United States
          Environmental Protection
           Office of Research and
           Washington, DC 20460
November 1990
Workshop on Innovative
Technologies for
Treatment of Contaminated
June 13-14,1990

Summary Report

                                          November  1990
                June 13-14,1990

              SUMMARY REPORT

              Roxanne Breines Sukol
               Gregory D. McNelly
               PEI Associates, Inc.
              Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
             Contract No. 68-03-3413
            Work Assignment No. 2-66
            Work Assignment Manager

              Jonathan G. Herrmann
Water and Hazardous Waste Treatment Research Division
        Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
              Cincinnati, Ohio  45268
  This workshop was conducted in cooperation with the
   Office of Water Regulations and Standards and the
         Great Lakes National Program Office
             CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
                                               Printed on Recycled Paper

      The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3413,
Work Assignment No. 2-66 to PEI Associates, Inc.  It has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been approved for publication
as an  EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

      Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial
products and practices frequently carry with them the increased generation of
materials that, if improperly dealt with, can threaten both public health and the
environment.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by
Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a
mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and
implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and
the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life.  These laws direct the  EPA
to perform research to define our environmental problems, measure the impacts,
and search for solutions.

      The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible for planning,
implementing, and  managing research, development, and demonstration programs
to provide an authoritative, defensible engineering basis in support of the policies,
programs, and regulations of the EPA with respect to drinking water, wastewater,
pesticides, toxic substances, solid  and hazardous wastes, and Superfund-related
activities. This publication is one of the products of that research and provides a
vital communication link between the researcher and the user community.

      This report provides a summary of the presentations and panel discussions
from the Workshop on Innovative Technologies for Treatment of Contaminated  Sed-
iments, which was  conducted on June 13-14, 1990, in Cincinnati, Ohio.  The
intended audience  for this summary comprises those individuals and organizations
involved in the remediation of contaminated sediments at sites throughout the
United States.
                              E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
                              Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory

      The Workshop on Innovative Technologies for Treatment of Contaminated
Sediments was held in Cincinnati, Ohio, on June 13-14, 1990. Its twofold purpose
was 1) to provide interested individuals and organizations with current information
on innovative treatment technologies for contaminated sediments, and 2) to provide
the Risk Reduction  Engineering Laboratory (RREL) staff with an opportunity to
increase their understanding of the problems associated with the management of
contaminated sediments treatment at various locations throughout the United

      The workshop was organized into six segments related to policy and tech-
nology development. "Setting the Scene" included presentations by representatives
from RREL, ERA'S Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS), ERA'S Great
Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), Environment Canada, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE).  The succeeding four segments were entitled "Dredged
Materials Removal,  Pretreatment and  Disposal," "Extraction Technologies," "Bio-
logical/Chemical Treatment Technologies," and "Other Technologies of Interest."
This Workshop Summary  Report contains summaries of each presentation and
panel discussion.  The final segment of the workshop consisted of an open discus-
sion on "Future Direction for Contaminated Sediments Treatment." The questions
raised by attendees covered overall approaches to pollution prevention and forth-
coming strategies, development of criteria for action and target levels, monitoring
requirements, cost/benefit concerns, short-term versus long-term considerations,
and characterization of ecosystems. The open discussion is summarized in the
final report section.

      This document covers the period of April. 1990 to July 1990, and work was
completed as of September 1990.


                  Workshop structure
                  Summary report format
2.    Summary of Presentations and Discussions

            2.1    Setting the scene
            2.2    Dredged materials removal, pretreatment, and disposal
            2.3    Extraction technologies
            2.4    Biological/chemical treatment technologies
            2.5    Other technologies of interest

3.    Open Discussion:  Future Direction for Contaminated Sediments

            3.1    Introduction to open discussion
            3.2    Assessment of sediment quality and development of a
                   sediment management strategy
            3.3    Identification of applicable technologies
            3.4    Miscellaneous points

      A  Agenda - Workshop on innovative technologies for treatment
          of contaminated sediments




      B  List of workshop attendees


Number                                                            Page

 1         Priority Consideration Areas Technology Status Summary           9

 2         Sediment Quality Assessment Methods                         35

      Mr. Jack Greber served as PEI's Project Director, and Ms. Judy Hessling
served as Assistant Project Director.  Ms. Roxanne Breines Sukol was the Project
Manager. PEI acknowledges the guidance and assistance of RREL's Work Assign-
ment Manager Mr. Jonathan Herrmann, EPA's Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office, and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in support of the development of the workshop summary report.

      This document has been printed on recycled paper.

                                 SECTION 1

1.1    Background

      The Workshop on Innovative Technologies for Treatment of Contaminated Sed-
iments was held in Cincinnati, Ohio, on June 13-14, 1990. This workshop, which was
developed and organized by the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL), was
conducted at the request EPA's Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS).
Its two-fold purpose was 1) to provide interested individuals and organizations with
current information on innovative treatment technologies for contaminated sediments,
and 2) to provide RREL staff with an opportunity to improve their understanding of the
problems associated with the management of contaminated sediments at various loca-
tions throughout the United States. Some of the technologies discussed at the work-
shop are potential candidates for remediation of contaminated sediments under the
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program, which is
sponsored by EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO).  Significant con-
tributions to the workshop were also made by GLNPO and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE).

1.2    Workshop Structure

      Individual presentations were made by representatives of the workshop's major
contributing organizations, each of whom is recognized as  an expert in one or more of
the various fields related to  innovative treatment technologies or contaminated sedi-
ments management. In keeping with the goal of providing  workshop attendees with
the most up-to-date information available, workshop organizers decided to schedule
panel discussions at regular intervals throughout the workshop.  The intent of the pan-
el discussions was to encourage a free exchange  of information so as to maximize the
opportunities to obtain useful information.  Section 2 presents a summary of each
presentation and a summary of each panel discussion.

      Finally, an open discussion was held among all workshop attendees, presenters
and organizers. Its primary purpose was to provide a forum for workshop attendees

to give feedback to the workshop organizers concerning the attendees' own informa-
tion requirements for the selection and application of contaminated sediments treat-
ment technologies. Section 3 presents a summary of the open discussion.

1.3   Summary Report Format

      This summary report is organized as follows.  Section 2 contains summaries of
each of the individual presentations and panel discussions. Section 3 provides a
summary of the open discussion that was held as the final session of the workshop.
Appendix A is the  workshop agenda, and Appendix B is a listing of workshop atten-
dees.  No formal papers were presented at the workshop.  The information contained
herein is based on recordings and notes taken throughout the workshop.

                                  SECTION 2

2.1   Setting the Scene

2.1.1  Welcome and Challenge to the Participants
      John Convery, U.S. EPA, RREL

      The scope of the contaminated sediments problem encompasses ecological
damage, potential human health risks, and high cleanup costs. A total of 362 toxic
chemicals have been identified in the bottom sediment of the Great Lakes.  Fish and
birds exhibit tangible effects of this pollution in disease, tumors, and deformities, but
adequate health and ecological risks have not been quantified. It is estimated that
remediation of Great Lakes sediments could cost $10 billion. It would entail treatment
of 40 million cubic yards of material at costs ranging from $10 to $1500 per cubic

      Sediment/contaminant interaction determinants include the type and  amount of
clay, cation exchange capacity, organic content, pH, active iron and manganese,
oxidation-reduction conditions, and salinity. Generally, fine-grained sediments and
organic fractions are the most contaminated because of their greater surface area and
their higher organic content.  Interstitial water  content can approach 90 percent, which
necessitates extensive screening or dewatering pretreatment.

      Dewatering techniques include gravity thickening, plate and frame filter press,
centrifugation, vacuum filtration, belt filter press; followed by filtrate treatment.  These
are pretreatment steps that in no way remediate actual contamination.  Remediation
technologies include in-place capping, in situ  solidification, confined aquatic disposal,
solidification, in situ vitrification, supercritical oxidation, chemical dehalogenation, in-
cineration, biodegradation, and solvent extraction.

      The International Joint Commission Water Quality Board Sediment Sub-
committee has developed recommendations for the initial assessment of contaminated
sediment. Methods for such an assessment include physical, chemical, and biological
testing.  Physical tests include measurements of grain size, water content, organic
content, and pH.  Chemical tests include measurements for nutrients, metals, total

organic carbon, persistent organics, and oxygen-consuming contaminants.  Bioassay
tests measure the body burden of toxics in benthic invertebrates and bottom-dwelling
scavenging fish such as carp.  Benthic community diversity is also measured.

      The following amounts have  been spent by RREL during fiscal year 1990 for
soil treatment research that may be applicable to the cleanup of contaminated sedi-

      o     On-site technologies                                      $ 480,000
      o     In situ technologies                                         660,000
      o     Superfund Best Demonstrated Available Technology            653,000
      o     Combustion technologies                                    860,000
      o     Biosystems                                               2,101,000
      o     SITE Emerging                                             703,000
           SITE Demonstration                                        3,553,000
      o     Solidification/stabilization                                    550,000
      o     Release/emissions from underground storage tanks             300.000

            Total                                                    $9,860,000

      The goals of this workshop are twofold. The first goal is to develop an under-
standing of the extent to which contaminated sediments pose an environmental
problem. The  second  is to share information on innovative technologies for the
remediation of  contaminated sediments.

2.1.2  Overview of EPA Efforts on Contaminated Sediments
      Mike Conlon,  U.S. EPA,  OWRS

      Many EPA offices are currently involved in programs that address contaminated
sediments.  The Office of Research and Development (ORD) is  conducting vital
research. The  Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), which admini-
sters the Superfund program, is working on several  National Priority List sites with
highly contaminated sediments; OERR also takes emergency action in response to
spills that affect sediment. The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO)  is
administering a 5-year program entitled the ARCS Program to research and develop
methods for assessing and remediating contaminated sediments.  The Offices of
Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP) and Wetlands Protection  (OWP) and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) have jointly managed the disposal of dredged mate-
rials for many years. The Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS) is devel-
oping chemical-specific sediment criteria and tests that  measure the chronic toxicity of
sediments to freshwater species.

      Since 1988, the Office of Water (OW) has been charged  with coordinating  EPA
activities on contaminated sediment. In response to this mandate  in FY 89, OW ere-

ated the Sediment Steering Committee and the Sediment Technical Committee.

      The Sediment Steering Committee is chaired by the Assistant Administrator for
Water. Its members include key Office Directors, Deputy Assistant Administrators, and
Deputy Regional Administrators throughout the Agency. The Committee's objectives
are to develop a management strategy for contaminated sediments, to facilitate
resource commitments, to establish policy and interim guidance on sediment manage-
ment, and to develop a long-term research program.  In FY 89, the Steering Commit-
tee prepared a program summary report that identified existing Agency activities on
contaminated sediments and the need for sediment classification methods. The Com-
mittee prepared a Decision Document on current sediment decision-making processes
and an Issues Document on impediments to effective sediment management.  At a
meeting held in January 1990, the Steering Committee decided to commit resources
to the development of a comprehensive sediment management strategy.  An option
selection meeting is scheduled for the Fall of 1990.

      The objectives of the Sediment Technical Committee are to coordinate
research, technical, and field activities and to identify problem areas.  In 1989, the
Committee compiled a listing of sediment quality data surveys and a compendium of
sediment assessment methods. The compendium is now  being reviewed by the
Science Advisory Board.  The Committee is currently preparing a guidance document
on how to remediate contaminated sediments. This year, the Committee will also be
responding to the review of the Sediment Classification Methods Compendium by the
Science Advisory Board.

