, United States
Environrnerjtal ProtecGoj
Agency - „
Great Lajses 4 r
Matronal Program. Office
K 77 Wesyacteai Boulevard
EPA9Q5-R94019
July 1994
$EPA Assessment and
Remediation
Of Contaminated Sediments
(ARCS) Program
^
PILOT-SCALE DEMONSTRATION
OF SEDIMENT WASHING FOR THE
TREATMENT OF SAQINAW RIVER
SEDIMENTS
(5) Umted"State§ Area^ of Concern
-------
.PILOT-SCALE DEMONSTRATION OF
SEDIMENT WASHING FOR THE TREATMENT OF
SAGINAW RIVER SEDIMENTS
Prepared by
U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit
Detroit, Michigan
For the
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments
(ARCS) Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
Chicago, Illinois
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevacd, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was conducted as a part of the Assessment and
Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program developed
and managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), pursuant to Section
118(c)(3) of the Water Quality Act of 1987. The report was
prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Detroit District
(NCE) in cooperation with the U.S. Army Engineer Division, North
Central (NCD), for the GLNPO under an interagency agreement
between the USEPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
study was conducted between October 1990 and February 1994.
Project managers for the GLNPO were Mssrs. David Cowgill and
Steve Garbaciak. Mr. Jan A. Miller was the ARCS Program
coordinator for NCD. The study was conducted under technical
guidance from the ARCS Program Engineering/Technology Work Group,
chaired by Dr. Steve Yaksich, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Buffalo District.
The report was prepared by Dr. Jim Galloway and Mr. Frank
Snitz of the Environmental Analysis Branch, NCE. Extensive field
support for the demonstration was provided by Messrs. Ernest
Liebetreu and Stephen Birchmeier of the Corps of Engineers
Saginaw Area Office in Essexville, Michigan, and the vessel
masters and crews of the Corps cranebarge VELER and tug RACINE.
The report was compiled by Ms. Sheila Davis, with graphics
supplied by Mr. Dennis Rundlett, both of NCE. Technical review
was provided by the Engineering/Technology Work Group and Messrs.
Scott O'Brien and Richard Traver of Bergmann USA.
11
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in
part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under
Interagency Agreements No. DW96947555-1, DW96947581-1,
DW96947595-0, and DW96947629-0 with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. 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.
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of a pilot-scale
demonstration of the remediation of PCB contaminated sediments
from the Saginaw River. A sediment washing system developed by
Bergmann USA was evaluated for its effectiveness in remediating
sediments by separating PCB and metal enriched physical phases
from the bulk of the sediment. Sediments were processed using
various classification devices and water flow configurations.
Samples were collected at up to 23 points throughout the system
to monitor grain size distributions, densities, and total organic
carbon content. Samples from selected stations were analyzed for
PCB and metal concentrations.
Approximately 80% of the solids contained in the feed were
recovered as a washed sand product. The remaining particulates
were recovered as oversize material (5 to 15%), particulate
organics (<2%), and fine particulates (8 to 9%). The process
resulted in a 82% reduction in PCB concentration when comparing
the feed (1.2 mg/kg) to the washed sand (0.21 mg/kg). Reduction
percentages for other constituents were calculated as follows:
sub-38/i particles (94%) , sub-75/i particles (77%) , total organic
carbon (79%), cadmium (88%), chromium (55%), copper (65%),
mercury (82%), nickel (71%), lead (61%), and zinc (82%). These
constituents tended to be concentrated in the fine material
fraction, and to a slightly lesser extent in the particulate
organics.
Sediment washing is a relatively low cost treatment option
when compared to other technologies commonly considered for the
remediation of contaminated sediments. Treatment and monitoring
of 10,000 cubic yards (cy) using a 50 tons per hour (tph) plant
is estimated to cost about $54/cy. Treatment of 100,000 cy using
the same plant would be expected to cost about $23/cy. Operation
of a full-scale unit capable of treating 50 tph would be expected
to result in the recovery of slightly less material as washed
sand, but in a higher percentage reduction of contaminants.
IV
-------
PILOT-SCALE DEMONSTRATION OF
SEDIMENT WASHING FOR THE TREATMENT OF
SAGINAW RIVER SEDIMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ii
Disclaimer iii
Abstract iv
List of Figures viii
List of Tables x
List of Abbreviations and Symbols xii
Introduction 1
Objective 1
Description of the Saginaw River/Bay
Area of Concern 3
Watershed Description 3
Status of Remedial Action Plan 3
Sediment Physical/Chemical Character 5
Sources of Sediments 5
Sediment Pollution 5
Sediment Characteristics and Quality 6
Demonstration Approach 7
Technology Selection 7
Planning Document 8
Environmental Assessment 8
Scope of Work/Contract 9
Sample Location and Excavation 9
Site Description 11
Site Preparation 12
Plant Assembly 12
Material Handling 14
Transport and Storage 14
Feed Operations 14
Sediment Washing 15
System Description 16
Removal of Oversized Material 16
Hydrocyclone Separators 20
Dense Media Separator 20
Attrition Scrubber 20
Additional Washing Steps 23
Sand Recovery and Dewatering Screens 23
Clarifiers 25
Pilot-Scale Demonstration 25
Fall 1991 Operations 26
Spring 1992 Operations 26
Residuals Management 28
Execution and Costs 29
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Page
Monitoring 30
Operations Monitoring by Bergmann USA 30
Material Process Monitoring under the
USEPA SITE Program 30
Corps of Engineers Material Process Monitoring . . 31
Parameter Selection 31
Sampling 31
Analytical Protocol 33
Results and Discussion 37
Laboratory Results 37
Overall Mass Balance 38
Physical Characteristics & TOC 40
Overall Performance 40
Rotary Trommel 44
Hydrocyclone Separator Number 1 45
Dense Media Separator 47
Attrition Scrubber 50
Hydrocyclone Separator Number 2 53
Hydrocyclone Separator Number 3 56
Sand Recovery Screen 56
Rotary Screen 56
Split Deck Dewatering Screen 59
Clarif ier 61
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 61
Process Feed 62
Washed Sand 62
Particulate Organics 62
Clarifier Feed 64
Recycle Water 66
Saginaw Bay Water 66
Metals 66
SITE Results 68
Sediment Toxicity 68
Full-scale Implementation 70
Full-Scale Treatment System 70
Material Feed 71
Sediment Washing Unit 71
Cost Estimate for Sediment Remediation 72
Remediation of 10,000 Cubic Yards 72
Remediation of 100,000 Cubic Yards 75
Conclusions and Recommendations 75
Conclusions 75
Material Composition 75
Material Handling 76
Processing Operations 76
Contaminant Removal Levels 77
vi
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Page
Analytical Surrogates 77
Residuals 81
Costs 81
Recommendations/Lessons Learned 81
References 85
Appendices 87
Appendix A Compiled Data from Laboratory Analyses
Appendix B Data Reports from Laboratory Analyses
Appendix C Schematic Diagrams Illustrating
Daily Modes of Operation
Appendix D Quality Assurance Project Plan
Vll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
1 Five Areas of Concern designated for on-site
ARCS Pilot-Scale Demonstrations 2
2 Major tributaries to Saginaw Bay 4
3 Location of the Saginaw River/Bay
Area of Concern 4
4 Location of dredging and processing areas .... 10
5 Layout of Pilot-Scale Demonstration site for
sediment washing at Saginaw Bay, MI 13
6 Feed hopper and conveyors, and sand
discharge conveyor 15
7 General process flow diagram for the
Bergmann USA system used at Saginaw Bay .... 17
8 Barge-mounted Bergmann USA sediment washing
plant at Saginaw Confined Disposal Area .... 18
9 Rotary Trommel showing headbox,
upper washing zone, and lower sizing zone ... 19
10 Hydrocyclone Separator Number 1, mounted above
the Dense Media Separator 19
11 Schematic of a Linatex Hydrocyclone Separator . . 21
12 Schematic of Linatex Dense Media Separator. ... 22
13 Hydrocyclone Separators Numbers 2 and 3,
showing feed lines with pressure valves,
overflow lines with smaller vacuum control
lines, and underflow discharge to box below . . 24
14 Clarifier used during Spring 1992 operations. . . 24
15 Sampling points for ARCS Pilot-Scale
Demonstration at Saginaw Bay 34
Vlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Numbers Page
16 Procedure No. 1, particle sizing less
than 38 microns 35
17 Procedure No. 2, particle sizing greater
than 38 microns 35
18 Grain size distribution of feed 42
19 Grain size distribution of four
discharge streams 43
20 Enrichment Factors for TOG in feed, fines,
particulate organics and washed sand 44
21 PCB concentrations of 4 hour composite samples
collected during ARCS demonstration 65
22 Enrichment Factors for PCBs in feed, fines,
particulate organics and washed sand 65
23 Enrichment Factors for metals in feed, fines,
particulate organics and sand 69
24 Distribution of treatment cost for 10,000 and
100,000 cubic yard estimates 74
25 Comparison of % sub-53/i material in feed
and washed sand 78
26 Comparison of total organic carbon content
of feed and washed sand 79
27 Comparison of PCB concentrations in feed
and washed sand 80
28 Summary of percentage of fines, total organic
carbon, and dry density found in process streams 82
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Numbers Page
1 Modes of operation used during Saginaw Pilot-
Scale Demonstration 27
2 Cost of Sediment Washing Pilot-Scale Demonstration
at Saginaw 30
3 Summary of ARCS sampling of the Bergmann
USA process 32
4 Analytical parameters for sediment
samples (modified from QAPP) 36
5 Analytical parameters for water samples
(modified from QAPP) 37
6 Estimates by weight of input and
output streams 39
7 Overall physical separation achieved 41
8 Physical separation achieved by
Hydrocyclone Separator 1 46
9 Physical separation achieved by
Dense Media Separator (DMS) 48
10 Dense Media Separator underflow (Station 11)
comparison at two settings 49
11 Dense Media Separator overflow (Station 10)
before and after change in sampling location . 51
12 Grain size distribution of Attrition
Scrubber feed and discharge streams 52
13 Grain size distribution of Hydrocyclone
Number 2 feed and discharge streams 54
14 Grain size distribution of Hydrocyclone
No. 3 when No. 2 is bypassed 55
15 Grain size distribution of Hydrocyclone
No. 3 when No. 2 is operating 57
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Numbers Page
16 Grain size separation achieved by
Sand Recovery Screen 58
17 Split Deck Dewatering Screen input
and output 60
18 PCS concentrations in process input
and output streams 63
19 Bench scale derived enrichment factors for metals
and PCBs in various grain size groupings ... 64
20 Summary of metals data from ARCS
Pilot-Scale Demonstration 67
21 Cost estimates and % of total costs for
remediating 10,000 and 100,000 cubic yards of
Saginaw River sediments at 50 tons per hour. . 73
22 Average removal levels for individual
materials when comparing feed with
washed sand 77
XI
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
AOC Area of Concern
ARCS Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments
CDF Confined Disposal Facility
COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
cy cubic yard
DDT dichloro-diphenyl-trichloro-ethane
DMS Dense Media Separator
EA Environmental Assessment
ECMPDR East Central Michigan Planning and Development Region
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
ETWG Engineering/Technology Work Group
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
fpm feet per minute
FWS Fish and Wildlife Service of U.S. Dept. of Interior
GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office of USEPA
gpm gallons per minute
hp Horsepower
IJC International Joint Commission
Ibs pounds
Ibs/hr pounds per hour
LWD Low Water Datum
MDNR Michigan Department of Natural Resources
min minute
mg milligram
mg/kg milligram per kilogram
mm millimeter
MSU Michigan State University
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
ng nanogram
ng/g nanogram per gram
O+G oil and grease
PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PBB polybrominated biphenyl
ppb part per billion
ppm part per million
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RAP Remedial Action Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
rpm revolutions per minute
SAIC Science Applications International Corporation
SCS Soil Conservation Service
XII
-------
ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
SCO Soil Conservation District
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
TMA/ERG Thermo Analytical Inc./Environmental Research Group
TOC total organic carbon
tph tons per hour
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TSS total suspended solids
TVS total volatile solids
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
WES Waterways Experiment Station of COE
WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant
M micron
/Lig microgram
microgram per gram
microgram per kilogram
jug/1 microgram per liter
SYMBOLS
Cd cadmium
Cr chromium
Cu copper
Hg mercury
Ni nickel
Pb lead
Zn zinc
% percent
Xlll
-------
PILOT-SCALE DEMONSTRATION OF
SEDIMENT WASHING FOR THE TREATMENT OF SAGINAW RIVER SEDIMENTS
INTRODUCTION
The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act, Section
118(c)(3), authorized the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) to
conduct a 5-year study and demonstration project on the control
and removal of toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes, with emphasis
on the removal of toxic pollutants from bottom sediments (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1990). The Great Lakes Water
Quality Board of the International Joint Commission (UC) has
documented 43 Areas of Concern (AOC) in the Great Lakes Basin
where one or more of the objectives of the 1978 Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement and other jurisdictional standards, criteria,
or guidelines are not met. GLNPO initiated the Assessment and
Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program to assess
the nature and extent of bottom sediment contamination at
selected AOCs, evaluate and demonstrate remedial options, and
provide guidance on the assessment of contaminated sediment
problems and the selection and implementation of remedial actions
in the AOCs and other locations in the Great Lakes.
Past industrial and municipal discharges have polluted the
Saginaw River and Bay and their sediments. As a result, the
river exhibits environmental degradation and impairment of
beneficial uses of water and biota (Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, 1988). Under the 1987 amendments to the Clean
Water Act, Section 118(c)(3), the Saginaw River and Bay AOC was
one of five areas designated for priority consideration in
locating and conducting demonstrations of sediment assessment and
remediation techniques (Figure 1). A pilot-scale demonstration
was conducted in Saginaw Bay, Michigan in the Fall of 1991 and
Spring of 1992 to evaluate the ability of a sediment washing
process to remediate Saginaw River sediments contaminated with
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the Saginaw River pilot-scale demonstration
was to evaluate sediment washing as a treatment technology for
sediments from the Saginaw River and Bay Area of Concern.
Specific objectives of the pilot-scale demonstration included
determining: the efficiency of the sediment washing process in
separating silts, clays and particulate organics from
predominantly sandy sediments; the effectiveness of various
components of the system in achieving the desired separation; the
handling and pre-processing requirements for the sediments; and
the characteristics of each of the process output streams and
their suitability for reuse or disposal. Another objective of
the demonstration was to provide information to be used in the
-------
Saginaw River
System and
Saginaw Bay
Grand Calumet River
and Indiana Harbor
Ship Canal
Figure 1: Five Areas of Concern designated for on-site ARCS Pilot Scale Demonstrations.
-------
development of cost estimates for full-scale remediation
projects.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SAGINAW RIVER AND BAY AREA OF CONCERN
Watershed Description
The Saginaw River and Bay Area of Concern is defined as
extending from the outer edge of the Bay, between Au Sable Point
and Point Aux Barques, upstream to the head of the Saginaw River.
The Bay is 52 miles long, up to 26 miles wide, and has a surface
area of 1,143 square miles. The River extends inland for 22
miles to its head at the confluence of the Shiawassee and
Tittabawassee Rivers above the City of Saginaw (Figure 2). These
rivers, along with the Flint River (a tributary of the
Shiawassee), and Cass River (a tributary of the Saginaw), drain a
large part of the central portion of Michigan's lower peninsula,
and contribute about 75% of the hydraulic flow to the Bay. The
Saginaw River watershed along with the 27 other smaller rivers,
creeks and agricultural drains which enter Saginaw Bay directly,
drain about 15% of the State's land area (about 6,278 square
miles). Much of this watershed is outside the Area of Concern,
but the entire drainage basin is considered part of the Source
Area of Concern (Figure 3) as anthropogenic inputs from
throughout the area may contribute to the problem of impaired
usage.
The majority of anthropogenic contaminants derive from
agricultural run-off, and municipal and industrial discharges in
the cities of Flint, Saginaw, Bay City and Midland. These inputs
have resulted in degradation of the resource value of the Saginaw
River. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1988
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the area describes 6 beneficial
uses that are impaired. These include: public drinking water
supply, human consumption of fish, total body contact recreation,
commercial navigation, shoreline aesthetics, and the suitability
of the area to support indigenous aquatic life. The impairments
are due to excess nutrients, toxic materials including PCBs,
dioxin and heavy metals, and bacterial contamination. Sources
continuing to contribute these contaminants include industrial
and municipal discharges, combined sewer overflows (CSOs),
contaminated sediments, urban and agricultural run-off, waste
disposal sites, and atmospheric deposition. While the sediments
in the AOC are contaminated, they are not considered 'toxic' or
'hazardous' based on the regulatory definitions of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) or the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
Status of Remedial Action Plan
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) is
responsible for the development and implementation of a Remedial
Action Plan (RAP) for the Saginaw River/Bay AOC. The East
-------
Saginaw River/Bay
Areas of Concern
Figure 2: Major tributaries to Saginaw Bay.
Source Area of Concern
Figure 3: Location of the Saginaw River/Bay Area of Concern.
-------
Central Michigan Planning and Development Region (ECMPDR), a
regional planning agency in Saginaw, prepared an initial draft
RAP under contract with MDNR. A variety of representatives of
local, state and Federal agencies, academia, environmental
consulting firms, and public interest environmental groups also
participated in development of the RAP. The Saginaw Basin
Natural Resources Steering Committee, a group of representatives
from the general public, interest groups, and industry in the
drainage basin, coordinated public participation through meetings
and workshops. The first draft RAP was completed in 1987. A
revised version was distributed for public review, and
subsequently submitted to the International Joint Commission
(IJC) in September 1988.
The RAP identified as goals: (1) reducing the levels of toxic
materials in fish tissue to the point where public health fish
consumption advisories are unnecessary, (2) reducing toxic
material levels in the AOC to meet Michigan water quality
standards and (3) reducing eutrophication in Saginaw Bay to a
level where the Bay will support a balanced mesotrophic
biological community. Actions taken since the 1988 document can
be classified in six general areas: Coordination, Nonpoint
Source Pollution Reduction Projects, Point Source Facility
Improvements/Controls, Environmental Assessment/Research
Projects, Education Programs, and Miscellaneous Activities.
Among these areas there have been approximately 90 separate
efforts to make progress towards improving the AOC. Additional
information concerning these programs or projects can be obtained
from the December 1992 Saginaw River/Bay Remedial Action Plan
Progress Report.
Sediment Physical/Chemical Character
Sources of Sediments—
Agricultural activities account for over half the land use in
the Source Area of Concern. As a large portion of this land is
rich in erodible clay, runoff from these areas is the likely
source for the majority of sediment entering the system.
Sedimentation occurs in the navigation channels of the River and
throughout much of the Bay. The 1988 RAP reported apparent
sedimentation rates of up to 0.67 g/cm2/yr in the Bay. Corps of
Engineers (COE) dredging required to maintain the Federal
Navigation Channels of the Saginaw River removes about 35,000 cy
of sediments annually. Maintenance of the Saginaw Bay channel
requires the dredging of approximately 300,000 cy on an average
annual basis.
Sediment Pollution—
The 1988 RAP identifies a wide variety of contaminants which
have been found in the tributaries of the Saginaw River. Located
within these tributary watersheds are a variety of large and
small chemical and manufacturing companies. Contaminants found
in these watercourses include polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
-------
(PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dichloro-diphenyl-
trichloro-ethane (DDT), polybrominated biphenyls (PBB), poly-
chloro dioxins, and a variety of metals. Saginaw River sediments
have also been contaminated by other industrial and municipal
discharges. PCBs were found in the suspended solids recovered
from the river as early as 1971. Since then concentrations in
the sediments outside the navigation channel have been found
exceeding 500 mg/kg in a few spots (MDNR, 1988). Navigation
channel sediments are more typically in the <.l to 5 mg/kg range.
The navigation channel material can be described as moderately
contaminated with PCBs. Over a decade long record, the material
has not indicated any hazardous (RCRA) nor shown any toxic (TSCA)
characteristics. Other categories of sediment parameters that
are elevated consist of nutrients and general organics. The
latter (TVS, TOC, COD, etc.) are primarily derived from degraded
detrital matter. An unquantified minor portion of general
organics is likely contributed by petroleum products. Heavy
metals are in background ranges commonly found in Great Lakes
sediments.
Sediment Characteristics and Quality—
A COE Detroit District field crew sampled the maintained
navigation reach in July 1992 utilizing gravity coring. The
results show that the sand size fraction of the sediments
increases in the upriver direction. Within a mile of the mouth,
the sediment was about 15 to 20% sand size, increasing to a range
of 70 to 99% at the upriver reaches near Carrolton. Detrital
material was abundantly present, contributing to elevated organic
indicating parameters including Total Organic Carbon (TOC),
Solvent Extractables (O&G), Total Volatile Solids (TVS), and
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). This set of analyses, as in
previous years, showed heavy metals at insignificant
concentrations (i.e. at background levels frequently encountered
in Great Lakes sediments). Arsenic, ranging from 5 to 20 mg/kg
and averaging around 9 mg/kg, is a good example.
PCBs, while still present and quantifiable showed a marked
decrease, ranging from a high of 25 mg/kg and an average of
approximately 1 to 2 mg/kg in the previous decade, to a high of
1.5 mg/kg and an approximate average of 0.1 to 0.2 mg/kg as seen
in analyses carried out in 1992 and 1993. The overall channel
sediment quality, while appearing to be demonstrating an expected
trend of decreasing PCB levels, remains contaminated with
quantifiable levels of PCBs which are readily available for
biomagnification processes in the aquatic environment.
Accordingly, these sediments may be described as contaminated
with PCBs, and removal from the aquatic environment remains a
highly desirable objective.
The sediment dredged for use as feed material was relatively
sandy as shown in Table A-20. The heavy metal and PCB
concentrations of this material are presented in Table A-26. The
values shown are typical of the range of values observed over a
-------
two decade period in the Saginaw River Federal navigation
channel. However, as we have just noted, the mean PCB value of
1.2 mg/kg found in the feed would presently be considered a high
value for the overall channel based on the analyses carried out
in 1992 and 1993.
DEMONSTRATION APPROACH
TECHNOLOGY SELECTION
A literature review of treatment technologies was performed
for the ARCS Program by the Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station (WES) and was used to screen process options
for biological, chemical, extraction, immobilization, radiant
energy, and thermal technologies (Averett et. al, 1990). Each
process option was assessed on the basis of effectiveness,
implementability, and cost. A number of the higher cost thermal
processes were eliminated from consideration due to expense,
while numerous other processes were eliminated from further
consideration because of the lack of research and development for
application to a contaminated sediment matrix. The availability
of a mobile pilot-scale unit was essential for implementing an
on-site pilot demonstration. Based on these criteria, a list of
those processes that should be retained for demonstration
consideration was developed.
A matrix was developed containing the processes recommended
for consideration for the pilot-scale demonstrations. The
information included the principal contaminants treatable by each
process, and the Areas of Concern where such contaminants are
present, and where the processes are applicable (Averett, 1990).
A list of potential pilot projects was then prepared and these
alternatives were ranked for consideration.
All five priority sites: Ashtabula River, Ohio; Buffalo
River, New York; Grand Calumet River, Indiana; Saginaw River,
Michigan; and Sheboygan Harbor, Wisconsin are contaminated by
organic compounds. Most of these sites have areas of elevated
contamination that could be used for a demonstration project.
Rather than strictly follow the numeric ranking of the potential
pilot-scale demonstrations, the ARCS Engineering/Technology Work
Group (ETWG), which was responsible for recommending and
implementing the demonstrations, determined that a representation
of the available technological categories (biological, chemical,
extraction, immobilization, thermal) should be selected for
demonstration.
Sediment washing is a relatively low cost technology which
can be used to reduce the volume of material requiring
confinement or additional treatment when sediments are
predominantly coarse grained. Due to the sandy nature of
sediments in much of the Saginaw AOC, sediment washing was
-------
selected as a technically suitable approach. This technology
could be feasibly used even when dealing with low levels of
contamination.
PLANNING DOCUMENT
Planning for the pilot-scale demonstration began in late
1990. A "Draft Plan for the Pilot-Scale Demonstration of
Treatment Technologies at Saginaw River/Bay, Michigan" was
presented to the ETWG in January of 1991. This document
discussed a general plan which involved two sediment sources
treated using sediment washing techniques, followed by
bioremediation and/or extraction technologies. The plan called
for the use of a hydrocyclone for volume reduction prior to other
treatments. After subsequent discussions, the ETWG determined to
focus 1991 activities on a simple hydrocyclone operation. As
plans were developed in detail it became apparent that a more
sophisticated demonstration of sediment washing could be
conducted for about the same cost.
The Detroit District of the Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
carried out coordination with the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and USEPA
Region 5 regarding the scope of the project. A meeting was held
in Lansing, Michigan on July 11, 1991 to discuss the proposed
plan with MDNR and FWS personnel. USEPA Region 5 personnel were
consulted on July 12, 1991 in Chicago. As a result of these
meetings and other coordination efforts, we determined that to
execute a demonstration in late 1991, the material to be treated
would have to come from the Federal navigation channel and no
TSCA regulated material should be generated by the demonstration.
The use of dredged material with lower concentrations of PCBs
made the fines less attractive as a source material for use in
examining intensive bioremediation or extraction technologies.
As a result, these follow up technologies were deleted from the
plans.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),
preparation of an environmental document (often an Environmental
Assessment) to evaluate the type and significance of potential
project impacts is usually required for Federal activities. For
activities carried out by the COE, a Finding of No significant
Impact (FONSI) or Notice of Intent would usually be prepared and
signed by the District Engineer. A FONSI is a document which
presents reasons why a proposed Federal action would not have a
significant impact on the quality of the human environment, based
on the findings in the Environmental Assessment (EA), and states
that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
would not be necessary. In cases where potential significant
impacts have been identified, a Notice of Intent would be
published in the Federal Register stating that an EIS would be
-------
prepared.
Work on an EA for this demonstration was begun in the Spring
of 1991 by the Detroit District COE, Environmental Analysis
Branch staff. The EA provided a general description of four
dredging, treatment and disposal alternatives which could be
implemented, and discussed potential environmental impacts. The
EA concluded that none of the alternatives would significantly
affect the human environment. Because the selected alternative
was to use material dredged by the COE from the Federal
navigation channel, and because treatment and ultimate disposal
was to take place on the COE Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) in
Saginaw Bay, no state or Federal permits were required.
Conducting the work at this facility allowed the use of existing
environmental documentation to meet the requirements of Sections
401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act. Calculations based on
expected separation efficiencies and the contaminant levels in
the dredge material indicated none of the process streams would
contain PCB levels which would trigger regulation under the Toxic
Substance Control Act (TSCA). Coordination with FWS, MDNR and
USEPA was accomplished through the referenced July 11 and 12
meetings. Separate coordination occurred with the Michigan State
Historic Preservation Officer through correspondence and
telephone calls. The distribution of the EA for review to
appropriate government agencies and interested individuals on
July 31, 1991 and the subsequent signing of a FONSI on September
10, 1991, completed the NEPA requirements.
