,
VA. Kepone-containing effluents entered the James River and contaminated the river sediment.
B-1
-------
TABLE B-1. TYPICAL SPECIFICATION FOR A TREATABILITY STUDY
1. Background
Site description
Waste stream description
Remedial technology description
Previous treatability studies at the site
2. Test Objectives
3. Approach
Task 1 - Work Plan preparation
Task 2 - SAP, HSP, and CRP preparation
Task 3 - Treatability study execution
Task 4 - Data analysis and interpretation
Task 5 - Report preparation
Task 6 - Residuals management
4. Reporting Requirements
Deliverables
Monthly reports
5. Schedule
6. Level of Effort
Source: USEPA, 1989k
Because of the high partition coefficient, the majority of kepone was found in the sediment. Kepone
manufacturing was discontinued in 1975 and the kepone concentration in the surface sediment began
to decrease significantly. This was attributed to the dilution and burial of the kepone by fresh
sediment. By 1983 kepone concentrations in fish were low enough to lift restrictions on all commercial
fishing.
Studies conducted to assess the feasibility of mitigating the kepone contamination included the
following two options: dredging at an estimated cost of $3000 million (excluding disposal costs) and
stabilizing the sediments with molten sulfur. Neither of these options were feasible, either economi-
cally or environmentally. Therefore, nothing was done. This no action decision was supported by the
fact that natural sedimentation buried the kepone-contaminated surface sediment making kepone
unavailable to biota. However, this decision also places a potential restriction on future dredging of
the sediment to keep the James River navigable, since dredging might expose the kepone-contaminated
sediment.
B-2
-------
TABLE B-2. LIST OF TREATABILITY STUDIES
Technology
No action
In Situ Treatment
Natural bibdegradation
Dredging and Disposal
Ocean disposable
Capping
Dredging and Treatment
Biological
Physical/Chemical
Dec hlori nation
Solvent extraction
Soil washing
'• . .-, •'•.:•
Site name
James River, VA
Great Lakes
New York Bight
Stanford, CT ,
Norwalk, CT ' •
New York Mud Site
Massachusetts Bay Foul Area Disposal
Site
Tecumseh Motors Superfund Site, Wl
LA, Wl, and PA Army ammunitions plants
General Motors, Massena, NY
Naval Construction Battalion Center,
Gulfsport, MS; Bengart and Memel
Buffalo, NY; Montana Pole, Butte, MT
Wide Beach Superfund Site, NY
Various army depots and plants
New Bedford Harbor
Arrowhead Refinery Site, Hermantown,
MN. . ••:.
Grand Calumet River> IN • . .
Superfund Site, MN
Saginaw River, Ml
Wood Preserving, CA
Wood Preserving, FL
Chemical Plant, CA
Wire Drawing, 'NJ ' . ' • ; •'-:
Medium
Sediments
Sediments
Sediments
Sediments
Sediments
Sediments
Sediments -
Sediments
Sediments/soils
Sludge
Soils
Soils
Sediments
Sediments
Sludges
Sediment
Soils
Sediments
Soils
Soils
Soils
Soils
Contaminants
Kepone
PCBs
PAHs, PCBs
Not stated
Not stated
Not stated
Not stated
' PCBs
TNT, RDX, HMX,
nitrocellulose
PCBs
PCBs, dioxins, other
chemicals
PCBs
TNT, DNT, RDX, and
others
PCBs
PAHs, VOCs, lead,
zinc, and PCBs. •.
Ineffective against
metals
PCBs, PAHs, oil and
grease
PCPs, PAHs, petroleum
hydrocarbons, copper,
chromium, and arsenic
PCBs
PAHs, copper,
chromium, arsenic, and
zinc
PCPs
Benzidine, azobenzene,
and dichlorobenzidine
TPHs, VOCs, copper,
nickel, and silver
B-3
-------
TABLE B-2. (Continued)
Technology
Soil washing (continued)
So!!diflc»tion/Stabai7ation
Thermal Treatment
Incineration
Shlrco Infrared System
Low Temperature Thermal
Dosorption
S'rte name
Town Gas, Quebec
Pesticide Formulation, CO
Chemical Plant, CA
Hialeah, FL
Douglassville, PA
Marathon Battery Site
Foundry Cove
Indiana Harbor Canal, IN
Buffalo River, NY
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant
Swanson River Oil Field, AK
McColl Superfund Site, Fullerton, CA
Peak Oil Superfund Site, Brandon, FL
Kettleman Hills Facility, CA
Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY
Ashtabula River, Ohio
Medium
Soils
Soils
Soils
Soils
Soils
Soils
Sediments
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Soils/sediment
Soils
Oil-like material
Not stated
Sediments
Sediments
Contaminants
Total PAHs
Pesticides
PCBs, Aroclor 1260
PCBs
Oil, grease, VOCs,
PCBs, metals, and
semivolatile organics
Not stated
Cadmium, cobalt, and
nickel
Oil, grease, VOCs,
PCBs, and metals
Oil, grease, VOCs,
PCBs, and metals
TNT, RDS, tetryl, and
nitrocellulose
PCBs
Organics and metals
PCBs, other organics.
and metals
Not stated
PAHs, oil and grease
PCBs and other
chlorinated
hydrocarbons
B-4
-------
In Situ Treatment
The stabilization of contaminated sediments can be achieved by the injection of grouting
materials into sediments. A commonly used Japanese method for grouting is the injection of clay-
cement or quicklime mixtures into the bottom sediment via a deep soil mixing method (Hand et al.,
1978).
The essential feature of this relatively new technology, shown in Figure B-1, is the injection
mechanism - a number of injection pipes mounted on a barge. The ends of these pipes incorporate
internal mixing blades that enter into the sediments. The process begins by lowering the
injecting/mixing apparatus to the required depth. The pipes then simultaneously inject a cement or
lime-based slurry into the sediments. At the end of the process, the mixing blades are reversed and
the shafts are removed and relocated.
A number of other types of grout injection and mixing apparatus are available. Multi-column,
continuous mixing apparatus which lessens the need for raising, relocating, and lowering of the mixing
apparatus is also available. However, the feasibility and reliability of these methods for contaminated
sediments has not yet been demonstrated.
The use of this in situ method on a barge restricts offshore activity to calm waters and periods
of good weather. Also, the injection operation may result in resuspension of sediments.
Natural Biodeqradation
Anderson (1980) has shown that bacteria from Saginaw Bay and river sediments are capable
of degrading PCB-contaminated sediments from the Great Lakes. The degradation rate is enhanced
under aerobic conditions. The degradation rates of di- and trichlorobiphenyls are extremely rapid in
incubated sediments. The tetra- and pentachlorobiphenyls are degraded at a slower rate than the di-
and trichloro compounds. Anaerobic conditions were not conducive to degradation.
B-5
-------
Water Level
Cementing Agent Injector
Sea Bottom
Mixina Machine
Soft Ground
Treated Soil Part
Source: Hand. 1978
Rgure B-1. Fixation by deep chemical mixing.
B-6
-------
Dredging and Disposal
Ocean Disposal-
Concentrations of polynuclear hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were
measured in waters of New York Bight prior to, during, and after a dredged material disposal operation.
P.O. Boehm compared the PAH profiles in water column with those in the dredged material to evaluat
the short-term fractionation and weathering. .< - „ , ,..„,,
PAHs associated with the dredged material were rapidly altered in the water column by
dissolution .and microbiai processes. The PAH and PCB measurements were sensitive indicators of the
movement and fate of the particulate plumes from the dredged material. Fifteen minutes after the
dredged material was dumped, the residual plume was found in near-bottom water and remained
detectable for at least 2.5 hours. The study concluded that ocean disposal is a viable option (Boehm
etal., 1983). [
Capping- ,' "" " :
The first field study of controlled capping of contaminated dredged material using a reasonable
amount of capping material was conducted at the Central Long Island Sound Disposal Site in 1979.
In this project two disposal mounds were formed underwater, each with approximately-30,000 m3 of
contaminated sediments from Stamford, Connecticut. These deposits weire then capped, one with
approximately 76,000 m3 of silt, and the other with 33,000 m3 of sand dredged from New Haven
Harbor. The conclusions of the study were as follows:
• Disposal of contaminated sediments must be tightly controlled to reduce the spread of the
sediment before they are capped. This can be accomplished through use of taut-wire disposal
buoys and/or precision navigation control. > , , , „. .,,,, ,
• Capping material must be spread over a large area in order to ensure adequate capping at the
end's outer limits of the contaminated sediments. This is particularly important for silt, which
does not spread as evenly as sand.
• Silt develops a thicker cap than sand and, hence, requires more material. Silt caps do not
spread readily. However, a greater thickness is needed because the depth of bioturbation is
deeper in silt than in sand.
B-7
-------
• Silt caps recolonize with fauna similar to the surrounding silt environment, but sand caps with
completely different species. Recolonization of both mounds occurred as expected. The
impact to the surrounding environment was negligible.
• Caps are resistant to erosion. Once stabilized, both the silt and sand caps remain essentially
unchanged.
Other successfully completed capping operations are:
• In Norwalk, Connecticut, a site in shallow water was dredged and contaminated sediment was
placed in the dredged depression. The sediment was then covered with the dredged material.
This technique was proposed for disposal of PCB-contaminated sediments at the New Bedford
Superfund site. This technique is restricted to shallow-water environments.
• Open-water capping was tested at the New York Mud Dump site. Approximately 522,000 m3
of contaminated sediment was covered by 1.2 million m3 of clean sand in a mound which has
persisted on the open ocean shelf for seven years. This experimental study concluded that a
cap thickness of 1.5 to 2 m stabilizes the disposed material for at least seven years. Bottom
profiles across the disposal site showed that the cap was continuous in nature.
• Laboratory studies by USAGE (USAGE, 1990) showed that a 35-cm cap effectively isolated
contaminated sediment when spread over a confined aquatic area (CAD). However, an
additional 20 cm of cap thickness was recommended to prevent burrowing organisms from
having access to the contaminants. The additional material ensures effective coverage over
the entire CAD area, protecting it against scouring by hydrodynamic forces, and providing long-
term stability for the capped material.