      Four work  groups were formed in February 1990 to assist in the preparation of
a sediment management strategy for the Steering Committee. The Assessment and
Identification of Risk Work Group is evaluating EPA's options for conducting a  national
inventory of sediment quality and for using a consistent approach to assessing sedi-
ment quality.  The Prevention Work Group is examining options on  how the NPDES
program and  pesticides and toxic substances programs might better  prevent
sediment contamination.  The Remediation Work Group is  focusing on how EPA pro-
grams might choose cleanup targets and make better use of EPA's authority to re-
quire such cleanups. The Work Group on Managing Dredged Materials is evaluating
EPA's position on 1) the relative roles of economics and environmental protection in
dredged materials management; and 2) whether the RCRA hazardous waste tests are
applicable to dredged materials.

      The work groups have formulated 14 draft issue papers (see Section 3.2).
Senior EPA managers will  be briefed on these sediment issues in September prior to
the Steering Committee's option selection meeting.

2.1.3. The GLNPO Program and Contaminated Sediments Management
      Paul Horvatin, U.S. EPA, GLNPO

      The U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) is involved with
tracking the progress of remediation at 30 of the 42 Great Lakes Areas of Concern
(AOCs) located in the United States. Contaminated sediment exists at all 42 sites, and
41 are identified as having serious  contaminated sediment problems.  Three hundred
sixty-two toxic substances have been found in the lake system, and such pollution has
largely superseded nutrient loading and eutrophication as the most severe form of
degradation. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), one of the most toxic and bio-
accumulative families of compounds, are present  in many of the AOCs and have been
measured at concentrations of  4300 ppm at Sheboygan Harbor in Wisconsin,  and
much greater than this at Waukegan Harbor, Illinois.

      Both the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) and the Clean Water
Act Amendments of 1987 direct GLNPO to assume a leading role on the Great Lakes
contaminated sediment issue.  Annex 14 of GLWQA gives GLNPO the following

      o     To identify the nature and extent of sediment pollution in the Great Lakes

      o     To develop methods  to evaluate the impact of polluted sediment.

      o     To develop and demonstrate remediative technologies.
      The 1987 Clean Water Act Amendments authorized GLNPO to initiate the
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program.  The
ARCS Program is a 5-year study and demonstration project at five priority AOCs.

      Another GLNPO activity is assisting States in developing Remedial Action Plans
(RAPs) for AOCs.  In addition, GLNPO conducts harbor and estuary sediment
sampling to identify problem areas and pollution sources.

      A future plan involves sediment sampling away from nearshore areas of the
Great Lakes.  This will facilitate mass balance modeling and allow development of
Lakewide Management Plans as required by GLWQA and the 1987 Clean Water Act
Amendments. This work is coordinated with the U.S.  EPA Office of Research and
Development Laboratories in Duluth, Minnesota, and Grosse lie, Michigan.

      Other new initiatives focus on:

      o     The importance of contaminated sediments to the overall problem of
            toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes.

      o     The significance of pollutant contributions made or potentially made by
            ground water that is discharged to the Great Lakes.

      o     The significance of pollutants deposited in the Great Lakes from the

      o     The development of a Geographic Information System to integrate ex-
            isting data bases and to provide for analyses of multimedia information in
            Great Lakes problems.

2.1.4  The Canadian Experience With Contaminated Sediments
      Ian Orchard, Environment Canada

      There are 17 Areas of Concern (AOCs) designated for cleanup in Canada--12
are solely under Canadian jurisdiction and 5 are jointly managed by Canada and the
United States.  The Ontario Region office of the Environmental Protection Division of
Environment Canada has the lead from the federal government in matters relating to
contaminated sediment.  Whereas eight U.S. States border the Great Lakes, only one
Canadian province (Ontario) borders the  system. This facilitates a streamlining of
efforts toward remediation and prevention.  The Ontario Region office's Ports,
Harbors, and Dredging Program addresses contaminated sediments.

      Two documents, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)  and the
Canada-Ontario Agreement (COA), guide Canada's policy on contaminated sediment.
The GLWQA is a 1978 U.S./Canada agreement to which 1987 amendments,  including
Annex 14, were added.  Annex 14 requires specific actions and deadlines regarding
contaminated sediment management. The Canada-Ontario Agreement facilitates and
coordinates Canada's efforts toward honoring its commitments under GLWQA.

      In 1986, the COA Polluted Sediment Committee was formed. One committee
goal is the development of a standardized assessment procedure that incorporates
not only traditional bulk physical and chemical  criteria, but also biological criteria.
Another goal is the establishment of an action threshold for cleanup.  The committee
also develops numerical criteria  guidelines for sediment assessment.  Finally, the
committee evaluates options for contaminated sediment management and
remediation, including source abatement  and sediment treatment technologies.  The
Assessment, Remediation and Objectives, and Dredging Work Groups carry out these
efforts. The COA Polluted Sediment Committee is linked with the U.S. EPA's Assess-
ment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments Management Advisory Committee
and its technical work groups for the purposes of technology transfer and information

      The Great Lakes Action Plan (GLAP) was announced by Canada  in 1988 and
funded in 1989. Six federal departments  participate in the program, which involves the

preparation of Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for the 17 priority AOCs.  An important
component of GLAP is the Cleanup Fund, a $55 million, 4-year program for RAP
implementation in which pollutant sources fall under federal jurisdiction. This federal
appropriation may not directly fund capital and operating  costs of municipal infrastruc-
tures unless it is consistent with the Federal Water Policy.  It can, however, co-fund the
development and testing of technologies for municipal and industrial section use.

      Certain criteria dictate the eligibility of projects for funding by the Cleanup Fund.
Projects must support the development and implementation of remedial measures for
the 17 AOCs.  They must also demonstrate the need for federal participation.  Agen-
cies requesting funding must themselves commit substantial resources to the project,
and funding partnerships will be sought from federal, provincial, and municipal govern-
ments and from the private sector.  Further criteria include the project's capacity to
reduce pollutant loading, certainty of the project's technical merit, its benefit to the
entire Great Lakes Basin ecosystem, and its capacity to restore the beneficial use of
or to delist the AOC.

2.1.5  ARCS Engineering/Technology Work Group Status
     Stephen Yaksich, U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers

      The Engineering/Technology (E/T) Work Group is one of four work groups
established under the Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments
(ARCS) Program. The ARCS Program is a 5-year demonstration project  (1988 to
1992) created by the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act in response to the
contaminated sediment problem in the Great Lakes.  The  E/T  Work Group evaluates
sediment removal and remediation technologies by conducting bench- and pilot-scale
demonstrations. Five Priority Consideration Areas were specified for study in the 1987
Act: Ashtabula River, Ohio; Buffalo River, New York; Grand Calumet River and Indiana
Harbor in  Indiana; Saginaw Bay, Michigan; and Sheboygan Harbor, Wisconsin. The
E/T Work  Group efforts are concentrated on those sites.

      The E/T Work Group has four defined objectives. The first is to  evaluate exist-
ing technologies.  Evaluative criteria include effectiveness, technical feasibility, the esti-
mated costs,  and the level of contaminant loss associated with the technology. The
second objective is to demonstrate the effectiveness of the available proven techno-
logies by using bench-scale tests and pilot-scale tests at two or more Areas of
Concern (AOCs). The Work Group's third objective is to develop remediative options
for the five Priority Consideration Areas.  The fourth  objective is to develop  remediation
guidance and methodology to conform to legal and public policy, to characterize
material in terms of treatability, and to identify the best technologies for specific sites.

      Table 1 presents the technology demonstration status at the Priority  Con-
sideration  Areas.

                               STATUS SUMMARY
Ashtabula  Buffalo   Grand Calumet/   Saginaw   Sheboygan
  River     River    Indiana Harbor     Bay       River
 Inorganic treatment/recovery
 KPEG Nucleophillic Substitution
 BEST Extraction Process
 CF Systems Solvent Extraction
 Low-Temp. Thermal Stripping
 Wet Air Oxidation
 Eco-Logic Destruction Process
 In Situ Stabilization
 Acetone Extraction (ART Interna-
 Aqueous Surfactant Extraction
 Taciuk Thermal Extraction
 Sediment Dewatering Methods
Bench   Bench
Bench   Bench

Bench   Bench
         Bench, Pilot
                                           Bench, Pilot

       Bench-scale demonstrations have been underway since fiscal year 1989 and
will continue through fiscal year 1991.  Pilot-scale demonstrations wiH run from fiscal
year 1991 through fiscal year 1992.  Technology workshops will be held in fiscal years
1990, 1991, and 1992.
       Concept plans for the Buffalo and Saginaw Priority Consideration Areas are
being prepared during fiscal year 1990.  In fiscal year 1991, plans for the final three
Priority Consideration Areas will be developed, and data for all five sites will be col-
lected.  Options for final remediation of the five areas will be developed in fiscal year

2.1.6  SITE Program Overview
      Robert Olexsey, U.S. EPA, RREL

      The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) estab-
lished the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program.  The SITE
Program's objectives are as follows:

      o     To accelerate the development, demonstration, and use of  new or
            innovative treatment technologies.

      o     To demonstrate and evaluate new, innovative measurement and
            monitoring technologies.

      The SITE Demonstration  Program generates performance and cost data on
innovative technologies, which facilitates their use as options for hazardous waste
remediation. Innovative technologies are fully developed methods whose routine use
is precluded by a lack of data from field-scale testing.

      The SITE Emerging Technologies Program supports bench- and pilot-scale
testing of promising but unproven alternative technologies. Other SITE components
include the Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program and the Technology
Transfer Program.

      A number of technologies with potential applicability to contaminated sediments
are currently in the SITE Demonstration and Emerging Technology Programs. These
include bioremediation, physical/chemical  treatment, solidification/stabilization, and
thermal treatment.

2.7.7  Panel Discussion: Setting the Scene
      Moderator:  Alden Christianson, U.S. EPA, RREL

      Members of this panel included John Convery and Robert Olexsey of the U.S.
EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory  (RREL), Mike Conlon of the U.S. EPA's
Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS), Paul Horvatin of the U.S. EPA's
Great Lakes National  Program Office (GLNPO), Ian Orchard of Environment Canada,
and Steve Yaksich of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  (COE).  Panel members
discussed the availability of information and data concerning contaminated sediments
and remediation technologies.  Also discussed were goals and targets for remediation

      A draft compendium of treatment technologies is currently under  review by the
U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board.  A literature survey was completed by the Water-
ways Experiment Station of the Army Corps that reviews sediment remediation
technologies for the Great Lakes.  The Assessment and  Remediation of  Contaminated


Sediments (ARCS) Program has compiled actual chemical and biological data in addi-
tion to modeling data.  Area case histories are also available.

      In response to the questions regarding how much money should be spent on
contaminated sediment remediation and what target goals should be established, the
feasibility of choosing discrete numbers was questioned because such numbers will
not be applicable to all situations.  This question is now before the Science Advisory

      The wide diversity of site-specific conditions was noted. For example, in some
lakes PCBs are bound to bottom sediment, whereas those in others may not. In the
latter case, PCBs would tend to bioaccumulate because the lake has smaller amounts
of sediment. Contaminant concentrations in excess of 50 ppm require special
sediment disposal, but this is not an action number.  It was noted that the presence of
metals in sediment requires confinement because most remediation technologies do
not treat metals.