SCOPE OF WORK/CONTRACT
Representatives of Bergmann USA made a presentation at the
March 27, 1991 meeting of the ETWG and provided information on
the capabilities of their firm and their sediment washing
equipment. During subsequent discussions, Bergmann staff
expressed an interest in participating with the ETWG in a
pilot-scale demonstration. A scope of work was prepared by the
Detroit District COE which provided background information,
stated the objective of the demonstration, and provided a
description of the services required. The Scope of Work was
provided to Bergmann USA who offered to supply all necessary
equipment and travel/per diem for their employees as a no cost
contribution to the demonstration. The COE agreed to pay a lump
sum to cover the costs of the labor and supplies anticipated to
be required from Bergmann USA. In addition, the COE agreed to
ship all equipment, provide a crane and operator for assembly of
the plant, a barge, a power source, and necessary field support.
SAMPLE LOCATION AND EXCAVATION
As the process to be demonstrated had the potential to
concentrate PCBs in a fraction of the original volume, and this
reduced volume could still be as much as 40 or 50 cubic yards, it
was decided to use a feed material which had a negligible
9
-------
likelihood of producing a discharge stream exceeding the TSCA
regulated limit of 50 mg/kg PCB. Preliminary work by the U.S.
Bureau of Mines on some Saginaw River sediment samples indicated
that the finest 9% of the sediment could have a PCB concentration
roughly an order of magnitude above the bulk sediment
concentration (Allen, in prep.). It was determined that to
minimize costs, permit reguirements and delays, sediment from the
navigation channel which had a bulk PCB concentration of 1 to 4
mg/kg would be used.
The Detroit District COE reviewed sediment data collected
from the Federal navigation channel over the previous 10 years
and selected areas to dredge which had traditionally shown PCB
concentrations in the desired range along with a high percentage
of sand (>70%). Areas along the edge of the channel at these
sites were precisely located by COE surveyors and marked with
floats. The COE contracted with Thermo Analytical
Inc./Environmental Research Group (TMA/ERG) of Ann Arbor, MI to
collect and composite samples from the marked areas. Analysis of
the composite samples by TMA/ERG for PCBs and grain size
distribution indicated the selected area (Figure 4) would provide
suitable material for processing.
Processing tocattoa
Cottflaed Disposal
PmcHJty
Rear range light*^—''
ESSEXVILLE
Figure 4: Location of dredging and processing areas.
10
-------
Fresh sediments were collected from the Saginaw River rather
than using materials already confined in the CDF to ensure the
demonstration reflected the treatment of Saginaw AOC sediments as
it could occur in a full-scale clean up project. Most dredged
material already present in the CDF was placed there
hydraulically using a pipeline. The hydraulic placement of
material acts as a crude classifying technique, with the coarse
material settling close to the end of the pipe and the finer and
lighter material being carried further away. In addition,
weathering and biodegradation of contaminants had probably
occurred since placement, making it difficult to obtain a
quantity of material characteristic of freshly dredged river
sediments.
The dredging of the test material from the Saginaw River was
accomplished by the COE crane barge VELER attended by the tug
RACINE. An open clamshell bucket was used to dredge
approximately 300 cubic yards in October 1991. An additional 500
cubic yards were dredged in early May of 1992 to assure enough
material was present for uninterrupted operations. An attempt
was made to limit all dredging to the top 2 feet of the
designated areas by marking the cable used to lift the clamshell
at the appropriate length.
SITE DESCRIPTION
While this demonstration could have been carried out on any
small level area along the river, it was determined to use the
COE Saginaw Bay Confined Disposal Facility because it was; (1) in
government ownership, (2) away from areas owned or frequented by
the public; and (3) designed and built for receiving dredged
material so process products could remain on site without
affecting long term property values or habitats. As the area
exists for the purpose of accepting dredged material, all
necessary environmental documentation was in place for storage
and ultimate disposal of the test material.
Excavated sediments were transported by the COE barges
MICHIGAN and VELER to the CDF in loads of 100 to 150 cy. The
material was transferred from the barges to the CDF by the crane
of the VELER using a clamshell. The crane removed the material
from the barges and swung its boom over the CDF perimeter dike to
place the material in a prepared storage area.
The Saginaw Bay CDF is located in Saginaw Bay approximately 1
mile from the mouth of the Saginaw River on the southeast side of
the Federal Channel (Figure 4). The CDF was designed to confine
contaminated sediments dredged from the Federal Channel in the
Saginaw River and Saginaw Bay. Construction of the CDF was
completed in 1978. The CDF has a design capacity of 10 million
cubic yards and consists of a dike surrounding an area of
approximately 285 acres including 2 small islands previously
formed by dredged material disposal. The dike walls have a top
11
-------
elevation of approximately 14 feet above Low Water Datum (LWD)
and are made up of layers of various sizes of limestone. The
crest of the dike is about 6 feet wide. The slope of the dike
results in a width of approximately 62 feet at LWD. The State of
Michigan is the local sponsor for the CDF and will assume
ownership when it is filled. It is currently estimated that the
CDF can contain an additional 3 million cubic yards of dredged
material.
The CDF is accessible only by water. Therefore, all
materials reguired for site preparation and execution of the
demonstration were barged to the site. The demonstration was
staged on an 80-by-300 foot strip of land adjacent to the
perimeter dike (Figure 5). This area was predominantly sandy as
the result of previous disposal operations, and was vegetated
only by herbaceous plants.
Site Preparation
Site preparation was accomplished in September and October
1991 by COE employees. The in-place material at the site was
graded using a bulldozer to create a bermed storage area for feed
material and an area on which settling enclosures would be
constructed. The feed storage area was surrounded with a 3 foot
high berm and lined with geotextile fabric. The area for the
enclosures was lowered to 6-7 feet below the dike crest to allow
for 1-2 feet of sand and gravel foundation material and a 4 foot
high enclosure, and still keep the top of the enclosures below
the dike elevation. Geotextile fabric, gravel and sand were
layered to provide a stable foundation under the 30 foot diameter
enclosures. This was topped by an impermeable 40 mil PVC layer,
6 inches of sand which contained a perforated plastic drainage
tile line, and a geotextile filter fabric. The 46 inch high, 10
gauge galvanized corrugated steel settling enclosures were
constructed on top of the described foundation. The PVC was
folded on the outside of the enclosures so that water placed
inside would filter through the top geotextile and sand layer to
the drainage tile and flow outside the containment area. Solids
introduced to the enclosures collected on the geotextile via
settling and filtration. The area between the feed storage site
and settling enclosures was used for movement and storage of
materials from the solid discharge streams.
Plant Assembly
The Bergmann USA plant was shipped as modules under
government contract to the Consumers Power Coal docks at the
mouth of the Saginaw River. Assembly on the COE barge MICHIGAN
was accomplished by Bergmann USA personnel and contract labor. A
COE contracted crane and operator assisted in the placement of
the modules and support equipment in their proper positions on
the barge. Total assembly of the system dockside occurred over a
15 day period. The barge was then towed to the CDF and moored
12
-------
H-
09
i-t
(D
r1
PI
o
Hi
o
n>
o
P
en
rt
i-i
P>
rt
H-
O
3
en
H-
O
i-i
cn
n>
a-
H-
(D
3
rt
P
cn
P'
H-
3
OQ
OQ
H-
3
P)
-------
with the bow against the perimeter dike on the channel side
(Figure 5). Conveyors were assembled to transport the feed
material from the CDF to the barge, and to remove the washed sand
from the barge to the CDF. During the Fall 1991 operation, a 140
gpm trailer-mounted plate clarifier was placed on the dike crest.
For Spring 1992 operations, an additional feed unit was added on
the CDF, and the trailer-mounted clarifier was replaced with a
barge-mounted unit having about four times the settling area of
the initial unit.
MATERIAL HANDLING
Transport and Storage
As previously described, the dredged sediments were
transported to the CDF on flat-decked barges. The material was
moved to a holding/storage area lined with geotextile fabric by a
barge-mounted crane equipped with a clam shell. The feed was
then allowed to dewater by evaporation and draining through the
geotextile. The material dredged in the Fall of 1991 was allowed
to dewater for approximately 25 days prior to beginning the
demonstration. The remainder of this material was used for the
Spring operations until the supply was exhausted, at which point
sediment dredged in the Spring of 1992, which had dewatered for a
minimum of 15 days, was used.
Feed Operations
The movement of feed material from the storage site to the
rotary trommel to begin the sediment washing process was achieved
by a four wheel drive front-end loader and conveyors. During the
Fall 1991 portion of the demonstration, the front-end loader
retrieved material from the storage area and piled it adjacent to
the feed hopper of a single conveyor. In order to maintain a
uniform feed rate, material was shovelled by hand on to the 24
inch wide conveyor for transport to the head of the rotary
trommel screen. Debris was removed by hand to prevent damage to
the system. The system was modified prior to the Spring 1992
portion of the demonstration by adding a feed hopper equipped
with a series of steel bars spaced 2 inches apart. This
"grizzly" screen effectively removed debris from the dredged
material. The feed hopper also subjected the feed to twin
counter-rotating shafts with numerous short rods protruding
perpendicular to the axis of the shafts. This arrangement helped
to break up clumps of feed before dropping it onto a short 24
inch wide conveyor for transport to the previously described
conveyor to the head box of the trommel. During the Spring
operation, the feed hopper was supplied with dredge material
directly by the front-end loader (Figure 6).
14
-------
Figure 6:
conveyor.
Feed hopper and conveyors, and sand discharge
SEDIMENT WASHING
Sediment washing for volume reduction in the treatment of
contaminated sediments is an adaptation of mineral processing and
ore enrichment operations commonly used in the mining industry.
In mineral processing, the goal is to beneficiate or enrich an
ore by isolating a physical phase of feed material that has the
highest amount of a valuable constituent. The objective is to
15
-------
collect most of the valuable mineral in a small fraction of the
original volume. In sediment washing, the same approach is used
with the contaminant replacing the valuable mineral. The
Bergmann USA system incorporates a wide array of standard mineral
processing operations which can be brought on-line as required to
isolate those physically separable phases which contain the bulk
of the contaminants.
System Description
Sediment washing systems can be designed to isolate
physically separable sediment fractions. The success of the
system depends upon the physical and chemical properties of the
contaminant and of the sediment. The system used at Saginaw was
a pilot plant designed for use at a variety of sites. As such,
it consisted of several unit operations and was not optimized to
process Saginaw sediments specifically. The plant was further
constrained by the feed rate desirable for a pilot demonstration.
A feed rate in excess of 5 tons per hour would have required
substantially larger sumps, pumps, screens etc. and more dredged
material. As the grain size separated by a hydrocyclone is
dependent on the size of the cyclone, restricting the feed rate
to around 5 tons per hour limited the effectiveness of the system
in removing particles in the 38 to 75 micron range. To use a
hydrocyclone sized to remove particles in this range would have
required a plant with capacity an order of magnitude greater.
The process flow diagram for the Bergmann USA plant used at
Saginaw is shown in Figure 7. A photo of the plant as mounted on
the Corps barge MICHIGAN is presented in Figure 8.
Removal of Oversized Material—
As described in the discussion of feed operations, the
initial removal of oversized debris occurred by hand in the Fall
of 1991, and through the use of a grizzly with 2 inch openings on
the feed hopper during the Spring 1992 operations. The material
was then transported by 24 inch wide conveyors to the head box of
the trommel. This unit is a rotating cylinder three feet in
diameter and 12 feet long (Figure 9). The axis of the cylinder
slopes downward at about 15 degrees so gravity moves material
through the unit. The unit contains two distinct zones: the
first is a washing/disaggregation zone, and the second is a
sizing zone. As feed was introduced to the trommel headbox,
approximately 100 gallons per minute of overflow water from a
downstream cyclone was combined with it to create a slurry. The
slurry moved into the washing zone where it was tumbled with the
aid of longitudinal lifter bars. Water was also sprayed on the
inside of the trommel to further deagglomerate and slurry the
feed material. As the slurry moved down the slope it reached the
sizing zone. In this zone, the solid outside of the cylinder was
replaced by a screen with 6 mm openings. Material coarser than 6
16
-------
Feed
Oversize Material (+6 mm)
Sump
Water-
Sand Recovery
Screen Organics
Paniculate Organics
I
Attrition
Scrubber
s,
Sand
and
^••i
r-
^••••J
~*m
i
\
i
i
••»_
I
/
'
Sc
r
lydrocyclone 2
ind
i
1
Jl
3
\
1
vu
Vnl
Split Deck
Dewatering
Screen
I
Hydrocyclone 3 I
T Sand T
i
Sand
Figure 7: General process flow diagram for the Bergmann USA System used at Saginaw Bay.
-------
00
' '-<' '^F%'wf .;T^-f* *'•
,,.:,1 •' -I * {ujfef? &*&&'*^1$$Sii&
&
F;
Figure 8: Barge-raounted Bergmann USA sediment washing plant at the Saginaw Confined
Disposal Area.
-------
Figure 9: Rotary Trommel showing headbox, upper
washing zone, and lower sizing zone.
Figure 10: Hydrocyclone Separator Number 1,
mounted above Dense Media Separator.
-------
mm was discharged out the end of the cylinder and collected in a
drum. This material was referred to as 'trommel overs'. Water
and material smaller than 6 mm fell through the screen into a
450-gallon sump.
Hydrocyclone Separators—
The sub-6 mm material which collected in the first sump was
pumped to the first hydrocyclone at a nominal rate of 130 gpm of
a 15% solids by weight slurry. Hydrocyclones separate solids
based upon mass. The units look like enclosed, downward-
pointing, cones with a feed line entering at the top, tangential
to the greatest horizontal cross section of the cone, an overflow
line extending vertically from the center of the top, and a
discharge port for heavy materials at the narrowest point of the
cone (Figure 11). Larger, heavier particles, which enter with
the feed under pressure, tend to remain near the outer edge of
the cyclone and move to the bottom. Water and lighter particles
move to the vortex created in the central portion of the cyclone,
and exit from the top of the unit.
The hydrocyclones used in the Bergmann USA plant were 9 inch
diameter Linatex Separators (Figure 10), with a continuous length
of overflow pipe that breaks to atmosphere several feet below the
cyclone apex, an overflow siphon control regulator and an
underflow regulator. These modifications allow the units to
produce a consistently dense underflow (coarse product), and
reduce the bypass of unclassified material to the underflow which
can sometimes occur due to variation in feed slurry content.
This is accomplished by balancing the forces resulting from the
vacuum created by the long overflow pipe (controlled by an air
bleed at the overflow siphon control valve) and the weight of
solids that accumulate in the underflow regulator below the apex.
Dense Media Separator—
The coarse fraction exiting the separator underflow was
directed to a Linatex Hydrosizer or Dense Media Separator (DMS)
(Figure 10). The DMS is a rectangular shaped tank with
approximate dimensions of 2 feet X 2 feet X 16 feet tall (Figure
12). In this DMS, water is injected near the base of the sorting
chamber at about 30 gpm creating an upward rising current. As
the underflow from the first cyclone enters the top of the DMS
and begins to descend, it meets the rising current and forms a
teetered bed of solids (i.e. a layer of alternatingly rising and
falling suspended particles). The teetered bed of sand
facilitates floating off light organic particles. This organic
laden fraction generally contains a significant portion of the
organic contaminants.
Attrition Scrubber—
The sand exiting the bottom of the DMS was directed to a
three-celled attrition scrubber. This unit is designed to
operate most efficiently with a high solids feed (65 to 75%
20
-------
Finer particles and water discharge
thru overflow.
Control valve and air line
used to control siphoning
effect.
Overflow discharge extending
below apex creates siphon.
Siphon regulator prevents air
from entering through
discharge line.
Feed slurry enters
under pressure. Feed flow
energy converted to
centrifigal force.
Larger particles sorted out
by centrifigal force
according to settling
velocities.
Smaller particles and water move
inward and are drawn upward
through vortex finder by siphon.
Cyclone apex.
Discharge regulator
High density larger solids
discharged.
Figure 11: Schematic of a Linatex Hydrocyclone Separator.
-------
t-o
K5
FEED WELL
(LATEX LINED)
FEED SLURRY
OVERFLOW WEIR
DIFFERENTIAL
PRESSURE
SENSORS
DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE
TRANSMITTER
TRANSMITTER
SUPPLY AIR "
AIR SUPPLY IN
INTERMEDIATE
DEWATERING CONE
AIR SUPPLY
TO ACTUATOR
PNEUMATIC VALVE
ACTUATOR/POSITIONER
UNDERFLOW
(COURSE PRODUCT)
OVERFLOW ZONE
UPPER SORTING CHAMBER
CONTROLLED LOWER
SORTING CHAMBER
TEETER WATER INJECTION ZONE
UNDERFLOW DEWATERING
CHAMBER
UNDERFLOW DISCHARGE VALVE
Figure 12: Schematic of Linatex Dense Media Separator.
-------
solids by weight) and move them through a series of impellers
which rotate at a tip speed of 800 fpm. The impellers force the
sand grains to rub against each other abrading any adhered clays
and silts from the sand surface. In order to aid the scrubbing
process, surfactants, pH modifiers or other reagents may be added
to the feed of the attrition cell.
Additional Washing Steps—
From the attrition scrubber, the feed material was discharged
to a second 450 gallon sump which provided the input for the
second hydrocyclone. As the output of the attrition scrubber had
too great a solids content for hydrocyclone input, water had to
be added to Sump 2. In order to minimize the water requirements
of the system, water recovered from other process steps
(undoubtedly containing some fines) was often used at Sump 2.
This included the overflow from the third hydrocyclone, and the
filtrate from the split deck screen. The slurry formed in Sump 2
was pumped to Hydrocyclone 2 for additional washing. The
underflow from Hydrocyclone 2 flowed to Sump 3 where it was
diluted by the filtrate from the split deck screen and Saginaw
Bay water prior to providing the feed to Hydrocyclone 3 (Figure
13). This hydrocyclone further washed the sand prior to
discharge onto the dewatering screen.
Sand Recovery and Dewatering Screens—
Three screens were used in the Saginaw pilot plant to remove
particulate organics and water from discharge streams. Two of
these screens were used to separate particulate organic matter
from other particulates in the dredged material. One screen
received the overflow of the first hydrocyclone separator. As
previously mentioned, classification in these hydrocyclones is
based on the size and density characteristics of the individual
particles. While in general, small particles report to the
overflow and large particles to the underflow; larger, low
density organic particles tend to report with the clays and silt
to the separator overflow. To separate the large particulate
organics from the small particles, a rotating wire mesh screen
was used. This screen was approximately 6 feet in diameter and
equipped with 0.5mm X 0.5mm wire mesh cloth. It revolved at a
speed of 1 rpm. The overflow from Hydrocyclone 1 was directed to
the inside of the revolving cylinder. The water and fine solids
passed through the screen and were directed to Sump 4. The
particulate organics are usually fibrous and were trapped on the
screen. A spray bar located on the outside of the cylinder was
used to wash the organics off the screen and into a chute
directed to the dewatering screen.
The majority of particulate organics were separated from the
feed by the Dense Media Separator (DMS). The DMS overflow was
directed to a 2 foot X 3 foot vibrating screen. This screen was
designed to recapture any fine sand which reported to the
overflow of the DMS. The fine sand was washed through the screen
by a spray bar and directed to Sump 2 or 3. The particulate
23
-------
Figure 13: Hydrocyclone Separators Numbers 2 and 3, showing feed lines
with pressure valves, overflow lines with smaller vacuum control lines,
and underflow discharge to box below.
Figure 14: Clarifier used during Spring 1992 operations.
24
-------
organics retained by the screen were directed to a split deck
dewatering screen. This 2 foot X 7 foot screen had 0.25 mm slots
resulting in an open area of about 13%. The screen was split
lengthwise by a polyurethane wall, allowing one side to be used
for dewatering the particulate organics and the other for the
"clean" sand. The dewatered sand fell from the screen to a chute
directed to a 24 inch wide conveyor going back to the CDF. The
particulate organics fell to a chute which emptied into a plastic
receptacle.
Clarifiers—
Two clarifiers were used during the course of the
demonstration. Although they played no role in the separation of
the sand, clay, and particulate organics in the feed, they
allowed for reduced water consumption during operation and for a
smaller area to contain the fines slurry produced by operations.
The clarifiers received the output of Sump 4. During the Fall
operation a small trailer-mounted inclined plate clarifier was
placed on the CDF dike. During the 1992 operation this unit was
replaced with a larger clarifier mounted on the deck of the
barge. A polymer flocculant (Percol 720) was added to the
clarifier feed to aid in settling the particulates. This
flocculant and dosage was selected based upon bench scale floe-
simulation trials carried out by Bergmann USA in their home
facility. The resulting thickened slurry contained approximately
15% solids and was pumped to the settling enclosures on the CDF.
The clarified overflow was mixed with water pumped from Saginaw
Bay and used as make-up water throughout the system.
PILOT-SCALE DEMONSTRATION
Processing feed through the pilot-scale demonstration plant
on the Saginaw Bay CDF occurred on October 31 and November 1,
1991 before wind, wave, and temperature conditions forced the
abandonment of the demonstration and the removal of the barge
from the site. The long-range weather forecast indicated no
significant improvement was expected. Bergmann USA personnel
expressed a desire to postpone completion of the demonstration
until better weather. It was agreed that continuing operations
in the adverse weather conditions would pose an unacceptable
safety risk (due to ice accumulation and barge instability) and
would be a poor test of the system's capabilities. A decision
was made to postpone completion of the demonstration until better
weather in the Spring.
During the winter months, Bergmann USA designed modifications
to the system to overcome observed problems with the feed unit
and clarifier. An 8 foot X 8 foot feed hopper equipped with a
grizzly, and a series of steel pins attached to a rotating shaft
to break up clumps of clay were added to the front of the system.
This unit was connected to the original feed conveyor by an
additional short conveyor. The trailer-mounted clarifier was
replaced with a barge-mounted unit having about four times the
25
-------
settling area. These modifications were incorporated in April
and May of 1992. Additional feed material was dredged in early
May. The ARCS demonstration processing and monitoring resumed on
May 17, 1992. It was followed by a 5 day (May 30 thru June 3)
demonstration under the USEPA Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program.
Bergmann USA monitored pressures and flows throughout the
system to help optimize plant operations. Minor adjustments were
made as needed. In addition, some modifications to the system
were made during the ARCS demonstration by operating with and
without; a clarifier, one of the hydrocyclones, or an attrition
scrubber, and in co-current and counter-current modes (i.e.
without water conservation and with water conservation). These
changes were made to help identify the importance of various
modules to the system.
Fall 1991 Operations
As mentioned previously, the October 31 and November 1 trials
were run without the feed hopper and using a small clarifier
located on the CDF dike. Operations on October 31 were in a
counter-current mode (i.e. the overflow from Separator 3 was
routed back as slurry water for the rotary trommel) to conserve
water. Neither the DMS nor the Attrition Scrubber were used on
this date (Table 1).
On the morning of November 1 the DMS was activated. During
the afternoon run, both the DMS and the Attrition Scrubber were
operating (Table 1). There were some problems with excessive
foaming in Sumps 2, 3, and 4 as a result of a metering pump
malfunction causing the addition of too much surfactant at the
Attrition Scrubber.
Spring 1992 Operations
After the addition of the larger barge-mounted clarifier and
the feed hopper, Spring trials began on May 17. Sample
collection was started in the afternoon. The plant was operated
in a counter-current mode without the clarifier. No flocculants
or surfactants were used (Table 1). No testing occurred on May
18 or 19 due to high winds and a motor failure.
Trials on May 20, 21 and 22 were run in a counter-current
mode. The discharge of the water and fines from the sand
recovery screen were rerouted from Sump 3 to Sump 2 to ensure
this material would be subjected to two additional hydrocyclone
separations under this operating mode (Table 1). The setting on
the DMS was altered from the previous effective specific gravity
of 1.4 to 1.5 beginning the morning of May 21. This change would
be expected to reduce the amount of fines and particulate
organics reporting to the underflow. In general, the clarifier
was not operating on these days except for the afternoon of May
26
-------
TABLE 1: MODES OF OPERATION USED DURING SAGINAW PILOT SCALE DEMONSTRATION
Operational Unit
Feed Hopper
Rotary Trommel
Hydrocyclone 1
Rotary Screen
Dense Media
Separator
Sand Recovery
System
Attrition Scrubber
Hydrocyclone 2
Hydrocyclone 3
Dewatering Screen
Clarif ier
Counter Current
Operation
Oct 31
1991
-
X
X
X
.
^
-
X
X
X
-
X
NOV 1
1991
AM
—
X
X
X
1.4
3
-
X
X
X
T
X
NOV 1
1991
PM
—
X
X
X
1.4
3
S
X
X
X
T
X
May 17
1992
X
X
X
X
1.4
3
X
X
X
X
-
X
May 20
1992
X
X
X
X
1.4
2
X
X
X
X
-
X
May
21-22
1992
X
X
X
X
1.5
2
X
X
X
X
-
X
May 27
1992
X
X
X
X
1.5
3
X
-
X
X
-
—
May
28-29
1992
X
X
X
X
1.5
3
X
—
X
X
B
—
Jun 1
1992
X
X
X
X
1.4
2
X
X
X
X
B
X
- -Unit not being used on that date
X -Unit in use on that date
1.4 -Effective specific gravity setting for DMS was 1.4
1.5 -Effective specific gravity setting for DMS was 1.5
2 -Sand Recovery Screen underflow (sand) was directed to Sump 2
3 -Sand Recovery Screen underflow (sand) was directed to Sump 3
S -Surfactant added to attrition scrubber
T -A small trailer-mounted clarifier was used.
B -A barge-mounted clarifier was used having about 4 times the settling area of the trailer mounted unit.
NOTE: Flow charts illustrating the daily operation conditions appear in Appendix C as Figures Cl thru C8.
-------
20. During that trial the clarifier was placed on line but
operated poorly resulting in the plugging of the recycled water
lines. On the afternoon of May 21, the sampling location for the
DMS overflow was moved to a point expected to produce a more
representative sample. Operations were suspended at the end of
May 22 due to the Memorial Day weekend.
Processing resumed on May 27 in a co-current mode without the
clarifier. The Attrition Scrubber and Hydrocyclone 2 were off
line. On May 28 and 29 the system was operated in the same
manner, but the clarifier was placed on line, this time with a
higher addition of flocculant which allowed the unit to produce
an overflow suitable for recycle. From May 30 thru June 3 the
Bergmann plant was monitored under the USEPA Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) program. On June 1 monitoring was
carried out under both ARCS and SITE.
RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
All residuals generated during the pilot-scale demonstration
were permanently placed in the Saginaw Bay CDF. The oversized
(>6 mm) material discharged by the rotary trommel and the
particulate organics were transported to the CDF and stockpiled
until the end of the SITE demonstration. The washed sand was
directly deposited on the CDF by the discharge conveyor. This
material was stockpiled until the completion of operations on
June 3. The fine particulates from the hydrocyclone overflow, or
the sludge from the clarifier when it was on line, were pumped to
one of the three 30 foot diameter galvanized steel filtration
enclosures on the CDF. These enclosures acted as settling basins
and sand filters. They retained much of the fines for possible
additional treatment. However, significant overtopping and
leakage did occur. Any fines which escaped the enclosures flowed
into an adjacent low area of the CDF.
Upon the completion of the SITE demonstration, a 15 foot
diameter steel enclosure subdivided into four sections was
erected on the Saginaw CDF. Approximately 2 to 4 cy of feed,
trommel overs, particulate organics, and washed sand were placed
in the four sections to be retained for future testing if needed.
The remaining feed, trommel overs, and particulate organics were
deposited in low areas on the CDF. The washed sand was used as
cover for most of the three other materials and to fill in low
areas around the demonstration site. The fines pumped to the CDF
were left in the three steel enclosures for possible additional
treatment. These enclosures were built at a low enough elevation
that when the CDF is filled they will be completely buried.
28
-------
EXECUTION AND COSTS
The execution of the project occurred in the time periods
shown below:
Site Preparation: Sep 16, 1991 - Oct 1, 1991.
Dredging and transport of Feed Material: Oct 3-9, 1991
and May 2-8, 1992.
Erection of Pilot Plant: Oct 15-28, 1991.
ARCS Treatment and Sampling: Oct 31 - Nov 1, 1991;
May 17 - Jun 1, 1992.
SITE Treatment and Sampling: May 30 - Jun 3, 1992.
Site Closure: Jun 4-5, 1992.
Disassembly of Pilot Plant: Sep 9-15, 1992.
The dates presented represent the span of time in which the major
portion of a particular category of work took place. Some minor
activity may have occurred in a category outside these time
frames, and some of the time within a period may have been
devoted to other work or weekends and holidays. All work was
done on a one shift per day basis. The suspension of work on Nov
1, 1991 was the result of high winds and waves, low temperatures,
and a long range forecast of inclement weather.
The Saginaw Pilot demonstration considered in early 1991
included sediment washing, bioremediation, and chemical
extraction phases. The total cost of this demonstration was
projected at approximately $1,360,000, including the cost of
project management, preparation of a sampling/analysis plan and a
health/safety plan, site preparation, sediment excavation and
processing, project monitoring (including extensive sampling),
sample analysis, and preparation of this report. The sediment
washing portion was envisioned as a simple hydrocyclone
separation costing $535,000 including approximately $75,000 of
analytical work. As plans developed further and Bergmann USA
expressed interest in a joint effort, the ETWG agreed to a more
elaborate separation scheme with more extensive monitoring. In
addition, early in 1992 a decision was made to provide the
support required to extend operations 5 days for SITE Program
monitoring. The actual cost of the demonstration, shown in Table
2, was approximately $547,000.
29
-------
TABLE 2: COST OF SEDIMENT WASHING
PILOT-SCALE DEMONSTRATION AT SAGINAW
Activity
Project Management
Health and Safety Plan
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Site Preparation
Sediment Excavation
Including Tug, Barge, and
Sediment Sampling to locate site
Grain Size Demonstration
Including Vendor, Shipping, Equipment
Rental (Barge, Tug, Crane, Loader) , COE
Field Support and site preparation
Sample Collection during demonstration
Sample Analysis
Data Analysis and Report Preparation
Total
Approximate Cost
$ 75,000
5,000
10,000
51,000
40,000
148,000
32,000
146,000
40.000
$547,000
It should be noted that the site preparation costs were
greatly elevated by the location of the demonstration on an
island. The high cost of sample analysis is common for a
pilot-scale demonstration. In this particular demonstration more
intermediate process points were monitored than might otherwise
be done if one was simply trying to test a vendor's ability to
treat a particular sediment. The actual vendor's charges here
may be substantially lower than those charged for a similar
demonstration elsewhere as Bergmann USA did not charge for rental
of their equipment, design work, air fare etc.
MONITORING
Operations Monitoring by Bergmann USA
Basic process monitoring was carried out by the plant
operators who periodically observed the nature of the material
flowing into and out of each module. In addition, pressure
gauges on the hydrocyclones were monitored to make sure feed
rates and overflow vacuums were within normal operating ranges.
The pressure at the inlet to Hydrocyclone Number 1 was most
closely monitored. When pressure at this point dropped below
8 psi it served as an indication that the feed rate to the plant
was too high. In those cases the rate of introduction of dredged
material to the feed hopper was reduced.
Material Process Monitoring under the USEPA SITE Program
Independent monitoring of the Bergmann process was carried
out by Science Applications International Corporation under the
USEPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program for the
30
-------
5 day period of May 30 thru June 3, 1992. The SITE monitoring
was directed at 8 input and output streams. Only on June 1 did
ARCS and SITE sampling occur concurrently.
Corps of Engineers Material Process Monitoring
The Corps of Engineers performed general project oversight
including direction of all contractors involved in the ARCS
demonstration field operations. One of these contractors, Thermo
Analytical Inc./Environmental Research Group (TMA/ERG), was
assigned to carry out an extensive sampling program as described
below and in the referenced Quality Assurance Project Plan.
Parameters to be analyzed are summarized in Table 3 and the
following text, and the complete data set for this effort is
presented in Appendix B.
Parameter Selection—
The Bergmann sediment washing process isolated fine grain
and/or light organic material. These geochemical compartments
are the major repository for both metals and chloro-organic
contaminants. As such, the grain size distribution of the
process stream was selected for monitoring as an indicator of how
well the system was performing in removing the fine grain
material. Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and Density were selected
as monitoring parameters given the hypothesis that sediment
organic matter is the geochemical compartment with the greatest
affinity for chloro-organic contaminants of interest. These
include at least PCBs, dioxins and furans, and chloro-organic
pesticides such as DDT and dieldrin. Accordingly, there was a
reasonable prospect of good correlation between PCB levels and
TOC levels. Density values reflect the relative amounts of
clayey/siliceous material and biological matter. As such, the
density values corroborate the physical phases derived.
To confirm the effectiveness of sediment washing as a means
of reducing contamination levels, and the utility of using grain
size distributions and TOC levels as indicators of process
effectiveness, specific contaminants were also measured at some
locations. PCBs were selected as the organic contaminants to be
monitored as they are generally considered to be the single
greatest problem in the Saginaw AOC. The metals selected for
monitoring were: cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu),
mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn). These
particular parameters were selected on the basis of being very
common contaminants originating in industrial and urban
discharges. As such they could represent the behavior of an
extensive array of heavy metals in general. Bismuth, cobalt,
tin, and titanium are examples of untested metals for which the
above listed metals could act as surrogates throughout the
separation of physical phases.
Sampling—
TMA/ERG periodically sampled up to 23 locations around the
31
-------
TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF ARCS SAMPLING OF THE BERGMANN USA PROCESS
Sample Location
( Station Number)
Feed (20)
Trommel Overs (18)
Separator 1 Feed (1)
DMS feed (2)
DMS overflow (10)
DMS underflow (11)
Attrition Scrubber
discharge (15)
Sand Recovery Screen
filtrate (16)
Sand Recovery Screen
solids (12)
Separator 1
overflow (8)
Separator 2
feed (3)
Separator 2
underflow (4)
Separator 2
overflow (9)
Separator 3
feed (5)
Separator 3
overflow (7)
Separator 3
underflow (6)
Dewatered washed
sand (14)
Dewatered Organics
(13)
Dewatering screen
filtrate (17)
Clarifier Feed (21)
Clarifier Overflow
(23)
Clarifier Underflow
(22)
Saginaw Bay Water
(19)
Physical
Description
Sediment
Debris
Sediment
Dilute Slurry
Dense Slurry
Dilute Slurry
Dense Slurry
Dense Slurry
Dilute Slurry
Particulates
Dilute Slurry
Dilute Slurry
Dense Slurry
Dilute Slurry
Dilute Slurry
Dilute Slurry
Dense Slurry
Sand
Particulate
Organics
Dilute Slurry
Dilute Slurry
Water
Slurry
Water
Analyzed
Phase
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids/
Liquids
Liquid
Solids
Liquid
Parameters
Measured*
TV, GS, D,
TOG, DW, M, PCB
TV, GS, D, TOC
GS, D, TOC
GS, D, TOC
GS, D, TOC
GS, D, TOC
GS, D, TOC
GS, D, TOC
GS, D, TOC
GS, D, TOC
GS, D, TOC
GS, D, TOC
GS, D, TOC
GS, D, TOC
GS, D, TOC
GS, D, TOC
TV, GS, D,
TOC, DW, M, PCB
TV, GS, D,
TOC, DW, M, PCB
GS, D, TOC
GS, D, TOC,
TSS, M, PCB
TSS, PCB
GS, D, TOC
DW, M, PCB
PCB, TSS
*Total Volume (TV), Grain Size (GS), Density (D), Total Organic Carbon (TOO, %Dry Weight (DW), Metals
(M), Total Suspended Solids (TSS).
32
-------
processing plant as shown in Figure 15. In general, hourly
samples were taken from each location which had an active flow of
material on a particular day. Morning and afternoon samples were
composited separately, generating two samples for analysis from
each location during a full day of operation. TMA/ERG mixed
these samples and retained a portion for physical
characterization and TOG analysis. The remainder of samples
requiring characterization were shipped to Battelle Laboratories
for analysis. In cases where grain size analysis was desired on
a very fine grained sample, samples were provided to the U.S.
Bureau of Mines Laboratory in Salt Lake City. The intent of the
sampling and analysis program was to identify physical changes in
the process stream at each stage of the pilot operation. This
information could be used to identify the effectiveness of the
various plant modules in removing fine grained and light organic
materials. This data would enable assessing (a) process scale-
up, and (b) the effectiveness of the process in decreasing
contaminant concentrations of the washed sand.
Processing was done under eight sets of conditions as shown
in Table 1. Composite samples collected were generally analyzed
for grain size distribution, density, and TOG. Selected samples
were also analyzed for metals (Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Zn), PCBs,
and occasionally TSS, or % Solids. In addition, make-up water
drawn from Saginaw Bay was sampled twice daily and analyzed for
TSS and PCBs.
Analytical Protocol—
Samples were analyzed using the methods identified in Tables
4 and 5. These methods were used as outlined in the Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station (WES) and the COE Detroit
District. In general, the QAPP (Appendix D) provided for
replication of 5 percent of all field samples, carrying out
matrix spikes/matrix spike duplicates, and processing of all
blanks in accordance with standard analytical lab practice. The
analytical methodology and the quality assurance procedures
generally proceeded as described in the QAPP.
Modifications to the Grain Size characterization methodology
identified in Table 4 were made by TMA/ERG in coordination with
the COE Detroit District and the U.S. Bureau of Mines (BOM) in
Salt Lake City. This modification was necessary in order to
achieve a cleanly separated <38/i size fraction of adequate mass
to fully characterize the particle size distribution of this sub-
sieve size fraction. Both Bergmann USA and Bureau of Mines staff
recommended this practice. The procedure followed is shown in
Figures 16 and 17. The quality assurance testing for all
analytical work performed by Battelle is presented in reports
prepared by Lockheed Environmental Systems and Technologies
Company (Miah, Dillon and O'Leary, 1993) for the ARCS program.
The data, organized by station, are presented in Appendix A. Data
sets for field samples derived from all testing are presented in
33
-------
Feed
+6 mm
Water
Saginaw Bay Water
I-
Figure 15: Sampling points for ARCS pilot scale demonstration at Saginaw Bay.
-------
ARCS bulk sample
wet
Weighed portion (wet) transferred
to oven and dried at 104 C to
calculate % solids - % solids
used to calculate results on a dry
weight basis. _
solids result
I Accurately weigh out suitable
' size portion of wet bulk sample
to perform the required steps for
particle size distribution.
Tbtal wet sample weight x % solids
dry weight of sample.
Weighed sample transferred
to No. 400 U.S. standard
sieve (3Sum).
\
Sieve sample hand washed
through No. 400 sieve - material
< 38um captured in water.
Weigh dry filter minus pre-filtration
weight = wet sample retained.
100 x wet sample retained divided
. by moisture corrected dry weight «
% of total < 38um.
Filtration completed, filter is
removed and allowed to air dry.
32cm pre-welghed
Shark Skin paper.
< 38um slurry backwashed
B.O.M. pressure filtration
unit from bucket
Filtering apparatus sealed
and pressurized - < 38um
material captured on filter
paper.
Figure 16: Procedure No. 1, particle sizing less than 38 microns.
Wet sample material remaining > 38um
on sieve after sieving (Procedure 1 step 4)
to remove < 38um particles.
I
I
% solids result from
Procedure 1 step 2
No. 400 U.S. standard sieve.
Retained material back-washed from sieve,
with water, into 142mm Millipore
pressure filtration unit and
pressurized to remove excess water.
142mm Shark Skin
material filter paper
r
Tbtal wet sample weight X % solids =
dry weight of sample.
Sieves removed and individually weighed.
Each sieve plus material retained, minus
initial sieve weight = sample retained/seive.
100 x sample retained on each sieve, divided
by moisture corrected dry weight =
% of total retained per sieve.
Fritsch shaker activated for
approximately 15 minutes.
After filtration filter
and material removed and
allowed to air dry.
Dried sample transferred into
Fritsch shaker equipped with
7 pre-weighted U.S. standard sieves.
Any material captured < 38um
returned to dry 32 cm filter
(Procedure 1 step 8) for weighing.
Figure 17: Procedure No. 2, particle sizing greater than 38 microns.
35
-------
TABLE 4: ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS FOR
SEDIMENT SAMPLES (MODIFIED FROM QAPP)
Analysis
ARCS
Required
Detection
Limit
Method
Battelle
Detection
Limit
Laboratory
PCBs
(total Aroclors)
0.02
NOAA 1985
0.02
Cd
0.1
MSL-M-33
0.1
Cr
PNL-SP-19B
Cu
PNL-SP-19B
Hg
0.1
MSL-M-11
0.02
Ni
PNL-SP-19B
Pb
PNL-SP-19B
Zn
PNL-SP-19B
Battelle
Total Organic
Carbon
300
EPA 9060
0.10%
(TMA/ERG
detection
limit)
Density
0.1 g/cc
Plumb 1981
N/A
Grain Size
N/A
ASTM-D422
N/A
TMA/ERG
REFERENCES
NOAA 1985 - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Status and Trends Program, Standard Analytical Procedures.
PCBs: GC/ECD using capillary columns
PNL-SP-19B - Energy Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry
MSL-M-11 - Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption.
MSL-M-33 - Graphite Furnace Atomic Adsorption, adapted from USEPA Method
200.9.
EPA 9060 - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1986.
Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical
Methods. SW-846. U.S. Document No. 955-001-00000, USEPA,
Washington, D.C.
ASTM-D422 - American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM). 1972.
Standard Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soil D-422.
ASTM, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Plumb 1981 - Plumb R.H., Jr. 1981. Procedures for Handling and Chemical
Analysis of Sediment and Water Samples Technical Report
USEPA/CE-81-1. Published by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
36
-------
Appendix B. Summaries of these data are provided in the results
section below.
TABLE 5: ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS FOR
WATER SAMPLES (MODIFIED FROM QAPP)
Analysis
ARCS
Required
Detection
Limit
Method
Battelle
Detection
Limit
Mg/1
Container
PCBs
(total Aroclors)
0.01
NOAA 1985
0.01
800 ml
glass
Total
Suspended
Solids
1000
EPA 160.2
1000
500 ml
plastic
REFERENCES
NOAA 1985 - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Status and Trends Programs, Standard
Analytical Procedures.
PCBs: GC/ECD using capillary columns
EPA 160.2 - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes, EPA-600/4-79-020, March, 1983.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
LABORATORY RESULTS
The following sections provide data from Appendices A and B
which have been reduced and organized to aid in answering
specific questions about the effectiveness of the Bergmann
process in reducing the volume of contaminated material and
generating a reusable sand fraction. Detection limits reached
during analyses were generally at or below the levels presented
in Tables 4 and 5. An exception was in the PCB data set of the
Saginaw Bay make-up water (Station 19). These were consistently
found to be non-detectable at detection limits ranging
.03 to .9 M9/1/ defined as Arochlor No. 1248. Unexpectedly, the
data of May 17 and May 20 ranged from <.4 to <.9 /Ltg/1 while the
remaining concentrations ranged from <.03 to <.l /xg/1. As the
dissolved PCB concentrations in Saginaw Bay water in the vicinity
of the CDF were expected to be in the range of .02 to .04 jug/1,
the data obtained for the make-up water was not useful for
monitoring PCBs.
37
-------
The TOC analyses are shown to be a highly variable parameter,
much more so for similar conditions than densities, PCBs, and
metals. A review of the raw analytical data of the laboratory
contractor, TMA/ERG, revealed that low mass sediment sub-samples
were taken for the instrumental process. Sample sizes were in
the tens of milligrams. Such a low sample size in a material as
heterogeneous as sediment would have a high potential to be less
than optimally representative, as well as to challenge the
precision of the analytical balance. A possible remedy for this
problem would be to modify the methodology by using clean reagent
grade silica sand as a diluent. This would allow larger sample
sizes thus reducing the challenge to the balance and improving
sample representativeness.
OVERALL MASS BALANCE
Under ideal conditions, a mass balance would be calculated
for solids, liquids, grain size fractions and contaminants of
interest by measuring each at all of the system input and output
stations. A mass balance generated in this way provides for
tracking and determining the fate of all components of the feed.
In this demonstration, the large amounts of material being
handled (4-5 tons/hr), the remote location, and the need to
monitor flows and slurry densities made it difficult to calculate
a high quality mass balance without adding significant costs to
the project. In addition, it was felt that significant losses of
material would be visually obvious. As such, early in the
project planning it was determined to focus on the quality of the
process streams rather than their quantity. Some crude estimates
of the solid streams entering and leaving the system were made on
several dates during 1992 operations. Feed was estimated by
volume as the material was moved to the feed hopper by the front-
end loader. The solids discharged by the rotary trommel
(oversized) and the dewatered particulate organics were collected
in plastic trash cans and their volumes estimated. The clean
sand pile was measured and volume calculated based on the formula
for the volume of a cone. The results of these calculations
appear in Table 6. If the May 20 data is ignored (due to an
apparent error in measuring the sand pile), the volume of
material reporting to each discharge line appears reasonable.
There appeared to be no significant leaks in the system.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program
demonstration of Bergmann's process, which immediately followed
the ARCS demonstration, placed a greater emphasis on tracking the
mass of solids introduced to and discharged from the Bergmann
system, and was less interested in how individual modules of the
system operated. Prior to the SITE demonstration, a weigh belt
was added to the feed conveyor, and flow meters were added at
numerous points throughout the system. Samples of the discharge
of trommel overs and particulate organics were taken and weighed.
The discharge sand pile was measured and a volume calculated.
Using the information derived from these sources and density
38
-------
TABLE 6: ESTIMATES BY WEIGHT OF INPUT AND OUTPUT STREAMS
Date
May 17
May 20
May 21AM
May 21PM
Feed
Vol.
(cy)
10
28
16
14
Mean of
May 17
and 21
Mean of
5 day ***
SITE Trial
Est.
Wt.
(tons)
12.5
35.0
20.0
17.5
Trommel Overs
Vol.
(cy)
0.2
1.0
1.0
0.9
Est.
Wt.
(tons)
0.23
1.15
1.15
1.04
%
2
3
6
6
4%
15%
* Estimated weight was crudely
calculated for
Particulate
Organics
Vol.
(cy)
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
Est.
Wt.
(tons)
0.24
0.32
0.32
0.24
%
2
1
2
1
2%
0.6%
Washed Sand
Est.W
Vol. t.
(cy) (tons)
8.2 10.7
28.0 36.4
12.8 16.6
11.5 15.0
%
86
—
83
86
85%
82%
Fines**
Vol.
(cy) %
1.3 11
— —
2.0 10
1.2 7
9%
8%
calculated by multiplying .5 the overall dry density
each process stream by the volume. Density values used were: Feed
2.5 ton/cy, Trommel overs 2.3 ton/cy, Particulate Organics 1.6 ton/cy, Sand 2.6
ton/cy .
** Fines calculated by difference for
*** Calculated from data presented by
ARCS data.
USEPA (in
prep.)
% Refers to the percent of feed estimated weight which was accounted for in a
particular discharge stream.
-------
measurements for each process stream, solids mass balances were
calculated for each of 5 days of operation. The results of these
calculations indicated that from 101% to 115% (mean 106%) of the
solids in the feed were accounted for in the various discharge
streams (USEPA, in prep.)- This suggests no significant loss of
solids occurred during processing. As illustrated in Table 6,
with the exception of the trommel overs, the percentage
distribution of the discharged mass was similar for the ARCS
estimate and SITE measurements.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
An extensive effort was made to monitor the grain size
distribution of the solids as they moved through the system. The
machinery used acts on differences of grain sizes and densities
so as to bring about physical separations. Since contaminant
concentration/volume reduction is simply an artifact of the
partitioning of the contaminants among these grain sizes, it is
necessary to evaluate the equipment on how it affects grain size
distributions throughout the process. The following paragraphs
will provide summary data and an evaluation of the performance of
the Bergmann System as a whole, and of individual components of
the system. Summary data will be presented as the average of the
collected data. Full data sets appear in Appendices A and B.
Overall Performance
If the feed is viewed as sand being cleaned by passage
through the system, Table 7 shows that the Bergmann Plant was
effective in removing most fines and organics. The feed material
contained mostly (approximately 76%) sand size (75/i or larger)
particles. However, as shown in Figure 18, the feed also
contained about 23% fines (silt and clay), most of which was in
the finest size category (<38ju) .
Passage through the system resulted in the removal of much of
the fines and organics. Approximately 94% of the washed sand
product particles were greater than 75/i in size. The percentage
in the smallest (<38ju) classification fell to 1.1% and the Total
Organic Carbon dropped by over 75% (although TOC measurements
showed a great degree of variability).
It was anticipated that the trommel oversize material (>6 mm)
would consist largely of stones, shells, sticks and other debris.
Although these components did report to this discharge, a
significant amount of fines and sand did also. As Table 7
illustrates, less than 18% of this material was larger than 430/i.
Therefore, under ideal conditions, over 82% of the oversize
stream should have passed through the Trommel Screen to Sump 1.
40
-------
TABLE 7: OVERALL PHYSICAL SEPARATION ACHIEVED
Process Stream
Grain
Percentacre
retained
by
Size
screens with openincrs of:
[Sand Size%l
430u 300u
Feed (Station 20)
Mean (n=20) 5.0
Std Dev 1.4
13.3
1.1
Trommel Overs (Station 18)
Mean (n=ll) 17.6
Std Dev 11.3
Particulate Organics
(Station 13)
Mean (n=ll) 46.3
Std Dev 9.0
Sand Product (Station
Mean (n=20) 4.6
Std Dev 0.7
8.1
1.7
18.0
5.1
14)
15.8
1.8
150u 106u
[76.1%]
46.3 8.
2.2 1.
reo.2%1
24.2 6.
4.1 1.
F96.2%1
27.4 3.
10.0 0.
F94.0%1
59.3 10.
3.0 2.
3
7
2
2
3
7
7
2
rsiit
75u 53u
3
0
4
1
1
0
3
0
Sub-Sieve
Apparent
Grain Size 40. Ou
Fines (Station 21)
Mean (n=14) 2.7
Std Dev 3.5
30. Ou
1.9
0.9
a:n=19 b:n=9 c:n=10
20. OfJL
8.9
3.6
d:n=15
12.
18.
7.
5u
6
2
.2 2.
.6 0.
.1 3.
.7 1.
.2 1.
.5 0.
.6 2.
.6 0.
7
4
7
6
0
4
7
5
and Clav%l
38
[23.
1.
0.
[42.
2.
0.
[5.
0.
0.
[5.
1.
0.
.U. <38u
5%1
5 19.3
2 2.0
5%1
5 36.3
8 5.9
6%1
6 4.0
3 1.3
2%1
4 1.1
3 0.3
Density
Total (a/ml)
99.6
2.3
102.6
3.4
101.7
9.4
99.2
0.9
2.4
0.3
2.2
0.3
1.5C
0.3
2.5a
0.2
TOC(%)
0.77a
0.49
1.4 b
0.23
14
10
0.16a
0.08
Size Distribution
4.0U
36.1
21.8
2.
5
2
Ofi
.5
.7
0 . 5u <0 .
15.0 11.
5.2 6.
5u Total
2 100.0
1 0.4
Density
1.9d
0.4
TOC(%)
2.8d
0.90
-------
1
fc.
"3
10
<38n >38^i
<
| Silts and Clays
>75n
>300n
<300|u
Sand and Larger -
Grain Size
Figure 18: Grain Size distribution of feed.
The particulate organic stream was mostly coarse fragments
(95% >106/u) . Visual inspection revealed a large portion of this
coarse material was organic fragments. This observation is
supported by the 14% TOC average for this stream. Approximately
27% of the discharge at this point may have been sand in the 150ju
to 300ji size range. The fines reported largely to the clarifier.
Only about 2.7% of the material it received exceeded 40/ui in size.
Over 95% of the material was smaller than 30/i. The grain size
distributions of the four discharge streams are illustrated in
Figure 19.
Overall trends in where individual particle sizes reported
were generally as anticipated with the exception of the trommel
oversize material and the relatively large amount of sand in the
particulate organics. Density trends were as expected with only
the sand discharge exceeding the feed in density, and the trommel
overs, fines and particulate organics each being progressively
less dense than the feed. The change in density of the discharge
streams from the feed would be expected to result from the
sorting of the particulate organic material and clay between the
streams. This concept is supported by the trends reported for
TOC in the various streams. Only the sand stream had lower TOC
values than the feed. The trommel overs, fines and particulate
organics streams displayed progressively higher TOC values. This
can be illustrated by comparing the TOC concentration found in
the discharge streams with that found in the feed. Such a
comparison is presented in Figure 20, where "Enrichment Factor"
is the ratio of the discharge TOC concentration to the feed TOC
42
-------
% of Overs Dry Weight
H1
M £ O> 00 O
O O O O O O
Silt and Clays . Sand
35%
'$•"•'"•'*/"%, | 24% 25%
, ' H 10% '- '4C|~
<38M >38ji >75M >15O(j >30OM
<75M <15OM <3OOu
Trommel Overs (5 to 15% total discharge)
•aa oO -
I
E? 6O -
Q
co
o
Silt and Clays Sand
* 1 *
60%
~1
"^y 1 21%
', m _. , — _-_,
14% / ;, M ag""r;^r
/„ , | • j| '««« - ^- P
<3S^ >38ll >.75lL >.15Oii >3OO^
<75n <150|i <3OO^
Washed Sand (>8O% of Total discharge)
100
I 80
Q 60
3
Si 40
O
S-f
^ 20
O
Silt and Clays .