These studies show that capping is a viable technique for safe disposal of contaminated
sediments in the marine environment and that the factors affecting capping can be predicted with
reasonable accuracy (National Research Council, 1989).
B-8
-------
Disposal of contaminated sediments in the marine (ocean/bay) environment through capping
with cleaner materials (sand, silt, limestone, etc.) is a viable option. Most capping operations are
restricted to calm and shallow waters (20-30 m; 65-100 ft) but the knowledge and experience gained
from these projects are helpful in predicting the consequences of extending such operations to deeper
water. In order to ensure the integrity of the capped sediment, an extensive monitoring program, the
Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS), was developed by USAGE, New England Division.
The DAMOS monitoring approach begins with site designation and extends through the disposal
operation to post-disposal monitoring. The essential elements of the DAMOS program are shown in
Table B-3 below.
The DAMOS program has developed a comprehensive data base that confirms the viability of
several important parameters necessary for capping operations:
• Operational feasibility: navigational control and disposal operating procedures are adequate to
create mounds of contaminated sediment and to spread sufficient cap material to effectively
cover these mounds.
• Minimal dispersion during dispersal: extensive plume tracking studies have demonstrated that
most dredged material remains at the bottom during the placement operation.
• Long-term stability of disposal mounds: repeated measurements over a ten-year period showed
that, following initial placement, the capped disposal mounds remain unchanged over extended
periods of time.
• Sand or silt cap material: all studies to date show that either sand or silt are adequate for
capping contaminated sediment. Silt caps require more material than sand. Also, the
spreading techniques for sand/silt are different. The economic feasibility of capping depends,
to a large extent, on the availability of clean silt and/or sand.
• Isolation of contaminated material: both chemical and biological monitoring show that, given
sufficient cap thickness and stability, neither bioactivity nor chemical leaching will expose the
environment to the contaminated sediment.
B-9
-------
TABLE B-3. ELEMENTS OF THE DAMOS PROGRAM
Site
designation
(characterization)
Pre-disposal
(baseline)
During disposal
Post-disposal
Monitoring
Physical
Bathymetry/SSCAN
Remots "
Currents/waves
Sediment grain size
Bathymetry/SSCAN
Harbor characterization
(Density, GS, geotech)
Disposal control
Bathymetry/Remots
Plume studies '
Mussels/Daisy
Bathymetry/SSCAN
Remots
Mussels/daisy
Bathymetry/Remots
(next season, then
annually, Aug/Sep)
Mussels
Biological
Remots - habitat
Benthic --type present
Brat - fish habitat
Fish - type present
Benthic body burden
Compounds selected
based on waste
characterization
If >one year- Remots
Remots , ,
(within 2 weeks)
Remots (next season, then
annually, Aug/Sep)
If recolonized:
Benthic, brat,
Body burden
Chemical
Bulk sediment
Analysis
Waste Characterization
Bulk sediment
analysis
Bioassays, etc.
If not recolonized:
Bulk sediment
analysis
B-10
-------
The following instrumentation is required to confirm DAMOS monitoring:
• Microwave or acoustically assisted positioning of dredged material.
• Precision bathymetry (sonar) to facilitate monitoring of the volume/ distribution of sediments
at the disposal site. These data are used to assess the effectiveness of capping and the long-
term stability of the cap.
t*
• Sediment profile photography in which a remote sensing* camera determines the distribution
and characteristics of near-surface sediments. This procedure determines the small-scale
effects of physical erosion and bioturbation. It provides an effective method for measuring
biological parameters in order to evaluate the impacts of disposal and capping operations.
• Advanced acoustic measurements. Modern acoustic instruments such as sidescan sonar, high
resolution sub-bottom profilers, and high-frequency plume tracking systems provide information
on the distribution and physical properties of sediments during and after disposal. '-
' . i ' ' • ,• v ;-'•,*• 5 *
• Specialized instrumentation such as Disposal Area In Situ System (DAISY) provide information
for addressing specific problems associated with dredged material disposal and capping.
DAISY measures near-bottom current and wave .energy associated vyith sediment resuspension
and turbidity. It thus addresses the long-term stability of capped disposal mounds.
• A nuclear density probe coupled with a sediment penetration device is now used along with
precision bathymetry, REMOTS, and sub-bottom profiling to determine the mass balance of
sediment deposited in the capped mound.
These monitoring techniques and disposal procedures were applied in two major, recently
completed field studies (the New York Experimental Mud Dump Site (EMD) and the Massachusetts Bay
Foul Area Disposal Site (FADS). The objective of the EMD study was to assess the long-term (five
years) stability of a sand capped contaminated sediment in the open-shelf environment. The FADS
project involved the short-term (several months) effects of disposal of contaminated sediments in 90
m of water.
B-11
-------
At the EMD, the results indicate that following disposal, a sand cap of approximately 1.5 to
2.0 m covered most of the contaminated material and that this cap was essentially unchanged during
the subsequent five-year period. Sub-bottom profiles across the disposal site demonstrated the
integrity of the cap. REMOTS photography supported the sub-bottom data. The photography also
revealed that recolonization of the disposal mound by the aquatic biota took place, but biopenetration
was restricted to only a few centimeters of the sand cap. Thus, the isolation of the contaminated
material was assured. On the flanks of the mound, however, where the thickness of the cap is not
so great, some dispersion of the sediment did occur.
Disposal of contaminated material at FADS was carried out by scows and hopper dredges at
a water depth of 90 m. Disposal of cohesive sediments at this site did form proper mounds. REMOTS
camera data showed that disposal of dredged material - even under tight control -- resulted in a broad,
low deposit spread evenly over a large area. The formation of thin and broad deposits proved that
greater amounts of capping material are needed. For example, to effectively cap 100,000 m3 of
contaminated material, between 250,000 and 500,000 m3 of capping material may be needed. Hence,
careful consideration should be given before undertaking any projects using this technique.
Dredging and Treatment
Biological-
Sediment and soil from lagoons at Army ammunition plants in Louisiana, Wisconsin, and
Pennsylvania containing TNT, nitrocellulose, and other organic nitro compounds were treated in two
types of composts -- hay-horse feed and sewage sludge-wood shavings. Three ratios of sediment/soil
to composts were utilized.
Six 488-gallon tanks 5-feet in diameter and 4-feet in height were used as composters. These
were placed in greenhouses. Two drums of contaminated sediment from a dredging mound were used.
The composts were incubated at 60°C with continuous aeration for 6-10 weeks. 14C-labeled tracers
were used to monitor the progress of degradation. The study showed that TNT degraded rapidly in
all sewage sludge composts. However, breakdown in the hay-horse feed compost was adversely
affected by the higher rates of sediment addition. Cleavage of the benzene ring during TNT breakdown
did not appear to be significant.
B-12
-------
RDX (hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine) was almost completely degraded in all composts
during 10 weeks of incubation. Increased rates of sediment addition significantly reduced the rate of
RDX breakdown in both composts. HMX (1,3,5,7-tetranitro-octahydro-octane) was not degraded in
the hay-horse feed compost but was reduced by 30-50% during 10 weeks of incubation in the sewage
sludge compost. In the sewage sludge compost 92-97% of the nitrocellulose degraded within 4
weeks. Leaching of explosives and heavy metals from the composts was minimal. Details of the
study, including economic information, are available from Atlantic Research Corp. in Composting Explo-
sives/Organics Contaminated Soils, a technical report prepared for USATHAMA in May, 1988.
Detox Industries, Inc. bench-tested PCB-contaminated sludge samples from the General Motors
(GM) Massena, New York plant using their proprietary biological process. Partial results of the study
are shown in Table B-4. The USEPA approved the GM request to conduct a full-scale study of this
process at the GM site in Massena, NY.
TABLE B-4. PCB (1248) Biodegradation
Untreated
soil
Treated
soil
Percent
reduction
GM Lagoon #1 338 ppm
GM Digester 110 ppm
GM Activated Sludge 63 ppm
107 ppm
63 ppm
6.5 ppm
68.3
42.7
89.6
Source: USEPA, 1989i
B-13
-------
Physical/Chemical Treatment
Dechlorination--
Galson Technical Services conducted bench- and pilot-scale treatability studies at three
different sites: Naval Construction Battalion Center (NCBC) in Gulfport, MS; Bengart and Memel in
Buffalo, NY; and the Montana Pole in Butte, MT. Soils contaminated with PCBs and/or dioxins were
treated with a mixture of potassium hydroxide (KOH), dimethyl sulfoxide, polyethylene glycol, and
other chemicals to dechlorinate the PCBs and dioxins. The ratios of reagents to soil, reaction times
and temperatures were varied.
The results of the tests at Montana Pole showed that dioxin levels reduced from 100,000 ppb
to less than 1 ppb after 1 hour of reaction time at 150°C. The results of the NCBC study showed that
the soil from Gulfport, MS, could be decontaminated by mixing the soil with the APEG reagent and
heating at 120°C for 7 hours. The results of the Bengart and Memel study show that PCBs in the soil
can be reduced to less than 50 ppm by adding reagent to the soil and heating the soil/reagent mixture
at 120°C for 12-24 hours. Table B-5 shows some of the results of the studies conducted at NCBC and
Buffalo. For further details contact the vendor: Timothy Cerates, Galson Research Corp., 6601
Kirkville Road, E. Syracuse, NY 13057, 315-463-5160.
A more extensive study using this technique was carried out by Galson Research Corporation
(GRC) of Syracuse (HMCRI, 1988). PCB-contaminated soils from the Wide Beach Superfund Site in
New York State were treated by the KPEG process on bench- and pilot-scale. In the bench-scale study
the soils were heated at 140 to 160°C for 4 to 8 hrs. The PCB concentrations were reduced from 490
to 620 ppm to less than 10 ppm. The bench-scale study estimated an approximate cost of $100-
300/ton for Wide Beach soil treatment, excluding excavation. The pilot-scale study also produced
encouraging results. Further process evaluation is in progress.
Solvent Extraction--
Lagoon sediments contaminated by explosives (TNT, DNT, RDX, and others) from several Army
depots and plants were successfully decontaminated by contacting with acetone. This study was con-
ducted by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. for DOD/USATHAMA. The contact is Wayne
Sisk, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401, (301) 571-2054. The explosive content of the
untreated sediments varied from 0.1 to 99 percent and moisture content from 23.8 to 42.8 percent.