      The International Joint Commission (IJC) determines what constitutes an Area
of Concern (AOC).  The AOC evaluation incorporates an ecosystem approach that
uses biological data on fauna from benthic  invertebrates to eagles. The need to
reemphasize bioaccumulative compounds in evaluation options was stressed.

      With regard to the identification of sites for study under the EPA's Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program, one possible method involves
canvassing regions for voluntary suitable sites.  Another prospect would be to
coordinate efforts between SITE and ARCS.

2.2 Dredged Materials Removal, Pretreatment, and Disposal

2.2.1  Dredging and Pretreatment Operations for Contaminated Sediments
      Steve Garbaciak, U.S. Army Corps  of Engineers

      Nationally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredges 365 million yd3 of sedi-
ment each year. This accounts for 71 percent of all dredging conducted in U.S. wa-
terways.  In the Great Lakes region, the Corps dredges an annual volume of 4 million
yd3 of sediment.

      The two primary methods of dredging are mechanical and hydraulic.  Each has
its own equipment, uses, advantages, and disadvantages.

      Four types of mechanical dredges are commonly used:

      o      Dipper-used for digging new harbors, not for use in removing
            contaminated sediments.


      o     Bucket ladder-used mainly in the mining industry, not applicable to
            removing contaminated sediment.
      o     Dragline--also used mainly in the mining industry.
      o     Clamshell--used extensively in the Great Lakes and has applicability to
            removing contaminated sediments.

      Advantages of mechanical dredges for sediment removal include the following:

      o     Excavation can proceed at the sediment's in situ water content; no
            additional water needs to be added for pumping.
      o     The dredge is highly maneuverable in confined waterways.
      o     No depth limitations exist for the clamshell dredge.
      o     All types of debris can be removed.
      o     Good dredging accuracy can be attained.

      Some of the disadvantages of using mechanical dredges for removing con-
taminated sediment are as follows:

      o     If proper precautions are not taken, large amounts of sediment can be
            resuspended into the water  column.
      o     The dredged material must be rehandled at the disposal site.
      o     Production capacity is generally low.

      The three main types of hydraulic dredges are as follows:

      o     Plain suction
      o     Cutterhead--a modification of the plain suction dredge, used to break up
            consolidated material.
      o     Dustpan-used in fast-flowing rivers.

Hydraulic dredge ships can be designed either to contain the dredge material (hopper
ships) or to pipe the  material directly to the disposal site.

      The advantages of a hydraulic dredge include the following:

       o     Resuspension of bottom material is limited.
       o     Dredged material can  be piped directly to the disposal area, which elimi-
            nates the need for rehandling.
       o     Production capacity is generally high.

       Like mechanical dredges, hydraulic dredges also have certain disadvantages  as
tools for the removal of contaminated sediments:

       o     The large volumes of water that are removed  with the sediment must be


            treated prior to their disposal or release.
      o     The pipeline is often a significant obstruction to navigational traffic.
      o     Most debris cannot be removed hydraulically.
      o     Nonhopper dredges cannot be operated in rough water.

      The Corps uses several methods to reduce the environmental impacts of
dredging. A fully enclosed clamshell bucket can reduce the amount of resuspension
caused by a mechanical dredge by as much as 30 to 70 percent.  Barriers such as silt
curtains can be used to contain  turbidity within the excavation  area.  Experienced
dredge operators can significantly decrease the amount of sediment that is

      In the selection of a dredge type for the removal of contaminated sediments,
four factors should be considered:

      o     Volume-The volume of material to be removed will determine the scale
            of operations and the time frame available for removal.
      o     Location--This factor is especially important in the Great Lakes.
            Obstacles (such as bridges and shallow water), areal layout of the
            harbor, and distance to the disposal area are all of interest.
      o     Material-Consolidated sediments, large amounts of debris, and the
            contaminants of concern can have an impact on  dredge selection.
      o     Pretreatment-Requirements of the sediment treatment technology (such
            as drying, sorting, etc.) also must be considered.

2.2.2  Material Handling Research at RREL
      Richard Griffiths, U.S. EPA, RREL

      In the past, little research  has been done at the Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory (RREL) concerning material handling. Material handling is of prime
concern at Superfund sites, however, and research in this area is therefore expanding.
One issue concerns controlling air emissions from dust and chemicals in the  soil
during excavation at Superfund sites.  Other issues include the possible excavation of
explosives and the intractable behavior of some soils (bridging, swelling, abrasion).
Contractors face problems with the  handling of materials in continuous  or semi-
continuous flow processes because of inadequate feed systems.  For example, the
size of materials may cause them to become jammed in hoppers.   Inasmuch as many
treatments (e.g., incineration) require low water content, another issue has to do with
dewatering of dredged slurries.

      One area of research at RREL covers particle measurements.  A variety of
measurements are possible, especially on solids that can flow.  Although smaller size
particles are expected to flow, many do not.  The research  at RREL is attempting to
increase the understanding of the properties and handling methods of materials spe-


increase the understanding of the properties and handling methods of materials spe-
cific to Superfund sites to assist contractors at Superfund sites to foresee problems
and to choose the appropriate solutions.  Measurement parameters that are being
considered are mass/weight, volume/flow rate, permeability, porosity,  and particle size
distribution.  The research at RREL will focus specifically on chemical  composition,
frictional properties, compressive properties, and physical properties such as pH and
cation exchange capacity.

      Current projects include a broad survey of material handling methods, the
development of reactive foams, and the creation of a material properties data base
geared toward the handling of these materials.  The survey will detail  problems
encountered at Superfund sites and the equipment available to move materials.  Reac-
tive foams blanket the ground to suppress air emissions, and research is targeted to
neutralize or precipitate contaminants with these foams. Material properties scheduled
for inclusion in the data base are frictional properties, compressive properties,
agglomeration tendencies, swelling tendencies, and slurry transport.

2.2.3 Disposal of Dredged Material: Current Practice
      Steve Garbaciak, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

       The  U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers performs maintenance dredging of sedi-
ments at navigation projects authorized under River and Harbor Acts. Most dredging
equipment can remove sediments much faster than these materials can be treated;
therefore, the sediments must be stored prior to treatment. The  Corps has had con-
siderable experience in storing dredged material.

      Disposal alternatives for dredged material consist of restricted  and unrestricted
options.  Unrestricted alternatives include open-water dumping, upland deposition,
and beneficial uses.  Restricted alternatives include capping, contained aquatic dis-
posal, and confined disposal.  Nationally, only 5 percent of the Corps' dredged  mate-
rial requires restricted disposal options (unsuitable for open water disposal) compared
with 50 percent in the Great Lakes area.

       Level bottom capping entails making a discrete  mound of material with no
lateral confinement.  Contained aquatic disposal entails lateral confinement. A hole is
dug especially for the dredged material, and a  lateral cap is placed on the material.
For confined disposal, three alternatives exist:  upland  confined disposal facility  (CDF),
in-water CDF, and a commercial landfill.

       In the late 1960s, open-water disposal of contaminated dredged material was
deemed undesirable, which resulted in a diked disposal program that began in  1970.
As part of this program, CDF considerations include siting, design, construction,
operation, monitoring, and maintenance/construction.   Items to consider in the siting
of a CDF are the physical aspects (size, proximity to a navigable waterway); the


design/construction (geology, hydrology); and the environment (current use of area,
environmental value, environmental effects).  In the design of a CDF, contaminant
pathways must be identified, specific lab tests that the Corps developed for dredged
material must be conducted, needs for controls must be evaluated, and an appropri-
ate design must be selected.  Some examples of controls for effluent contamination
are filtration and polymer flocculation. Controls for ground-water contamination are
clay and synthetic liners; controls for air contamination are capping, vegetative cover,
and pond management. More than 40 confined disposal facilities have been
constructed throughout the Great Lakes.

2.2.4 Research on In Situ Techniques and Their Application in Confined
       Treatment Facilities
      Mike Roulier, U.S. EPA, RREL

      The EPA's  Superfund research program is currently developing methods for in
situ treatment of contaminated soils.  This work is  motivated by the high cost of
managing large volumes of soil with relatively low levels of contamination and by the
need to comply with the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act  (SARA) and
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

      Major developments in the field have been in biodegradation, stabilization/solidi-
fication (SIS), and removal of contaminants.  Both biodegradation and S/S are  limited
by the problem of delivering materials to subsurface soils and achieving uniform mix-
ing.  Stabilization/solidification has been used to treat inorganic contamination,  but
controversy exists over whether S/S processes are chemical processes that result in
the formation of new low-solubility compounds or whether they merely retard the
release of contaminants through physical processes.

      There have been only a few instances of in  situ treatment based on aqueous
solution chemistry. The contaminants treated have been primarily low-solubility
organic compounds, because organic compounds with high aqueous solubility or
vapor pressure are transported out of soil by natural processes or are easily removed
in water or the vapor phase for above-ground treatment.

      For many low-solubility organics, equilibrium thermodynamics indicate that the
aqueous liquid phase will contain greater amounts of organic contaminants than will
an equal volume of the gas phase. The rates of transfer from the solid to the liquid
phase, however, are often slow relative to the rates of transfer into the gas phase.
Also, because of the relative densities and viscosities, it is easier to move large vol-
umes of gas through the subsurface than to move equal volumes of liquid.  This com-
bination of greater convective flow and more rapid phase transfer makes gas-phase
removal an efficient process for many organic compounds, particularly in partially satu-
rated vadose zones, where it is difficult to remove water. For these reasons, it  may be
useful to  examine  gas-phase removal for treatment of contaminated sediments.


      Several in situ methods for heating soils are being examined. These include
injection of steam or hot air, use of radiofrequency fields (similar to microwaves), direct
current resistance heating, and passive solar heating.  Soil heating coupled with sur-
face collection has been used for gas-phase removal of volatile and semi-volatile or-
ganic compounds.  Soil heating also appears useful for improving biodegradation
rates and for favoring specific classes of organisms.

      Currently available in situ technologies do not have any application to treatment
of sediments until they  have been  placed in confined disposal facilities (CDFs) and
dewatered.  The in situ technologies that are most applicable are (1) soil heating in
conjunction with either gas-phase removal or biodegradation and, (2) stabiliza-
tion/solidification. Soil heating in conjunction with gas-phase removal and S/S has
been performed under  field conditions; biodegradation has been conducted under
field conditions but has not yet been tested with temperature enhancement. None of
these technologies have been applied to CDFs but the conditions under which they
have been  used are sufficiently similar to those in CDFs that there is a high probability
for successful application.

2.2.5 Panel Discussion:  Dredged Materials Removal, Pretreatment, and Disposal
      Moderator:  John Martin , U.S. EPA, RREL

      Members of this panel include Steve Garbaciak of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) and Richard Griffiths  and Mike Roulier of the U.S. EPA's Risk
Reduction Engineering  Laboratory (RREL).

      A number of questions were posed related to dredging and CDF design. Pan-
elists noted the important control factor of operator experience in dredging.  The
control of contaminant volatilization during dredging is very difficult.  The best
approach seems to be to control emissions at the excavation face, either with  foam
sprays or with water. In situ quick-set stabilization is still a theoretical technology, and
no measures of electrokinetic soil treatment efficiency exist in the United States as
they do in Europe.  Subaqueous capping is feasible where there are preexisting pits
(e.g., in New York Harbor). Liners were  installed in CDFs in the Chicago area at the
request of the State of  Illinois.