* 1
Sand
4% 1.6% 4%
27%
•
9
h
63%
* * *, *
"*'*''
<38|J >38M >75M >150u >3OO|i
<75^ <15Op <30OM
Particulate Organics (<2% of total discharge)
1OO
r°
b 6°
Q
tn
| 40
Cb
tl-l
o
5? 2O
0
97%
Silt and Clays §
* 1
Sand
-
. ..,. .:,
|vv %
"'^ 3%
<38M >38(l >75M >15O(l
<75M <150|J <30O(l
Fines (8% to 9% of total discharge)
>3OOM
Figure 19: Grain size distributions of four discharge streams.
-------
concentration. More detailed discussions of the data collected
for each discharge stream are presented in the following
paragraphs which address the performance of system components.
Feed
Fines
Particulate
Organics
Washed Sand
Process Stream
Figure 20: Enrichment Factors for TOG in feed, fines
particulates organics and washed sand.
Rotary Trommel
The rotary trommel screen was expected to discharge only
material which exceeded 6 mm in diameter. As reported in Table
7, the majority of trommel output material was smaller than 6 mm.
Only an average of 18% (range 6-39%) of the material exceeded
430/i. The remainder of the material reported to the oversize
stream as a result of being consolidated in the feed or by the
trommel into large "clay balls". The actual oversized material
consisted of stones, shells, twigs and various debris. Because
the larger (>6 mm) organic material reported with the trommel
oversized, the density of the stream was lower than the feed, and
the TOC content higher than the feed.
Overall, the trommel was successful in removing the oversize
material. It was less successful in retaining the smaller grain
sizes for downstream processing. It appears likely that 40 to
50% of the material discharged as oversized was sand and another
44
-------
30 to 40% was silt and clay. If all the discharges other than
the sand stream are expected to be disposed at the same site, the
sub 75/i fraction reporting as oversized material is not a
problem. But, the loss of sand as oversized is undesirable.
Based on the crude mass balance estimates made for this study
(Table 6), about 5% of the feed reported to the trommel overs.
Even if half of this was sand, the loss would not be a serious
problem. However, the SITE demonstration Applications Analysis
Report (USEPA, in prep.) indicates about 15% of the feed reported
to the trommel oversized discharge. As the percentage of feed
materials reporting as trommel overs increases, the potential
loss of a significant portion of the sand present in the feed
increases. This potential problem could be alleviated in a full
scale sediment washing process through the addition of a log
washer or other deagglomeration unit that would break up clumps
of clay and sand.
The slurry passing through the trommel screen fell to the
first sump from which it was pumped as feed to the first
hydrocyclone separator. The slurry pumped to Hydrocyclone 1
contained a lower percentage of sub-38/i and sub-75/x (Table 8)
material than did the trommel feed (Station 20). Approximately
71% of the material in the Hydrocyclone 1 feed exceeded 150^i
compared to 65% for the trommel feed. The density in the
hydrocyclone feed increased slightly to 2.5 g/ml and the TOG
dropped slightly to 0.75%. These changes complement those
observed in the trommel oversized materials. The increase in
average overall grain size as well as changes in TOG and density
reflect the removal of clay balls and larger particulate organics
by the trommel screen. The changes in these parameters are small
as the percentages of material removed by the trommel is small
relative to what reports to Sump 1.
Hydrocyclone Separator Number 1
The effectiveness of the hydrocyclone in removing fines from
the process stream was evaluated by comparing the feed to the
hydrocyclone with the overflow and underflow from the
hydrocyclone (Table 8). The bulk of the solids processed by
Hydrocyclone 1 report with the underflow. As such, no change in
density was expected. The reduction in TOG in the underflow
suggests a significant fraction of the particulate organics
report to the overflow. This was supported by the increase in
TOG and decrease in density found in the overflow material
relative to the hydrocyclone feed. The grain size distribution
data suggests the hydrocyclone operated as expected. Little
difference in grain size distribution exists between the
hydrocyclone feed and underflow for particles over 150/i. The
percentage of the total mass occurring in each grain size
classification increased in the underflow relative to the feed
except for the sub-38/i classification. This reflects the size of
the hydrocyclone separator, which was designed for a d50 of 45/i
(d50 refers to the grain size at which a particle has an equal
45
-------
TABLE 8: PHYSICAL SEPARATION ACHIEVED BY HYDROCYCLONE SEPARATOR 1
Process Stream
Grain Size
Percentage retained
by
screens with openinas of:
FSand Size%l
Hydrocyclone 1
(Station 1)
Mean (n=20)
Std Dev
Hydrocyclone 1
(Station 2)
Mean (n=20)
Std Dev
430
Feed
4.3
1.3
H 300<
13.9
3.5
i 150U
F83.2%1
52.7
7.2
106U
8
2
.6
.7
75u
3.7
1.0
FSilt and Clav%]
53u 38u <38u Total
ri6.9%1
2.9 1.6 12.4 100.2
1.0 0.6 7.8 3.6
Density
fa/ml) TOCm
2.5 0.75
0.2 0.56
Underflow
4.6
1.1
14.1
3.0
F89.4%1
54.1
9.8
11
5
.4
.3
Sub-Sieve
Apparent Grain
40
Hydrocyclone 1
(Station 8)
Mean (n=18) 1
Std Dev 1
Size
. Ou
30. Ou
Overflow
.5
.1
a:n=19 b:n=18 c:
1.0
0.9
n=17
20. Ou
8.7
3.4
12
16
6
.5u
.0
.4
5.2
4.1
Size
4.0u
33.8
20.5
rii.3%i
4.5 2.3 4.5 100.6
2.9 1.2 1.6 2.4
Distribution
2 . Ou 0.5u <0.5u Total
7.8 16.6 14.5 100.2
3.6 5.8 5.5 1.5
2.5a 0.39b
0.2 0.27
Density
fa/ml) TOCm
1.6c 3.0a
0.3 1.2
-------
probability of reporting to the underflow or the overflow). As
illustrated by the grain size distribution of the overflow,
virtually no particles over 40/u reported to this stream. Most of
the material in this stream was in the 2 to 20/i range, with
another 30% being less than 2/i.
Dense Media Separator
As previously discussed, the Dense Media Separator (DMS) is
designed to separate materials based upon their rates of
settling. Settling rate is a function of particle cross section
and density. As a result, the DMS was expected to effectively
remove particulate organics along with some of the finer grained
material. Table 9 suggests the DMS operated as anticipated. TOC
values dropped by 75% when comparing the feed to the underflow,
and increased by over 820% when comparing the feed to the
overflow. Less than 10% of the material reporting to the
underflow is smaller than 150/z, while nearly 90% of the overflow
falls in this size category.
At the beginning of the day on May 21 the setting for the
teeter bed effective specific gravity was changed from 1.4 to
1.5. This change would be expected to increase the amount of
material reporting to the overflow, and decrease the fines and
organics reporting to the underflow. Examination of the grain
size distributions recorded for the underflow (Station 11) does
not show a dramatic effect from this change. There does appear
to be a change between May 20 and May 21, with the average grain
size increasing after the setting change. However, no such
change is apparent between May 29 and June 1 when the setting was
changed back to 1.4. Means and standard deviations for each size
group were calculated using the 1992 data for both DMS settings
(Table 10). The change in setting appeared to have only a small
effect on the character of the underflow. The cumulative
decrease in the percentage of sub-106jii particles reporting with
the sand when the DMS setting was increased to 1.5 was only 0.5%
(from 3.6% to 3.1%). As expected, the most noticeable change
occurred at about the grain size where a particle has a
relatively even probability of reporting with the overflow or
underflow. For this unit, that grain size (dso) was between about
85 and 140/i. Table 10 shows that the change to a setting of 1.5
did reduce the percentage of 106^ to 149/i particles in the
underflow from 8.5% to 5.7%. The table also shows a small
increase in density and decrease in TOC. Although all observed
changes were small, they were in the direction that would be
expected with an increase in the effective specific gravity
setting of the DMS.
47
-------
TABLE 9: PHYSICAL SEPARATION ACHIEVED BY DENSE MEDIA SEPARATOR (DMS)
Process Stream
Grain Size
Percentage retained by screens with openings of:
TSand Size%1
DMS Input
(Station 2)
Mean (n=20)
Std Dev
DMS Overflow*
(Station 10)
Mean (n=ll)
Std Dev
DMS Underflow
(Station 11)
Mean (n=18)
Std Dev
430i
4.6
1.1
5.1
5.8
5.7
1.2
* Reflects samples
a:n=19
b:n=18
c:n=17
L 300u 150u
F89.4%
14.1 54.1
3.0 9.8
T45.9%
1.4 5.5
0.5 2.3
T97.6%
19.6 64.4
4.0 4.1
106u 75u
1
11.4 5.2
5.3 4.1
-\
15.4 18.5
9.0 5.1
1
6.8 1.1
3.1 0.7
taken after relocation of
[Silt
53U
r
4.5
2.9
r
19.6
4.6
0.6
0.4
Station
and Clav%l Densitv
38u <38u Total fa/ml)
11.3%1
2.3 4.5 100.6 2.5
1.2 1.6 2.4 0.2
55.5%1
13.0 22.9 101.4 2.5
4.4 10.2 3.4 0.3
f2.0%1
0.3 1.1 99.9 2.6
0.3 0.8 2.9 0.2
(May 22 - June 1)
Tocm
0.39
0.27
3.2
1.9
0.10
0.06
00
-------
TABLE 10: DENSE MEDIA SEPARATOR UNDERFLOW (STATION 11)
COMPARISON AT TWO SETTINGS
FSand Size%l
DATE TIME
May 17 PM
May 20 AM
May 20 PM
May 20 PM Dup
June 1
0900-1000
1030-1130
1200-1300
1330-1430
1500-1600
Average (Mean)
Std Deviation
May 21 AM
May 21 PM
May 22 AM
May 27 AM
May 27 PM
May 28 AM
May 28 PM
May 29 AM
Average (Mean)
Std Deviation
430u
8.5
5.3
6.5
7.0
4.8
3.4
5.5
5.9
4.9
5.8
1.4
8.2
6.1
4.9
6.6
4.8
4.3
5.4
4.6
5.6
1.2
300u
26.3
16.5
16.8
16.5
16.7
15.7
27.0
19.8
15.2
18.9
4.3
28.5
22.4
18.7
16.5
19.7
19.6
20.8
14.4
20.1
3.9
150u
59.6
60.3
58.6
59.8
64.2
65.3
61.7
62.6
68.1
F96.6%1
62.2
2.9
58.3
70.8
65.4
62.2
67.8
71.4
66.5
63.4
F98.2%1
65.7
4.1
106U
DMS
3.4
12.8
11.6
12.1
8.1
9.6
2.9
6.6
9.0
8.5
3.4
DMS
2.8
5.6
6.6
5.9
6.2
4.4
4.3
9.4
5.7
1.8
75U
FSilt
53tt
and Clav%1
38u
<38tt
Total
Density
la/ml)
TOC ( % )
Settincr 1.4
0.2
1.2
2.4
2.2
1.1
1.8
0.4
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.7
0.1
0.5
1.2
1.0
0.6
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.3
<0.1
0.2
<1.0
<1. 0
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
F2.4%1
0.4
0.3
0.9
1.4
1.5
1.8
0.7
0.5
0.7
3.9
1.0
1.4
1.0
99.1
98.2
99.6
101.4
96.4
97.6
98.5
100.2
99.9
99.0
1.4
2.3
2.5
2.9
2.2
2.4
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.8
2.6
0.2
0.23
0.17
0.07
0.24
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.12
0.11
0.08
Settina 1.5
0.3
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.2
0.8
0.8
2.4
1.1
0.6
0.2
1.0
<1. 0
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.4
1.3
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.5
<1. 0
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.5
F2.0%1
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.8
1.0
1.6
0.7
0.4
0.6
1.6
0.9
0.5
98.8
108.5
99.6
94.8
101.2
101.3
99.0
97.6
100.1
3.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.7
2.9
2.4
2.7
2.7
0.1
0.06
0.39
0.06
0.11
0.08
0.04
0.05
0.07
0.11
0.11
-------
Examination of the overflow data (Table A-10) for the May 22-
29 dates in comparison to the other 1992 dates reveals a rough
doubling of percentages of the sub-38]U and 38 to 53/u grain sizes
(13% to 26% and 9% to 15%) with the higher DMS setting.
Examination of the daily data reveals that the change did not
occur when the DMS setting was changed, but shortly after the
location for Station 10 was moved. Prior to the afternoon of May
21 these samples were taken at the DMS discharge weir. On that
date the sampling location was moved to the bottom of the hose
which carried DMS overflow to the Sand Recovery Screen. This
change was made because it was difficult to obtain a
representative sample at the weir site. The data show a pulse of
coarse material immediately after the change, and then a more
consistent distribution weighted towards the smaller grain sizes.
The May 21 PM data may be due to changing the slope of the
overflow discharge line and discharging coarse material which had
settled in the line. Comparison of the 1992 data collected
before and after the change in sampling location (Table 11) shows
a sharp increase in the percentages of weights in the smaller
grain sizes and a dramatic increase in TOG with the new location.
This post May 21 data is considered to be a better representation
of the DMS overflow.
Using the grain size distribution data from May 27 thru May
29, Bergmann personnel generated smoothed curves to allow for
interpolation of data for use in the calculation of mass splits.
Selectivity values (the probability that a particle of a given
size would report to the coarse stream) were then plotted against
particle size and fitted to a logistic curve. This allowed
calculation of a dso. For the referenced period, the d50 was
calculated at 108/i. Approximately 84% of the feed (underflow
from Hydrocyclone 1) reported to the DMS underflow. Slightly
more material would be expected to report there with an effective
specific gravity setting of 1.4.
Attrition Scrubber
The underflow (coarse material) from the DMS was directed to
the Attrition Scrubber. Rotating impellers inside of this unit
cause sand particles to scour against one another thus liberating
any surface contaminants. Although this module was part of the
pilot plant, it was not expected to have a significant effect
upon the Saginaw River sediments as there were no 'tar balls' or
surface layers of contaminants on individual grains. Comparisons
of the overall means of the feed (Station 11) and discharge
(Station 15) grain size distribution data from the Attrition
Scrubber show very little difference. The differences in the
percentage by weight of the total feed falling within a
particular grain size classification changed by less than 1% for
each of the 8 size groupings (Table 12). Changes in density and
TOC values are likely the result of sampling and analytical
variability. A surfactant was added to the attrition scrubber on
one afternoon (Nov 1, 1993) during the ARCS demonstration. This
50
-------
TABLE 11: DENSE MEDIA SEPARATOR OVERFLOW (STATION 10) BEFORE
AND AFTER CHANGE IN SAMPLING LOCATION
FSand Size%l
DATE TIME
May 17 PM
May 20 AM
May 20 PM
May 21 AM
Average (Mean)
Std Deviation
May 22 AM
May 27 AM
May 27 PM
May 28 AM
May 28 PM
May 29 AM
June 1
0900-1000
1030-1130
1200-1300
1330-1430
1500-1600
Average (Mean)
Std Deviation
430U
2.8
2.1
2.6
0.5
2.0
0.9
3.9
13.2
2.7
20.3
1.4
5.3
1.4
1.8
2.8
1.5
2.3
5.1
5.8
300U
0.9
4.1
1.0
0.3
1.6
1.5
1.6
2.6
1.4
1.8
0.6
1.5
1.1
1.9
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.4
0.5
150u
23.7
23.2
5.2
9.6
F71.9%
15.4
8.2
5.4
4.4
3.8
3.7
2.5
3.0
5.8
7.9
10.4
7.9
5.2
F45.9%
5.5
2.3
106U
40.4
22.8
23.0
40.5
1
31.7
8.8
14.8
6.2
4.1
9.2
8.5
11.0
15.8
21.3
36.3
25.0
17.5
1
15.4
9.0
75u
17.3
21.7
23.9
21.8
21.2
2.4
13.8
11.8
8.9
20.2
20.3
24.6
14.6
23.3
19.7
23.3
22.8
18.5
5.1
FSilt and Clav%1
53u
9.5
16.8
23.0
16.4
16.4
4.8
17.4
23.6
13.7
20.0
28.5
24.2
21.7
20.3
12.2
15.7
17.8
19.6
4.6
38tt
2.8
6.9
11.6
5.2
F29.5%1
6.6
3.2
14.2
20.5
19.3
10.2
15.8
11.1
16.4
12.4
6.2
7.3
9.8
F55.5%1
13.0
4.4
<38u
2.9
9.0
9.1
4.9
6.5
2.7
28.1
12.0
50.3
18.1
24.0
25.1
27.6
15.4
12.6
16.6
21.7
22.9
10.2
Total
100.3
106.6
99.4
99.2
101.4
3.0
99.2
94.3
104.2
103.5
101.6
105.8
104.4
104.3
101.1
98.2
98.3
101.4
3.4
Density
(a/ml)
2.8
2.3
2.4
2.2
2.4
0.2
2.4
2.4
2.5
1.8
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.8
2.5
0.3
TOC(%)
0.76
0.27
0.27
0.61
0.48
0.21
4.8
4.1
3.6
5.8
0.98
6.6
1.7
2.0
1.3
1.2
3.6
3.2
1.9
-------
TABLE 12: GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF ATTRITION SCRUBBER FEED AND DISCHARGE STREAMS
Process Stream
Grain Size
Percentage retained bv screens with
FSand Size%l
Attrition Sen
Feed (Station
Mean (n=18)
Std Dev
Attrition Sen
Feed (Station
Mean (n=12)
Std Dev
a:n=17
430u
ibber
11)
5.7
1.2
ibber
15)
5.7
1.3
3QQ/I 150u 106u
F97.6%1
19.6 64.
4.0 4.
Discharge
F97.
18.8
1.9
64.
3.
4 6.8
1 3.1
6 7.4
1 1.4
ooenincrs of:
FSilt and Clav%l Density
75u 53u _
F2
1.1 0.6 0
0.7 0.4 0
ri
1.1 0.6 0
0.4 0.3 0
38/n <38u Total fa/ml) TOCf%)
.0%]
.3 1.1 100.4 2.6 0.10(a)
.3 0.8 2.9 0.2 0.06
.9%!
.3 1.0 99.3 2.5 0.18
.3 0.4 1.2 0.2 0.13
-------
addition resulted in excessive foaming in the sumps due to a
metering pump malfunction and was quickly abandoned. The
products of the process did not appear to be affected by the
surfactant used. A surfactant (Triton x-100) was also used
during day 5 of the SITE demonstration. No problem with foaming
occurred and no improvement in product resulted.
Hydrocvclone Separator Number 2
The discharge of the Attrition Scrubber fell to Sump 2 where
it was often combined with the water and particulates which
passed through the Sand Recovery Screen and the overflow from
Hydrocyclone 3. The resulting slurry mix was the feed for the
second hydrocyclone (Station 3). This unit was intended to
remove residual fines from the coarse product. The addition of
the Sand Recovery Screen filtrate and Hydrocyclone 3 overflow to
the Attrition Scrubber discharge resulted in a feed to
Hydrocyclone 2 (Table 13) which contained considerably more fines
and higher TOC than the discharge from the Attrition Scrubber
(Table 12) . Hydrocyclone 2 did reduce the amount of sub-38/i
material and TOC, but appeared to have little effect on larger
grain sizes. The underflow from Hydrocyclone 2 still contained a
higher percentage of sub-106ju particles than the DMS or Attrition
Scrubber discharges (Stations 11 and 15). The reintroduction of
the filtrate from the Sand Recovery Screen was intended to
recapture fine sand which may have reported to the DMS overflow.
The addition of Hydrocyclone 3 overflow to Sump 2 was part of the
counter-current arrangement intended to conserve water. The
increase in the percentage of particles retained by the 75/i and
106/n screens suggest sand was recovered from the Sand Recovery
Screen filtrate. The increase in the percentage of smaller
particles and TOC show that the counter-current operation
produced some recontamination. This is the result of the
relatively low flow rates desirable for the pilot test which
necessitated the use of hydrocyclones classifying at a finer size
than the DMS. For a full scale operation where larger
hydrocyclones would be employed, classifications on the order of
75 to I20ju would be realized and recontamination through counter
current washing would likely be reduced.
During operations on May 27, 28, 29, Hydrocyclone 2 was
bypassed and the DMS underflow was combined with the filtrate
from the Sand Recovery Screen and the Split-Deck dewatering
screen in Sump 3. This material provided the feed to
Hydrocyclone 3, which was operating as the second cyclone in the
system. During this period, there was no counter-current flow so
that the materials removed in the hydrocyclone overflow did not
get reintroduced to the coarse fraction. Table 14 presents the
input and output data for Hydrocyclone 3 during this three-day
period. As expected, the trends in this data are similar to that
presented for Hydrocyclone 2 in Table 13. The difference between
these two data sets in the sub-38)u classification for the feed
and underflow, (lower percentages when Hydrocyclone 2 was
53
-------
TABLE 13: GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF HYDROCYCLONE NUMBER 2 FEED AND DISCHARGE STREAMS
Process Stream
Grain Size
Percentage
retained bv screens with
TSand Size%l
Hydrocyclone 2
Station 3
Mean (n=15)
Std Dev
Hydrocyclone 2
Station 4
Mean (n=15)
Std Dev
Apparent Grain
40
Hydrocyclone 2
Station 9
Mean (n= 14)
Std Dev
a:n=14
b:n=13
>430u 300
Feed
4.0 15.
1.2 4.
Underflow
4.9 15.
1.4 3.
Size
.Ou 30. Ou
Overflow
1.6 1.8
2.4 2.5
U_ 150u 106u
T89.6%1
1 56.9 10.3
1 8.4 4.2
F90.7%1
9 55.4 10.6
6 6.6 3.8
Sub-Sieve
20. Ou 12. 5u
8.1 14.1
3.1 6.9
rsiit
75u 53u
3.3 2.3
2.2 1.5
openings of
and Clav%l
38u <38u
F9.8%1
1.7 5.8
1.4 4.3
rs.4%1
3.9 3.3 2.1 3.0
2.3 2.2 1.3 1.7
Size Distribution
4.0 u 2. Ou 0.5u <0.
35.1 11.3
19.9 18.0
14.7 13.
6.6 5.
•
•
Density
Total fg/ml) TOC
99.3 2.5 0
3.3 0.1 0
99.1 2.5 0
2.1 0.2 0
Density
5u Total (g/ml) TOC
3 100.0 1.8
8 0.1 0.4
m
.36
.32
.25
.18
111
3.8
1.4
-------
TABLE 14: GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF HYDROCYCLONE NO. 3 WHEN NO. 2 IS BYPASSED
Process Stream
Gra
Percentaae Retained bv
DATE TIME
Hydrocyclone 3
(Station 5)
Mean (n=5)
Std Dev
Hydrocyclone 3
(Station 6)
Mean (n=5)
Std Dev
Apparent Grain
Hydrocyclone 3
Mean (n=5)
Std Dev
430u
Feed
4.2
1.6
TSand Size%
300u 150u
F91.8%
13.9 60.8
2.8 3.9
1
106
1
8.8
1.2
in Size
Screen Size
( micrometers)
rsilt and Clav%l Densitv
u 75u 53u
4.1 4.3
1.2 1.5
38u <38u Total fa/ml) TOC
T9.8%1
2.4 3.
1.0 1.
1 101.6
2 3.6
2.3 0
0.2 0
m
.64
.79
Underflow
3.9
0.7
Size
40. Ou
T91.5%
15.1 59.7
1.6 4.2
Sub-Sieve
30. Ou 20. Ou
Overflow (Station
3.6
2.5
3.9 12.9
2.2 2.2
1
8.5
0.6
Size
12.
7)
27.
11.
4.3 3.6
1.0 1.9
Distribution
5u 4.0 U 2.0
5 24.0 5.6
4 12.3 2.7
rs.1%1
2.4 2.
0.7 0.
(Silt and
u 0. 5u
14.4
4.9
1 99.6
8 2.1
Clay)
<0.5u Total
8.1 100.0
1.9 0.1
2.4 0
0.0 0
Density
(a/ml} TOC
1.8 2.2
0.4 0.4
.18
.17
(%)
Ln
-------
by-passed) may be due to eliminating the counter-current
arrangement which tends to recycle fines to Hydrocyclone 2. The
higher TOC level of the feed is possibly explained by
sampling/analytical variability as this value was greatly
influenced by a single measurement (May 29 AM).
Hydrocvclone Separator Number 3
On dates when all three hydrocyclones were in use,
Hydrocyclone 3 received feed from Sump 3. This sump received the
underflow from Hydrocyclone 2 and the filtrate from the split
deck dewatering screen. This hydrocyclone was the final
separation step prior to dewatering of the washed sand. As
illustrated in Table 15, this hydrocyclone did remove some of the
small amount of sub-38/i material and TOC present in the feed.
Comparison of data from Station 4 with that from Station 6 shows
that the sandy material discharged by the second and third
hydrocyclones was essentially the same.
Sand Recovery Screen
As previously mentioned, the Sand Recovery Screen received
the overflow from the DMS and was expected to recover fine sands
which may have reported with the particulate organics.
Performance of this unit was monitored by sampling the feed
(Station 10), retained particulates (Station 12), and filtrate
(Station 16). Table 16 provides a summary of this data. Based
upon grain size distributions alone it appears the Sand Recovery
Screen is retaining most material over 150ju, while allowing most
of the 38/x to ISOjLi material to pass. The destination of the sub-
38/Lt particles was less certain. Presumably, a portion of these
particles were adhering to the coarse material retained by the
screen and reporting with the particulate organics. Based on the
density and TOC of material at Station 12, and because sand
particles over 150ju would have a low probability (<5%) of
reporting to the DMS overflow, the coarse material retained by
the screen is largely particulate organics. The density and TOC
values for the material passing the screen show it is much less
organic in nature. It may however provide a significant
reintroduction of fines to the sandy material separated by
Hydrocyclone 1 and the DMS.
Rotary Screen
This screen was used to separate large particulate organics
from the fines reporting to the overflow of Hydrocyclone 1. No
direct monitoring of the particulate organic material collected
by the screen took place. The water and fines passing the screen
were the major inflow to Sump 4. This material was monitored
(Station 21) as it was pumped from Sump 4 to the clarifier.