Acetone was used as an extraction agent. Laboratory tests measured solubility, leaching efficiencies,
B-14
-------
TABLE B-5. BENCH SCALE DATA ON NCBC (GULFPORT)
No. Source Compound Process Reagent
Temp.
Loading °C
Time
Concentration
Before After-
1
2
.3
4
5 ••
6
7
8
9
10.
11
.12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport '
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport :
Gulfport
Gulfport
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
Slurry
Slurry
, Slurry -
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
In Situ
In Situ
. In Situ
In Situ
In Situ
In Situ
In Situ
In Situ
In Situ
In Situ
In Situ
9
1
,9
9
1
9
9
1
9
1
1
9
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
:9
•1
:9
:9
• 1
:9
:9
:1
:9
:1
:1
:9
:2
:2
:2
:2
:1
:1
:1
:1
:9-P.D.
•1-P D
:2-M.D
.-2-M.D
'1-M D
:2-M.D
:2-M.D
:1-M.D
:2-M.D
:1-P.D.
:1-P.D.
:2-P.D.
:2:1-M
:2:1-M,
:2:1-M,
:2:1-M,
:1:3-M.
:1:3-M.
:1:15-l\
:1:15-l\
K.
K
.1C.
.K.
If
.K.
.K.
.K.
.K.
K.
K.
K.
.D.K.W.
.D.K.W.
.D.K.W.
.D.K.W.
.D.K.W.
.S.K.W.
/I.D.K.W
/l.D.K.W
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
50%
20%
50%
250
160
150
100
70
70
70
50
25
25
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
4
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
7
1
7
1
2
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
.5 hours
hours
hours
days
day
days
day
days
4 days
7
7
7
7
7
days
days
days
days
days
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
Ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
Ppb
Ppb
ppb
PPb
ppb
ppb
ppb
<1 ppb
<1 ppb
<1 ppb .
<1 ppb
<1 ppb
<1.5 ppb
<15 ppb
<23 ppb
<36 ppb
1 000 ppb
' 8.5 ppb
<1 ppb
3.3 ppb
2.0 ppb ':
2.5 ppb
< 1 ppb
3.2 ppb
2.7 ppb
43 ppb
14 ppb
Bench Scale Data on Bengart & Memel (Buffalo)
21
22
23
24
25
26
•27,
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
.PCB
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
In Situ
In Situ
In Situ
In Situ
9:9:2:1-M.D.K.W.
9:9:2:1-M.S.K.W.
1:1:2:
2:2:2:
2:2:2:
1:1:2:
1:1:2:
2:1-P.T.S.K.W.
1 -M.D.K.W.
1-M.S.K.W.
2:1-P.T.D.K.W.
2:1-P,T.D.K.W.
100%
100%
100%
20%
20%
100%
100%
100
100
150
70
70
150
150
2
2
2
7
7
3
1
hours
hours
hours
days
days ,
days
day
77 ppm
77 ppm
112 ppm
77 ppm
. 77 ppm
1 1 2 ppm
83 ppm
4.2 ppb
6.7 ppb
6.7 ppm
3.7 ppb
4,0 ppb .
< 0.1 ppb *
Reagent Components Key
Toxic Compounds Key
TCDD - 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlordibenzo-p-dioxin
PCB - polychlorinated biphenyls
D - DMSO - dimethyl sulfoxide
K - KOH - potassium hydroxide
M - MEE - methyl carbitol - methoxy-ethoxy-ethanol
P - PEG - polyethylene glyool, avg. molecular weight of 400
S - SFLN - sulfolane - tetrahydrothiophene 1.1-dioxide
T - TMH - triethylene glycol methyl ether and highers Loading (%) = 100 x (reagent mass/soil mass)
W - Water
Source: USEPA,, 1989i.
B-15
-------
and settling. Solubility tests evaluated water/acetone ratios to determine optimum operational range
for the contaminants present. Leaching tests determined the effectiveness of countercurrent extraction
to calculate the contact time needed to establish equilibrium between the solvent and sediment. The
leaching tests were performed in a 1-liter graduated cylinder. The tests showed that wet, explosive-
containing sediments can be effectively decontaminated by an acetone/water mixture. In general,
three to four contact stages of 30 minutes each were needed to bring the explosive level below 10
mg/kg. However, a fifth contact stage with a 50 percent efficiency is required to achieve the
Louisiana-mandated sediment quality. Table B-6 shows the results of some explosives removal tests.
TABLE B-6. DOD/USATHAMA TREATABILITY RESULTS
Initial
explosives
concentrations
Sediment (mg/kg)
Ft. WingateAD 1,200
Navajo AD 1 9,000
Louisiana 420,000
Final
explosives
concentrations
(mg/kg)
6.0
7.0
17.0
4-Stage
removal
efficiency
(%)
99.5
99.96
99.996
PCB-eontaminated New Bedford Harbor sediment was treated on a pilot-scale, in a SITE
demonstration of the CF Systems Supercritical Fluid Extraction Technology (USEPA, 1989h).
This technology is only applicable to organic contaminants. It extracts contaminants from
solids/slurries with solvents in which the organic contaminants become dissolved. Typically 99 percent
of the organics can be removed from the solids in liquid propane and/or butane. This technology was
demonstrated concurrently with dredging studies managed by the USAGE.
The following test results include, for each test, the number of passes made through CF
systems Pit Cleanup Unit, the concentration of PCBs before test and PCB levels after test.
Test
number
2
3
4
PCB Concentration
Passes
9
3
6
Before
360 ppm
288 ppm
2575 ppm
After
8 ppm
82 ppm
200 ppm
B-16
-------
Extraction efficiencies were high, despite some operating difficulties. The return of treated
sediment, as feed, to the next pass caused cross-contamination in the system. Full-scale commercial
systems are designed to eliminate the problems associated with the pilot-plant design.
The following conclusions were drawn from this series of tests and other data:
• Extraction efficiencies of 90-98 percent were achieved on sediments containing PCBs between
350 and 2,575 ppm. PCB concentrations fell as low as 8 ppm in the treated sediment.
• In the laboratory, extraction efficiencies of 99.9 percent were obtained for volatile and
semivolatile organics in aqueous and semi-solid wastes.
• Operating problems included solids retention in the hardware and foaming in the receiving
tanks. The vendor developed corrective measures for the full-scale commercial unit.
• Projected costs for PCB cleanups are approximately at $150 to $450/ton, including material
handling as well as pre- and post-treatment costs. These costs are highly sensitive to the
utilization factor and the job size, which may lower costs for large cleanups.
Resource Conservation Company's (RCC) B.E.S.T.™ process is a solvent extraction process
which utilizes either a secondary or tertiary amine, usually triethylamine (TEA) to extract organic
contaminants from soils, sludges, or sediments. E.G. Jordan Co. studied its applicability to New
Bedford Harbor sediment. Preliminary results indicate that this technology is suitable for the removal
of PCBs from contaminated sediments.
A bench-scale study of the B.E.S.T.™ process was conducted at the Arrowhead Refinery
Superfund Site in Hermantown, Minnesota. The lagoon sludge and the soil contained PAHs, VOCs,
lead, zinc, and small quantities of PCBs. RCC conducted a treatability study using these contaminated
materials under a subcontract from CH2M Hill.
The results of the study show that RCC's process successfully separates the contaminated
wastes into three fractions: aqueous, oil-containing organics and solids. The process, however, is not
applicable to metals. As a result, lead was found at high concentrations in both the oil and the solid
fractions. Water recovery was poor because of problems in the decantation steps. Distillation was
B-17
-------
therefore necessary, which added to the cost of the process. RCC estimated the process costs, for
this site, to be $289 (sludges) and $300 (soil), respectively (comparable to incineration).
Soil Washing--
Soil washing, a volume reduction process, can concentrate both inorganic and organic
contaminants in a small portion of the original feed. Water and water with other additives are used
to achieve this goal (FWEI, 1989).
Biotrol's Soil Treatment System, EPA's Soil Washing Mobile System, and MTA Remedial
Resources' Froth Flotation Unit have all been tested on contaminated soils.
The Biotrol process was tested on a pilot scale at a Superfund site in Minnesota that is
contaminated with PCP, PAH, petroleum hydrocarbons, copper, chromium, and arsenic. A bench-scale
treatability study (Stinson et al., 1988) successfully reduced the concentration of all the contaminants
(Tables B-7 and B-8). TCLP tests for the treated and untreated soils showed substantial removal of
PCPs. The total treatment cost (mobilization, treatment, and disposal) of the process at the Minnesota
site is estimated to be $180/ton.
Results of treatability testing with various soil samples are shown in Table B-9 (USEPA,
1990m).
Solidification/Stabilization--
In this technique contaminated soils/sediments are mixed with pozzolanic material and some
special additives. On curing, the soil/sediment hardens and encapsulates the contaminants. The
encapsulated contaminants do not leach out and hence do not pose any threat to the environment.