      Other questions  pertained to CDF permits, criteria, and monitoring. For the
construction of a CDF,  the Corps must comply with all  Federal environmental laws,
including Sections 404  and 401 of the Clean Water Act. Most Corps dredging is con-
ducted by private contractors who must  follow specifications developed by the Corps
for individual dredging  contracts.  The  EPA and Corps  have jointly prepared guidelines
for the evaluation of dredged materials under Section 103 and 404 authorities.  These
guidelines are used for evaluating  disposal alternatives. The 1977 EPA Region V Gui-
delines have been used on the Great Lakes, and the Corps uses bulk chemical and
biological testing. Anthracite-sand has proven to be a  good filter medium, whereas


the fabric filters originally used tend to become clogged with fine particles.  No detect-
able losses of contaminants from CDFs  have been ascertained by ground-water or
uptake-bag monitoring or by material balance tests. The prospect of the levels of
organics in CDFs decreasing with time has not been studied from  an organic decay
perspective.  Only uptake of organics through the food chain has been examined.

      An EPA Region V attendee noted that continuous monitoring showed no in-
crease in sediment resuspension underneath silt curtains at depths ranging from 2 to
6 feet at the Sheboygan River site in Wisconsin.

2.3  Extraction Technologies

2.3.1 Review of Removal, Containment, and Treatment Technologies for
          Remediation  of Contaminated Sediments in the Great Lakes
      Daniel Averett, U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers

      Treatment technologies that might be applicable for the remediation of
contaminated sediments and should be  considered for demonstration under the ARCS
Program were identified. Among the characteristics of dredged material that make
treatment difficult are high  water content, mixture of contaminants, wide range of phys-
ical characteristics, low concentrations of contaminants, and large volumes of material.

      The Corps has categorized the treatment options into alternatives, components
for the alternatives, technologies, and process options. Alternatives to the remediation
of contaminated soil are  removal and treatment, removal and containment, in situ
treatment, in situ containment, or no action.  Several components should be con-
sidered for those alternatives that require removal of contaminated sediments,
including transport of dredged material,  disposal of dredged material/residues, and
effluent treatment.  Factors to be considered in an evaluation of the various tech-
nologies are the state of development of a particular process (bench-scale vs. pilot-
scale), availability, effectiveness, implementability, and cost.  The Corps uses the
numerical rating system from the Superfund program to evaluate effectiveness, imple-
mentability, and cost of different technologies.

      Treatment technologies for remediation of contaminated sediments include
biological, chemical, extraction, immobilization, radiant energy, and thermal tech-
nologies. Based on its expertise, the Corps reviewed and selected the best tech-
nologies in each category.  At this stage of evaluation, the Corps deleted from consid-
eration all technologies that were in  the early stages of development. The recom-
mended biological process options  are aerobic bioreclamation, anaerobic bioreclama-
tion, bioreactors, and composting. These process  options are good if the dredged
material contains organic constituents/contaminants. The recommended chemical
technologies are chelation, nucleophilic substitution, and oxidation of organics. Rec-
ommended extraction technologies include  acid leaching, Basic Extraction Sludge


Treatment (BEST), CF Systems-propane, Harmon Environmental Services soil wash-
ing, and the use of surfactants. The suggested immobilization technologies are chlo-
ranan encapsulation, in situ immobilization, lime-based pozzolan immobilization,  port-
land cement-based immobilization, and sorption. Several thermal treatment technol-
ogies were recommended, including fluidized-bed incineration, low-temperature
thermal stripping, circulating bed combustion, rotary kiln incineration, and wet air oxi-
dation. One problem connected with thermal treatment, however, is the high water
content of the dredged material. A pretreatment process such as dewatering may be
required.  No radiant energy treatment technologies were recommended by the

2.3.2 Extraction Technology Research at RREL
      Richard Griffiths, U.S. EPA, RREL

      The EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) has begun to com-
partmentalize its research by assigning research on specific areas of technology to
separate organizational elements of the Lab.  The Releases Control Branch in Edison,
New Jersey, has been directed to orient its research programs toward processes for
extracting contaminants from soil.

      The Extraction Technology program has three major subparts:  applied
research, small-scale experimentation, and pilot-scale experimentation.  The applied
research will focus on the details of molecule-to-particle bonding, particle-to-particle
bonding, avoiding redeposition, and treatment of sidestreams and residues.  Specific
projects include a concentrated effort under the EPA's Visiting Scientist Program to
study the surface chemistry of bonding, experiments to study the kinetics of deposi-
tion, and a Research Forum (i.e., workshop) that concentrates on the nature of the
problem of separating contaminants from soil.

      The small-scale experimentation emphasizes conducting a large number of
simple experiments to develop  a data base on the range of effectiveness of various
extraction processes. Inexpensive, wide-ranging experiments will be  conducted to
examine the effects of soil type, contaminant type, extractant, pH, temperature, and
various physical enhancements. For this to work, the RREL must first identify and
select simplified analytical procedures.  The analytical procedures currently specified
for regulatory purposes take too long to perform and are too expensive.

      Nitric acid treatment is currently popular among researchers as a candidate
method for extracting metals from  soil. We have found,  however, that this process
tends to create several highly undesirable byproducts  (such as nitrogen tetroxide) and
produces end products that are not amenable to further treatment. We  are consider-
ing a more thorough evaluation of acetic acid for lead  extraction because it will be
safer to use on a large scale, will not produce undesirable byproducts, and is expect-
ed to produce tractable end products.


      RREL is also beginning to experiment with several components of humic acid in
the hope of turning what is now a  problem-the tendency of organics to bind tightly to
humic materials--into a solution. Other projects will examine various physical
enhancements to extraction, such  as ultrasonics, low-frequency acoustics, tempera-
ture, and surfactants.

      Pilot-scale experimentation centers around an apparatus referred to as the Vol-
ume Reduction Unit (VRU).  The VRU is actually an assembly of several subunits
designed to do particle size classification, low-temperature desorption, soil washing,
and process-water treatment.  One purpose of the VRU is to demonstrate the results
of small-scale experiments on larger scale.  It is a flexible system which will be used to
evaluate various parameters that affect extraction and to conduct process-specific
treatability studies for evaluating effectiveness, costs, and support requirements.

2.3.3 Low Energy Solvent Extraction
     John Martin,  U.S. EPA, RREL

      The  Low Energy Extraction  Process  (LEEP) is being developed in conjunction
with Enviro-Sciences, Inc., by Applied Remediation Technologies (ART).  The LEEP
technology uses an organic solvent to extract pollutants from a variety of waste
matrices. The organic pollutants are first removed from the solid matrix by a hydro-
philic, water-leaching solvent and then concentrated in  a hydrophobic, water-
immiscible, stripping solvent. The leaching solvent can be recycled; however, the
stripping solvent must be disposed of.

      The  LEEP technology, which can treat PCBs and other organics in soils,
sludges, and sediments, consists of the following steps:

      o     Prescreening to remove debris and rinsing of the coarse fraction
      o     Absorption treatment of rinse  water
      o     Leaching treatment of contaminated fines
      o     Drying of treated solids
      o     Liquid/liquid extraction treatment of contaminated leaching solvent
      o     Recovery of leaching solvent
      o     Disposal of contaminated stripping solvent

      Applied Remediation Technologies has conducted bench-scale testing of the
LEEP technology at Waukegan Harbor.  Sediments containing -3200 ppm of PCBs
have been  treated  to a level of 1 ppm. The investigators have focused on studying
mass transfer rates and using different leaching solvents (acetone, isopropanol, and
methanol).  A pilot-scale unit capable of treating 30 to 50 tons/hour is planned.

      The advantages of this treatment technology are as follows:

      o     Converts a high-volume solid waste stream to a low-volume liquid waste
      o     Operates at ambient conditions.
      o     Involves simple process and equipment.
      o     Has low energy requirements.

      Limitations include:

      o     The stripping solvent effluent requires further treatment.
      o     Leaching solvent is contaminant-specific.

2.3.4  Solvent Extraction Using the BEST Process
      Mark Meckes, U.S. EPA, RREL
      The Basic Extraction Sludge Treatment (BEST) technology is being developed
for hazardous waste treatment by the Resources Conservation Company of Bellevue,
Washington. The basic components of the BEST unit are a washer/dryer, a decanter,
a solvent evaporator, and a water stripper.

      The types of wastes that can be treated by the BEST technology include oily
sludges and organics-contaminated soils and sediments. The waste is treated with
the solvent triethylamine to separate oil from water and solids. Upon extraction the
process produces the following:

      o     An incinerable waste oil fraction
      o     A dry, pathogen-free, solid fraction
      o     A water fraction that can  be discharged to a publicly owned treatment
            works (POTW)

This technology reduces the total volume of hazardous wastes but does not destroy
any hazardous constituents in the waste.

      A full-scale demonstration unit was used at the General Refining Site in
Savannah, Georgia. A 100 tons/day unit was used to treat PCB-contaminated oily
sludges.  A high degree of separation was achieved.  Problems with the unit included
leakage of the triethylamine and pumpability of the waste.

      Treatment costs for the BEST technology depend on the waste volume and
range from $400/yd3 for 1000 yd3 of waste to less than $150/yd3 for 20,000 yd3 of

2.3.5 Liquefied Gas Extraction Using the CF Systems Process
      Laurel Staley, U.S. EPA, RREL

       CF Systems Corporation has developed an organic extraction process and
demonstrated it at the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site in New Bedford,
Massachusetts.  This process uses propane and butane at conditions near the critical
point.  These conditions are used because a liquid approaching its critical point is able
to dissolve large amounts of organic substances. It also behaves as a gas, which
allows high rates of extraction. The properties of critical fluids make them particularly
useful for removing organic contaminants from soils.

      Appropriate waste streams for this technology are pumpable streams contain-
ing 10 to 25 percent organics (e.g., harbor waste). Highly water-soluble compounds,
highly polar organics, low-concentration organics, and heavy metals are not readily
treatable by this  process.

      Potential applications of a liquified gas extraction system are for the extraction
and separation of organics from pit sludges, for separation and recycling of valuable
oils, and as a volume reduction  step prior to incineration.   Results of the demonstra-
tion tests at New Bedford showed that PCBs were successfully extracted; however,
extraction of PCBs is difficult to prove at  low levels.

      Residue generation from this process can be significant. The demonstration
tests began with 3 drums of contaminated sediment,  but produced 57 drums of
residues.  Six drums contained toluene; 6, toluene/rinse water; 2, fuel/residue; 15,
sediments; 8, sediments/rinse water; and 20 decontamination water.  For reduction of
the volume of residue generated, waste minimization  must be considered. Treatment
costs range from $150 yd3 for material containing less than 1000 ppm halogenated
organics to $400/yd3 for material containing more than 1000 ppm.

2.3.6  Panel Discussion: Extraction Technologies
      Moderator:  Jonathan Herrmann, U.S. EPA, RREL

      Members of this panel included  Daniel Averett  of the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, and Richard Griffiths, John Martin, Mark Meckes, and Laurel Staley, all of the
U.S. EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL). Panel members respond-
ed primarily to questions about the  technologies they had presented previously.

