&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

-------

-------

-------

-------