The technical feasibility of reducing contaminant mobility in Indiana Harbor Canal sediment by
solidification/stabilization was investigated in a series of laboratory-scale applications of selected
solidification/stabilization processes. The processes evaluated were portland cement, portland cement
with flyash, portland cement with flyash and/or sodium silicate, portland cement with WEST-P (propri-
etary polymer), Firmix with WEST-P, and lime with flyash. Evaluation of the physical properties of the
solidified products showed that sediment from Indiana Harbor Canal can be physically stabilized by a
variety of processes. The chemical leach data showed that solidification/stabilization of Indiana Harbor
sediment reduced the mobility of some contaminants, depending on the type of setting agent(s) and
B-18
-------
TABLE B-7. COMPARISON OF UNTREATED/TREATED SOIL IN A PILOT-SCALE
TEST AT MINNESOTA WOOD TREATING SITE
Soil
contaminant
level
Low
(Test 1 of 1 )
High
(Test 1 of 2)
ma/ka
Parameter
Pentachlorophenol
Total PAH
TPH
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Pentachlorophenol
Total PAH
TPH
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Feed
soil
130
240
3,300
14
17
15
540
290
8,800
28
49
39
Washed
soil
12.0
8.6
210.0
5.0
9.0
6.2
56.0
23.0
470.0
7.2
8.5
5.2
Percent
reduction
91
96
94
64
47
59
90
92
95
74
83
87
PAH - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
TPH - Total petroleum hydrocarbons
Source: USEPA, 1990m
TABLE B-8. COMPARISON OF PCP-CONTAMINATED UNTREATED/TREATED
SOIL AT SITE DEMONSTRATION
Soil
contaminant
level
Pentachlorophenol
Washed soil,
mg/kg
Washed soil TCLP
leachate, mg/L
Low (test 1 of 1}
High (test 1 of 2)
10
19
59
70
0.23
0.32
0.74
0.92
Source: USEPA, 1990m
B-19
-------
TABLE B-9. RESULTS OF BENCH-SCALE TREATABILITY TESTING
ma/kg
Site description
Wood Preserving
(California)
Wood Preserving
(Florida)
Chemical Plant
(Michigan)
Wire Drawing
(New Jersey)
Town Gas
(Quebec)
Pesticide
Formulation
(Colorado)
Chemical Plant
(California)
Parameter
Total PAH
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Pentachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Dichlorobenzidine
Benzidine
Azobenzene
TPH
VOC
Copper
Nickel
Silver
Total PAH
Chlordane
Aldrin
4,4-DDT
Dieldrin
PCB
(Aroclor 1 260)
Feed
soil
4,800
89
63
23
345
380
610
770
1,000
2,400
4,700
2
330
110
25
230
55
47
25
46
290
Washed
soil
230
27
23
13
108
4.0
25
13
6
7
350
0.01
100
60
4
11
4.7
7.5
5.0
7.0
<0.1
Percent
reduction
95
70
63
43
69
99
96
98
99
>99
93
>99
70
45
84
95
91
84
80
85
<99
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
Total petroleum hydrocarbons
Volatile organic compounds
Polychlorinated biphenyls
B-20
-------
additive dosages used. Some additives increased the teachability of some metals (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987).
An evaluation of solidification/stabilization technology was conducted on the bench-scale level
on Buffalo River sediment to determine whether physical and chemical properties of the sediment
would be improved. Chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc were evaluated. Three binder materials
were evaluated: cement, kiln dust, and lime-fly ash. Physical tests (DSC, freeze/thaw, and wet/dry
durability) and contaminant release tests (serial leach test and TCLP) were conducted. Results were
similar to those for the Indiana Harbor tests, in that stabilized solids could be formed and the mobility
of lead, nickel, and zinc were reduced, both in the serial leach tests and the TCLP. The leachability
of copper and chromium was increased by the solidification/stabilization process (Fleming, et al.,
1991).
An in situ solidification/stabilization process developed by International Waste Technologies
(IWT) and implemented by Geo-Con, Inc. is capable of operating below water tables. This process was
tested at a Superfund site in Hialeah, Florida (Stinson et al., 1988). The PCBs in the contaminated soil
were immobilized. TCLP leachate analysis showed no leaching of PCBs. The bulk density of the soil
increased by 21 percent after treatment and the volume increased by 8.5 percent. The wet/dry
weathering test on treated soil produced satisfactory results. The process costs are favorable:
$194/ton for 1-auger machine used in the demonstration and $110/ton for commercial 4-auger
equipment. Since the IWT proprietary binding reagent use varies according to the nature of wastes,
treatability studies should be performed for new site-specific waste.
The HAZCON solidification process was tested at the Douglassville, PA Superfund Site. The
soil was contaminated with high levels of oil and grease, volatile and semivolatile organics, PCBs, and
heavy metals.
The comparison of physical properties of untreated and treated soil samples 7 days, 28 days,
9 months, and 22 months after treatment were generally favorable. The physical test results were
very good, with unconfined compress!ve strength between 220 and 1570 psi. Very low permeabilities
were recorded, and the porosity of the treated wastes was rated moderate. Durability test results
showed no change in physical strength after the wet/dry and freeze/thaw cycles. The waste volume
increased about 20%. By using lesser amount of stabilizer it is possible to reduce volume increases
B-21
-------
but results in lower strengths of the treated soil. (There is an inverse relationship between physical
strength and the waste organic concentration.)
The results of the HAZCON post-demonstration leaching tests were mixed. The TCLP results
were very low; essentially all values of metals, volatile organics, and semivolatile organics were below
1 ppm. Lead leachate concentrations dropped by a factor of 200, to below 100 ppb. Volatile and
semivolatile organic concentrations, however, did not change with treatment. Oil and grease
concentrations were greater in the treated waste than in the untreated waste (from less than 2 ppm
up to 4 ppm). ,
The HAZCON study concluded the following:
• The process can solidify contaminated material with high concentrations (up to 25 percent) of
organics. However, organic contaminants, including volatiles and base/neutral extractables,
were not immobilized to any significant extent.
• Heavy metals are immobilized. In many instances, leachate reductions were greater than a
hundred fold. -
; i \ ' > •
• The treated waste exhibited high unconfined compressive strengths, low permeabilities, and
good weathering properties.
• Treated soils underwent volumetric increases.
• The process is economical, with costs expected to range between approximately $90 and
$120/ton.
Bench-scale solidification work was also performed by Chemfix Technologies and by Associated
Chemical and "Environment Services (ACES). They assessed the feasibility of using a pozzolanic
solidification process* as a component in the remediation plan for the Marathon Battery Site.
B-22
-------
Although the Chemfix™ process is patented, different mixtures of common setting agents can
be used to optimize both the physical and chemical characteristics of the waste, In the case of
cadmium-contaminated sediments from Foundry Cove, Chemfix tested: 1) sodium silicate and Portland
cement; 2) sodium silicate and cement kiln dust; and 3) sodium silicate, Portland cement, and a setting
agent. The products were subjected to EP toxicity testing for metals and 48-hour.. uncp.nfined
compressive strength (UCS) tests. UCS results for mixtures 1, 2, and 3 were 34.7 psi (239.2 kPa),
20.8 psi (143.4 kPa), and 17.4 psi (120 kPa), respectively. Only the sodium silicatei and port)apd
cement mixture passed the EP Toxicity testing -- with a cadmium concentration of 0.709 mg/L or,
0.709 ppm (the EP Toxicity maximum is 1 mg/L or 1 ppm). Since cobalt and nickel are not standard
EP Toxicity parameters; they were not measured. ACES conducted bench-scale studies with three
mixtures composed of differing weight percentages of waste, pozzolan, and lime. UCS 48-hour test
results ranged from 7 to 91 psi (48.3-131 kPa). Cobalt and nickel were included in the EP Toxicity
testing. Two of the three mixtures were found to have cadmium,.cobalt, and nickel levels less thari-
1.0 mg/L or 1 ppm. , , . , ^ , ,
•' * • • • . * • . - •.. , , i . ' \ '',&.'»*•' * j: , i •• t
Solidification (specifically the Chemfix™ process) has been chosen in conjunction with hydraulic
dredging and off-site disposal as the remedial action for East Foundry Cove Marsh (34 acres or 14
hectares) and East Foundry Cove (14 acres or 5.7 hectares). Both areas lie within, of the .Marathon
Battery Site in the lower Hudson River, New York. The remedial treatment will include the following:
hydraulic dredging, dewatering thorough agitation and mixing, continuous pumping through Chemfix™
treatment units, extruding the treated waste to a solidification area^, and .transfer of Jhe solidified
sediment to a disposal site.
Cost estimates for the solidification of the Foundry Cove site range between $50 and $75/yd3.
Thermal Treatment .,,'..-.,
Incineration— .-•-.,• ,,,-,. . ,..•_
A bench-scale study was conducted by the Atlantic Research Corp., Alexandria, VA using
explosive-contaminated sediments from the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant [Atlantic Research
Corporation]. Approximately 4 g of sediment in a crucible was placed in a muffle furnace at 500-
700°C with varying residence time. Table B-10 shows the results of decontamination at various
heating temperatures. The explosive (TNT, RDS, tetryl, and nitrocellulose) levels of the sediment
B-23
-------
TABLE B-10. INCINERATION OF SEDIMENT EXPLOSIVES LEVELS
Concentration bv drv sediment
Temperature
No heat
200
300
500
700
900
Time
(min.)
5
30
60
5
30
60
5
30
60
5
30
60
5
30
60
TNT
(fJQ/Q)
424,000
10,000
1,500
1,350
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
RDX Tetryl
(//g/g) (fjg/Q)
159,000 15,800
<1 114
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
<1 <0.3
COD
206,000
124,500
116,500
149,200
55,200
52,300
30,000
5,900
2,190
1,280
8,720
1,310
2,320
1 2,200
2,410
1,670
TNT - Trinitrotoluene
RDX - Hexhydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine
Tetryl - Trinitrophenylmethylnitramine
COD - Chemical oxygen demand
Source: USEPA, 1989i
B-24
-------
were reduced from 109,000 to 1000 //g/g. Depending upon the sediment's moisture content, the
costs can vary between $100,000 to 2,000,000.
PCBs-contaminated soil/sediment from the Swanson River Oil Field on the south coast of
Alaska was successfully incinerated by Alliance Technologies Corporation of Bedford, MA and Ogden
Environmental Services of San Diego, CA. In this field demonstration (USEPA, 1990m), Ogden's
Circulating Bed Combustor (CBC), an advanced fluidized bed system, was used. The commercial-size
system can treat up to 100 tons/day of contaminated soil. This technique is well-suited for materials
with relatively low heating values.
A similar treatability study was carried out at Ogden's facility with contaminated soils from the
McColl Superfund Site in Fullerton, California. The results of these studies are shown in the attached
Tables B-11, B-12, B-13, and B-14. The McColl Site soil contained metals in addition to organics.
TCLP tests on the ash showed arsenic, selenium, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and
silver levels well below the federal requirements (40 CFR Part 268). The total CBC site remediation
cost estimate for these sites varies between $100 and $300/ton. The main variable affecting cost are
soil moisture content and quantity of the waste to be processed.