      The Low Energy  Extraction Process (LEEP) is a countercurrent process that
was designed specifically for treating contaminated sediments.  It is currently being
used on sediments at a site on the  Hudson River. One problem associated  with this
particular sediment is its unusually small particle size, which causes it to exhibit poor
settling even after several days.  When LEEP is used  for treatment, fines are carried
over into the solvent because of the small particle size of the sediment.  Handling this
kind of sediment requires careful control of feed rates.  The LEEP process has been


used to treat sediments with water contents below 50 percent. In fact, researchers are
currently attempting to treat sediments that are 30 percent water.

      The LEEP process, which is designed to be mobile, will ultimately be able to
process 30 to 50 tons per hour. Mobility of treatment processes is viewed as de-
sirable under the SITE program because the entire process can be contained on site,
thus eliminating the need for transporting the hazardous waste to a second location.
Concern about the extensive use of solvent is obviated by the solvent recovery and
reuse inherent to the LEEP process. The system is designed to comply with National
Fire Prevention Association (NFPA) code specifications.

      Particle size fractionation studies have not yet been conducted on the  Basic
Extraction Sludge Treatment (BEST) process; therefore, the level of fines that can be
handled by the process  is not known.  Treatability studies are needed to determine
this information.  Another item requiring additional study is the use of the flammable
liquid  triethylamine in the BEST process.  During a treatment demonstration, triethyla-
mine leaked through the centrifuge seal and was released to the atmosphere.  Opera-
tors were required to wear a self-contained breathing apparatus. This problem was
minimized in the pilot-scale project by using a washer/dryer system, which obviates
the need for centrifugation of the solids.

      With regard to the CF Systems Solvent Extraction Process, the sludge was
mixed with large amounts of water to decrease viscosity. The process occurs at the
solvent's critical  point because of the different characteristics exhibited by the solvent
at this temperature and pressure.  For example, water at its critical  point dissolves
organic compounds. Propane and butane are more effective solvents at their critical
points than water.  As measured by organic vapor analysis, loss of propane  and
butane was minimal during treatment.  Because propane and butane are gaseous at
room  temperature, they  displace oxygen and may pose an asphyxiation hazard. They
are, therefore, a safety hazard  on site.  Cost estimates of $150 to $450  per cubic yard
do not include disposal  of treated material.

       Inadequate analytical methods may be  a growing problem for evaluating new
technologies. The commonly used methods for determining the concentrations of
contaminants in  soil involve solvent extraction followed by analysis of the extractant.
Unfortunately, these solvents cannot achieve 100 percent extraction.  In fact,  numer-
ous tests have shown that their "recovery efficiency" is often in the range of 60 to 80
percent, depending on the compound to be extracted. Therefore, two issues must be
raised in attempts to evaluate Soil/Sediment treatment technologies:  1) Does it make
sense to base evaluations of extractive technologies on extractive analytical proce-
dures that face some of the same limitations as the extractive technologies them-
selves? 2) Can  the results of an evaluation of an extractive technology be compared

with the results of other nonextractive technologies (e.g., incineration)?  We may con-
clude that existing analytical methods are sufficient for regulatory purposes, but not for
research and development.

2.4 Biological/Chemical Treatment Technologies

2.4.1  Biodegradation of Chlorinated Aromatic Hydrocarbons
      John E. Rogers, U.S. EPA, ERL Athens, Georgia

      The state of the art is not sufficiently developed to present specific biodegrada-
tive technologies for treating contaminated sediments. This presentation provides
information on progress made to  date in understanding biochemical mechanisms of
contaminant degradation.

      Sediment obtained from  a local pond contains microorganisms that degrade
two dichlorophenols, 2,4-dichlorophenol and 3,4-dichlorophenol, into monochlorinated
phenols in the para and meta positions, respectively. Studies indicate that adapting v
the indigenous microflora to either of the compounds is possible.  The first period of
contaminant removal might take as long as 12 weeks, whereas  comparable removal of
subsequent contaminant spikes may require only 1 week.

      The following  data were gathered from experiments in which sediment was
adapted to 2,4-dichlorophenol:

           Degradation of 2,3-dichlorophenol yields primarily  3-chlorophenol  and
            some 2-chlorophenol.
           Degradation of the 2,4- compound yields 4-chlorophenol.
      o     Degradation of the 2,5- compound yields 3-chlorophenoi.
           Degradation of the 2,6- compound yields 2-chlorophenol.
      o     Degradation of the 3,4- compound usually yields 3-chlorophenol and
            (rarely) 4-chlorophenol.
      o     Degradation of the 3,5- compound yields 3-chlorophenol.

      The following  data were gathered from experiments in which sediment was
adapted to 3,4-dichlorophenol:

      o     Degradation of 2,3-dichlorophenol yields 2-chlorophenol.
      o     Degradation of the 2,4- compound yields both 2- and 4-chlorophenol.
      o     Degradation of the 2,5- compound yields 3-chlorophenol.
      o     Degradation of the 2,6- compound yields 2-chlorophenol.
           Degradation of the 3,4- compound yields 3-chlorophenol.
           Degradation of the 3,5- compound yields 3-chlorophenol.

      These results  point to the presence of two distinctly different pathways for


degradation of the dichlorophenol compounds.

      The results of pentachlorophenol (PCP) addition to adapted sediments indicate
that dechlorination progressions differ depending on whether the sediment is adapted
to 2,4- or 3,4-dichlorophenol. Sediments adapted to 3,4-dichlorophenol first  remove
the chlorine in the para position, whereas those adapted to 2,4-dichlorophenol first
remove the ortho chlorine.  These results are consistent with those just described.

      The results are especially significant in light of the fact that 3,4,5-trichlorophenol
is quite toxic and should be avoided in PCP degradation if possible.  Results have
shown that formation of this compound can be bypassed by first removing the para
chlorine, as shown in sediments adapted to 3,4-dichlorophenol.

      Additional testing has also been performed on sediment from the East River
(New York) and Borok Lake (Russia).  Similar patterns of acclimation have been du-
plicated.  Stepwise dechlorination of hexachlorobenzene and 2,4-dichlorophenol com-
pounds is also being investigated.

2.4.2 Chemical Treatment Research at RREL: Base Catalyzed Decomposition
      Carl Brunner,  U.S. EPA RREL

      A major focus of the chemical treatment research  being conducted at EPA's
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) is on the Base Catalyzed Decompo-
sition (BCD) Process.  The BCD Process uses a reagent formed by the combination of
a base and a hydrocarbon solvent to dechlorinate chlorinated organics.

      The BCD Process is the latest development in a series of dechlorination method
studies that originated with the Alkali-Polyethylene Glycol (APEG) treatment tech-
nology.  The chemistry of the BCD Process is quite different from APEG chemistry,
however, in that it no longer requires the use of polyethylene glycol.  The APEG
process requires the use of large amounts of reagent  and reaction temperatures of
between  150 and 180C. For the process to be  cost-effective, the APEG reagent must
be recovered.

      Despite shortcomings of the APEG technology, full-scale soil treatment demon-
strations  have been  conducted at several sites, including a U.S.  Navy site in  Guam.
The  PCB removal testing at Guam used a 400-gallon batch reactor heated to 150C.
Initial PCB concentrations in the soil ranged from 1010 to 1990 ppm.  After 4 hours of
treatment, more than 99.99 percent of the PCB was removed.

      Attempts to reduce requirements for large amounts of chemicals in the APEG
Process have led to several improvements, including development of the new BCD
Process.  Significant reductions in the cost of chemicals  required for treatment have
been achieved in this process.


      A BCD Process Demonstration Unit is being constructed to continue the PCB
treatment work at the U.S. Navy's Guam site.  The design criteria for this unit are:
      o     Continuous operation
      o     One-ton-per-hour throughput
      o     Treatment of soil composed of clay, silt, sand, coral, and limestone and
            containing 20 percent moisture
      o     Reduction in PCB concentrations from 5000-6500 ppm to <2 ppm

      Bench-scale tests of the BCD Process have demonstrated that effective PCB
removal from soil can be achieved at reaction temperatures above 250C for residence
times greater than 30 minutes by using reagent concentrations of approximately 3 Ib
base and 1.0 Ib solvent per 100 Ib soil. Because the reactor is open to the atmo-
sphere, some of the PCB is volatilized during treatment and must be collected and
processed separately.

      Use of the BCD Process for treatment of contaminated sediments in the same
manner as is currently contemplated for soil treatment may require the evaporation of
large amounts of water.  To avoid this, operations could be conducted in a
pressurized system. Reaction temperatures of 300C would require an approximate
reactor pressure of 1300 psi. Studies are underway to determine the practicality of
such an arrangement. Successful operation in a pressurized reactor would eliminate
the need for separate treatment of contaminants that would volatilize in a reactor
operating at atmospheric pressure.

      Another approach to using the BCD Process for sediment treatment would
involve extraction of contaminants from sediment followed by chemical treatment of
the concentrated extract.  Several extraction processes are being developed that
could apply to sediment.

      Precise cost estimates are not available, but based on chemical costs for the
BCD Process, total costs as low as $200 per dry ton may be obtainable. This makes
the BCD Process a strong potential competitor to incineration.  A company is currently
being selected to market the  BCD process.

2.4.3  Biological Technologies  in the SITE Program
      Ronald F. Lewis, U.S. EPA, RREL

      Zimpro/Passavant, Inc., of Rothschild, Wisconsin, is demonstrating its process
for biodegradation of organic contaminants  at the Syncon  Resins Superfund Site in
Kearny, New Jersey. The combination of a  traditional activated sludge process with a
powdered activated carbon treatment adsorption unit and a wet air oxidation unit for
further treatment of waste sludge permits treatment of aqueous waste streams with
contaminant concentrations in excess of 1 percent.

      Motec, Inc., of Juliet, Tennessee, has developed the Liquid-Solid Contact
Digestion Process in which organic contaminants, including halogenated organics and
some pesticides, are biodegraded. Waste is introduced via aqueous slurry to a bio-
reactor, where it is mechanically agitated to suspend solids and to maintain optimum
environmental conditions.

      An above-ground, fixed-film bioreactor is used by Detox, Inc., of Dayton, Ohio.
This reactor is designed to treat low concentrations (<20 ppm) of biodegradable
contaminants such as ketones, benzene, toluene, and xylene.  It is not applicable for
some halogenated compounds. After aerobic metabolism, wastewater may be further
treated by cartridge  and activated carbon filters.

      ECOVA Corporation of Redmond, Washington, is testing its in situ biotechnolo-
gy at the Goose Farm Superfund Site in Plumstead Township, New Jersey. The
process, in which aerobic bacteria use chlorinated or nonchlorinated toxic  organics as
their carbon source, can be duplicated in a bioreactor when soil impermeability
precludes in situ treatment.  At Goose Farm, oxygen and nutrients will be introduced
to the soil to foster bacterial growth, and ground water will be captured at  a down-
gradient extraction well  and recharged repeatedly through the contaminated zone.

      The Biotrol Aqueous Treatment System developed by Biotrol, Inc., of Chasta,
Minnesota., has been demonstrated at the MacGillis and Gibbs Superfund  Site in New
Brighton, Minnesota. The system uses a fixed-film bioreactor to which specific micro-
organisms may be added to degrade target contaminants. Preliminary cost estimates
for this technology are available.  The device treats ground water  or process water
contaminated with soluble organic compounds such as hydrocarbons and penta-
chlorophenol, and it may prove applicable to fuels and solvents leaking from under-
ground storage tanks.