Differences in the data for these stations were not great enough
56
-------
TABLE 15; GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF SEPARATOR NO. 3 WHEN NO. 2 IS OPERATING
Process Stream
Grain Size
Percentage Retained bv Screen Size (micrometers)
430u
Separator 3 Feed
(Station 5)
Mean (n=10) 4.1
Std Dev 2.4
TSand Size%l TSilt and Clay%l Density
300u 150u 106u 75u 53u 38u <38u Total (a/ml)
T90.2%1 F9.8%1
12.8 53.5 14.9 4.9 3.6 2.1 4.1 100.0 2.5
4.3 8.0 6.2 2.1 1.6 1.1 3.5 3.4 0.3
TOC (%)
0.5
0.4
Separator 3 Underflow
(Station 6)
Mean (n=10) 4.1
Std Dev 1.3
Apparent Grain Size
40. Ou
T89.4%1 flO.0%1
13.7 51.7 14.4 5.5 5.0 2.8 2.2 99.4 2.5
4.0 5.2 3.8 1.9 2.0 1.2 1.1 2.0 0.1
Sub-Sieve Size Distribution (Silt and Clay)
Density
30. Ou 20. Ou 12. 5u 4.0 u 2 . Ou 0.5u <0.5u Total (a/ml)
0.4
0.3
TOC (%)
Separator 3 Overflow (Station 7)
Mean (n=8) 3.5
Std Dev 3.4
a:n=9
8.5 15.7 16.8 24.1 7.7 15.6 8.1 99.9 1.7
10.9 7.6 6.3 15.2 3.0 7.3 4.5 0.3 0.2
3.5
1.8
Ln
-------
TABLE 16: GRAIN SIZE SEPARATION ACHIEVED BY SAND RECOVERY SCREEN
Process Stream
Grain Size
Percentage retained bv screens with ooeninas of:
[Sand Size%
430w 300u
Sand Recovery Screen
Feed (Station 10)
May 22 -June 1
Mean (n=ll) 5.1 1.4
Std Dev 5.8 0.5
Material Retained
by Sand Recovery Screen
(Station 12)
Mean (n=16)57.4 12.9
Std Dev 9.8 4.0
Material Passing
Sand Recovery Screen
(Station 16)
Mean (n=16) 0.4 1.0
Std Dev 0.4 0.9
150u
F45.9%1
5.5
2.3
F86.2%1
10.7
2.2
F47.9%1
7.9
6.2
1 FSilt
106U 75u 53u
15.4 18.5 19.6
9.0 5.1 4.6
3.2 2.0 1.9
1.0 0.9 0.7
20.3 18.3 20.4
12.1 4.3 7.0
and Clav%l Density
38u <38u Total (cr/ml)
F55.5%1
13.0 22.9 101.7 2.5
4.4 10.2 3.4 0.2
F12.6%1
1.2 9.5 98.9 1.3
0.6 4.9 9.8 0.3
F56.0%1
11.9 23.7 104.0 2.4
4.5 10.1 7.7 0.1
TOC ( % )
3.2
1.9
20.
11.
1.6
1.0
Ui
OO
-------
to draw any conclusions regarding the nature of the material
retained by the screen. Field observations suggest that only a
relatively small amount of material consisting of large
particulate organics were removed by this device.
Split-Deck Dewaterinq Screen
One side of this split-deck screen received particulate
organics from the Rotary Screen and the Sand Recovery Screen
(Station 12), while the other received the underflow of
Hydrocyclone 3 (Station 6). The dewatered organics (Station 13)
and dewatered sand (Station 14) were both transferred to the
confined disposal facility for placement. The water removed from
the two streams (Station 17) was reintroduced to Sump 3. Table
17 presents the summary data for input and output streams for the
split deck. Note that the input to the organic side was not
monitored directly, but was a combination of the material
retained by the two upstream screens.
The data for the particulate organic side do not show the
expected trend. When comparing the input from the Sand Recovery
Screen with the dewatered particulate organic discharge, the mean
density increased and TOC decreased during dewatering, while the
percentage of material retained by a 430ju screen decreased and
that retained by a 150/x screen increased dramatically. Perhaps
some of these differences are attributable to the contribution of
the Rotary Screen. Although this screen was not monitored, it
seems unlikely it would heavily contribute particles in the 150/i
range. The decline in silt and clay size (<75/i) particles is
probably due to some of these particles falling through the
screen. The reason for the decrease in large (>430/i) particles
and dramatic increase in mid-size particles is not clear.
The changes occurring in the sand during dewatering are more
consistent with expectations. The percentages of the sub-150/i
material decreased reflecting the passage of small particles
through the screen. The remaining size groups increased also due
to the loss of the finer grain sizes. As most material was
retained by the screen, no change in density was apparent. The
decrease in TOC could reflect the passage of fine organics
through the screen.
The grain size distribution of the filtrate solids suggests
the screen easily passed material as large as 300/x. The large
percentage of material in the range of 150/i to 300/i suggests that
much of the particulates in the filtrate are from the sand side
of the screen. This is consistent with the greater weight of a
sand particle of a given size making it more likely to pass
through the dewatering screen than a particulate organic particle
of a similar size. The density and TOC values for the filtrate
also suggest it was inorganic in nature. Material which passed
59
-------
TABLE 17: SPLIT DECK DEWATERING SCREEN INPUT AND OUTPUT
Process Stream
Percentaae
Grad
.n Size
retained bv screens with openincrs of:
FSand Size%l
430u 300u
1992 Organic
Feed from Sand
(Station 12)
Mean(n=16)
Std Dev
1992 Organic
Discharge
(Station 13)
Mean(n=ll)
Std Dev
Sand Feed
(Station 6)
Mean (n=15)
Std Dev
Sand Product
(Station 14)
Mean (n=20)
Std Dev
Combined
Filtrate
(Station 17)
Mean (n=13)
Std Dev
a:n=10 b:n=14
150u 106u
75u
Recovery
57.4
9.8
46.3
9.7
4.2
1.1
4.6
0.7
2.2
1.0
c:n=9
12.9
4.0
18.0
4.9
14.7
3.3
15.8
1.8
9.0
2.8
T86.2%1
10.7
2.2
F96.2%1
27.4
9.5
T90.7%1
54.7
6.1
F94.0%1
59.3
3.0
F83.0%1
50.0
5.5
3.2
1.0
3.3
0.7
12.2
4.3
10 = 7
2.2
14.7
4.3
2.0
0.9
1.2
0.5
4.9
1.6
3,6
0.6
7.1
1.8
FSilt and Clav%l
53u
1.9
0.7
1.0
0.3
4.3
1.9
2.7
0.5
6.9
1.6
38U <38u
F12.6%1
1.2
0.6
rs.6%1
0.6
0.3
F9.0%1
2.6
1.1
F5.2%1
1.4
0.3
ris.2%1
4.4
1.1
9.5
4.9
4.0
1.3
2.1
0.9
1.1
0.3
3.9
1.4
Total
98.9
9.8
101.7
9.9
99.6
2.1
99.2
0.9
98.4
1.3
Density
fa/ml)
1.3
0.3
1.6
0.4
2.5
0.1
2.5
0.2
2.5
0.2
TOC m
20.
11.
13.
8.2
0.31
0.30
0.16
0.08
0.26
0.25
-------
the screen surface was directed to Sump 3. This closed the
circuit around the dewatering screen so that any sand lost to the
screen undersize was recaptured in the underflow of Hydrocyclone
3.
Clarifier
The purpose for the clarifier in this system was to
facilitate the conservation of water and to minimize the volume
of the discharge slurry to the CDF. During the first two days of
operation (Fall 1991) a trailer-mounted unit was placed on the
CDF. This unit was too small to handle the volume of slurry sent
to it by the classification plant. Prior to the Spring run, a
larger unit was mounted on the barge. This unit was still
capable of treating only the smaller volume discharged by the
plant when operating in a counter-current mode or with only two
hydrocyclones. Due to this, and start up problems encountered
with the clarifier in the Spring, the clarifier was not
effectively on line until May 28. The clarifier overflow
(Station 23), which was used as recycle water, carried suspended
solids, having an average concentration for this two day period
of 194 mg/1 (std dev 98 mg/1). This is a typical value for a
weir discharge of water from ponded dredged material that has
settled for a day or more. Although not measured, it is expected
that sub-sieve grain sizes would predominate.
The minimal solids in the recycle water suggests that the
grain size distribution, density and TOG in the clarifier feed
(Station 21) and clarifier sludge (Station 22) should be similar.
The feed material on these dates was a combination of the
overflow from the two operating hydrocyclones. The grain size
distribution was closely grouped around 4. Oju (Table A-21) . The
sludge showed a more scattered distribution (Table A-22),
presumably due to the opposing actions of the flocculant used and
passage through a pump. The clarifier used in the Spring
functioned without problems for the last 7 days of the Saginaw
demonstrations (2 days under ARCS, 5 days under SITE). During
this period the clarifier produced an effluent clean enough to be
reused in the process, and a densified slurry for disposal on the
CDF. This was accomplished with minimal attention to optimizing
the performance of the unit.
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs)
PCBs and other contaminants were monitored less extensively
than the physical characteristics. The production of a reusable,
less contaminated fraction, and a fraction of enriched
contaminants is the result of separating physical phases of the
sediments in which the contaminants are bound to a particular
phase component. PCBs are concentrated because they associate
with two categories of physical phases: small particles, and low
density organic matter. The potential to isolate PCBs by
removing sub-38ju material, based on Bureau of Mines laboratory
61
-------
results, is shown in Table 19. The collection of field data on
PCB concentrations was limited to the points where material
entered or exited the overall plant (Stations 13, 14, 19, 20, 21,
22, 23), with the exception of the oversized material from the
rotary trommel. This station was not monitored as it was
expected to generate little volume and consist largely of stones
and debris which would be very heterogeneous and contain
negligible amounts of contaminants. All values are presented as
mg PCB/kg dried solids unless otherwise noted. Summary data is
provided in Table 18 and Figures 21-22.
Process feed
The overall average concentrations for the process feed
(Station 20) was 1.2 mg/kg PCB with a standard deviation of 0.23
mg/kg. The 14 individual 4 hr composites ranged from 0.74 mg/kg
to 3.2 mg/kg. The value of 3.2 mg/kg was rejected as an outlier
using the Dixon Criteria (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1963) and
not used in the calculation of the mean. The 1992 data all fell
between 0.9 mg/kg and 1.5 mg/kg with a mean of 1.2 mg/kg and a
standard deviation of 0.19 mg/kg.
Washed Sand
The sand product (Station 14) produced by the Bergmann
process exhibited dramatically lower PCB concentrations compared
to the feed material. The 15 composites ranged from 0.14 mg/kg
to 0.38 mg/kg (mean 0.21 mg/kg, standard deviation 0.07 mg/kg).
This represents an 82% decrease in the mean concentration of PCB
in the sand product when compared to the feed.
Particulate Organics
The particulate organics discharged by the dewatering screen
at Station 13 averaged 3.9 mg/kg PCB (standard deviation 2.0
mg/kg). The 15 composite samples ranged from 1.64 mg/kg to 9.37
mg/kg PCB. Levels in this stream were anticipated to be high due
to its organic nature and the tendency of organic contaminants to
partition into the organic material present.
62
-------
TABLE 18: PCB CONCENTRATIONS IN PROCESS INPUT AND OUTPUT STREAMS
Process Stream
Feed (Station 20)
Mean (n=13)
Std Dev
PCB Concentration
1.2 mg/kg
0.23 mg/kg
Washed Sand (Station 14)
Mean (n=14)
Std Dev
Enrichment factor **
0.21 mg/kg
0.07 mg/kg
0.18
Particulation Organics (Station 13)
Mean (n=15)
Std Dev
Enrichment factor **
3.9 mg/kg
2.0 mg/kg
3.2
Clarifier Feed (Station 21)
Slurry (1991 data)+
Mean (n=4)
Std Dev
1.6
1.2
Decanted Water (1992)+
Mean (n=ll)
Std Dev
0.87 /ig/1
0.94 Mg/1
Solids (1992)
Mean (n=10)
Std Dev
Enrichment factor**
4.6 mg/kg
1.4 mg/kg
3.8
Clarifier Output (Station 22)
Solids
Mean (n=7)
Std Dev
2.2 mg/kg
0.4 mg/kg
Recycle Water (Station 23)
Mean (n=4)
Std Dev
1.34 Mg/1 ++
.54 Mg/1
Saginaw Bay Water (Station 19)
Undetectable
Average detection
Limit 0.24/xg/l
(range 0.25 -.89 jug/1)
** Enrichment factor (Process Stream Cone divided by Feed
Cone)
+ 8 nondetectible
++ mean of 1991 samples with an average total suspended solids
content of 8,395 mg/1.
63
-------
TABLE 19: BENCH-SCALE DERIVED ENRICHMENT FACTORS FOR METALS
AND PCBs IN VARIOUS GRAIN SIZE GROUPINGS
Grain Size
Fraction _ Element __
Cd Cr Cu Hg Ni Pb Zn
>425/* 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.8 1.7 ---
(>300/i) (0.59)
<425fi;>300/i 0.40 0.48 0.62 0.72 0.44 0.31 0.10 ---
<300/i;>212/i 0.28 0.86 0.75 0.66 0.71 0.30 0.22 0.12
<212ju;>150/i 0.45 0.91 0.86 0.62 0.80 0.31 0.22 0.15
<150/i;>106jLl 0.62 0.72 0.87 0.68 0.76 0.70 0.32 ---
(<250jU;>75M) (0.29)
<106ju;> 75ji 0.40 0.72 0.39 0.56 0.56 1.2 0.56 ---
< 75/i;> 53/i 0.78 0.46 0.67 0.75 0.77 1.8 0.80 ---
(<75jU;>38/i) (1.3)
< 53ju;> 38ji 1.3 0.55 1.0 0.94 1.1 2.2 1.2 ---
3.7 2.9 2.6 2.9 2.9 3.5 4.4 6.2
* Enrichment factor = % of Element in Grain Size Fraction
% of Total Mass in Grain Size Fraction
Note: Metal values presented represent the average calculated
for two data sets presented by the Bureau of Mines (Allen, in
prep.). PCB values calculated for Saginaw River Sample #2
(TRP-6) from data presented by the Bureau of Mines (Allen, in
prep.) .
Clarifier Feed
The fines separated by the various hydrocyclones in the
Bergmann system were eventually routed to the Clarifier for
collection. During the 1991 portion of the ARCS demonstration,
the clarifier feed (Station 21) was analyzed as a slurry on four
dates. These analyses resulted in an average PCB concentration
of 1.6 M9/1- Spring samples at this station were separated into
a solid and liquid phase by settling. Ten solid phase samples
resulted in an average of 4.6 nig/kg, while eleven liquid phase
samples averaged 0.87 M9/1 PCBs. The concentration of the solid
64
-------
Fines
Mean 4.6 mg/kg
Paniculate Organics
Mean 3.9 mg/kg
"~ Feed Material
Mean 1.2 mg/kg
D--D D D D D O ° ° D n D O
Date of Composite Sample
Figure 21: PCB concentrations of 4 hour composite samples collected
during ARCS demonstration.
o
1
•4—*
-------
phase samples reflect an increase of 3.8 times the feed
concentration (Table 18). However, this increase was somewhat
less than would be expected based on the Bureau of Mines bench
scale results for the finest grain size group (Table 19).
Little difference in PCS concentrations in the solids was
anticipated between the clarifier feed samples (Station 21) and
the clarifier sludge (Station 22). However, the average of four
1991 samples at Station 22 was only 1.9 mg/kg PCB and the average
of three 1992 samples 2.2 mg/kg PCB, about half the concentration
found in the clarifier feed (4.6 mg/kg). A possible loss
mechanism is dissolution and desorption of PCBs from highly
dispersed fine particles subjected to turbulences and mixing. A
second pathway of possible consideration is PCB volatilization.
However, as the solids were always immersed in water, significant
losses to the atmosphere do not appear possible.
Recycle water
The overflow from the clarifier was not discharged, but was
collected and recycled as make-up water where needed throughout
the system. This stream was sampled 4 times in the Fall of 1991
and found to contain an average of 1.3 ng/I PCB and 8,400 mg/1 of
suspended solids. The larger clarifier used in the Spring
lowered the suspended solids to below 200 mg/1. PCB was not
monitored during the Spring phase of the demonstration.
Saginaw Bay Water
Additional water needs for processing were met by withdrawing
water directly from Saginaw Bay. Samples of Bay water (Station
19) were analyzed 16 times over the course of the demonstration.
Only one of these samples produced detectible results, and when
reanalyzed this sample also fell below the detection limit. The
average detection limit for samples from Station 19 was 244 ng/1.
METALS
Seven metals were monitored in the feed stream and each of
the discharge streams (washed sand, particulate organics, and
fines). Analyses done by the Bureau of Mines (Allen, in prep.)
on two sediment samples from the Saginaw River showed a tendency
for these metals to be found in higher concentrations in
particular grain size fractions (Table 19). In all cases the
metals are extra proportionately represented in the finest size
fraction (sub-38/j) , and to a lesser extent in the coarsest
fraction (>425ju) . In the case of all metals except lead,
particles between 53ji and 425/n had below average concentrations.
The field results presented in Table 20 illustrate that, in
general, the monitored metals partitioned among the various grain
sizes as expected. The sand fraction (consisting largely of
grain sizes between 53jit and 425ju) displayed concentrations of all
66
-------
TABLE 20: SUMMARY OF METALS DATA FROM ARCS PILOT-SCALE DEMONSTRATION
Cd( mo/ka)
Feed
(Station 20)
Mean (n=20)
Std Dev
Sand Product
(Station 14)
Mean (n=16)
Std Dev
Enrichment
Factor+
Fines
(Station 21)
Mean (n=8)
Std Dev
Enrichment
Factor+
Particulate
Organics
(Station 13)
Mean (n=15)
Std Dev
Enrichment
Factor+
0.50
0.10
0.06
0.01
0.12
1.89
0.15
3.8
1.16
0.72
2.3
Cr(mq/kq)
23.
8.
10.
7.
0.
90.
5.
3.
33.
16.
1.
9
1
8
4
45
0
2
8
6
3
4
+Enrichment factor is the factor
calculate the discharge
Cu(mq/kq>
17.
4.
6.
0.
0.
71.
3.
4.
40.
23.
2.
by which
concentration ( i .
9
1
30
78
35
3
5
0
8
6
3
Hq(mq/kq) Ni(mq/kq)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3.
0.
0.
3.
the feed
e.
061
016
008
003
13
222
010
6
210b
106
4
11.5
2.8
3.3
1.2
0.29
50.0
2.5
4.3
36.4
19.3
3.2
concentration is
Pbfmq/kq)
20
5
7
1
0
81
14
4
41
31
2
.4
.2
.42a
.38
.36
.0
.3
.0
.4C
.4
.0
multiplied
Zn(mq/kq)
96.1
41.7
17.7
4.62
0.18
451
115
4.7
191.4
136.9
2.0
to
Discharge Cone.)
Feed Cone.
a: n-15 b:
n=14
c: n=13
-------
metals significantly below that found in the feed. The
reductions in metal concentrations in the washed sand fraction
were more dramatic than expected from the work reported in Table
19. The increase in the concentrations of metals in the fines
more closely followed expectations based on the sub-38/x material
examined by Allen (in prep).
In many cases the enrichment factors calculated for the sub
38/x size fraction from the laboratory are very similar to those
calculated for the fines during the pilot demonstration. The
particulate organic fraction also contained a higher
concentration of all metals monitored than did the feed. Mercury
showed the highest enrichment factor of any of the metals in this
stream. That may be due to mercury's tendency to occur in
organic compounds in sediments. Figure 23 illustrates that the
Bergmann process could be effectively used to reduce metal
concentrations in the sand fraction of bulk sediment.
SITE RESULTS
As previously mentioned, the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program monitored the operation of the Bergmann
plant for 5 days immediately following the ARCS demonstration.
In most cases, the results (USEPA, in prep.) of their trials were
very similar to those reported above. The mean feed
concentration of PCB reported for the SITE demonstration was 1.4
mg/kg, while the washed sand product mean was 0.19 mg/kg. These
values are close to the 1.2 mg/kg and 0.21 mg/kg concentrations
reported for these two streams during the ARCS demonstration.
The SITE results for the fines discharged from the clarifier were
4.42 mg/kg PCB, similar to the 4.6 mg/kg value recorded by ARCS
for the clarifier feed. The average PCB concentrations reported
by the SITE program for the particulate organics was 11.0 mg/kg.
This value is significantly higher than that recorded during the
ARCS demonstration, and is closer to the value that would be
anticipated for fine particulate organic material. The
difference between the two data sets may be a result of the
analytical methodology difficulty normally encountered in
obtaining consistent clean-up and extraction replication in bio-
organic matter.
Although the SITE and ARCS programs monitored several metals,
only copper, lead, and zinc were followed by both. The
enrichment factors calculated for the various discharge streams
for copper and zinc were similar for both of the demonstrations.
The lead results were less consistent for unknown reasons.
SEDIMENT TOXICITY
Wright State University (Burton and Jacher, 1992) conducted
tests of acute toxicity on samples of feed, washed sand, fines,
and control sediments. The study (Appendix B) was intended to
provide general information on toxicity reduction by the
68
-------
5.0
4.0
3.0
••—»
c
-------
treatment process on sediments at one point in time. Organisms
used included Hyallela azteca and Ceriodaphnia dubia. The tests
using H. azteca did not reveal any statistically significant
toxicity in the feed, sand or fines. However, increased survival
was shown in all washed sand samples.
Seven day survival and three brood reproduction tests were
carried out using C^ dubia. Statistically significant effects
were found for acute toxicity in one of four feed samples.
Chronic toxicity existed in three of four feed samples and one of
two fines samples. No toxicity was reported for any of the
washed sand samples. The results for both H. azteca and C. dubia
indicate a reduction in toxicity occurring due to the treatment
process.
As noted above, these tests were intended to provide a rough
comparison of relative toxicity. Prior to implementation of this
type of technology on a full scale, a full biological
testing-based evaluation of the process that included
bioaccumulation tests would be necessary.
FULL-SCALE IMPLEMENTATION
The following discussion provides a description and cost
estimate for a full-scale remediation of contaminated sediments
using a sediment washing process. Two separate cost estimates
were made for sediment remediation involving 10,000 and 100,000
cubic yards of in-situ material. These quantities were believed
to represent feasible cleanup scenarios for areas with heavily
polluted sediments. This technology is estimated to be less
expensive than many other remediation technologies and may be
reasonably applied to larger quantities of sediments in some
cases.
In preparing the estimates for treating 10,000 to 100,000
cubic yards using the Bergmann sediment washing system, it was
assumed that all processing would be conducted at a centralized
plant on the Saginaw CDF, and that the sediments would be dry
enough to allow the use of a front-end loader and conveyor to
feed the system. For the sediments addressed in this study it is
assumed the trommel overs, fines, and particulate organics would
require final disposal at the CDF, while the sand product could
be beneficially reused.
Full-scale Treatment System
Because of the nature of the equipment used for this
demonstration, the scale of the pilot plant was large enough that
it could be used for a small full-scale (10,000 cubic yard)
remediation. The pilot plant had a nominal processing rate of 5
tons/hr. Once the plant was set in constant mode for the SITE
demonstration, it operated with no down time. Based upon
experience with similar equipment in the mining industry,
70
-------
Bergmann has indicated a 90% on-line efficiency is reasonable,
allowing time for routine maintenance and repairs. If two shifts
per day are assumed with a total of 14 hours of actual
processing, 10,000 cubic yards would require approximately 190
days to wash. However, the use of the pilot-scale plant would
not allow for an increase in the dso of the separators up to 75/i.
Increasing the d50 would result in a less contaminated sand
product. In addition, costs could be reduced by using a larger
plant with a higher processing rate. Therefore, the use of a
larger, 50 tons per hour modified plant will be discussed in the
following sections.
Material Feed—
Because water is added to slurry the sediment at the head box
and within the trommel, moisture content of the feed is only
important in how it affects the feed operation. Mechanically
dredged sediments which had been allowed to drain for a week or
more would likely be suitable for mechanical rehandling.
Hydraulically feeding the trommel would also be possible provided
an appropriate slurry density was delivered (15 to 25% solids).
For the purpose of this estimate, mechanically dredged material
and mechanical feeding of the plant will be assumed. Specific
equipment choices would be dependent upon the geometry of the
work area.
Sediment Washing Unit—
The test results presented earlier indicate that some
modifications of the process used for the pilot demonstration
were desirable to improve performance, and other modifications
could be made to possibly reduce costs. As the modules which
would be used at a particular site would be specific to the
sediments and contaminants requiring treatment, it was determined
that limited changes would be made to the process described for
the pilot plant as operated on June 1.
One modification would be the addition of a log washer to
reduce the number of "clay balls" formed. This should reduce the
amount of trommel overs to less than 2% of the feed. The second
modification would be the size of the hydrocyclone separators.
Because of the small size of the plant, relatively small
separators were used which resulted in a d50 around 45ji. A higher
quality sand product would be generated with a dso of about 75/u.
This would require the use of 24 inch separators which process
about 50 tons per hour of solids (1250 gpm of a 14.5% slurry).
The third change would be the elimination of the attrition
scrubber and the third separator because they did not appear to
improve process streams during the demonstration trials. The
rotary screen used for collecting particulate organics would also
be replaced with a sieve bend.
Fines, trommel overs, and particulate organics would be
discharged to an impoundment on the Saginaw CDF. Based on the
results of the pilot demonstration and the modifications proposed
71
-------
above, these three fractions would total 2,000 cubic yards in the
10,000 cy scenario and 20,000 cy in the 100,000 cy scenario.
Disposal costs for this material, based upon the cost of
constructing a confined area on the CDF for disposal of the fines
and particulate organics is estimated at $17.00/cy of solids.
The high unit cost is a result of confining the relatively dilute
slurry discharged from the system. Such an area would only be
required if additional treatment (such as bioremediation) of the
fines was anticipated. A clarifier would be used to reduce the
volume of the fines slurry discharged. The system would be sized
to accommodate a flow of 1800 gpm. It is anticipated the output
would be about 120 gpm at about 15% solids.
Cost Estimate for Sediment Remediation
Cost estimates for the remediation of 10,000 and 100,000
cubic yards of sediment (as measured in-situ) using the described
technology were prepared. The estimated operating costs for
treating the contaminated sediments on the Sagiriaw CDF are shown
in Table 21. The distribution of costs are illustrated in Figure
24. Prices were determined based on the treatment of 11,000 and
110,000 tons of sediment (the estimated dry weight of the dredged
material) using a processing rate of 50 tons per hour, with a 90
percent system utilization rate. The estimate includes costs for
all mobilization/demobilization, material feeding, grain size
separation, associated analytical activities, on-site
clarification and recycling of water, and on-site disposal of the
trommel overs, particulate organics, and fines. It is assumed
the processed sand can be marketed for the cost of removing it
from the site. Costs for planning and engineering, and
construction management would be expected to increase total costs
by 17 to 27%. The estimate includes no remedial contractor
profit.