Shirco Infrared System-
The effectiveness of this technology was evaluated for the destruction of lagoon material
containing PCBs and other organics. This material from the Peak Oil Superfund Site at Brandon, Florida
— also contained metals. The oil-like material with a pH of 2 to 4 was neutralized with lime and mixed
with soil. A coffer dam had been erected around the lagoon, and the soil used in the process came
from the lagoon and the coffer dam enclosure. The mixture was screened to remove all materials with
diameters above 1 in. This material was treated in a full-scale Shirco system. The original material
contained from 5 to 100 ppm of PCBs. Although lead in the ash failed to pass EP Toxicity Test, it did
pass the TCLP. All organic compounds in the ash were below the regulatory levels (TCLP Test). DREs
for all tests exceeded 99.99 percent. The projected average Shirco cost is $425/ton of contaminated
feed material. More details are available in the EPA publication: Shirco Infrared Incineration System,
EPA/540/A5-89/010.
The attached tables (B-15 through B-18) provide some information on the tests carried out at
the Peak Oil Site (HMCRI, 1988).
B-25
-------
TABLE B-11. SWANSON RIVER TESTS:
OPERATING CONDITIONS TESTS 1 THROUGH 3
Test conditions
Combustor temperature, °F
Residence time, sec
Soil throughput, Ib/hr
Soil PCB concentration, ppm
Flue gas oxygen, dry %
CO emissions, ppm
HC emissions, ppm
SO 2 emissions, ppm
NOX emissions, ppm
Carbon dioxide, %
HCI emissions, Ib/hr
Particulate gr/dscf at 7% 02
Combustion efficiency, %
ORE, %
Test 1
1,620.00
1.68
8,217.00
632.00
7.10
12.00
2.00
16.00
89.00
8.80
1.49
0.0072
99.980
>99.99993
Test 2
1,606.00
1.68
8,602.00
615.00
7.40
11.00
2.00
15.00
88.00
8.70
1.08
0.0065
99.990
>99. 99992
Test 3
1,620.00
1.67
8,603.00
801.00
6.90
17.50
2.00
13.00
88.00
8.60
1.37
0.0093
99.985
>99.99997
Source: HMCRI, 1989
TABLE B-12. SWANSON RIVER TESTS:
OPERATING CONDITIONS TESTS 4 THROUGH 6
Test conditions
Combustor temperature, °F
Residence time, sec
Soil throughput, Ib/hr
Feed PCB concentration, ppm
Flue gas oxygen, dry %
CO emissions, ppm
HC emissions, ppm
SO2 emissions, ppm
NOX emissions, ppm
Carbon dioxide, %
HCI emissions, Ib/hr
Particulate gr/dscf at 7% 02
Combustion efficiency, %
ORE, %
Test 4
1,701.00
1.52
8,194.00
289.00
6.20
8.70
2.00
27.00
82.00
8.80
1.42
0.0120
99.990
>99.99996
Test 5
1,693.00
1.47
9,490.00
608.00
6.10
10.00
2.00
21.00
90.00
8.90
1.57
0.0190
99.990
> 99.99994
Test 6
1,686.00
1.53
9,555.00
625.00
8.10
12.50
2.00
20.00
95.00
8.80
1.21
0.0182
99.990
> 99.99993
Source: HMCRI, 1989
B-26
-------
TABLE B-13. McCOLL SITE TESTS: OPERATING CONDITIONS
Test conditions
Test 1
Test 2
Test3
Combustor temperature, °F
Residence time, sec v ;
Soil throughput, Ib/hr ''-'_
Carbon tetrachloride, Ib/hr
Flue gas oxygen, dry %
CO emissions, ppm
HC emissions, ppm
S02 emissions, ppm
NOX emissions, ppm
Carbon dioxide, dry % ;
HCI emissions, Ib/hr
Particulate gr/dscf at 7% 02
Combustion efficiency, % '
ORE, % ; ; -
, ,* .• t s i
1,721.00
i.54
325.00
0.00 •
11.00
30.00
5.00
>95%
49.66
9.90
<0.0090
0.0041
99.97
r •
1,726.00
1.52
170.00
0.00
9.90
30.00
1.00
>95%
58.00
11.90
< 0.0085
0.0044
99.97
1,709.00
1.55
197.00
0.22
11.80
26.00
2.00
>95%
48.00
9.20
< 0.0098
0.0035
99.97
99.9937
Source: HMCRI, 1989
B-27
-------
TABLE B-14. McCOLL SITE TEST: METALS PARTITIONING
Metal
Test 1 Copper
Nickel
Cobalt
Chromium
Barium
Manganese
Test 2 Copper
Nickel
Cobalt
Chromium
Barium
Manganese
Test 3 Copper
Nickel
Cobalt
Chromium
Barium
Manganese
Total
mg/hr
688
1350
226
3206
6110
15687
1221
1171
204
2932
6435
20741
874
532
150
1630
4157
11682
Fly ash
fraction
0.769
0.714
0.765
0.843
0.832
0.761
0.938
0.904
0.903
0.948
0.937
0.958
0.949
0.872
0.941
0.951
0.972
0.968
Bed ash
fraction
0.195
0.278
0.218
0.154
0.167
0.238
0.036
0.049
< 0.053
0.061
0.061
0.041
0.028
0.107
0.047
0.043
<0.026
0.032
Flue gas
fraction
0.037
0.007
0.018
0.003
0.001
0.000
0.026
0.047
0.041
0.016
0.003
0.001
0.023
0.022
0.012
0.006
0.002
0.001
Source: HMCRI, 1989
B-28
-------
TABLE B-15. WASTE FEED SOIL ANALYSIS
Waste feed
Measurement
PCB (total)
Heptachlorobiphenyl
Hexachlorobiphenyl
Pentachlorobiphenyl
Tetrachlorbiphenyl
Trichlorobiphenyl
Dichlorobiphenyl
Ethyl benzene
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Xylene
Nanograms per gram
3480 to 5850
940 to 220
1100 to 1700
200 to 490
400 to 830
570 to 820
120 to 190
40 to 140
80 to 120
130 to 300
260 to 770
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Strontium
Lead
Vanadium
Zinc
Micrograms per gram
2.1 to 3.6
2.0 to 2.9
3.9 to 4.6
20 to 24
44 to 55
50 to 62
4400 to 5000
7 to 11
950 to 1100
Moisture
Carbon
Sulfur
Chlorine
Ash
Btu value (HHV)
Percent
14.2 to 16.6
7.0 to 7.8
1.8 to 2.5
less than 0.1
70 to 75
1640 to 2065 Btu/lb
HHV - high heating value
B-29
-------
TABLE B-16. METALS ANALYSIS
Parameter
Solid waste feed (//g/g)
Ash (jt/g/g)
Stack gas* Oug/dscf)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur
Thallium
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
1625.00
2.15
2.55
505.00
0.168
NA
4.15
37500.00
22.00
0.75
49.00
2050.00
4800.00
ND
850.00
ND
ND
8.00
790.00
ND
NA
2.00
5550.00
57.00
20500.00
ND
41.00
9.00
1030.00
2500.00
3.30
2.60
757.00
0.30
NA
4.10
50000.00
27.00
2.00
64.00
2600.00
6400.00
ND
1050.00
ND
ND
10.00
770.00
ND
NA
4.00
5600.00
76.00
24000.00
ND
1 1 5.00
13.00
1060.00
<210.00
91.00
38.00
675.00
0.11
625.00
1920.00
1680.00
270.00
< 1 1 .00
420.00
440.00
58000.00
21.00
180.00
<0.10
50.00
42.00
0.00
3.20
780.00
10.00
1 8600.00
10.00
160000.00
630.00
< 50.00
<25.00
9400.00
*The stack gas contained 0.1015 grains/dscf of particulate (one grain - 64.8 mg)
ND - Not determined
NA - Not analyzed
B-30
-------
TABLE B-17. LEACH JEST RESULTS
Parameter
EP Toxjcity
Average Regulatory
mg/L level, mg/L
TCLP Analysis
Average Regulatory
level, mg/L " level
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver , ;
0.020
1.350
0.099
0.037
31.000
0.0015
ND
0.031
5.0
100.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
0.2
1.0
5.0
0.007
0.250
0.008
0.037 .
0.011
ND
0.031
0.059
5.0
100.0 "
1.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
Acrylonitrile
Methylene chloride
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethane
Only compounds detected by TCLP are listed below
0.013
I 0.020
0.0020
0.0006
0.0006
5.0
8.8
14.4
30.0
0.07
ND - Not detected
TABLfeB-18. EMISSION DATA
Date of run
8/1 /87
8/2/87
8/3/87
8/4/87
8/4/87
Average
ORE for PCBs (%)
99.99967
99.9988
99.99972
99.99905
99.99931
Particulate concentration
corrected to
7% 02, (grains/dscf)
0.1590
0.0939
0.0768
0.0761
0.1015
SO2
(g/hr)
27.6
1070.0
22.0
20.6
285.05
No chloride was detected in the flue gases.
B-31
-------
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption-
The Chemical Waste Management's (CWM) low temperature (500-800°F) thermal desorption
process - X*TRAX™ — was used to volatilize PCBs and other organics from soils. The vapors are
transported from the evaporators (indirectly heated with propane) by nitrogen gas into the condensing
unit. The condensed organics are then treated further. For example, the chlorinated organics in the
condensed liquid can be treated with the KPEG process.
The X*TRAX™ system was tested, on a pilot scale, at the Kettleman Hills Facility in central
California (USEPA, 1990g). Several other treatability studies were conducted in the laboratory with
contaminated soils and sludges. (Tables B-19 through B-23.) According to CWM, the average cost
of treatment is between $150-$250/ton of feed.
During the TSCA tests, the process vent was continuously monitored for total hydrocarbon
emissions. The average release rate for hydrocarbons was very low and PCBs were nondetectable.
Twelve cubic yards of contaminated sediments from the Buffalo River were processed in a low
temperature thermal desorption unit provided by Remedial Technologies, Inc. at a CDF managed by
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This unit volatilized the organics and recondenses them in an oil
mixture. The remaining solid material was either combined with Portland cement to determine the
effectiveness of restricting the leaching of heavy metals or disposed of at an appropriate facility.
B-32
-------
TABLE B-19. LABORATORY X*TRAX™ TEST
USING SYNTHETIC SOIL MATRIX (SSM-1)
Compound
Feed cone.
(ppm)
Product cone.