      The AlgaSORB sorption technology of Bio-Recovery Systems, Inc., Las Cruces,
New Mexico, is in the Emerging Technology Program.  The process, tested at a
mercury-contaminated site in Oakland, California, removes heavy  metal ions from
aqueous solutions.  Algal cells in  a silica gel medium are packed in columns through
which water passes.  Heavy metal ions adhere to the algae. When they are sub-
sequently stripped away by reagents, a small volume of highly toxic solution and
reusable algae/gel remain.

      Preproposals being evaluated for the Emerging Technology Program include
processes for the treatment of highly chlorinated solvents such as chloroform and

2.4.4  Panel Discussion:  Biological/Chemical Treatment Technologies
      Moderator:  Dennis  Timberlake, U.S. EPA, RREL

      Members of this panel included John Rogers of the U.S. EPA Environmental
Research Laboratory in Athens, Georgia, and Carl Brunner and Ron Lewis of the U.S.
EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL). Discussions dealt with aspects
of recently developed biological and chemical technologies for remediation of contami-
nated sediments.

      Developing biological technologies from bench-scale to field-scale is difficult
because acclimation of microbes does not occur as easily in the field as it does in the
laboratory.  Whereas contaminant concentrations tend to be  higher under controlled
conditions and  restricted to a single compound, several contaminants in somewhat
lower concentrations are usually found under field conditions. In the field, larger
numbers of microbes are usually found around the periphery of contaminated areas.
Within the contaminated area, high  pollutant concentrations normally have a toxic
effect on microbial populations. Proliferation of microorganisms is usually limited by
the lack of availability of an electron acceptor (e.g., oxygen, nitrate) and a primary
carbon source.  When the contaminant  concentration is not high enough to allow
microbial growth, supplying these factors often facilitates growth and  the associated
degradation of  contaminants.

      Microbes that degrade contaminants  include  bacteria and fungi.  These may  be
found as natural organisms either preexisting or indigenous to the site, or they may be
conventional mutants acclimated under controlled conditions. Microbes from another
source may be  added to an experiment to enhance initial rates of  degradation and to
facilitate a process whereby indigenous microbes eventually become  the primary
degraders.  Under natural  conditions, the addition of an electron acceptor and  major
nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus) is necessary to enhance microbial degrada-
tion sufficiently for significant contaminant removal and  site remediation.

      Mixing the sediment increases degradation rates by improving access of the
microbes, which normally exist in the aqueous fraction, to the contaminants, which are
normally found  in the organic soil fraction.  Because it enhances contact between the
aqueous and organic fractions, the use of a surfactant improves the rate of contami-
nant degradation.  The surfactants themselves must be either biodegradable or non-
toxic so their use does not increase the hazards associated with a site.   Such a
surfactant may  then be left on-site subsequent to treatment.

      The bioslurry reactor was discussed as the best option currently  available for
treating sediments that contain high concentrations  of oil.  It has been used success-
fully in 15 to 20 percent soil slurries.  Soil tillage methods are more useful for materials
containing higher concentrations of solids in which biodegradation will occur more


      Pesticides are difficult to extract and treat, especially at low concentrations.  The
Base Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD) process may be useful for dechlorinating
chlorinated pesticides.

2.5 Other Technologies of Interest

2.5.1  Low-Temperature Thermal Treatment
      Paul DePercin, U.S. EPA, RREL

      In low-temperature thermal technologies, temperatures can range from 200 to
1000F.  Most are indirectly fired.  Indirect heating reduces the amount of gases
involved, increases efficiency, and permits the unit to be transported. The three types
of processes are rotary dryer, heated screw auger, and fluidized-bed.

      This technology requires a feed consisting of solids with less than 20 percent
organics and a 10 to 40 percent moisture content. A feed with a moisture content of
less than 10 percent is not as effective because water evaporation helps to remove
heavy organics.  Thermal treatment does not work well on organic polymers, tars, and

      The two choices for handling of residuals are condensation and adsorption or
combustion. The drawback to combustion  is that it might be subject to hazardous
waste incineration regulations that require destruction efficiencies of 99.99 percent or
99.9999 percent.  Protocols for two levels of treatability studies-muffle furnace and
pilot-scale studies-are being developed.

      Treatment facilities in both the United States and Europe have produced favor-
able results, as demonstrated by  the following examples:

      1)    In the Netherlands, an initial concentration of 30,000 ppm aliphatics in
            sand was reduced to less than 20 ppm at 800C at Marneveld.  At
            Schiedam, a concentration of 60,000 ppm cyanide complexes in loamy
            sand was reduced to less than 5 ppm at 800C.

      2)    Superfund Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BOAT) studies
            using synthetic soils (SARM I and SARM II) demonstrated significant
            reductions in organic concentrations. In the  SARM  I tests, acetone con-
            centrations were reduced from 4330 to 71 ppm at 550F.

      3)    Chemical Waste Management's pilot-scale facility reduced the poly-
            chlorinated biphenyl (PCB) concentration in a sandy soil from 1480 to 8.7

      4)    The Hazardous Waste Research and Information Center Gas Plant Study


            demonstrated significant reductions of polyaromatic hydrocarbons
            (PAHs) in different soils at 300F and 400F.  Greater reductions in PAH
            concentrations occurred at the higher temperature.

      Low-temperature thermal technologies have been shown to be effective for
treating certain wastes containing volatile and semivolatile organics,  volatile metals,
nonvolatile organics (PCBs, PCPs), and cyanides.

2.5.2 UV/Ozonation SITE Project
      Norma Lewis, U.S. EPA, RREL

      Ultrox International in Santa Ana, California, developed an ultraviolet (UV)
radiation/oxidation technology to treat ground water contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs).  This treatment technology was evaluated in the field at the
Lorentz Barrel and Drum site in San Jose, California, as part of the Superfund Innova-
tive Technology Evaluation (SITE) program.

      The UV/Oxida|ion technology uses ultraviolet light, hydrogen  peroxide, and
ozone to photooxidize water-soluble  organic compounds. Advantages of this process
include  its ability to accommodate ground water, industrial waste waters, and
leachates in the reactor; economical  treatment of volatile, semivolatile, and nonvolatile
compounds; and the convenience of a skid-mounted, portable system. Some limita-
tions also exist. For example, this technology targets liquids and cannot treat sludges
or solids. Bicarbonate levels may slow the reaction time, and metal compounds in
concentrations above 20 ppm may interfere with the process and require
pretreatment. Appropriate waste streams are liquids contaminated with the EPA's
Priority Pollutant organic contaminants. This system destroys toxic or refractory
compounds and chlorinated hydrocarbons.

      Basic components of the system are the Ultrox UV/Oxidation  Reactor  module
with UV lamps in quartz sheaths and vertical baffles, the air compressor/ozone gen-
erator module, and the hydrogen peroxide feed unit.

      The Ultrox system achieved greater than 90 percent removal  of VOCs. Most of
the VOCs were removed through chemical oxidation; however 1,1,1-trichloroethane
and 1,1-dichloroethane were also removed by stripping.  The treated ground water at
the site  met the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) effluent
standards for discharge into the local waterway at a 95  percent confidence level.  No
VOC emissions from the Ultrox system were detected and no new VOCs, semivola-
tiles, PCBs, or pesticides were detected in the effluent.

2.5.3  Solidification /Stabilization of Dredged Materials and Sediment
      Tommy Myers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

      Solidification is the process of eliminating free water in a semisolid by hydration.
Physical stabilization is defined as the immobilization of a contaminated solid through
alteration of its physical properties to produce a dimensionally stable product.
Chemical stabilization is the alteration of the chemical form of the contaminants in a
semisolid to make them less soluble or reactive.

      Several different setting agents are available for solidification/stabilization (S/S)
treatment.  The most commonly used agents (individually or in combination) are as

      o      Portland cement                     Lime
      o      Kiln dust                            Soluble silicates
      o      Slag                          o      Organic clays

      Two properties affect the primary containment of hazardous constituents within
the S/S-treated product:

      o      Permeability-effective  porosity of the solidified product
      o      Durability-strength of  the product

      Secondary containment is accomplished by chemical stabilization of the
contaminants. This can occur through the following mechanisms:

      o      Conversion to a less soluble form
      o      Adsorption
      o      Chemisorption                          ^
      o      Passivation
      o      Entrapment
      o      Microencapsulation

      Solidification/stabilization of contaminated sediments may be implemented
either in situ or after dredging. To  date,  however, the Corps has no field experience in
applying either strategy to contaminated sediments.

2.5.4 Panel  Discussion: Other Technologies of Interest
       Moderator:  Steve James, U.S. EPA, RREL

       Members of this panel included Paul dePercin and Norma Lewis of the U.S.
EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL), and Tommy Myers of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Panel  members responded primarily to questions
directly related to the technologies  covered in their  presentations.


      No costs are yet available for the low-temperature thermal treatment techno-
logies; however, these costs are expected to be much lower than those for
incineration.  Retention time in the reactor will vary from 5 to 30 minutes, depending
on throughput. As opposed to  incineration, no dioxin or furan formation is associated
with this technology because no oxidation of contaminants occurs.

      Although solidification/stabilization is not yet a proven technology for contami-
nated sediments and dredged materials, significant interest has been shown in its use
for sediments. It has been used in Japan for treatment of sediments, and it has been
used extensively in the United States for treatment of hazardous wastes.  The most
significant problem is the uncertainty regarding the chemical stabilization of organic
compounds.  Laboratory studies suggest that these technologies  do satisfy certain
treatment objectives, but there is a complete absence of long-term monitoring data
indicating no movement of contaminants.

      With regard to ultraviolet  (UV) radiation/ozonation technologies, ozone and hy-
drogen  peroxide are used to accelerate oxidation by introducing free radicals.  This
technology has been used elsewhere to treat drinking water.  Excalibur Enterprises,
Inc., will be demonstrating a  UV/ozonation technology in the Fall of 1990 at the
Coleman Evans Site in Jacksonville, Florida. It may be of particular interest for
treatment of contaminated sediments.

      The Zimpro-Passavant wet air oxidation process requires high temperature and
pressure to oxidize organic compounds in the presence of air.  Wet air oxidation may
cause a corrosion problem in the reactor vessel because of the corrosive nature of the
oxidant.  Consideration has been given to the  use of deep vertical reactors (1 mile into
the  ground) which provide a  high hydrostatic pressure for a kind of supercritical wet
air oxidation process.

      An alternative for remediation of mercury in contaminated sediments may be
solidification.  Research into mercury removal is currently being conducted at Utah
State University and is now in the proof-of-concept stage.

                                 SECTION 3

                          SEDIMENTS TREATMENT

                 Moderator:  Alden Christiansen, U.S. EPA, RREL
       Contributors:  M. Conlon (OWRS), M. Kravitz (OWRS), T. Wall (OWRS)

3.1    Introduction to Open Discussion

      For the final session of the workshop, participants were invited to submit ques-
tions for discussion. Most of the questions reflected the need for additional research
and improved data, and the development of Agency policy to address these needs.
They discussed overall approaches to pollution prevention and forthcoming strategies,
the development of criteria for action and target levels, monitoring requirements,
cost/benefit concerns, short-term vs. long-term considerations, and the need for
characterization of ecosystems.