Remediation of 10,000 Cubic Yards—
The treatment cost for processing this volume of sediment was
estimated at $54 per cubic yard (not including dredging, about
$37/cy), with the processing being completed in approximately two
months (not including dredging, site prep, etc) ,. Mobilization
and demobilization costs were estimated to be $147,000, while the
equipment rental charge was $150,000. The equipment charge was
based on April 1994 lease rates provided by Bergmann USA.
Field labor, material handling and utilities were estimated
to make up approximately 17 percent of the total treatment cost.
The labor cost includes 2 operators ($35/hr) and 1 supervisor
($45/hr) working 5 days per week, one shift per day. Utility
costs are based upon the fuel requirements and rental costs of a
300kw diesel powered generator. Maintenance and supply costs
comprise about 8 percent of the total cost. The total cost for
processing 10,000 cubic yards of sediment was estimated at
$536,000 as shown in Table 21.
72
-------
TABLE 21: COST ESTIMATES AND % OF TOTAL COSTS FOR
REMEDIATING 10,000 AND 100,000 CUBIC YARDS OF SAGINAW
RIVER SEDIMENTS AT 50 TONS PER HOUR
Item
Site Preparation
Construction of Work Platform
(100ft X 100ft)
Feed Storage Area, Temporary
Office, Sand Storage Area,
Fines Storage Area Berms
Residual storage fee for
material to be left on CDF
Treatment Costs
Mobilization/Demobilization
of Plant
Equipment Rental*
Generator Rental/Operation
Supplies and Maintenance
Material handling for feed
and washed sand ($1.60/ton)
Operator Labor
Transport for crew (Boat)
10.000 cy
(11,000 tons)
Est % of
Cost Cost
25,000
60,000
5.000
Process Monitoring
Total Cost
Cost per Cubic Yard of
In-Situ Material
90,000(17%)
147,000
150,000
14,000
44,000
29,000
37,000
12.000
100.000 cy
(110,000 tons)
Est % of
Cost Cost
25,000
370,000
45.000
440,000(19%)
147,000
510,000
102,000
440,000
291,000
237,000
20.000
433,000 (81%) 1,747,000 (75%)
13.000 (2%) 130.000 (6%)
$ 536,000
$53.60
$2,317,000
$23.17
* - Bergmann plant rental rates are based upon $15,000/week
during treatment operations and $7,500/week during non-
treatment periods. These prices assume the availability of an
existing plant. If a new plant were to be manufactured, a
minimum 12 month lease would be required. The capital cost of
the proposed plant is $1.66 million. Lease costs could be
applied to purchase at a rate of 50%.
73
-------
Mob & Demob
Equipment Rental
Consumables
& Maintenance
Other
Material Handling
Labor
10,OOO Cubic Yard Scenario
Equipment Rental
Consumables
& Maintenance
Site Preparation Site Preparation /
Other
Labor
Material Handling
Mob & Demob
100,000 Cubic Yard Scenario
Figure 24: Distribution of treatment costs for 1O,OOO and 1OO.OOO cubic yard estimates.
-------
Remediation of 100,000 Cubic Yards—
The cost estimate for treating 100,000 cubic yards of
sediment includes the use of a 50 tons per hour system which will
allow completion in 8 months of operation, if operated 5 days per
week, two shifts per day. Again a 90% on-line efficiency was
assumed. Total mobilization and demobilization costs would be
the same as the 10,000 cy plan, dropping to $1.47 per cubic yard
of feed. Total grain size separation equipment rental costs
would be $510,000, falling to $5/per cubic yard. The unit costs
reflect an economy of scale when compared to the 10,000 cubic
yard scenario for these components. Other operating expenses
such as fuel, maintenance, disposal etc. all have unit costs
similar to those for the smaller plan. Some savings in labor
would result from covering both shifts with one supervisor. The
total cost for processing 100,000 cubic yards of sediment was
estimated at $2,317,000 as shown in Table 21. Dredging costs for
this larger volume would be expected to drop to around $12/cy.
Costs could vary for any number of reasons. The scenarios
outlined assumed operation on an island CDF which resulted in
high mobilization/demobilization, and site preparation costs, but
no charges for real estate. Differences in the physical
character of the sediment could require the addition of steps to
the process. If the sediments were predominantly clay or silt,
the economics of the process would be severely affected as little
volume reduction would be achieved. In such a case, direct
confinement of the entire volume would be more cost effective.
If a more contaminated feed were being treated, the particulate
organics and fines may require disposal at a TSCA landfill. This
plus the transportation required could increase the disposal
estimates from $17.00/cy to $700/cy (+/- 50% depending on market
conditions).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
Based upon the results presented in the previous sections and
other available information, the following conclusions regarding
the potential application of the demonstrated sediment washing
technologies to sediment remediation projects on the Great Lakes
are presented.
Material Composition—
The usefulness of the Bergmann process, or other modified
mineral processing technologies, depends upon the degree to which
they can reduce the volume of material requiring further
treatment or confinement. This, in turn, depends upon the grain
size/density distribution of the feed, and the distribution of
the contaminants among the various grain size or density
compartments. In other words, a large proportion of the feed
must be clean (i.e. relatively free of contamination) and have
physical characteristics facilitating processing which acts to
75
-------
separate the major clean fraction from the residual contaminated
fraction. In this case, the bulk of the feed was relatively
clean sand which could be separated from the more contaminant
laden fine and organic particles based on differential settling
rates. In cases where the dredged material is homogeneous, or
where the contaminant is uniformly distributed among all the
grain size/density/magnetic etc. compartments, application of
mineral processing techniques would not bring about a reduced
volume of contaminant enriched material.
Material Handling—
During the pilot-scale demonstration, dredging was
accomplished by mechanical means and the feed was introduced to
the plant as a relatively dry material. This approach allows
feed to be easily stockpiled and provides for a uniform feed
rate. The Bergmann process used here could accept a slurry feed
provided it could be delivered at a uniform rate and was
comprised of 15% to 25% solids. Regardless of the method of feed
delivery, removal of debris would be required to prevent damage
to the system. A steel grate with 2 inch openings proved
effective during the demonstration.
Process Operations—
The Bergmann plant used in the Saginaw Pilot-Scale
Demonstration consisted of a series of relatively simple
processes adapted from the mineral processing industry. The
plant was occupationally safe compared to most other treatment
technologies because it did not involve the use of high
temperatures or pressures, or potentially dangerous solvents.
The plant was also relatively easy to operate. Locally available
labor familiar with machine operation could be trained to operate
the system in a matter of a few days. A five ton per hour plant
could be operated by a crew of four including the feed operation
and stockpiling of the discharge materials. In general, the
Bergmann pilot plant operated well throughout the ARCS and SITE
demonstrations. The only non-weather related (i.e. a result of
operating on a barge) down time encountered was the result of a
motor failure due to improper maintenance. Other problems were
essentially of the "shake down" variety and were resolved by
making minor adjustments. Full-scale plants would be expected to
be on-line 90 to 95% of the time.
The monitoring efforts showed the process can successfully
separate the feed into a sand stream, a fines stream, and a
particulate organic stream, with the latter two streams
containing a great majority of the mass of contaminants. The
results of the monitoring effort also suggest that some process
modifications should be considered prior to any additional trials
with Saginaw River or similar sediments. The rotary trommel by
itself did not adequately separate the above and below 6 mm
materials. Consequently, a significant amount of sand and fines
were removed from the system prior to classification. It is
estimated that as much as 7% of the feed reported to the trommel
76
-------
overs which should have reported to the sand stream (i.e. as much
as 10% of the sand in the raw feed was misclassif ied as oversized
material) . The grain size data collected also show that
operation of the pilot plant in the water-saving counter-current
mode resulted in the re introduction of some fines to the sand
stream. A full-scale process equipped with larger hydrocyclones
would likely produce an even cleaner sand product.
Contaminant Removal Levels —
Average removal levels for the monitored contaminants are
presented in Table 22. In generating these numbers, the washed
sand was considered the treated product. In other words:
_. it i H Contaminant Cone, in Sand .___,
Removal Level = 1 - Contaminant Conc. in Feed * 1 00%
Concentration values used are those presented in Tables 18 and
20. It must be noted that the amount of sand recovered
represents only around 80% of the feed. Therefore, these values
are not directly comparable to other demonstrations where the
contaminant is extracted into another medium or destroyed.
TABLE 22: AVERAGE REMOVAL LEVELS FOR INDIVIDUAL
MATERIALS WHEN COMPARING FEED WITH WASHED SAND
Material Percent Removal
Sub 38/i grain sizes 94%
Sub 75p. grain sizes 77%
Total Organic Carbon 79%
Cadmium 88%
Chromium 55%
Copper 65%
Mercury 82%
Nickel 71%
Lead 61%
Zinc 82%
PCB 82%
Graphic presentation of the values obtained for individual
composite samples from the feed and sand streams for <53/i
particles, TOC, and PCBs appears in Figures 25, 26 and 27. It is
anticipated that a full-scale plant with appropriately sized
hydrocyclone separators would result in somewhat higher removal
efficiencies.
Analytical Surrogates—
Based upon the above removal efficiencies, grain size
distribution (i.e. sub 75/i particle removal) and total organic
carbon may be usable as surrogates for PCBs and selected metals
77
-------
00
CO
D)
C
§
0- C
r* ®
D) 9>
"m °
*«
>» CO
o>
Time of Composite Sample
Figure 25: Comparison of % sub-53[i material in feed and washed sand.
-------
a
o
•8
cd
O
too
Feed (mean = 0.70 %
—^EH— Sand (mean = 0.16 %
Time of Composite Sample
Figure 26: Comparison of total organic carbon content of feed and washed sand.
-------
Oo
O
1.5
o
I
I
o
o
m
o
CL
0.5
/"x
• Feed
Mean 1.2 \iglg
D Clean Sand
Mean 0.21 jig/g
D"
CO TO
o o
5
c\j
I
in
Time of Composite Sample
Figure 27: Comparison of PCB concentrations in feed and washed sand.
-------
in predicting removal efficiencies. As such, it is likely that
removal of fines and particulate organics is controlling removal
of many of the monitored contaminants. Figure 28 illustrates how
% fines, TOC and density differ at the various sampling stations
as material moves through the plant.
Residuals—
The removed fraction of the sediments (i.e. the trommel
overs, fines, and particulate organics) contain elevated levels
of the monitored contaminants. As these fractions accounted for
up to 25% (and with an improved trommel operation could account
for up to 15%) of the total discharge, disposal or treatment of
this fraction could be troublesome in some cases. This is
particularly true in cases where the feed contaminant levels are
below TSCA and RCRA trigger levels, but the enriched organics or
fines streams could reach TSCA or RCRA regulated levels.
The washed sand represents the largest part (up to 85%) of
the discharge, and could be used in a beneficial manner or
treated less intensively. Care must be taken to ensure this
fraction meets all requirements for the projected re-use or
treatment prior to selecting this volume reduction technique.
Costs—
The use of techniques developed for the mineral processing
industry to treat or pretreat Great Lakes sediments is
inexpensive relative to other treatment options. Although costs
exceeding $50/cy have been cited in this report, discussions with
individuals knowledgeable in the use of mineral processing
equipment suggest that in some cases costs could be almost an
order of magnitude lower, depending on the character of the
sediments, degree of contamination, and volume to be treated.
Recommendations/Lessons Learned
The following recommendations are made for performing future
pilot studies using sediment washing techniques on Saginaw River
or similar sediments.
1. When clay is present in the sediments, pretreatment
should be applied to eliminate the formation of "clay balls"
during removal of oversized materials. This may be accomplished
by the addition of a log washer, high pressure sprayer, or
similar device to the system.
2. For pilot-scale work directed at developing a full-scale
plant at a specific site, goals should be set for an acceptable
contaminant level in the washed sand, and options for handling
the other discharge streams should be assessed before design of
the plant. These considerations are important in determining the
number of process modules to be included in the plant.
81
-------
00
ho
Feed
+6 mm
Water
Participate Organics
LEGEND
%<53M
TOC (mg/kg)
%<75^
Density
(g/ml)
Figure 28: Summary of percentage of fines, total organic carbon, and dry density found in process streams.
-------
3. The pilot plant should be designed so that any modules
which may be unnecessary can be by-passed during a portion of the
pilot operation. This will allow the full-scale plant to be
simplified, thus minimizing break-downs, maintenance and overall
costs.
4. Significant cost reductions are possible along with an
improved sand product if water and residual storage/disposal
space are not limiting. In situations such as at the Saginaw Bay
CDF where unlimited water is available from the Bay, and excess
storage capacity is available for the fines slurry, it may be
advantageous to operate in a co-current mode without a clarifier.
The co-current operation would eliminate the reintroduction of
fines to the sand product after they are once removed.
Elimination of the clarifier would be made possible by having
sufficient storage capacity to directly accept all fine and
particulate organic slurries. Removal of the clarifier would
significantly reduce costs.
5. Contaminants of interest should be monitored at the
underflow of the Dense Media Separator and the Sand Recovery
Screen. Based upon grain size distribution, and TOG content, the
DMS underflow appears to be the cleanest stream present during
the operation. Some recontamination undoubtedly occurs when the
underflow of the Sand Recovery Screen is recombined with the DMS
underflow in Sump 2. The contaminant data along with detailed
grain size distributions around the Sand Recovery Screen and DMS
would allow a better evaluation of the trade-off of either
eliminating the Sand Recovery Screen and losing some sand, or
keeping the screen and producing a lower quality product.
6. Bench-scale testing should be done to project the maximum
level of contaminants in each discharge stream prior to
developing a pilot plant. The projected maximum concentrations
in these discharge streams should be compared to applicable
regulatory standards to ensure that disposal or destruction of
generated residuals does not become either institutionally
infeasible or cost prohibitive. In the event of encountering a
potential TSCA problem with PCBs in the residuals, adequate time
should be allocated to obtain TSCA permits.
7. The use of this process or other mineral processing
technologies should be carefully considered as a treatment or
pre-treatment alternative whenever the contaminants of concern
are in association with a physically separable fraction of the
sediments. Such technologies offer the potential of significant
cost savings when compared with extraction or destruction
processes.
8. Additional studies should be carried out to evaluate the
bioavailability of contaminants which remain in the washed sand.
As this material has low levels of particulate organics and
fines, contaminants may be more bioavailable than they might
83
-------
otherwise be in untreated sediments containing the same bulk
concentration. Although the limited biotoxicity testing
conducted by Burton and Jacher (1992) indicated the process did
reduce toxicity in some samples, bioaccumulation is an important
environmental issue which was not examined. Additional testing
for bioaccumulation should be conducted using a wider range of
samples.
9. If a clarifier is deemed necessary, a dedicated effort
should be applied to bench scale testing in order to optimize
physical and chemical treatment parameters. Also recommended
would be a more comprehensive sampling program for solids and
fluids in input and output streams, and clarifier contents.
84
-------
REFERENCES
Allen, J. P. In preparation. Mineral Processing Pretreatment of
Contaminated Sediment. USEPA Great Lakes National Program
Office, Chicago, IL.
Averett, Daniel E. 1990. Strategy for Selection of Sites and
Technologies for Pilot-Scale Demonstration Projects, Draft
Paper, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. August 1990.
Averett, Daniel E., Perry, Brett D., Torrey, Elizabeth J.,
and Miller, Jan A. 1990. Review of Removal, Containment, and
Treatment Technologies for Remediation of Contaminated
Sediment in the Great Lakes. Miscellaneous Paper EL-90-25
U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station. Vicksburg,
MS. December 1990.
Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory. 1992. Report of
Chemical Analyses, Saginaw River Pilot Project, Volumes 1-2,
Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, WA.
Burton, G. Allen, and K.A. Jacher. 1992. Evaluation of the
Saginaw Treatability Demonstration Project, Final Report.
Wright State University Department of Biological Sciences,
Dayton, OH.
Department of the Army. 1983. Dredging and Dredged Material
Disposal. Engineering Manual EM 1110-2-5025. Department of
the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
Miah, M.J., M.J. Dillion, and N.F.D. O'Leary. 1993. Data
Verification Report for Assessment and Remediation of
Contaminated Sediment Program (Report Number 10-Battelle -
MSL, Pilot Demonstration data from the Saginaw River V-2).
Lockheed Environmental Systems Technology Company, Las Vegas,
NV.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1988. Remedial
Action Plan for Saginaw River and Saginaw Bay Area of
Concern. MDNR Surface Water Quality Division, Lansing, MI.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District. 1991.
Environmental Assessment for the Pilot-Scale Demonstration
Project - Remediation of Contaminated Sediments, Saginaw
River/Bay, MI.
85
-------
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station and
Detroit District. 1991. Quality Assurance Project Plan;
Pilot Demonstration of Hydrocyclones and Associated Particle
Separation Technologies for Remediating Contaminated
Sediments from Saginaw River/Bay, Michigan. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS (as
amended 22 Nov 1991).
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards.
1963. Experimental Statistics, Handbook 91. Library of
Congress Catalog Card No. 63-60072 (revised 1966).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Assessment and
Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Work Plan.
USEPA, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL.
USEPA. In preparation. Technology Evaluation Report of Bergmann
USA's Soil/Sediment Washing Technology, Volume 1 and 2 Draft
Report Submitted to USEPA under Contract No. 68-CO-0048.
USEPA Office of Research and Development - Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
USEPA. In preparation. Application Analysis Report for Bergmann
USA Soil/Sediment Washing Technology. Draft report submitted
to USEPA under Contract No. 68-CO-0048. USEPA Office of
Research and Development - Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
86
-------
APPENDIX A
COMPILED DATA FROM LABORATORY ANALYSES
GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON OF SAMPLES FROM VARIOUS STATIONS.
00
Explanation of symbols
* - Denotes the average of 2 laboratory analyses of a single sample.
o - Denotes the data point was deleted from calculations of indicated mean
and standard deviation as it was identified as an outlier based upon the
Dixon Criterion and accepting a 4% chance of rejecting a valid data point
(U.S Department of Commerce,1963 - Chapter 17).
i - Denotes data rejected as unreliable due to plant breakdown or data
implausibility.
s - Denotes a statistic calculated without data identified as outlier or
unreliable.
++ - Hydrocyclone Separator 3 was the second of two operating hydrocyclones on
these dates.
dms - Indicates Dense Media Separator was set at an effective specific gravity of
1.5.
-------
TABLE A-1: GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, STATION 1
Date Time
Grain Size
Percentage Retained by Screen Size (micrometers)
430/i 300/i 150/i 106/i 75/t 53/i 38/t <38/i
Density
Total (g/ml)
TOC
(mg/kg)
Oct31 AM
Oct31 PM
Nov 1 AM
Nov 1 PM
FALL MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
May 17 PM
May 20 AM
May 20 PM
May 21 AM
May 21 PM
May 22 AM
May 27 AM
May 27 PM
May 28 AM
May 28 PM
May 29 AM
MAY MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
3.3*
5.3
8.1
5.2*
5.5
1.7
6.2
4.9
4.1*
5.0
4.0*
4.2*
5.1
3.6
2.7
2.5
3.0
4.1
1.0
10.8*
13.0
14.3
16.3*
13.6
2.0
21.3
15.3
14.2*
12.8
18.0*
16.4*
17.7
13.8
11.7
6.8
9.8
14.8
3.2
55.2 *
48.9
49.2
54.5*
52.0
2.9
59.2
51.9
54.6*
47.3
65.6*
55.6*
68.6
57.5
48.8
49.7
41.4
55.1
7.5
14.8*
12.5
9.0
9.8*
11.5
2.3
8.8
3.1
11.8*
2.1
8.4*
8.6*
9.3
8.9
8.3
8.2
8.4
7.9
2.7
4.5*
4.1
3.2
2.8*
3.7
0.7
2.3
3.8
3.8*
4.5
1.9*
3.0*
3.2
3.8
3.6
3.8
4.4
3.5
0.8
2.9*
2.9
2.6
1.6*
2.5
0.5
1.7
2.9
2.6*
4.0
1.3*
2.4*
2.5
3.2
3.3
3.3
4.6
2.9
0.9
1.4*
1.6
2.0
0.9*
1.5
0.4
0.9
1.8
1.1 *
2.3
1.6*
1.2*
1.1
1.4
1.8
1.7
2.9
1.6
0.6
5.1 *
8.8
9.0
6.0*
7.2
1.7
3.7
13.8
6.6*
23.3
3.2*
10.4*
4.2
6.5
16.3
20.8
26.4
12.5
8.3
98.0
97.1
97.4
97.1
97.4
0.4
104.1
97.5
98.8
101.3
104.0
101.8
111.7
98.7
96.5
96.8
100.9
102.6
5.1
2.4
2.4*
2.1*
2.4
2.3
0.1
2.3
2.9
2.6
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.8
2.3
2.5
2.5
0.2
5,800 *
4,100
8,000
6,000
6,000
1,400 *
1,300
11,000
18,000 *
5,100
3,500
4,900
7,600
2,200
4,700
16,000
2,200
7,000
5,400
June 1
0900-1000
1030-1130
1200-1300
1330-1430
1500-1600
JUNE MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
Overall Mean
STANDARD DEVIATION
2.8
5.4
4.5
3.0
3.8
3.9
1.0
4.3
1.3
8.6
11.6
16.6
12.2
17.3
13.3
3.3
13.9
3.5
36.7
52.3
57.6
46.4
53.1
49.2
7.2
52.7
7.2
8.2
9.2
8.1
8.9
6.5
8.2
0.9
8.6
2.7
6.9
4.4
2.8
3.8
2.5
4.1
1.6
3.7
1.0
5.8
3.6
2.2
3.2
1.9
3.3
1.4
2.9
1.0
3.1
2.0
1.1
1.6
0.8
1.7
0.8
1.6
0.6
30.1
15.1
7.6
19.0
11.8
16.7
7.7
12.4
7.8
102.2
. 103.6
100.5
98.1
97.7
100.4
2.3
100.2
3.6
2.3
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
0.1
2.5
0.2
22,000
6,400
2,100
13,000
5,900
9,900
7,000
7,500
5,600
-------
TABLE A-2: GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, STATION 2
Date Time
Grain Size
Percentage Retained by Screen Size (micrometers)
430/i 300/t 150/1 106/tt 75/i 53/t 38/x <38/u.