(ppm)
Removal
Volatiles
Acetone
Total xylene
Ethylbenzehe
Styrene
Tetrachlorethylene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Semivolatiles
Anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
3,200
2,900
1,900
240
180
130
46
3,100
3,020
397
16.0
9.50
5.20
< 0.005
0.094
0.180
0.062
12.0
<0.33
2.8
99.5
99.7
99.7
>99.99
99.95
99.86
99.87
99.6
>99.99
99.3
Source: USEPA, 1990m
\
B-33
-------
TABLE B-20. LABORATORY X*TRAX™ NON-PCB SOIL,
SLUDGE, AND MIXTURE
(Concentration - mg/kg)
Run
number
DB0627
Clay soil
DB0629
Soil/sludge
DB0706
Sludge
•
DB0710
Sludge
Source: USEPA,
Concentration
Parameter
Total solids (%)
Azobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Benzidine
2-Chloroanaline
Nitrobenzene
Total solids (%)
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Azobenzene
Benzidine
Total solids {%)
Azobenzene
Toluene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
2-Chloroaniline
Benzene
Benzidine
Aniline
Total solids (%)
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Azobenzene
1990m
Feed
94.1
3,190
1 ,820
842
828
45.6
73.1
958
61.0
17.8
52.4
47,900
' •• 4:476
3,590 '
2,100
1,870
1',010
267
47.0
1,070
•35.7
Product
100
4.9
<0.66
ND
ND
<0.33
100
<0.66
ND
ND
100
327
' <0.42
18.4
47.5
<0.21
3.7
43.3
100
<0.66
ND
Removal
(%)
N/A
99.8
>99.96
.. •• — . • •
~
>98.6
N/A
>99.0
—
--
N/A
99.3
>99.99
99.5
99.7
>99.99
99.6
83.8
N/A
>99.94 '
"-
B-3'4
-------
TABLE B-21. PILOT X*TRAX™ USING PCB-CONTAMINATED SOILS
Run
number
0919
0810
1003
0727
0929
Matrix
Clay
Silt clay
Clay
Sandy
Clay
Feed
(ppm)
5,000
2,800
1,600
1,480
630
Product
(ppm)
24.0
19.0
4.8
8,7
17.0
Removal
(%)
99.5
99.3
99.7
99.1
97.3
Source: USEPA, 1990m
TABLE B-22. COMPARISON OF LAB AND PILOT X*TRAX™ TESTS USING
PCB-CONTAMINATED SOILS
Matrix
Sand
Silt/clay
System
scale
Lab
Pilot
Lab
Pilot
Run ID
number
RS0829
RS0727
GR0524
GR0810
Amount
(Ib)
19
4,958
31
4,584
Feed
(ppm)
5,100
1,480
962
2,800
Product
(ppm)
9.7
8.7
21
19
Source: USEPA, 1990m
B-35
-------
TABLE B-23. PILOT X*TRAX™
TSCA TESTING - VENT EMISSIONS
Total hydrocarbons
(Dom-V)
Run
number
0914
0919
0921
0926
0929
Before
carbon
1,320
1,031
530
2,950
2,100
After
carbon
57
72
34
170
180
Removal
(%)
95.6
93.0
93.3
94.2
91.4
VOC
(Ib/day)
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.07
0.08
PCB*
(mg/m3)
<0.00056
< 0.00055
<0.00051
< 0.0005,8
< 0.00052
* - OSHA permits 0.50 mg/m3 PCB (1254) for 8-hr exposure.
Source: USEPA, 1990m
Vapor Extraction System (VES)--
The VES uses a low-temperature, fluidized bed. It can remove volatile and semivolatile
organics, including PCBs, PAHs, and PCP, volatile inorganics, and some pesticides from soil, sludge,
and sediment. In general, the process treats wastes containing less than 5 percent total organic
contaminants and 30 to 90 percent solids. Nonvolatile inorganic contaminants (such as metals) in the
waste feed do not inhibit the process, but are not removed by this process.
• American Toxic Disposal, Inc. has developed a VES which feeds contaminated materials into
a co-current, fluidized bed, where they are mixed with hot gas (about 320°F) from a gas-fired
heater. Direct contact between the waste material and the hot gas volatizes water and
contaminants from the waste into the gas stream, which flows out of the dryer to a gas
treatment system where dust and organic vapors are removed from the gas stream. A cyclone
separator and baghouse then remove most of the particulates in the stream. Vapors from the
cyclone separator are cooled in a venturi scrubber, counter-current washer, and chiller section
before they are treated in a vapor-phase carbon adsorption system. The liquid residues are
clarified and passed through two activated carbon beds, arranged in series. Clarified sludge
is centrifuged, and the liquid residue is also passed through carbon beds.
B-36
-------
By-products from the VES treatment include as follows: 96 to 98 percent of a solid waste feed
exits as clean, dry dust; a small quantity of pasty sludge containing organics; a small quantity
of spent adsorbent carbon; wastewater that may need further treatment; and small quantities
of baghouse and cyclone dust.
EPA is currently locating a demonstration site for this process. Harbor or river sediments
containing at least 50 percent solids and contaminated with PCBs and other volatile or
semivolatile organics is the scheduled feed (USEPA, 1989h).
Pyrolysis-
Pyrolysis is a thermal process which destroys organic materials in the absence of oxygen at a
high temperature so that toxic organic constituents are reduced to elemental gases and water vapor.
The absence of oxygen allows separation of the waste into a gaseous organic fraction and an inorganic
fraction (salts, metals, participates) as char. The process conditions range from pure heating (ther-
molysis) to conditions in which only slightly less than the theoretically necessary quantity
(stoichiometric) of air is supplied. Gases are the principle product generated by the pyrolytic reaction,
although ash can also result (USEPA, 1988b). Because of lack of oxygen, PCBs are not incinerated,
but they do break down into gaseous hydrogen, chlorine, hydrochloric acid, and a free-flowing, solid
waste containing carbon (Sullivan, 1989).
• The pyrolytic incineration process marketed by Midland Ross Corporation is a two-step process.
In the first step, waste material is decomposed at 1000 to 1400°F in the absence of air, or
oxygen into an organic gaseous fraction and an inorganic solid fraction. In the second step,
the organic fraction is fed into a high-temperature, direct-fired incinerator operated at 2200°F,
where hazardous components are destroyed and clean, decontaminated gases are sent to an
energy recovery device (USEPA, 1988b). Feed material must be predried and screened to 35
mesh or smaller. This process achieves DREs exceeding 99.99999 percent.
This technology is commercially available, and has been used at RCRA facilities. However, its
application to CERCLA wastes has not been commercially demonstrated. Costs are estimated
at about $900/m3, including dredging, transport, treatment, and redeposition (Sullivan, 1989).
B-37
-------
Wet Air Oxidation (WAO)--
WAO is a thermal treatment technology that breaks down suspended and dissolved oxidizable
inorganic and organic materials by oxidation in a high temperature, high pressure, aqueous
environment. WAO is used primarily to treat biological wastewater treatment sludges. It has potential
for application to concentrated liquid or sludge waste streams containing organic and oxidizable
inorganic wastes that are not readily biodegradable. WAO is particularly well-suited to the treatment
of organic waste streams that are too diluted (less than 5 percent organics) to treat economically by
incineration. Highly-chlorinated species, such as PCBs, are too stable for complete destruction without
the addition of catalysts or the use of very high pressure and temperature (USEPA, 1987a). Bench-
scale testing of WAO on Indiana Harbor sediments indicated a 52 percent removal efficiencies for PCBs
(USEPA, 1989g).
• The EcoLogic process uses hydrogen at elevated temperatures to reduce, rather than to
oxidize, chlorinated organics. Since there is no free oxygen in the reducing atmosphere, no
dioxin or furan formation is possible. Since combustion air is not required, there is no nitrogen
to use up reactor volume and heat, resulting in much smaller reactor than in an incinerator
handling the same throughput. Bench-scale tests have shown that a well-mixed combination
of hydrogen and chlorinated organic waste, subjected to 850°C or higher for a period of 1
second, will result in 99.9999% or better destruction. A field test of this process is scheduled
at a harbor project for the. Canadian Department .of Defence. Capital and operating costs are
predicted to be 3 to 10 times lower than incineration technologies with comparable capacities
(Hallett, 1990).
• The Taciuk process uses heat to separate organics from sediment. This process has been
chosen to treat the sediments in Waukegan (ID Harbor, which are heavily contaminated with
PCBs. The process is expected to remove more than 97% of the PCBs from the treated
sediment. The remediation is in progress now at this site. Originally developed to extract oil
from oil sands and oil shales, the process feeds sediments into a preheated zone where water
and light hydrocarbons are extracted in an anaerobic environment. A second, hotter zone
extracts PCBs and other heavy hydrocarbons. The PCBs are not degraded by the process, but
they are separated from the sediments; they can then be deposited in a hazardous waste
landfill or treated further by incineration or any other means (Sullivan, 1989).
B-38
-------
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION
RECORDS OF DECISION (1982-1989)
-------
-------
X-N
O
o
ntinued)
_^
ro
•
CO
s
It
I
o'
"S
•
rt
ro
n
CO
2
_£•
1
TJ TJ
o n
co m
CO »
2m
3C »
(0
il
rt (0
to 3
to"-
0
-t»
-*>
i
to
rt
(D
Q.
1
CO
0)
•l
3
_^
_»
•
CO
n>
— i
n
c
CO
rt
ID
•o
rt
CO
^f
m
•— 3>
ID -J
§.§
o'
O
iromium,
°
a
-K
i cat ion
O *O O9 •>!
• • • •
yo TO o o
O ID rt
co i rt n
ID CO 0> O
O rt 3
0 — -.. 3
— < O
co ID »o n
T3 * -
8 3 ? 3
01 ^ co m
— _co
2 z
rt ar
i
rt CO < — 1 r- CO
o fl) o o ID rt>
'—3 O m OJ 3
S S -i° " ^ N
•• *• r> co ••
X TJ W* *W T3
S*" 3* jo
co rs to ~o
§ >
S o -M
CO CO
CO
3 "2.5 3 g"
o fit rn o ^~
rt) E! Q. o 3
01 D n o>
it rh 3" rt fll
S' 5" O' rt
3 T 3 "I
3 O
0) rt
rt -«.