      A synthesis of representative questions yields the following:

            o     What biological/chemical criteria and protocols should be used to
                  determine action levels and treatment effectiveness?  Is EPA
                  reviewing and revising its risk assessment methodology?

            o     Are plans currently in place to conduct treatability studies on con-
                  taminated sediments? How can performance data collection
                  efforts be enhanced and the data be made available?

            o     Are treatment technologies being developed  for contaminated
                  sediments that contain mixed wastes (i.e., organic compounds,
                  metals, and radioactives)? Is information forthcoming on process
                  trains to treat sediments contaminated with both metals and
                  organic compounds?

            o     Would an improved understanding of the natural environment and
                  chemical behavior in that environment facilitate the development of
                  more efficient treatment  methods?

            o     Given the likely increased consideration of food-chain effects from
                  contaminated sediments that will result from the new EPA Sedi-
                  ment Strategy, what is being done to increase the focus on tech-
                  nologies predominantly applicable to wet materials?

            o     Inasmuch as the waterways have been repositories for all kinds of
                  wastes, do guidelines exist for protection of people during labora-
                  tory investigation, treatment, and posttreatment phases of projects
                  involving waterway sediments?

            o     Can new technologies being evaluated under the SITE Program
                  be applied to corrective action at RCRA facilities and other non-
                  Superfund sites (e.g., contaminated sediment sites)?

            o     Will disposal of treatment residuals be covered under existing
                  NPDES permits?

      Workshop participants were also concerned with costs:

            o     Will greater costs be generated by treating rather than confining
                  sediments, or will long-term maintenance and monitoring costs
                  outweigh those generated by permanent contaminant destruction
                  (e.g., by thermal or biological treatment)?

            o     How are the treatment and management of residuals (e.g., con-
                  taminated wash water, clothing, incinerator ash) figured into
                  measurements of cost and overall effectiveness of decontamina-
                  tion efforts?
            o     With treatment costs rising above $100/yd  , should regional treat-
                  ment complexes be considered to achieve economy of scale?

      The following question highlights the importance of communication among
involved parties:

            o     Are all participants in contaminated sediments cleanup efforts
                  (e.g., EPA  Headquarters, RREL, SITE Program, RCRA, Corps of
                  Engineers, Bureau of Mines, NPDES Enforcement, NOAA) working
                  to prevent duplication of efforts? Would it be appropriate to
                  establish a newsletter for all involved parties, included Regions,
                  States, and local governments?

      The remainder of this section attempts to provide answers to many of these


3.2   Assessment of Sediment Quality and Development of a Sediment Manage-
      ment Strategy

3.2.1  Assessment of Sediment Quality

      The Sediment Classification Methods Compendium, prepared by EPA's Sedi-
ment Oversight Technical Committee, describes the various methods used to assess
the quality of potentially contaminated sediments.  The compendium provides a
description of each method, associated advantages and limitations, and existing appli-

      The sediment quality assessment methods described can be classified into two
basic types: numeric or descriptive (Table 2).  Numeric methods are chemical-specific
and can be used to generate numerical sediment quality values. Descriptive methods
are not chemical-specific and cannot be used alone to generate numerical sediment
quality values for particular chemicals.

      In a sediment bioassay, mortality (or other biological endpoint) of test
organisms exposed to sediment from a site with suspected contamination is
compared with mortality in an analogous reference sediment.  Bioassays  can be used
to evaluate either acute or chronic toxicity.  Ideally, assessment of a site should be
performed by using several species (i.e., several different bioassays).  The American
Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) is currently working on standardized  testing proto-
cols for a number of species.  Other methods discussed in the compendium include
the Equilibrium Partitioning (EqP) and Apparent Effects Threshold (AET) approaches,
the Tissue Residue approach, and the Sediment Quality Triad.

      The EqP approach uses water quality criteria and partitioning coefficients
(between sediment and pore water) of specific contaminants to derive a sediment
quality value.  The sediment quality value for a given contaminant is determined by
calculating the sediment concentration of the contaminant that would correspond to a
pore water concentration equivalent to the EPA water quality criterion for  the contami-
nant.  EqP-derived sediment quality values will soon be available for a number of
nonionic organic chemicals, and research is continuing on development of values for

      The Sediment Quality Triad approach uses measures of sediment chemistry,
sediment toxicity, and benthic infauna community structure to identify pollution-
induced degradation.  In the AET approach, biological data (e.g.,  benthic community
structure or laboratory bioassays) and chemical analyses of contaminants in
sediments are used to identify concentrations of specific chemicals above which spe-
cific biological effects would always be expected.

                                               TABLE  2.   SEDIMENT QUALITY ASSESSMENT METHODS"
                                        Numeric    Descriptive    Combination
         Bulk Sediment  Toxicity
        Spiked-Sediment Toxicity
         Interstitial Water Toxicity
        Equilibrium Partitioning
        Tissue Residue
        Freshwater Benthic Community

        Marine Benthic Community

        Sediment Quality Triad
Test organisms are exposed to sediments that  contain  unknown
quantities of potentially toxic chemicals.  At  the  end  of a specified
time period, the response of the test organisms is  examined in rela-
tion 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 evalu-
ation procedures are applied to identify and  quantify chemical com-
ponents responsible for sediment toxicity.  The procedures are imple-
mented in three phases:  1) characterization  of interstitial water
toxicity, 2) identification of the suspected  toxicants, and 3) con-
firmation of toxicant identification.

A sediment quality value for a given contaminant is determined by cal-
culating the sediment concentration of the  contaminant  that would cor-
respond 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 biocon-
centration factors, chronic dose-response experiments or field corre-
lations, and human health risk levels from  the  consumption of fresh-
water 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.

TABLE 2 (continued)
                                 Numeric    Descriptive    Combination
  Apparent Effects Threshold
An AET is the sediment concentration of a contaminant  above which sta-
tistically significant biological effects (e.g.,  amphipod mortality in
bioassays, depressions in the abundance of benthic infauna) would al-
ways be expected.   AET values are empirically derived  from paired
field data for sediment chemistry and a range of biological effects
   Adapted from the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.   1989.  Sediment Classification Methods Compendium.  Draft Final report.

      In the Tissue Residue approach, acceptable levels of contaminants in biota are
determined (i.e., acceptable in terms of consumption by humans, or the health of the
particular species). The relationship between sediment and tissue contaminant con-
centrations (e.g., accumulation factors) is then used to determine acceptable sediment

      It is important to remember that the approaches to sediment quality
assessment discussed in the compendium are not at an equal stage of development,
and each has associated advantages and limitations.  Hence, certain approaches (or
combinations) are more appropriate for specific management actions than are others.

3.2.2  Development of a Sediment Management Strategy

      The EPA is  now developing a number of issue papers that will provide the basis
for an Agency-wide sediment management strategy. The 14 issue papers listed here
are currently being prepared by four Agency work groups.

      Work Group on Assessment and Identification of Risk

      o     Summary of Information on Risks
           Need for a National Inventory of Contaminated Sites and  Facilities
            Contributing to Sediment Contamination
      o     Need for a System to Rank Sites and Facilities for Followup Action
      o     Development of a Consistent Approach to Assessing Sediment Quality

      Work Group on Prevention of Sediment Contamination

      o     Controlling Point Sources
      o     Controlling Nonpoint Sources
      o     Evaluating the Role of Pesticides in Contaminated Sediments
      o     Evaluating the Role of Toxic Compounds  in  Contaminated Sediments

      Work Group on Remediation

      o     Roles and Responsibilities for Remediation
      o     Consistent Identification of Sediments Requiring Remediation
      o     Development of Consistent Target Levels  for Cleanup Actions
      o     Evaluation of Authorities for Enforcement-Based Remediation

      Work Group on Managing Dredged Materials

      o     Balancing Environmental and Economic Factors
      o     Applicability of RCRA to Dredged Materials

      With the exception of the summary of risk information, each of these papers
discusses a range of options, from no action to comprehensive, full-scale sediment
management. The current schedule calls for meetings among Federal Agencies and a
single State representing each EPA region to discuss related issues and options dur-
ing Fall 1990.

3.3   Identification of Applicable Technologies

      The EPA has increased its focus on treatment technologies for contaminated
sediments. Workshops such as this one are being scheduled to gather information
and to provide a forum for experts to meet and discuss recent developments.

      In  response to the overwhelming need for guidance, data collection is planned
to begin on innovative processes and control technologies. Data will be collected
from bench-, pilot-, and full-scale studies and be entered into currently existing data
bases that are in the process of being expanded to accept information on soil and

      A screening assessment of various technologies is contained in a report cur-
rently undergoing review by the Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sedi-
ments (ARCS) Engineering Technology Work Group.

      Bench-scale testing of selected treatment methods is scheduled to begin within
the next 6 months. This work will be performed under the ARCS  Quality Assurance/
Quality Control Program and is expected to provide valuable and much needed treat-
ability information.  Selected technologies will subsequently be scheduled for pilot-
scale testing.

      With regard to solidification/stabilization, data generated on these technologies
in the past by the Atomic Energy Commission  (AEC)  may be useful for contaminated
sediment applications.

      A question was posed as to whether EPA plans to recycle or reclaim metals in
contaminated sediments. The Bureau of Mines conducted studies for ARCS and the
Superfund  program on metals reclamation. With the  exception of high concentrations
of iron in Indiana Harbor, however, metals usually are not present in sufficiently high
quantities to make reclamation an attractive option.

3.4   Miscellaneous  Points

      Concerning whether treatment residuals will fall under NPDES permits, it was
the consensus of those  present that, while it is quite possible that this will be the  case,
no final determination  has yet been made.


      To date, cost data are extremely limited.  Additional work is necessary to estab-
lish information on comparative costs of the various technologies.  With regard to
economies of scale, it would not be feasible to transport sediment from a site with
one-half million cubic yards of contaminated material.  Regional treatment complexes
may be useful for smaller sites, but transportable technologies will probably be neces-
sary for remediation of larger sites.