Density
Total (g/ml)
TOC
(mg/kg)
Oct31 AM
Oct31 PM
Nov 1 AM
Nov 1 PM
FALL MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
May 17PM
May 20 AM
May 20 PM
May 21 AM
May 21 PM
May 22 AM
May 27 AM
May 27 PM
May 28 AM
May 28 PM
May 29 AM
MAY MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
5.8
6.0
4.9
3.9
5.2
0.8
6.1
2.0*
4.5
5.0
3.1
6.6
4.7
4.4
3.8*
3.9
3.6
4.3
1.2
15.5
17.0
18.0
13.4
16.0
1.7
17.2
4.2*
14.0
11.2
9.8
15.3
15.9
15.0
13.9*
13.4
13.2
13.0
3.4
53.0
52.9
59.3
57.8
55.8
2.8
57.3
16.1 *
53.8
43.7
47.9
56.7
64.2
60.5
61.8*
56.6
54.0
52.1
12.7
14.0
12.2
8.8
11.3
11.6
1.9
10.3
32.5*
12.4
13.0
15.8
9.0
9.1
8.0
7.9*
9.2
9.5
12.4
6.7
4.1
4.5
2.5
4.1
3.8
0.8
2.7
22.3*
4.9
6.6
8.3
3.8
3.5
3.5
3.6*
4.4
5.2
6.3
5.3
2.4
3.4
2.0
3.6
2.9
0.7
1.8
14.8*
4.1
7.3
8.4
2.9
3.0
3.2
3.3*
4.2
4.9
5.3
3.5
1.1
1.8
1.1
2.4
1.6
0.5
0.9
5.1 *
2.2
5.1
4.9
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.0*
2.1
2.5
2.7
1.5
4.0
2.9
2.4
3.3
3.2
0.6
3.4
4.8*
4.1
8.3
7.2
4.6
3.0
3.2
7.3*
3.8
5.6
5.0
1.7
99.9
100.7
99.0
99.8
99.9
0.6
99.7
101.8
100.0
100.2
105.4
100.5
105.1
99.6
103.6
97.6
98.5
101.1
2.5
1.8 i
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.5
0.1
2.8
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.7
2.5
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.5
0.2
670 i
4,800
11,000
1,200
5,700
4,000
4,000
4,400
1,800
3,000
7,300
1,800
5,300
1,500 *
210,000 o
700
5,700
3,600 s
2,000 s
June 1
0900-1000
1030-1130
1200-1300
1330-1430
1500-1600
JUNE 1 MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
Overall Mean
Standard Deviation
5.7
4.7
4.0*
4.9
4.0*
4.7
0.6
4.6
1.1
15.5
15.2
14.1*
16.0
14.6*
15.1
0.7
14.1
3.0
57.0
59.5
55.0*
56.7
58.4*
57.3
1.5
54.1
9.8
9.3
8.7
9.4*
9.1
9.0*
9.1
0.2
11.4
5.3
4.1
3.3
4.5*
3.5
3.6*
3.8
0.4
5.2
4.1
6.2
2.9
4.5*
2.8
3.4*
4.0
1.3
4.5
2.9
2.2
1.6
2.4*
1.4
1.7*
1.9
0.4
2.3
1.2
5.8
2.7
4.6*
3.7
4.8*
4.3
1.0
4.5
1.6
105.8
98.6
98.5
98.1
99.5
100.1
2.9
100.6
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.9
2.6
0.1
2.5
0.2
3,200 *
8,200
3,700
2,500
2,600
4,000
2,100
3,900 s
2,700 s
-------
TABLE A-3: GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, STATION 3
Grain Size
Percentage Retained by Screen Size (micrometers)
Density
Date Time
Oct31 AM
Oct31 PM
Nov 1 AM
Nov 1 PM
FALL MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
May 17 PM
May 20 AM
May 20 PM
May 21 AM
May 21 PM
May 22 AM
MAY MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
430/1
3.8
4.4
5.7
6.4
5.1
1.0
5.0*
4.3
3.4
3.9
3.5
2.1
3.7
0.9
300/t
5.7
14.8
20.0
19.7
15.1
5.8
20.6*
16.2
13.2
17.2
17.0
12.0
16.0
2.8
150/i
43.2
58.3
53.3
59.0
53.5
6.3
65.6*
58.3
45.5
59.2
67.4
65.0
60.2
7.4
106/i
22.3
10.8
4.9
5.2
10.8
7.0
5.4*
10.1
11.9
11.2
8.8
11.2
9.8
2.2
75/i
7.8
2.9
1.0
1.3
3.3
2.7
0.5*
2.8
4.4
3.3
1.6
3.0
2.6
1.2
53/i
5.2
2.0
1.0
1.1
2.3
1.7
0.4 *
2.3
3.5
2.3
1.0
2.4
2.0
1.0
38/i
2.4
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.5
0.6
0.2 *
1.2
2.2
1.2
0.5
1.4
1.1
0.6
<38/i
5.6
2.5
10.8
5.7
6.2
3.0
3.2*
2.8
13.2
1.3
1.6
3.0
4.2
4.1
Total (g/ml)
96.0
96.8
97.7
99.7
97.6
1.4
100.9
98.0
97.3
99.6
101.4
100.1
99.6
1.5
2.3
2.3
2.6
2.4
2.4
0.1
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.5
0.1
TOC
(mg/kg)
50,000 o
3,400
9,500
9,300
7,400 s
2,800 s
700
1,000
2,000
1,000 *
2,700
3,400
1,800
1,000
June 1
0900-1000
1030-1130
1200-1300
1330-1430
1500-1600
JUNE 1 MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
Overall Mean
STANDARD DEVIATION
4.5
4.4
1.3
3.6*
3.8
3.5
1.2
4.0
1.2
17.5
15.3
7.8
14.5*
14.4
13.9
3.2
15.1
4.1
67.0
62.1
39.3
56.8*
53.2
55.7
9.4
56.9
8.4
6.9
9.0
15.4
10.6*
10.7
10.5
2.8
10.3
4.2
1.1
2.4
7.7
3.6*
5.5
4.1
2.3
3.3
2.2
0.7
1.5
4.8
1.5*
4.4
2.6
1.7
2.3
1.5
6.4
0.7
2.6
1.1 *
2.1
2.6
2.0
1.7
1.4
1.8
2.5
14.0
7.2*
11.6
7.4
4.8
5.8
4.3
105.9
97.9
92.9
98.9
105.7
100.3
5.0
99.3
3.3
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.4
2.6
0.1
2.5
0.1
800
7,400
1,100
1,200
7,500
3600
3100
3600s
3200s
-------
TABLE A-4: GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, STATION 4
Grain Size
Percentage Retained by Screen Size (micrometers)
Density
Date Time
OctSl AM
OctSl PM
Nov 1 AM
Nov 1 PM
FALL MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
May 17 PM
May 20 AM
May 20 PM
May 21 AM
May 21 PM
May 22 AM
MAY MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
430/i
4.9
5.3
5.2
5.8
5.3
0.3
8.1
5.4
3.6
6.2
4.6
5.0
5.5
1.3
300/i
13.6
12.9
18.0
21.7
16.6
3.6
19.6
18.2
12.4
17.1
16.4
17.5
16.9
2.1
150/1
52.8
55.5
48.6
67.2
56.0
6.9
61.3
61.4
48.7
56.7
55.9
60.7
57.5
4.1
106/t
14.6
15.7
6.5
4.3
10.3
5.0
6.4
8.4
14.0
9.7
14.7
7.8
10.2
2.9
75/i
4.5
4.5
3.4
0.5
3.2
1.6
1.2
2.1
6.3
4.1
3.4
1.9
3.2
1.6
53/i
3.2
2.4
4.8
0.5
2.7
1.5
1.0
1.6
6.7
3.2
2.3
1.7
2.8
1.8
38/i
2.0
1.4
4.4
1.3
2.3
1.3
0.7
0.9
4.1
2.3
1.3
1.2
1.8
1.1
<38/t
2.5
1.0
6.0
2.3
3.0
1.9
2.1
1.0
4.0
2.2
1.3
4.7
2.6
1.3
TOC
Total (g/ml) (mg/kg)
98.1
98.7
96.9
103.6
99.3
2.6
100.4
99.0
99.8
101.5
99.9
100.5
100.2
0.7
2.6
2.3*
2.5
2.0
2.4
0.2
2.8
2.5
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.7
2.5
0.1
6,300
3,900
19,000*0
2,000
7,800
6,600
1,200
1,400 *
3,600
2,500
2,000
1,300
2,000
780
June 1
0900-1000
1030-1130
1200-1300
1330-1430
1500-1600
JUNE 1 MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
Overall Mean
STANDARD DEVIATION
5.7
5.2
2.0*
3.3
3.2
3.9
1.4
4.9
1.4
17.6
20.7
9.2*
10.8
12.5
14.2
4.3
15.9
3.6
61.3
60.6
42.7*
48.6
48.8
52.4
7.3
55.4
6.6
8.5
6.5
13.0*
15.8
12.9
11.3
3.4
10.6
3.8
2.5
2.1
8.8*
6.0
7.6
5.4
2.7
3.9
2.3
1.7
1.6
8.0*
5.1
6.1
4.5
2.5
3.3
2.2
0.9
0.9
4.6*
3.0
3.2
2.5
1.4
2.1
1.3
1.5
1.0
5.8*
4.6
4.8
3.5
1.9
3.0
1.7
99.7
98.6
94.1
97.2
99.1
97.7
2.0
99.1
2.1
2.5
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.6
0.1
2.5
0.2
600
1,300
6,100
750*
14,000*o
4,600
5,100
2,500 s
1,800 s
-------
TABLE A-5: GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, STATION 5
Grain Size
Percentage Retained by Screen Size (micrometers)
Date Time
Oct31 AM
OctSl PM
Nov 1 AM
Nov 1 PM
FALL MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
May 17 PM
May 20 AM
May 20 PM
May 21 AM
May 21 PM
May 22 AM
Oct 31 -May 22 Mean
Oct31 -May 22 StdDev
May 27 AM + +
May 27 PM + +
May 28 AM + +
May 28 PM + +
May 29 AM + +
MAY MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
430/1
2.5
2.6
1.8
1.0
2.0
0.6
6.1
4.8
3.4*
9.7
3.9
5.2
4.1
2.4
5.3
2.6
3.1
3.2
6.8
4.2
1.6
300/i
8.6
11.1
7.1
5.7
8.1
2.0
18.6
18.0
14.0*
13.6
17.1
14.4
12.8
4.3
18.6
11.2
11.2
13.3
15.4
13.9
2.8
150/i
59.1
63.3
36.8
46.0
51.3
10.5
51.4
57.1
51.4*
47.6
61.8
60.4
53.5
8.0
60.5
66.3
63.3
58.8
54.9
60.8
3.9
106/A
17.8
17.6
18.7
29.9
21.0
5.2
9.9
8.4
14.0*
14.1
9.8
8.7
14.9
6.2
6.8
9.5
9.8
7.9
9.8
8.8
1.2
75/i
4.9
4.9
8.4
8.6
6.7
1.8
3.4
2.9
5.2*
5.4
2.5
2.8
4.9
2.1
2.3
3.4
4.6
4.5
5.8
4.1
1.2
53/i
2.9
2.3
7.5
5.1
4.5
2.0
3.0
2.6
4.2*
4.4
2.0
2.3
3.6
1.6
2.2
3.2
4.8
4.8
6.4
4.3
1.5
38/x
1.3
1.3
4.8
3.0
2.6
1.4
1.8
1.3
2.4*
2.4
1.2
1.3
2.1
1.1
1.5
1.4
2.3
2.8
4.0
2.4
1.0
<38/i
1.4
1.2
12.0
6.0
5.2
4.4
4.7
1.2
4.2
8.3
1.1
1.2
4.1
3.5
2.4
2.6
2.1
3.1
5.5
3.1
1.2
Total
98.5
104.3
97.1
105.3
101.3
3.6
98.9
96.3
98.8
105.5
99.4
96.3
100.0
3.4
99.6
100.2
101.2
98.4
108.6
101.6
3.6
Density
(9/ml)
2.4
1.8
2.5
2.3
2.3
0.3
2.5
2.7
2.8
2.4
2.8
2.8
2.5
0.3
2.3
2.0
2.6
2.3
2.4
2.3
0.2
TOC
(mg/kg)
5,300
800
8,800
13,000
7,000
4,500
4,100
1,300
13,000
2,900
1,900
1,000
5200
4500
700
200
1,300
8,700
21,000
6,400
7,900
-------
TABLE A-6: GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, STATION 6
Grain Size
Percentage Retained by Screen Size (micrometers)
Date Time
Oct31 AM
OctSl PM
Novl AM
Nov 1 PM
FALL MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
May 17 PM
May 17 PM Dup
May 17 (MEAN)
May 20 AM
May 20 PM
May 21 AM
May 21 PM
May 22 AM
Oct31-May22AVG
Oct 31 - May 22 Std Dev
May 27 AM + +
May 27PM + +
May 28 AM + +
May 28 AM Dup
May 28 MEAN + +
May 28 PM + +
May 29 AM + +
MAY 27-29 MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
430/t
3.4
4.0
3.0
3.6
3.5
0.4
3.1
2.5
2.8
4.8
4.3
7.1
6.0
4.5
4.1
1.3
4.7*
2.9
3.6
5.2
4.4
3.3
4.0*
3.9
0.7
300/i
10.5
10.3
11.8
13.1
11.4
1.1
10.2
8.9
9.6
18.3
14.1
19.8
20.0
17.4
13.7
4.0
18.2*
14.7
14.6
14.9
14.8
13.6
14.2*
15.1
1.6
150/t
55.2
54.1
40.4
46.0
48.9
6.1
52.2
46.0
49.1
57.6
50.6
55.0
55.6
58.3
51.7
5.2
61.2*
64.3
61.4
62.6
62.0
51.9
59.0*
59.7
4.2
106/t
17.9
17.3
16.9
20.9
18.3
1.6
16.7
15.2
16.0
8.9
13.8
8.6
11.4
9.5
14.4
3.8
8.6*
8.3
7.8
7.7
7.8
8.2
9.6*
8.5
0.6
75/i
5.5
5.7
8.1
7.4
6.7
1.1
5.8
8.4
7.1
3.6
5.2
2.9
3.2
3.5
5.5
1.9
3.4*
3.7
4.6
4.0
4.3
6.2
4.1*
4.3
1.0
53/t
3.7
3.8
7.9
6.4
5.5
1.8
5.2
8.4
6.8
3.4
5.9
2.9
2.2
2.9
5.0
2.0
3.2*
3.0
4.3
3.5
3.9
6.9
1.1 *
3.6
1.9
38/t
2.0
1.8
4.6
4.5
3.2
1.3
2.7
4.8
3.8
2.3
3.3
1.7
1.2
1.5
2.8
1.2
1.8*
1.8
2.1
1.9
2.0
3.7
2.8*
2.4
0.7
<38/i
1.9
1.0
3.4
2.5
2.2
0.9
2.4
4.1
3.3
1.4
3.6
1.3
0.8
1.1
2.2
1.1
1.6*
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
3.1
3.0*
2.1
0.8
Total
100.1
98.0
96.1
104.4
99.7
3.1
98.3
98.3
98.3
100.3
100.8
99.3
100.4
98.7
99.4
2.0
102.7
100.1
99.8
101.2
100.5
96.9
97.8
99.6
2.1
Density
(g/mi)
2.4
2.4*
2.5
2.3*
2.4
0.1
2.7
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.6
2.6
2.4*
2.5
2.5
0.1
2.5
2.4
2.6
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
0.0
TOC
(mg/kg)
10,000 *
1,400
8,600
4,700
6,200
3,400
7,300 *
2,400
4,850
27,000 o
1,700
1,800
500
980
4,000 s
3,200 s
900
900
1,600 *
1,300
1,450
400
5,200
1,800
1,700
Overall Mean 4.2 14.7 54.7 12.2 4.9 4.3 2.6 2.1 99.6 2.5
Overall Standard Deviation 1.1 3.3 6.1 4.3 1.6 1.9 1.1 0.9 2.1 0.1
3,099
2,993
-------
TABLE A-7: GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, STATION 7
Grain Size
Percentage Retained by Screen Size (micrometers)
Density
Date Time
Oct31 AM
OctSl PM
Nov 1 AM
Nov 1 PM
FALL MEANS
STANDARD DEVIATION
May 17 PM
May 20 AM
May 20 PM
May 21 AM
May 22 AM
Oct31-May22AVG
Oct 31 - May 22 Std Dev
May 27 AM
May 27 PM
May 28 AM
May 28 PM
May 29 AM
May 27-29 MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
40.0/i
7.5
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.4
3.1
0.6
5.8
2.6
20.9 i
9.3
3.5s
3.4s
0.0
7.5
2.3
3.6
4.7
3.6
2.5
30.0/i
0.0
2.5
2.0
2.5
1.8
1.0
9.6
14.6
2.2
34.5 i
34.6
8.5s
10.9s
3.0
5.0
5.9
5.6
0.0
3.9
2.2
20.0/u
7.5
3.0
10.0
18.0
9.6
5.4
24.9
21.1
16.5
17.7 i
24.6
15.7s
7.6s
13.4
11.6
16.7
10.0
12.8
12.9
2.2
12.5/i
14.0
29.5
18.0
18.5
20.0
5.8
13.3
11.4
21.6
6.2 i
7.8
16.8s
6.3s
37.8
25.2
18.6
12.8
43.1
27.5
11.4
4.0Ai
57.0
27.5
37.5
14.0
34.0
15.7
14.5
15.6
19.6
7.3 i
6.8
24.1s
15.2s
15.2
16.5
16.6
47.8
23.9
24.0
12.3
2.0/i
1.5
9.5
6.5
11.0
7.1
3.6
9.4
10.0
8.4
3.4 i
4.9
7.7s
3.0s
5.1
6.4
10.4
3.4
2.7
5.6
2.7
0.5/i
4.5
28.0
11.0
21.0
16.1
9.0
17.5
16.5
19.8
9.0 i
6.7
15.6s
7.3s
15.0
18.7
20.5
10.4
7.4
14.4
4.9
<0.5/x
7.0
0.0
15.0
13.0
8.8
5.8
10.2
5.0
9.3
1.0 i
5.4
8.1s
4.5s
10.6
9.0
9.0
6.4
5.4
8.1
1.9
TOC
Total (g/ml) (mg/kg)
99.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
50.0
0.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0 i
100.1
99.9s
0.3s
100.1
99.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.1
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
0.1
1.9
1.8
1.6
2.1 i
1.4
1.7s
0.2s
2.5 i
1.4
1.7
1.8
1.5
1.6
0.2
61,000 *
46,000
53,000 *
46,000
51,500
6,200
27,000
900
25,000
40,000 i
24,000
35,000 s
18,000 s
23,000
22,000
28,000
20,000 *
16,000
22,000
4,000
Note: May 21 AM data omitted due to a line plugging on the Bergmann plant during this time which
may have effected this sampling point.
-------
TABLE A-8: GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, STATION 8
Grain Size
Percentage Retained by Screen Size (micrometers)
Date Time
Oct31 AM
Oct31 PM
Nov 1 AM
Nov 1 PM
FALL MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
May 17 PM
May 20 AM
May 20 PM
May 21 AM
May 22 AM
May 27 AM
May 27 PM
May 28 AM
May 28 PM
May 29 AM
MAY MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
40.0/z
4.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
1.4
3.6
1.9
0.9
1.8
1.5
1.9
1.4
0.0
1.8
0.0
1.5
1.0
30.0)u,
0.5
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.7
0.0
1.8
2.2
0.0
2.1
2.8
1.0
1.0
20%
4.0
10.5
11.5
9.0
8.8
2.9
7.7
8.9
8.9
11.4
3.6
7.7
4.2
2.6
7.6
13.0
7.6
3.2
12.5/1
9.0
14.0
18.5
18.5
15.0
3.9
16.7
15.5
19.0
26.6
8.2
13.8
11.1
0.0
15.0
29.0
15.5
8.0
4.0/x
44.5
14.0
12.5
15.5
21.6
13.2
22.8
23.4
29.0
26.3
58.6
52.7
58.9
89.7
44.0
12.9
41.8
22.2
2%
6.0
12.0
11.0
11.0
10.0
2.3
12.4
12.2
8.2
6.3
4.6
3.4
4.3
1.3
4.0
6.4
6.3
3.5
0.5/t
14.0
24.0
21.5
23.5
20.8
4.0
23.8
24.1
15.6
17.8
12.2
11.5
9.9
2.3
13.7
16.5
14.7
6.2
<0.5/t
18.0
22.0
25.0
20.0
21.3
2.6
12.5
13.9
18.2
9.1
11.3
7.2
8.0
4.0
12.0
19.5
11.6
4.6
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.5
99.9
0.2
99.9
100.2
100.1
106.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.9
100.2
100.1
100.7
1.9
Density
(g/mi)
1.6
1.7
1.8*
1.8
1.7
0.1
1.5
2.5 o
1.4
1.8
1.6
2.3 o
1.6
1.6
1.2
1.5
1.7
0.4
TOC
(mg/kg)
47,000
50,000
50,000
54,000
50,200
2,500
25,000
24,000
16,000
24,000
25,000
23,000
26,000
27,000
25,000
31,000
24,600
3,600
June 1
0900-1000
1030-1130
1200-1300
1330-1430
1500-1600
JUNE 1 MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
Overall Mean
STANDARD DEVIATION
1.6
0.4
2.4
0.0
1.1
1.0
1.5
1.1
2.4
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
0.6
1.0
0.9
11.5
8.2
9.5
16.2
11.4
3.0
8.7
3.4
15.9
19.9
20.0
16.9
18.2
1.8
16.0
6.4
21.7
43.5
19.9
17.9
25.8
10.3
33.8
20.5
12.8
5.5
8.5
11.3
9.5
2.8
7.8
3.6
19.7
10.2
17.5
20.8
17.1
4.1
16.6
5.8
14.4
11.3
19.2
15.5
15.1
2.8
14.5
5.5
100.0
100.0
98.0
100.1
99.5
0.9
100.2
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.5
1.8
1.7
1.7
0.1
1.6s
0.3s
18,000 *
19,000 *
28,000
26,000
22,000 *
22,600
3,900
29,900
11,500
-------
TABLE A-9: GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, STATION 9
Grain Size
Percentage Retained by Screen Size (micrometers)
Date Time
Oct31 AM
OctSl PM
Nov 1 AM
Nov 1 PM
FALL MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
May 17 PM
May 20 AM
May 20 PM
May 21 AM
May 22 AM
MAY MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
40.0/1
7.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
3.5
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.6
30.0/1
1.5
10.0
0.5
1.0
3.3
3.9
0.8
2.3
0.5
1.9
3.6
1.8
1.1
20.0/1
8.5
10.5
7.0
13.0
9.8
2.3
6.7
11.4
7.8
11.3
8.4
9.1
1.9
12.5/1
23.0
9.0
22.5
19.5
18.5
5.6
11.2
16.9
17.4
18.8
14.4
15.7
2.7
4.0/1
18.5
13.5
37.5
14.5
21.0
9.7
36.3
25.2
25.7
28.6
42.8
31.7
6.8
2.0/1
6.0
11.0
6.5
10.5
8.5
2.3
7.0
7.7
8.2
6.8
4.8
6.9
1.2
0.5/i
16.0
21.5
10.5
25.0
18.3
5.5
18.0
17.9
22.4
15.6
11.7
17.1
3.5
< 0.5/t
19.5
17.5
15.5
16.5
17.3
1.5
19.9
18.6
16.5
17.0
14.4
17.3
1.9
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
99.9
100.0
100.1
100.0
100.1
100.0
0.1
Density
(9/ml)
1.7*
1.8
1.7
1.2
1.6
0.2
1.8
2.5
1.7
2.5
2.3
2.2
0.3
TOC
(mg/kg)
48,000
46,000
80,000
50,000
56,000
13,900
38,000
25,000
27,000
35,000
32,000
31,400
4,800
June 1
0900-1000
1030-1130
1200-1300
1330-1430
1500-1600
JUNE 1 MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
Overall Mean
Overall Standard Deviation
1.3
0.0
2.3
3.3
0.0
0.9
1.0
1.6
2.4
2.0
0.6
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.8
1.8
2.5
9.6
8.3
6.4
0.0
4.9
9.1
5.3
8.1
3.1
22.5
6.0
6.5
0.0
9.0
14.5
7.4
14.1
6.9
28.9
65.3
65.2
12.7
76.9
20.6
13.8
35.1
19.9
7.0
3.1
3.6
75.5
0.7
7.6
4.6
11.3
18.0
19.6
8.0
14.1
4.1
1.5
13.6
7.8
14.7
6.6
9.0
8.8
1.4
4.4
7.2
12.1
6.5
13.3
5.8
99.9
100.1
100.0
100.0
100.2
100.0
39.8
100.0
0.1
1.4
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
0.1
1.8
0.4
35,000
22,000
29,000
26,000
32,000
22,600
3,900
37,500
14,500
-------
TABLE A-10: GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, STATION 10
Date Time
Grain Size
Percentage Retained by Screen Size (micrometers)
Density
>430/i >300/i >150/i >106ji >75/i >53p. >38/x <38/i Total (g/ml)
Nov 1 AM
Nov 1 PM
FALL MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
May 17 PM
May 20 AM
May 20 PM
May 21 AM dms
MAY 17-MAY 21 AM MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
'Location of DMS
May 21 PM dms
May 22 AM dms
May 27 AM dms
May 27 PM dms
May 28 AM dms
May 28 PM dms
May 29 AM dms
MAY 22 -29 MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
0.1
0.1*
0.1
0.0
2.8
2.1
2.6
0.5
2.0
0.9
overflow
1.5
3.9
13.2
2.7
20.3*
1.4
5.3
7.8
6.8
0.1
0.1*
0.1
0.0
0.9
4.1
1.0
0.3
1.6
1.5
station
2.5
1.6
2.6
1.4
1.8*
0.6
1.5
1.6
0.6
4.6
39.9
23.5 * 46.6
14.1
9.4
23.7
23.2
5.2
9.6
15.4
8.2
(10) was
50.2
5.4
4.4
3.8
3.7
2.5
3.0
3.8
0.9
43.3
3.4
40.4
22.8
23.0
40.5
31.7
8.8
moved at
25.4
14.8
6.2
4.1
* 9.2
8.5
11.0
9.0
3.4
20.5
* 14.0*
17.3
3.3
17.3
21.7
23.9
21.8
21.2
2.4
16.5
9.9*
13.2
3.3
9.5
16.8
23.0
16.4
16.4
4.8
7.3
4.1
5.7
1.6
2.8
6.9
11.6
5.2
6.6
3.2
this point to obtain a
8.8
13.8
11.8
8.9
* 20.2 *
20.3
24.6
16.6
5.5
7.2
17.4
23.6
13.7
20.0*
28.5
24.2
21.2
4.8
3.6
14.2
20.5
19.3
10.2
15.8
11.1
15.2
3.8
7.5
* 2.8*
5.2
2.4
2.9
9.0
9.1
4.9
6.5
2.7
96.5
101.1
98.3
1.8
100.3
106.6
99.4
99.2
101.4
3.0
more representative
6.6
28.1
12.0
50.3
* 18.1 *
24.0
25.1
26.3
12.0
105.8
99.2
94.3
104.2
103.5
101.6
105.8
101.4
3.8
2.8
2.0
2.4
0.4
2.8
2.3
2.4
2.2
2.4
0.2
sample*
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.5
1.8
2.7
2.7
2.4
0.3
TOC
(mg/kg)
160*
1,100
630
470
7,600
2,700
2,700
6,100
4,800
2,100
12,000
48,000 *
41,000 *
36,000
58,000
9,800
66,000
43,000
18,000
Note: May 21 PM data may have still been influenced by change in sampling location.