S §
1
o
3
t
CO
(D
co — » w r\j
W (D «O (P W
§ i' § li
3 3
^^ CO ^f CO
0 0
Q} Q}
a a
O* m -P* OJ ro — »
• «....
z z :E o n m
*< 0 0 3- to 0)
N o is — o o_
O» Q 0 fl> 3
1 S " m "°
3- JO 0 m 3 3
—*• W O T 3 C
Ot Q. rt) O -3*
^— 3 - -i 3'
g > o m g
0) O
I o
D) T
o' -
D 3:
to
E.
-h
>
3O TJ-O 3O -DOO •— -D 0>-D
OT STO IDT >fl) ID> ~3>
f^CQ (Dm rtCQ =C3 0>3C C03:
0)0) 3 - 0)0) CON Q.C4 IDCO
• — 3 O ^~3"»ID •• 3"
CO — 1 CO -. 3 -•
O COO O CUID TJ O13
_co«m con- s S
3 rt 3> 3 —.-m o' o'
O 0) 3= O O - -•• —i
n • — co n Q. Q.
CD W - CQ TJ ID ID
0) ID O CO 01
3 TJ 3 m « »
o' S o'
CO CO CO
O CO O to —t •—
1 I 1 1 1 1
Q. _JI Q) Q)
DJ (D ^- O r+ rt
rt X QJ Q) — . —.
fl) ri ^ 3
a § =:
0 CQ
CO
ID
Q.
CO
1
a>
Ul _>
o vn ui
§0 0
o o
CO
^'
ID
1
TO
(D
CQ
O
Contaminan
CO
|
w
if
1
CO
ro o
D. c
3' 3
ID r+
3 —
rt rt
CO -<
^ 9
c
^
S
03
I—
?
§1
" 5
i>
m ^
~* n
0 -n
is
-i °
S to
go
z
/-\
s
CO
v^
C-l
-------
s
o" 5>
*
c S •- c - - 3
flj c E ••- » O ••-
UJ
f
. s
O —* —'
Q. LU (0 —'
O O (Q
O) *r- L.
•O C E O
*- »- «- C\J
C-2
-------
f:
•
CO
0)
3.
•«
o
T
0)
0)
3.
CO
rt
f
3
^
Organics, metals
(continued)
z
0
D)
r»
rt
§
Ul
•
o
s.
o
ID
f
to
CO
•o
o
to
m
^~
i
^
TJ J»
OO CO
CO ID
o'
CO
Incineration
IV)
•
3
O
-3
ID
ID
O
|
TJ
>
^
PCBs, PAHs,
inorganics, metals
On-site consoli
Q.
0)
rtf
o'
m
3.
r>
^
o
•o
-" O
• •
i— i—
-.. IB
CO O
rt- E
O 3
ID TJ
7) CO
S ?.
a. n
3 fr
O -
s
*"* ^^
Pesticides
TCE, PCE, metals
Anaerobic biode
No action
CO
-3
Q.
0)
3
•O
•
r-
s»
0
ST
-3
ID
BO
§
g
|~|
2
?
§"
1
ID
Land farming
at -»
S. oo
CO O
m o
D. o
S oT
3 O
rt -"
Ul Ul
00 -J
• •
=c o
0) -3
-3 0)
< 7T
ID ID
i n
7S 3-
3 ID
rt — •
rt O
0)
• >
m
M Ml
Benzene, toluene,
TCE, xylenes, PAHs
phenols, arsenic,
chromium, lead
VOCs, metals, PCBs
inorganics
Incineration
Off-site dispos
fl)
^~
to to ro
•— n> ui
vrf 3 fO
rt
Q) O
3.=
UJ
•
I
0)
CO
CO
ID
co'
a
•
^
"
•- TJ < 00
Q. CO -< N
TJ O (D
O ^r"»
CO 5" rt
"22-
O
CO
Incineration wi
of ash prior to
rt
Q. 3"
—l
SCO
w
*-gi
ID
CO
a.
8
rt
S
g
CAJ OJ
Ul 4>
• •
CD >
(D -J
.3 -1
to
CO 9
0> ID
3. S-
T3 r-
—. fl)
-: i
> r-
-~
O
m
M *"""
=
VOCs, inorganics,
metals
PCE, 1,1-DCE,
1,1,1-TCA
No action
Incineration
UI
•
o
-3
0
•~
-<
~
TJ <
n o
co o
CO CO
i
rt
0)
CO
Solidification
co
o
o
o
Ul Ul UI
ro -» o
< CO CO
— T3 o
3 IB C
Q 3 rt
r— O 3"
01 ID
3 00
ID « r
-" z o'
0 c_ *-
Q)
r— 1—
• O)
^
Z Q.
C. -ti
jm
c_
»— t 1— « »— *
Metals, arsenic
£ Z Z
moo
rt
ID 0) fl>
-3 O 0
rt rt
| i" i"
s
rt
Q>
O
rt
S
R
§
(A
rt
fD
D
EU
i
i
^
ID
CO
§
Contaminants
RODs selected r
t
CO
If
§' 3
rt
r* rt
CO X
O ~4»
i
CD
r-
m
o
i
ra
o
rt
C-3
-------
115
S
8.
i-
8. S. .5
C
-------
.8.
~"*J ™*J *"J
3C 3£ 2
CO O O
f S S
1
o' 1-1 Z
3
*
-Q QJ — 1 TO T7 — 1 CD
>> -j o ro > o ro
^ . co m D z m D
co ro * N to - N
-•• X 3 T7 3
o *•< ro o o ro
- .— * 3-00*
§-» co
rt- O * it
O 3 O
| ,<" E 1 1 c
§~" o ro o ro
OO •• r— i — •«
-to ro co
*. fl> ^
sr a
s.
-K tO W C/>
O •— O O
o" n S! S!
3" O O
rr so Q) 0)
•< to rt rt
to o o
S 5* D D
r— O Q> fl>
~> 2 3
i ro a. Q.
co ro ^ ^°
— • o n
s •§ -s
Ul — »
T\J UI M
O O O
O O O
S Di
r~ r~
D) Q)
?! 5"
ro CD
rn o_
s &
S*— i
z
(r
rt-
'~
.j.
(D
CO
1—
•^ ^
§ §
O O
CO CO
S 5
CO CO
0)
co"
* ?
—. CO
2 8
s 1
CL
m
rt
I'
w
1
CO
rt
0)'
m
X
s
CO
to
r~
to
g.
^Jj
r-*
o
3C
^
O
T
CO
CD
3
CO
I
CD
-
CO t»
m
13
CO
_i
3*
ro
i
rt
reatmen
rt
1
CO
o
Q.
-h
r»*
0)
rt
§'
Ul
o
§
s
m
a:
(A
O
3"
I'
r—
to
E.
-h
^
^
O
^
oj "^ ro
SS3
i.-M §
>., phenol,
pesticides,
co'
•§
CO
a>
3'
ST
H.
-h
O
O
r^ ^
•O 00
m oo
I. ^
O CA
3-
§co
CD
—i rt
rt
o'
3
5
^ ^
< 3
O ID
O rt
CA 01
CA
O
00 O
CO «<
CO
CD
3
o'
CO
O CO
3 0_
CA —
rt -"
ID -»•
2" S'
CA rt
"i S'
s 3
D>
3
Q.
70
^f
1
Ul
Ul
o
"•J Ov
> IM
-1 ID
-3 r-
o •—
s- §
IB Q
s. £
70 -n
IB r-
-h
|
;*
i
< <
g ?
o ta
CO 0)
o'
> CO
- I
•— rt
ro Q)
Q) r-
CL
? I1
W T
rt £D
IB •—
—• Q.
S S
I i
0) rt
— o'
O 3
3
ro
o
M O
Ul O
O O
O
Ul
'y.
rt
IB
3"
IB
CO
rt
ID
O
TJ
rt
CA
•n
l—
^
t> 00
S3
CA N
• rganics
3E
O
rt
B
ft
CO
3
rt
CO
•n
fl>
•?
^
^
CA
O
00
CO
IB
8.
3
3
"3
Q)
rt
|
CO
o
o!
-h
o'
CD
rt
§'
Ul
"<=
O
CO
rt
IB
3
1
»
IB
to
O
3
n
o
3
Q>
3
1
rt
CA
70
§
CO
CO
ro
ro~
o
rt
S.
-J
ro
-i-
CA
IB JO
Q. C
t3
rt
CO X
^ 0
O -t>
c
-,
r-
m
o
i
o
§
rt
3
C
S.
C-5
-------
|
4«*
g
U
6
_ i
"§.
3
«4- 0
O V
>. w
•M 4-»
Tj
CO
I
g
t_
•g
4J
'S
u
to
8
C£
u>
±»
e
1
g
0)
i
CJ
4-*
CO
g-
D. «
CD <
u n:
u
CJ T3
06 1
?
CD CD
to
1 I!
1 1
"3 -ti
W CO
s 1
g"
04
"3 T3
•» 4-» CD
CO 0)
O •— •
••- UJ
§o -
CA 1— CO
cn cj m
°i £%
•• cn CD <»
CO t. M CO
u o c a:
O C CU <
>•.- CD Q.
> >
ac a:
o >->
2 1
*• Q
1 1
5^
—1 J=
4-»
X C
01 'i-
z z
, ,
f2 &
•g
ca
'o
CO --N
CD O
O 1*-
xcT 3)
*— CO
g
4J
a.
o
T3
§2
"io •—
CO 4-*
Ol
•** §3
CO 4J O
*4- 3 — •
•4- O O
O _J M-
co
CO
u
o_
in co
CJ CD
g s
> >
tT
o
C-
co
c
ID
cn
0)
3
1
O CD
— • TJ
— ' t-
•r- 10
* 1
0 0
, ,
o *-
CO CO
4-1
CO
,J~
J=
'3
g
4-1
ID
o c
CO O
O 4J
U CD
o£
*j ^2
CO C-
t 4-*
CO
ll
4-1 "U
PCE, TCE, m
pesticides,
>
o
c
CO
Q.