                             APPENDIX A


                            Cincinnati, Ohio
                            June 13-14, 1990
Wednesday - June 13, 1990


SETTING THE SCENE - Moderator:  A. Christiansen (RREL)

9:00 am    Welcome and Challenge to the       J. Convery (RREL)
Welcome and Challenge to the
9:10 am     Overview of EPA Efforts on
           Contaminated Sediments

9:35 am     The GLNPO Program and Con-
           taminated Sediments

10:00 am    The Canadian Experience With
           Contaminated Sediments

10:25 am    BREAK

10:50 am    ARCS Engineering/Technology
           Work Group Status

11:20 am    SITE Program Overview

11:35 am    Panel Discussion and Question and
           Answer Session

12:00 noon  LUNCH (on your own)
                                M. Conlon (OWRS)
                                P. Horvatin (GLNPO)
                                I. Orchard (Environment Canada)
                                S. Yaksich (COE)

                                R. Olexsey (RREL)

                                All Participants

                                  Moderator: J. Martin (RREL)
1:15 pm     Dredging and Pretreatment
            Operations for Contaminated

1:35 pm     Material Handling Research
            at RREL

1:55 pm     Disposal of Dredged Material:
            Current Practice

2:15 pm     Research on In Situ Techniques
            and Their Application in Con-
            fined Treatment Facilities

2:35 pm     Panel Discussion and Question
            and Answer Session
S. Garbaciak (COE)
R. Griffiths (RREL)
S. Garbaciak (COE)
for J. Miller

M. Roulier (RREL)
All Participants
3:00 pm    BREAK

3:20 pm    Review of Removal, Containment,
           and Treatment Technologies for
           Remediation of Contaminated
           Sediments in the Great Lakes

3:40 pm    Extraction Technology Re-
           search at RREL

4:00 pm    Low Energy Solvent Extraction

4:20 pm    ADJOURN
D. Averett (COE)
R. Griffiths (RREL)

J. Martin (RREL)

Thursday - June 14, 1990


8:30 am    Solvent Extraction Using the          M. Meckes (RREL)
           BEST Process

8:50 am    Liquified Gas Extraction              L. Staley (RREL)
           Using the CF Systems Process

9:20 am    Panel Discussion and Question        All Participants
           and Answer Session

10:00 am   BREAK

                            Moderator: D. Timberlake (RREL)

10:20 am   Biodegradation of Chlorinated         J. Rogers  (Athens)
           Aromatic Hydrocarbons

10:40 am   Chemical Treatment Research         C. Brunner (RREL)
           at RREL: Base Catalyzed

11:00 am   Biological Technologies              R. Lewis (RREL)
           in the SITE Program

11:20 am   Panel Discussion and Question        All Participants
           and Answer Session

12:00 noon LUNCH (on your own)


1:15 pm    Low-Temperature Thermal Treatment   P. dePercin (RREL

1:35 pm    UV/Ozonation SITE Project           N. Lewis (RREL)

1:55 pm    Solidification/Stabilization of           R. Myers (COE)
           Dredged Materials and Sediment

2:15 pm    Panel Discussion and Question       All Participants
           and Answer Session

2:35 pm    BREAK


2:55 pm    Issues Identification and             A. Christiansen (RREL)

3:30 pm    Open Disucssion (including          All Participants
           legislative issues)

4:00 pm    ADJORN


RREL - Office of Research and Development/Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory

OWRS - Office of Water Regulations  and Standards

GLNPO - Great Lakes National Program Office

Environment Canada - Canadian Environmental Protection Agency

COE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Athens - Office of Research and Development/Environmental Research Laboratoy

                               APPENDIX B
                     LIST OF WORKSHOP ATTENDEES
Khalil Atasi
McNamee Advanced Technology, Inc.
3135 S. State St., Suite 301
Ann Arbor, Ml 48108
313/665-5553, x503
Craig Brown
USEPA - Region IV
Federal Facility Section
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
Daniel Averett
US Army Corps of Engineers-WES
ATTN:  CEWES-EE-S/D. Averett
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS  39191-0631

Ed Barth
USEPA, Center for Environmental
 Research Information
26 W. Martin Luther  King Drive
Cincinnati, OH  45268
513/569-7669 or FTS 684-7669

Louis Blume
USEPA - Region V (5M)
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Sherman Bellinger
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-MRD
12565 West Center Road
Omaha, NE 68144
Michael Borst
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Lab
2890 Woodbridge Avenue (MS-104)
Edison NJ 08837-3679
201/321-6631 or FTS 340-6631
Jennifer Brown
USEPA, Environmental Review Branch
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 866-6873

Carl A.  Brunner
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati,  OH 45268
513/569-7655 or FTS 684-7655

Lisa Carson
USEPA - Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Rm. 747
New York,  NY 10278

Tom Child
U.S. Army  Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC  28402

Alden G. Christiansen
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Lab
26 W. Martin Luther King  Drive
Cincinnati, OH  45268
513/569-7528 or FTS 684-7528
James M. Conlon
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
John J. Convery
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Lab
26 W. Martin Luther King  Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7896 or FTS 684-7896
Bernard Coupal
Lavalin Environment, Inc.
1100 Blvd. Rene Levesque West
Montreal, Quebec, CANADA H3B 4P3

Carolyn D'Almeida
USEPA - Region IX
1235 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94103

Glenda L Daniel
Lake Michigan Federation
50 E. Van Buren, Suite 2215
Chicago, IL  60605

Phebe  Davol
c/o ACT Carney
225 Reinekers  Lane
Alexandria, VA 22314
Clyde Dempsey
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering
26 W. Martin Luther King  Drive
Cincinnati, OH  45268
513/569-7504 or FTS 684-7504

Paul dePercin
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering
26 W. Martin Luther King  Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7797 or FTS 684-7797

Hugh B. Durham
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering
26 W. Martin Luther King  Drive
Cincinnati, OH  45268
513/569-7636 or FTS 684-7636

Bonnie L Eleder
USEPA, Office of Superfund
130S. Dearborn, 5HS-11
Chicago, IL  60604

Clell Ford
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P.O. Box 2008  (MD-6381)
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6451

Natalie Frutig
3759 N. Wilton  #3D
Chicago, IL  60613
Steve Garbaciak
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
111 N. Canal Street, Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60606-7206

John Glaser
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Lab
26 W. Martin Luther King  Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7568 or FTS 684-7568
Michelle Glenn
USEPA - Region IV
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365

Richard Griffiths
USEPA, RREL, Releases Control
2890 Woodbridge Avenue, MS-104
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
201/321-6629 or FTS 340-6629

Ernst Grossman
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Lab
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7513 or FTS 684-7513

Mel Hauptman
USEPA - Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Rm. 747
New York, NY 10278

Jonathan G. Herrmann
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Lab
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7839 or FTS 684-7839
Paul Horvatin
USEPA, Great Lakes National Program
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago,  IL 60604
312/353-3612 or FTS 353-3612

Brett Hulsey
Sierra Club
214 N. Henry #203
Madison, Wl 53713

Stephen C. James
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH  45268
513/569-7696 or FTS 684-7696

Karen Keeley
USEPA -  Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue (HW-113)
Seattle, WA 98001
206/399-2141 or FTS 442-2141

B. Thomas Kenna
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
1776 Niagara Street
Buffalo, NY 14207

Tony Kizlauskas
3 First National Plaza
Chicago, IL 60602

William Krasnow
Equity Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 296
Knoxville, TN  37901

Cindy Koperski
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources
101 S. Webster
Madison, Wl 53707
Richard N. Koustas
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Lab
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
201/321-6632 or FTS 340-6632

Michael Kravitz
U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency
401 M. Street, S.W. (WH-553)
Washington, DC  20460
Perry Hoskins
NUS Corp.
112 Anderson Ferry Road #101
Cincinnati, OH 45238

Jessica C. Landman
Natural Resources Defense Council
1350 New York Avenue., N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC  20005

Richard Lauch
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Lab
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7237 or FTS 684-7237
Norma Lewis
USEPA, Risk Reductin Engineering Lab
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH  45268
513/569-7665 or FTS 684-7665
Ron Lewis
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7856 or FTS 684-7856

John R. Ludwig
University of Minnesota-Duluth
Natural Resources Research Institute
Coleraine,  MN 55722

John Martin
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7758 or FTS 684-7758

William Matuszeski
USEPA - Office of Water (WH-556)
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, DC  20460

Greg McNelly
PEI Associates, Inc.
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, OH 45246

Mark Meckes
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering
26 W.  Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati,  OH 45268
513/569-7348  or 684-7348

Ossi Meyn
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Jan A. Miller
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
North Central Division
536 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60605-1592

Tom Murphy
Environment Canada
Lakes Research Branch
867 Lakeshore Road
Burlington, Ontario, CANADA L7R 4A6

Tommy Myers
US Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station
P.O. Box 631
Vicksburg, MS 39180

Tim Neiheisel
USEPA, Environmental Monitoring
  Systems Lab
3411 Church Street - Newtown Facility
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7856 or FTS 684-7856

Robert A. Olexsey
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Lab
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7861 or FTS 684-7861
Bill Olsen
Federal Office Drawer 10096
301 South Park
Helena, MT 59626-0026
406/449-5414 or FTS 585-5414

Edward J. Opatken
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH  45268
513/569-7855 or FTS  684-7855

Ian Orchard
Environment Canada
25 St. Clair Ave. "E"
Toronto, CANADA M4T 1M2
Mario A. Paula
USEPA - Region II
Waste Management Division
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY  10278

Phillip Payonk
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps  of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402

Thomas J. Powers
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering
26 W. Martin Luther King  Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7750 or FTS 684-7550

Yvette R. Roybal
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Lab
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH  45268
513/569-7502 or FTS 684-7502

Walter Richards
Martin Marietta Energy Systems
Paducha Gaseous Diffusion Plant
P.O. Box 1410
Paducah, KY 42001
502/441-6401 or FTS 355-6401

John E. Rogers
USEPA, Environmental Research Lab
College Station Road
Athens, GA 30613-7799
404/546-3128 or FTS 250-3128
Mike H. Roulier
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Lab
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7796 or FTS 684-7796

Steve Roush
Indiana Dept. of Environmental
P.O. Box  6015
Indianapolis, IN  46206-6015

Barry Rugg
ART International
273 Franklin Road
Randolph, NJ 07869

Peter Sanders
USEPA-  Region V
230 S. Dearborn St. (5HS-11)
Chicago,  IL 60604
Jackie Scheben
NUS Corp.
3082 River Road
Cincinnati, OH  45204

William B. Schmidt
U.S. Bureau of Mines
1401 E. Street, N.W.
Washington,  DC  20241
P.R. Sferra
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering
26 W. Martin Luther King  Drive
Cincinnati, OH  45268
513/569-7618 or FTS 684-7618

Frank Snitz
US Army Corps of Engineers
CENCE-PD-EA, Box 1027
Detroit, Ml 48231-1027

Laurel Staley
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering
26 W. Martin Luther King  Drive
Cincinnati, OH  45268
513/569-7863 or FTS 684-7863

Gerald Sudell (MD-800)
Foster Wheeler Enviresponse
2890 Woodbridge Ave., Bldg.  209
Edison, NJ  08837-3679

Roxanne Breines Sukol
PEI Associates, Inc.
15 Elmwood Place
Athens, OH 45701

Pamela Tames
USEPA - Region II
26 Federal Plaza - Rm. 29-102
New York, NY  10278
212/264-1036 or FTS 264-1036

Louis J. Thibodeaux
Hazardous Waste Research Center
Lousisiana State University
3418 CEBA Bldg.
Baton Rouge, LA 70803

Dennis Timberlake
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Lab
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH  45268
513/569-7547 or FTS 684-7545

Douglas Tomchuk
USEPA - Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Rm. 747
New York, NJ  10278
Allen R. Tool
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
601 East  12th Street
Kansas City, MO 64106
Ron Turner
USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Lab
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7775 or FTS 684-7775
Therese Van Donsel
USEPA - Region V
230 S. Dearborn St. (5HS-11)
Chicago, IL 60604

Chris Waggoner
Michigan Dept. or Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml 48909
Thomas Wall
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. Street, S.W. (WH-553)
Washington, DC  20460

Kenneth Wilkowski
USEPA - Risk Reduction Engineering
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ  08837-3679
201/321-6632  or FTS 340-6632

Kelly Winks
USEPA, Environmental Monitoring
 Systems Lab
3411 Church Street (Newtown Facility)
Cincinnati,  OH 45268
513/569-7856  or FTS  684-7856

Stephen M. Yaksich
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1776 Niagara  Street
Buffalo, NY 14207

Michael Zarull
International Joint Commission
Great Lakes Regional Office
P.O. Box 32869
Detroit, Ml   48232-2869