,
CM
CO
ID
|
0)
4->
C/)
H-
H-
o
*3
t_
.C
U
I
CO
g
>
3
f
O
_s
1
,
3
0)
c
o
g
1
"o
CO
g
CJ
CA
u
ca
D)
c_
UJ*
>
u
c
ro
1
0)
Q£
L.
s
,
a
o
CD
tn
^_7
g
ca
c_
g
u
c
OJ
*-»
CO
ci
*
o o
.g'E
a\ r- ni
01 U
3 » ID
— • UJ
0 CJ -
4-» 1— tfl
CD
Ol C >'€
N 0» CO O
C -. z t-
0) >-< -E
CD X O. O
>
O
1
CO
4-1
C/>
,
in
CO
o o
0 0
-a- oj
cT
_^
(0
CO
Dl R
C CO 0
!c T3 'ij
CO CD
ID 01 C.
34-* 01
•— C
•D CO •—
1 cS .5
SCO
3C
O_ CA
03 .-§
O Ol •--
•E g.2
tt) N 4J CA
co c co m
i_ Ol 01 U
> >
_J
c?
o
CD
c_
o
Q. Z
^ C. »-i
0 0
CJ -
* _/ w
CD CD CO
0) o —
—I «r- f_
E a.
a. 01 u
ID JZ 01
t- CJ 4-1
u c
CO — ' UJ
o
"O O .Q
01 ••- 01
4-» CO N
ill
• • •
*O h- CO
CO CO CO
c
o
CD
•g
L.
0) C
0) O
"8 -z
s _s
01 T
— TJ
1 — 1
c o
O CO
CO
CD
4-1
.0 1
C "D *
o ca co
r/} 0} 3=
Phenols, ar
chromium, I
Benzene, PA
_ _
x
(U
CO
I 1
CO
> s
O CO
— ' CD
CJ 3
^
Ll_ tO
t- 'CD
< CO
, „
CN CD
CO O
CO
•g
§.
4-*
w
g
c °
o cn
•— C
*-• IP-
2 ±
C H-
••- Jtl
U U
C ID
•-> CO
CA
O
'E
CO ID
ZC D)
0- O
I-* l-l
<
1
ID" 3
O
3 •
O t-
*^ Ol
o
-------
o
|
I
i
o
o
3
00
0>
S
fl>
-J
CO
3"
O
ID
ol
(D
ST
(fl
X
3 T7
3 S
O JO
l"-o
• >
a:
_p. 01
to
N ID
as-
Q. •—
— 3
to i
O —•
Srt
C
-"s
zl?
•§"
o7 o
as
D.
w'o
1^
01 3
-1
to
o
(D
.
oo
o
8
o
i
D3
"1
Q)
Sf
Jo
g
X
r>
00
to
01
Q.
5_
o
0}
3.
-a
o
T3
ro
rf
•"<
S
5
01
Q.
9: °
TJ to
O -••
tD rf
0) ID
rt
O
ia
ID
o
^
S.
§
1
to
rt
ID
0 O
O >O
CO 3
C —
-I 3
IT. Jo7
5 ^
rf t/)
O rf
= c
O ^N
rf O
(D U
3 3
O
ffl Q-
S 1
a> co
0) DJ
§^^
rf
rf ffl
^
|
to -A
B o
^^ to
o
D>
a
»
f
•u
(D
rt
r~
fi}
q-
o
-t
01
rf
0
-J
1
3
O
S
Xylene,
organoc
arsenic
3"
5"S
O (D
-J CO
-•• rf
ro o*
•o
to
3
ID
-J
01
rt
o'
3
00
Ul
O
•o
z
0
rt
3"
r>
01
01
o
8.
ID
CO
rt
ID
rt
—1
X
S
i*"
3
1
rf
O
1
*
00
1
. W
O O C
*"* 5 "^
* ~i *<
to
X -1 -"
•
7s~ ^
Q)
D)
X
< S <
n oo 0) x ro 3 -o
3" Q "I *< ID ID O
13 to ?• 3 rt 00
ON ID ID N Ol W
3 JD 3 3 ID J--
-•• 3 -*• ID 3 tfl
C (D O • (D O
» -u i—
•— > 3C O
ID z tfl r- c
01 tO •• C 01
O_- ID tO
TJ 3 rt
01 O ID ID
3
S
o'
*
r> co co
i 2. sr
rt •— CT
2. E ^
3 to N
S 3-01
rt 3* —
in o
to —»
n 4N
d. o
n o
3 O
rt
to
O
01
H.
CO
rt
ID
i
o'
Contamil
3
3
rt
to
TO
8
to
(D
8-
rf
S.
I
ro
•<•
to
— M Q)
3 3
Q rt
rt rt
to -<
*-\ O
o -t.
c
-
—1
>
m
r-
n
r1
n
§
rf
to
Q.
C-7
-------
§
g i
•8
S
2 g
8
C-8
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINANT GROUP CONSTITUENTS
-------
-------
OXH — » to — * w cr
=En> fi. "S. 2 N> « HN>-»3io3'-; OODOO~*°
i i ii 1 i-i i ^ §! I'^t 1 1 1 1 1 1 s i
3* ^* ^ A Q} U O CD £$" 3 O O CO CD O
Q. M";^.3D T- fflCO "D
ij" -LO^'CDCDm^ ®
§£T "O (D z: CD 3
• f S S 3
3" 2 °
° 3
§ Si
3"
0)
3
MM^oooooororonjrorororororo>>
£isi-i|||f|filllli|||
CO|O^jr3"tt3^ "^ft*3"cDSooT ®
CD^";±£ra3fl> T^3o-i^^!3? 3
•~~ ^ 3 ^- ~* JET — ! ^ ^ — ^ 3 QJ CD rj /f
CD CD 3 3^ 0) D) ^ ^* <^ 2s. 033^*
CD(D^.fflrt § ^-^ * 1" 1" S
"O CD i-t- 3" CD CD
CD CD m"
3 r=f
?£>>>> | sssssss;? s ciss'g'^f i5 r ?
3§|=S2. » coojeooocoencotD jo o 2! s! — c? §• 5- 9" cS §"
O2: (Jo'S-O 2. ?>>>>>>> 2. 3 3 3 §' °" B> O 3 S
2. §S II ? w§l§§§§si is^^gs^'f ^ s
0-2. « go. o 5-3-3-3-3-3-3-:r o*^.o-i:o' 5- ?
5 s: 3 22222252 2o"s3 0 ,„ §
O CD fi ^*S.^.S.-2-S.i.^l. rrSSx S ^ A
co in"
. . tit
o
o
3
CD
Q.
o
Z
0
opropane
,,
o
CD
3
B>
•o
CD
O
Z
0
omethane
TJ
3"
CD
3
O
o
i
(fi
1
01
O
Z
0
o"
3
f-
3
f
T3
3"
CD
3
O
O
Z
0
oethane
M
3
5
T3
3"
CD
3
O.
3-
O
O
Z
0
obenzene
^
CD
•£T
I
1.
CO
CD
CD
.
C
3
o
Z
0
odibromome'
•^
0)
3
CD
V
CD
g:
•5"
I
1.
5"
O ro
2J 3
2- 3
omethane
>n tetrachlori
Q.
CD
to to
ii
nethylpher
litrophenol
o_
CD §
O °-
c
ro
3
1
o
3
o
3
W
O_
CO
ro
CO*
C
ro
3
odichloromel
3-
0)
CD
ro
CD
O
o'
m
2.
Q.
CO
CD
o'
X
fi)
0
(fi
m
I
CD
O.
O
a
^.
5"
Z
o
eg
logenated
M
CD
3
O_
Q>
A
CD
0)
1
CD
i
o
57
H
00
m
0
m
X
S
i—
m
to
O
Tl
O
O
K^
H
H
C
m
to
H
I
2
to
m
0
33
o
C
TJ
to
D-l
-------
•a
0)
O
O
Q
UJ
tt
§
E
fi
1
0
Nonmatallic '
|
c
0
•5
1
W
•o
e
|
Q
Z
Halogenated Samlvolatile*
Buorine
69
1
}
|
5
2-chlorophenol
•|
£
1 1 JlEll-fil^
1 1 Illfllllll
U Z <i § § •§ §• E §•'='= = 5 '= 'E '=
»-En:£J2cMZcMco4z c c c
09 £ ^ 0 •-
.1 1 11 1
1 » fe^-s. 4L
f 00 E-g?? 09 1
p §._ o-o i §?I §••! i^
IfiljffifH.l^
iriiliiiiiiifi
^o 1° 00-go^o-g.g g-£
jc-y 6£^'c-cj:j:x 0 o o o
O-£-k-u»4-'4-'oooCZk-k-k-
5ii8§ri.*.333!!£!
''"ffl»S'S*^'M«M-Q000
cs x a o. H CM" CM" B a B 4 4 CM 4
1
m
manthrem
C
CM
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Potassium
1
a.
Vi
a
Hexachlorobenzene
Selenium
09
C
_09
1
-3.
C
-C
0.
Hexachlorobutadiene
Sodium
1 ,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Vanadium
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)phthalate
ci
N
09
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)ether
1 ,2-bis(2-chloroethoxy)ethan
D-2
-------
Phosphides
Hydrazine
x < ^ )^ >>
UfHHii§iltii|iU§&
*ii»°tmf ffifliipi
S s- 8 * §• -igsgii'i a
•i *-u s -IP
3 a TIT w
o c?
D O
(D ^
0
H"D^^XXrnrnrnmmrnrno^^±kODOCDOOCD^
O D> ?? ffi O» CO ^. 5- 3 3 3 3 3 S* V V V 3" X I I X
g SSslll.fi:-§:oo§-|***o9099i:
f f 1 1 II S 3 S = 1 1 1 i" § § § I" 1 i: 1 1 =
I = 1§°°I If si"? Hmmi|sf»i-
i 5 f f i=- g
§ § 3 S- |
f ' S ' ' •
I | g.g g o?^ f o 9 ?£>?§•?
'Ill KtiUUitft
w =•»» o • ^ 5 "0 S 5S
111 f f |. f| i:
l:cfl | | HI II
^"^ § ' I'Sr "S
fi 0 < «
=. =• 0
s ^ i
• 5'
Nonhalogenated
2.
o
A
8
1
«
Radioactives
oo
m
O
o
o
rt.
5"
D-3
-------
-------
-------
------- |