(continued)
-------
Date Time
TABLE A-10: (continued)
>430/i >300/u. >150p. > 106/i >75/i >53/i >38/i <38/z Total
Density
(g/ml)
TOG
(mg/kg)
June 1
0900-1000
1030-1130
1200-1300
1330-1430
1500-1600
JUNE 1 MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
MAY 21PM-JUN 1 MEAN
Standard Deviation
MAY 17-21 AM &JUN1
Standard Deviation
Overall Mean
Standard Deviation
1.4
1.8
2.8
1.5
2.3*
2.0
0.5
4.8
5.6
2.0
0.7
3.7
4.9
1.1
1.9
0.9
0.9
1.2*
1.2
0.4
1.5
0.6
1.4
1.0
1.4
1.0
5.8
7.9
10.4
7.9
5.2*
7.4
1.8
9.2
12.6
11.0
6.9
11.1
11.7
15.8
21.3
36.3
25.0
17.5*
23.2
7.3
16.3
9.0
27.0
9.0
22.7
12.9
14.6
23.3
19.7
23.3
22.8*
20.7
3.4
17.7
5.5
20.9
3.0
18.4
5.0
21.7
20.3
12.2
15.7
17.8*
17.5
3.4
18.5
5.6
17.0
4.1
17.5
5.5
16.4
12.4
6.2
7.3
9.8*
10.4
3.7
12.2
5.0
8.7
4.0
10.3
5.2
27.6
15.4
12.6
16.6
21.7*
18.8
5.3
21.5
10.8
13.3
7.5
16.4
11.5
104.4
104.3
101.1
98.2
98.3
101.3
2.7
101.7
3.4
101.3
2.9
101.3
3.4
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.8
2.6
0.1
2.5
0.2
2.5
0.2
2.5
0.3
17,000
20,000
13,000 *
12,000
36,000 *
19,600
8,700
30,700
18,700
13,000
10,000
21,600
20,100
-------
TABLE A-11: GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, STATION 11
Date Time
Novl AM
Nov 1 PM
FALL MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
May 17 PM
May 20 AM
May 20 PM
May 20 PM Dup
MAY 20 PM MEAN
May 21 AM dms
May 21 PM dms
May 22 AM dms
May 27 AM dms
May 27 PM dms
May 28 AM dms
May 28 PM dms
May 29 AM dms
MAY MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
(continued)
Grain Size
Percentage Retained by Screen Size (micrometers)
Density TOC
>430/A >300/i >150jA >106ji >75/n >53/x >38/n <38/u. Total (g/ml) (mg/kg)
5.8
5.6
5.7
0.1
8.5
5.3
6.5
7.0
6.8
8.2
6.1
4.9
6.6
4.8
4.3
5.4*
4.6
6.0
1.4
22.4
19.4
20.9
1.5
26.3
16.5
16.8
16.5
16.7
28.5
22.4
18.7
16.5
19.7
19.6
20.8*
14.4
20.0
4.1
67.0
70.6
68.8
1.8
59.6
60.3
58.6
59.8
59.2
58.3
70.8
65.4
62.2
67.8
71.4
66.5*
63.4
64.1
4.4
3.3
5.3
4.3
1.0
3.4
12.8
11.6
12.1
11.9
2.8
5.6
6.6
5.9
6.2
4.4
4.3*
9.4
6.7
3.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.2
1.2
2.4
2.2
2.3
0.3
1.3
1.0 <
1.1
1.2
0.8
0.8*
2.4
1.1
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.1 <
0.5
1.2 <
1.0 <
1.1
0.2
1.0
1.0 <
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.4*
1.3
0.6
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.5
1.0
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2*
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.9
1.4
1.5
1.8
1.7
0.4
0.8
1.0
1.6
0.7
0.4
0.6*
1.6
1.0
0.5
99.5
101.8
100.7
1.1
99.1
98.2
99.6
101.4
100.5
98.8
108.5
99.6
94.8
101.2
101.3
99.0
97.6
99.9
3.2
2.5*
2.4*
2.5
0.0
23
2.5
2.9
2.2
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.7
2.9
2.4
2.7
2.6
0.2
300
1,900
1,100
800
2,300 *
1,700
700*
2,400
1,500
600
3,900 o
600
1,100
800
400
500
700*
1,000 s
600s
-------
Date Time
June 1
0900-1000
1030-1130
1200-1300
1330-1430
1500-1600
JUNE 1 MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
MAY 17-MAY 21 MEAN
Standard Deviation
MAY 22-29 MEAN
Standard Deviation
Overall Mean
Standard Deviation
TABLE A-11: (continued)
Density TOC
>430/i >300/i > 150ju. > 106/1 >75/u. >53/t >38/-i <38/i Total (g/ml) (mg/kg)
4.8
3.4
5.5
5.9
4.9
4.9
0.9
7.0
1.2
5.1
0.7
5.7
1.2
16.7
15.7
27.0
19.8
15.2
18.9
4.4
22.1
4.9
18.3
2.2
19.6
4.0
64.2
65.3
61.7
62.6
68.1
64.4
2.2
61.6
4.6
66.1
3.0
64.4
4.1
8.1
9.6
2.9
6.6
9.0
7.2
2.4
7.3
4.2
6.1
1.7
6.8
3.1
1.1
1.8
0.4
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.1
0.8
1.2
0.5
1.1
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.7
3.9
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.0
0.4
1.0
0.5
1.1
0.8
104.4
104.3
101.1
98.2
98.3
101.3
2.7
101.0
3.8
98.9
2.2
100.4
2.9
2.4
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.8
2.7
0.1
2.5
0.1
2.7
0.2
2.6
0.2
500
500
500
500
1,200
640
280
2,000
1,100
700
230
1,000 s
600s
-------
TABLE A-12: GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, STATION 12
Grain Size
Percentage Retained by Screen Size (micrometers)
Date Time
May 17 PM
May 20 AM
May 20 PM
May 21 AM dms
May 21 PM dms
May 22 AM dms
May 27 AM dms
May 27 PM dms
May 28 AM dms
May 28 PM dms
May 29 AM dms
MAY MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
June 1
0900-1000
1030-1130
1200-1300
1330-1430
1500-1600
JUNE 1 MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
MAY 17-21 MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
MAY 22-29 MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
Overall Mean
Standard Deviation
Density
430/i
51.6
52.6
61.8
50.2
61.0
60.8
49.2
36.7
62.4
80.2
64.8
57.4
10.7
53.2
54.8
48.4
60.0
70.8
57.4
7.6
55.4
4.9
59.0
13.5
57.4
9.8
300/i
16.3
11.4
13.2
9.0
7.8
8.1
15.4
11.6
11.5
10.1
12.7
11.6
2.6
12.9
25.3
13.2
15.6
12.6
15.9
4.8
11.5
3.0
11.6
2.2
12.9
4.0
150/i
13.3
8.6
11.5
9.4
12.2
7.6
12.2
14.1
7.7
8.3
7.9
10.3
2.3
9.6
11.0
11.9
14.5
11.5
11.7
1.6
11.0
1.7
9.6
2.6
10.7
2.2
106/i
3.4
2.3
2.3
2.9
5.6
1.9
2.8
3.9
2.3
3.2
2.0
3.0
1.0
3.6
5.0
3.1
4.1
3.3
3.8
0.7
3.3
1.2
2.7
0.7
3.2
1.0
75/i
2.0
1.4
2.5
1.0
4.9
1.0
2.2
2.3
1.6
3.0
1.2
2.1
1.1
1.4
2.1
2.2
1.9
1.7
1.9
0.3
2.4
1.4
1.9
0.7
2.0
0.9
53/i
2.3
1.4
3.1
1.0
1.3
1.1
2.3
3.0
1.4
2.0
1.0
1.8
0.7
3.5
1.8
2.2
1.8
1.6
2.2
0.7
1.8
0.8
1.8
0.7
1.9
0.7
38/i
1.5
1.0
1.4
0.8
0.8
< 1.0
2.9
1.7
0.9
0.8
0.4
1.2
0.6
1.7
0.5
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.4
1.1
0.3
1.3
0.8
1.2
0.6
<38/t Total (g/ml)
16.0
20.6
14.1
15.2
6.6
4.5
13.1
9.2
5.7
6.2
5.0
10.6
5.2
1.4
6.4
8.8
9.8
9.8
7.2
3.2
14.5
4.5
7.3
3.0
9.5
4.9
106.4
99.3
109.9
89.5
100.2
86.0
100.1
82.5
93.5
113.8
95.0
97.8
9.3
87.3
106.9
90.8
109.0
112.5
101.3
10.2
101.1
7.0
95.2
10.2
98.9
9.8
1.2
1.2
0.9
1.7
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.9
1.1
1.3
0.3
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
0.2
1.2
0.3
1.3
0.3
1.3
0.3
TOG
(mg/kg)
300,000
140,000
260,000
240,000
150,000 *
340,000
120,000
330,000
59,000
68,000
84,000
190,100
102,000
230,000 *
29,000
360,000 *
350,000 *
93,000
212,400
133,400
218,000
63,000
167,000
121,000
197,000
113,000
-------
TABLE A-13: GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, STATION 13
Grain Size
Percentage Retained by Screen Size (micrometers)
Date Time
Oct31 AM
Oct31 PM
Nov 1 AM
Nov 1 PM
FALL MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
May 17 PM
May 20 AM
May 20 PM
May 21 AM
May 21 PM
May 22 AM
May 22 AM Dup
MAY 22 AM MEAN
May 27 AM
May 27 PM
May 28 AM
May 28 PM
May 29 AM
MAY MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
Overall Mean
Standard Deviation
430^
40.9
44.4
50.9
54.8
42.2
53.1
65.8
59.5
35.4
39.4
31.8
59.9
49.7
46.3
9.7
46.3
9.0
300/i
14.8
20.9
16.4
13.2
16.2
20.0
21.1
20.6
18.5
23.6
18.8
7.5
27.4
18.0
4.9
18.0
5.1
150/i
32.1
24.4
23.0
12.3
32.0
26.3
25.5
25.9
36.4
37.7
38.5
6.2
32.8
27.4
9.5
27.4
10.0
106/1
3.1
3.5
3.9
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.6
2.7
3.9
4.4
3.8
2.4
3.2
3.3
0.7
3.3
0.7
75/i
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.6
1.0
< 1.0 <
< 1.0 <
1.0
1.1 <
1.8
1.9
2.5
0.8
1.2
0.5
1.2
0.5
53/i
0.5
0.8
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.4
1.8
1.1
0.7
1.0
0.3
1.0
0.4
38/i
0.4
0.5
< 1.0
0.3
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
1.0
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.3
<38/x
4.4
4.5
4.9
5.4
5.8
2.1
1.8
2.0
2.6
2.3
3.2
5.2
3.9
4.0
1.3
4.0
1.3
Total
97.0
100.0
102.3
89.5
101.7
107.2
119.8
113.5
99.2
111.3
100.6
85.4
118.7
101.7
9.9
101.7
9.4
Density
(g/ml)
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.0
1.6
0.3
1.7
1.8
1.1
1.3
1.8
1.2
1.2
1.2
2.8o
1.2
1.3
1.7
1.8
1.6
0.5
1.5s
0.3s
TOC
(mg/kg)
68,000
72,000
120,000
400,000
165,000
137,000
190,000
150,000
31,000
300,000
180,000
180,000
260,000
220,000
14,000
140,000
66,000
160,000
94,000
132,500
82,000
142,000
101,000
-------
TABLE A-14: GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, STATION 14
Grain Size
Percentage Retained by Screen Size (micrometers)
Density
Date Time 430/i 300j_ 150/u, 106^ 75/u, 53/i 38/z <38ji Total (g/ml)
TOC
(mg/kg)
Oct31^ AM
Oct3l'pM
Novl AM
Nov 1 PM
FALL MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
May 17 PM
May 20 AM
May 20 PM
May 21 AM
May 21 PM
May 22 AM
May 27 AM
May 27 PM
May 28 AM
May 28 PM
May 29 AM
MAY MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
4.7
4.5
4.7
4.5
4.6
0.1
6.7*
5.7
5.2
4.9
4.3
3.2*
4.5
4.8*
3.7
4.4
4.5
4.7
0.9
14.2
14.5
18.2
15.2
15.5
1.6
19.3*
18.2
16.2
15.4
16.8
12.0*
17.1
15.6*
13.1
15.8
17.1
16.1
2.0
57.4
57.2
58.2
55.8
57.2
0.9
55.0*
59.6
55.3
61.2
57.7
60.0*
60.3
60.0*
68.2
61.2
59.9
59.9
3.3
14.3
14.1
11.1
14.2
13.4
1.3
11.2*
8.8
12.2
10.3
11.8
15.0*
8.6
10.2*
8.1
7.9
8.5
10.2
2.1
4.1
4.2
3.7
4.3
4.1
0.2
3.5*
2.3
3.8
3.7
4.0
4.0*
3.2
3.8*
2.5
3.8
3.3
3.4
0.6
2.8
2.6
2.9
3.4
2.9
0.3
2.4*
1.6
3.0
2.6
2.6
2.8*
2.5
3.0*
2.0
3.1
2.9
2.6
0.4
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.9
1.5
0.3
1.1 *
0.9
1.5
1.3
1.0
1.3 *<
1.2
1.2*
0.9
1.4
1.3
1.2
0.2
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.2
0.2
1.1*
0.9
1.0
0.7
1.0
1.0*
1.0
1.0*
0.8
1.4
1.3
1.0
0.2
99.7
99.4
101.4
100.9
100.4
0.8
100.3
98.0
98.2
100.1
99.2
99.3
98.4
99.6
99.3
99.0
98.8
100.5
4.4
2.5
2.6*
2.3
2.3
2.4
0.1
1.9 o
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.3
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.5
0.2
5,500 o
1,400
3,000
3,000
3,200
1,500
1,600
1,500
2,000 *
1,600 *
900
1,000
1,100
1,600
3,300
900
1,400
1,500
650
June 1
0900-1000
1030-1130
1200-1300
1330-1430
1500-1600
JUNE 1 MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
Overall Mean
STANDARD DEVIATION
3.6
4.8
3.6
4.8
4.6
4.3
0.6
4.6
0.7
14.3
16.7
13.8
16.8
15.4
15.4
1.2
15.8
1.8
63.9
61.3
56.9
58.7
59.0
60.0
2.4
59.3
3.0
9.9
7.7
11.2
9.6
9.3
9.5
1.1
10.7
2.2
2.5
3.0
5.0
3.4
3.7
3.5
0.8
3.6
0.6
2.1
2.7
3.6
2.6
3.5
2.9
0.6
2.7
0.5
1.3
1.5
2.1
1.3
1.9
1.6
0.3
1.4
0.3
0.9
1.4
1.4
1.7
1.5
1.4
0.3
1.1
0.3
98.5
99.1
97.6
98.9
98.9
98.6
0.5
99.2
0.9
2.5
2.2*
2.6
2.8
2.6
2.5
0.2
2.5
0.2
1,100
2,100
240
600
1,500
1,100
700
1,600 s
800s
-------
TABLE A-15: GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, STATION 15
Grain Size
Percentage Retained by Screen Size (micrometers)
Date Time
Nov 1 PM
FALL MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
May 17 PM
May 20 AM
May 20 PM
May 21 AM
May 21 AM Dup
May 21 AM MEAN
May 21 PM
May 22 AM
MAY MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
June 1
0900-1000
1030-1130
1200-1300
1330-1430
1500-1600
JUNE 1 MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
Overall Mean
Standard Deviation
Density
430/t
5.9*
5.9
7.4
5.2
8.4
7.4
7.0
7.2
4.5
4.4
6.2
1.5
mn
20.1*
20.1
21.9
17.1
22.8
19.1
19.2
19.2
18.5
17.8
19.5
1.9
150M
67.9*
67.9
63.9
62.5
56.4
62.2
62.6
62.4
64.0
67.3
62.8
3.0
106/u.
4.9 *
4.9
5.6
10.9
8.6
7.4
8.0
7.7
8.0
6.9
8.0
1.5
75/x
0.3 *
0.3
0.5
1.3
1.5
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.9
1.1 <
1.2
0.4
53M
0.2*
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.6
1.2
1.0 <
0.7
0.3
38/i
0.1*
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.4
TOC
<38/i Total (g/ml) (mg/kg)
0.5*
0.5
0.9
0.9
1.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
2.0
1.4
1.2
0.5
99.9
99.9
100.5
98.5
100.0
98.3
99.3
98.8
101.1
100.9
100.0
1.0
2.3*
2.3
2.7
2.6
2.3
2.9
2.4
2.7
2.7
3.8o
2.6s
0.2s
3,500
3,500
1,600
4,500
1,000
1,000
1,700
1,400
1,400
1,500
1,900
1,100
4.4 * 18.0 * 66.2 * 7.2 * 0.8 * 0.4 *
5.6 19.2 63.5 7.1 1.2 0.6
4=5 16.9 67.0 6.9 1.2 0.7
4.5 16.3 67.5 6.6 0.9 0.4
6.0 17.6 66.1 7.8 0.9 0.5
5.0 17.6 66.1 7.1 1.0 0.5
0.7 1.0 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.1
5.7 18.8 64.6 7.4 1.1 0.6
1.3 1.9 3.1 1.4 0.4 0.3
0.2*
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.7 *
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.1
1.0
0.4
97.9
98.4
98.1
97.1
100.0
98.3
1.0
99.3
1.2
2.2*
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.5
2.4
0.1
2.5s
0.2s
500
3,800
700
700
700
1,300
1,300
1,800
1,300
-------
TABLE A-16: GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, STATION 16
Grain Size
Percentage Retained by Screen Size (micrometers)
Density
Date Time
May 17 PM
May 20 AM
May 20 PM
May 21 AM
May 21 PM
May 22 AM
May 27 AM
May 27 PM
May 28 AM
May 28 PM
May 29 AM
MAY MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
430/1 300/i
1.1
0.1
0.2
< 0.1
0.2
< 1.0 <
0.4
0.0
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.3
0.4
0.7
1.0
1.3
0.6
1.0
1.0
2.2
0.8
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.6
150/1
10.3
6.4
5.4
9.6
26.1
5.9
6.4
3.2
3.0
2.3
1.8
7.3
6.5
106/1
37.9
13.4
7.7
37.5
32.3
25.0
11.6
6.5
8.6
13.1
4.8
18.0
12.1
75/i
15.6
25.2
15.1
19.5
13.0
23.9
14.7
13.0
17.2
21.0
16.7
17.7
4.0
53/i
10.3
21.0
33.6
14.4
8.6
24.6
18.8
19.8
23.8
24.1
33.6
21.1
7.8
38/i
5.4
11.5
12.8
7.6
4.7
16.6
17.5
19.5
15.7
14.7
25.8
13.8
6.0
<38/i
17.8
21.8
30.3
13.2
9.0
26.8
43.5
41.3
28.0
21.4
19.9
24.8
10.2
(g/ml)
99.1
100.4
106.4
102.5
94.9
124.8
115.1
104.1
96.5
97.0
103.0
104.3
9.2
2.2
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.8o
2.4s
O.ls
TOC
(mg/kg)
19,000
28,000
12,000
3,400
8,600
37,000
21,000
20,000
12,000 *
2,200
23,000
16,927
10,048
June 1
0900-1000
1030-1130
1200-1300
1330-1430
1500-1600
AVERAGE (MEAN)
STANDARD DEVIATION
Overall Mean
Overall Standard Deviation
1.5
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
3.7
0.8
0.4
0.4
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.0
0.9
15.6
3.9
2.8
10.3
3.1
7.1
5.0
7.9
6.2
24.4
9.5
15.5
41.8
5.5
19.3
12.9
20.3
12.1
19.3
20.0
25.4
13.5
14.6
18.6
4.3
18.3
4.3
18.9
29.4
26.4
11.7
20.9
21.5
6.2
20.4
7.0
10.6
12.7
11.1
6.0
27.6
13.6
7.3
11.9
4.5
12.0
31.4
17.5
17.3
28.7
21.4
7.4
23.7
10.1
106.0
108.1
99.3
101.5
101.9
103.4
3.2
104.0
7.7
2.5*
2.6
2.5
2.5*
2.3
2.5
0.1
2.4s
O.ls
12,000
9300
11,000
34,000
7,600
14,800
9,700
16,400
10,300
-------
TABLE A-17: GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, STATION 17
Grain Size
Percentage Retained by Screen Size (micrometers)
Density
Date Time
Oct31 AM
Oct31 PM
FALL MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
May 17 PM
May 20 AM
May 20 AM Dup
MAY 20 AM MEAN
May 20 PM
May 21 AM
May 21 PM
May 22 AM
May 27 AM
May 27 PM
May 28 AM
May 28 PM
May 29 AM
MAY MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
Overall Mean
Standard Deviation
430/i
1.2
1.8
1.5
0.3
1.8
1.5*
1.4
1.5
2.3
1.6
1.3
1.8
2.9
3.4
2.7
2.0
4.9
2.4
1.0
2.2
1.0
300/i
5.1
5.6
5.4
0.3
9.4
7.8*
6.5
7.2
9.7
7.2
6.0
10.2
12.5
12.9
11.0
6.8
13.3
9.7
2.5
9.0
2.8
150/i
42.2
52.0
47.1
4.9
50.4
50.8*
46.2
48.5
49.6
43.2
42.5
57.3
48.0
55.1
49.8
49.9
62.1
50.6
5.5
50.0
5.5
106/^
20.4
19.3
19.9
0.5
12.2
17.4 *
19.2
18.3
16.6
17.0
22.5
13.1
10.5
9.8
11.0
11.9
9.1
13.8
4.0
14.7
4.3
75p,
8.6
6.8
7.7
0.9
6.5
7.5*
8.5
8.0
7.2
9.2
10.1
6.2
6.3
5.3
8.5
7.3
2.8
7.0
1.9
7.1
1.8
53M
7.3
5.8
6.6
0.7
7.3
7.0*
9.2
8.1
7.4
8.6
8.2
5.8
6.9
5.6
8.3
7.7
2.6
7.0
1.7
6.9
1.6
38ja
5.5
4.2
4.9
0.6
5.6
4.4 *
5.5
5.0
4.5
5.4
5.2
3.5
4.0
3.2
4.3
5.5
1.7
4.4
1.1
4.4
1.1
<38/i Total (g/ml)
7.0
2.8
4.9
2.1
5.4
2.6*
3.1
2.9
3.1
5.3
3.2
2.5
5.5
3.2
3.4
4.6
2.2
3.8
1.2
3.9
1.4
97.3
98.3
97.8
0.5
98.6
99.0
99.6
99.3
100.4
97.5
99.0
100.4
96.6
98.5
99.0
95.7
98.7
98.5
1.4
98.4
1.3
2.2
2.3
2.3
0.1
2.4
2.9
2.5
2.7
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.9
2.5
2.7
2.6
2.5
0.2
2.5
0.2
TOC
(mg/kg)
5,700 *
5,700
5,700
0
1,300
9,300
8,200
8,750
2,800
2,900
1,200
1,100
900
800
1,100
500
900
2,000
2,300
2,600
2,500
-------
TABLE A-18: GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, STATION 18
Grain Size
Percentage Retained by Screen Size (micrometers)
Date Time
May 17 PM
May 20 AM
May 20 PM
May 21 AM
May 21 PM
May 22 AM
May 27 AM
May 27 PM
May 28 AM
May 28 PM
May 29 AM
MAY MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
430/i
39.3
11.2
12.5
9.9
14.4
6.0
19.0
9.0
7.0
35.7
29.6
17.6
11.3
300/t
7.5
11.5
7.5
9.4
10.3
6.8
8.8
6.1
7.8
5.4
7.6
8.1
1.7
150/i
20.0
27.8
20.6
30.5
30.6
21.7
26.5
22.8
25.2
17.2
23.5
24.2
4.1
106/1
4.5
5.5
5.4
7.2
6.4
6.0
6.3
8.7
7.4
4.8
6.0
6.2
1.2
75/i
2.2
2.5
3.0
3.6
3.0
3.9
4.3
8.6
5.3
3.2
5.4
4.1
1.7
53,1
2.2
2.6
4.2
3.9
2.9
4.8
1.1
7.2
5.0
3.2
3.6
3.7
1.6
38/u,
1.6
1.7
4.4
2.6
2.1
3.3
2.4
3.1
2.4
1.8
1.7
2.5
0.8
<38/u.
29.8
40.1
46.9
33.8
28.1
43.2
35.9
35.5
41.8
35.2
28.6
36.3
5.9
Total
107.1
102.9
104.5
100.9
97.8
95.7
104.3
101.0
101.9
106.5
106.0
102.6
3.4
Density
(g/ml)
2.3
2.4
1.6*
2.0
2.5*
2.3
2.5
1.8
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.2
0.3
TOC
(mg/kg)
34,000 o
13,000
13,000
14,000
16,000
22,000 o
12,000
9,300
12,000
18,000 *
14,000
13,500 s
2,300 s
-------
TABLE A-20: GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, STATION 20
Grain Size
Percentage Retained by Screen Size (micrometers)
Density
Date Time
Oct31 AM
Oct31 PM
Nov 1 AM
Nov 1 PM
FALL MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
May 17 PM
May 20 AM
May 20 PM
May 21 AM
May 21 PM
May 22 AM
May 27 AM
May 27 PM
May 28 AM
May 28 PM
May 29 AM
MAY MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
430/i
3.7
4.3
3.6
3.7
3.8
0.3
5.7
7.5
6.0
4.6
7.1
6.1
3.6
3.4
4.5
4.4
5.8
5.3
1.3
300/i
11.6
11.5
14.0
12.4
12.4
1.0
15.0
13.8
14.1
13.4
13.6
13.7
12.6
11.3
14.3
12.3
13.7
13.4
1.0
150/t
41.8
46.7
48.2
46.4
45.8
2.4
46.8
44.0
43.8
45.0
45.2
44.1
49.6
46.4
48.5
48.3
49.6
46.5
2.1
106/1
12.5
13.0
8.2
8.3
10.5
2.3
8.7
9.2
9.5
8.2
8.9
7.8
7.2
8.0
7.0
7.2
6.8
8.0
0.9
75/i
4.1
4.4
2.7
2.5
3.4
0.8
2.7
3.1
3.1
3.2
2.9
2.9
3.0
4.5
3.1
3.3
2.9
3.2
0.5
53/t
1.8
3.3
2.3
3.2
2.7
0.6
2.4
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.4
2.6
2.7
3.7
2.7
3.1
2.5
2.7
0.4
38/i
1.8
2.1
1.6
1.5
1.8
0.2
1.5
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.4
1.9
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.5
0.2
<38/i
24.8
19.2
18.8
18.2
20.3
2.7
16.3
18.0
19.5
20.5
18.0
19.2
19.3
22.6
19.9
19.6
18.4
19.2
1.5
TOC
Total (g/ml) (mg/kg)
102.1
104.5
99.4
96.2
100.6
3.1
99.1
99.1
100.0
99.2
99.7
98.1
99.4
101.8
101.4
99.7
101.3
99.9
1.1
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.8
0.0
2.7
3.0
2.6*
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.4
2.6
0.2
5,000
15,000
8,300
24,000 o
13,100
7,300
13,000
7,300
9,900
7,400
12,000
10,000
7,500
11,000
3,600
3,300
2,100
7,900
3,500
June 1
0900-1000
1030-1130
1200-1300
1330-1430
1500-1600
JUNE 1 MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
Overall Mean
STANDARD DEVIATION
4.8
3.4
5.2
7.9
3.8
5.0
1.6
5.0
1.4
14.7
13.1
13.6
14.6
11.9
13.6
1.0
13.3
1.1
49.2
46.2
48.2
43.1
45.6
46.5
2.1
46.3
2.2
7.2
7.2
7.6
7.1
6.7
7.2
0.3
8.3
1.7
3.0
3.5
3.0
3.3
2.4
3.0
0.4
3.2
0.6
2.7
3.2
2.4
2.8
2.6
2.7
0.3
2.7
0.4
1.6
1.6
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.4
0.2
1.5
0.2
15.8
18.6
17.2
22.1
19.7
18.7
2.2
19.3
2.0
99.0
96.8
98.4
102.0
94.0
98.0
2.6
99.6
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.9
2.5
2.3*
2.5
0.2
2.4
0.3
4,600
4,800
5,800
9,700
6,200
6,200
1,800
7,700 s
4,900 s
-------
TABLE A-20: (continued)
40.0/t 30.0/z 20.0/1 12.5/1 4.0/i 2.0/i 0.5/i <0.5/i Total
OctSl AM
Oct31 PM
Nov 1 AM
Nov 1 PM
FALL MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
5.0
22.0
3.5
6.0
9.1
7.5
5.0
7.0
3.5
5.0
5.1
1.2
8.0
15.0
10.0
11.0
11.0
2.5
11.0
14.0
12.0
22.5
14.9
4.5
18.5
10.0
17.5
14.5
15.1
3.3
12.5
6.0
10.5
6.5
8.9
2.7
21.5
15.0
21.0
13.5
17.8
3.5
18.5
11.0
22.5
18.0
17.5
4.1
100.0
100.0
100.5
97.0
99.4
1.4
-------
TABLE A-21: GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, STATION 21
Grain Size
Percentage Retained by Screen Size (micrometers)
Date Time
Oct31 AM
OctSl PM
Nov 1 AM
Nov 1 PM
FALL MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
40.0/x
9.5
11.0
5.0
0.0
6.4
4.3
30.0/1
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
0.5
20.0/i
8.0
13.0
14.0
13.0
12.0
2.3
12.5/1
21.5
30.0
17.5
17.0
21.5
5.2
4.0/i
23.5
9.0
13.5
13.5
14.9
5.3
2.0/1
5.0
6.0
10.0
12.0
8.3
2.9
0.5/1
13.5
16.0
21.5
21.0
18.0
3.4
< 0.5/t
18.0
12.0
16.5
19.5
16.5
2.8
Total
101.0
100.0
100.0
99.0
100.0
0.7
Density
(9/ml)
1.8
1.8
1.5
1.8
1.7
0.1
TOC
(mg/kg)
34,000
43,000
36,000
52,000
41,000
7,000
May 17 PM
May 20 AM
May 20 PM
May 21 AM
May 21 PM
May 22 AM
May 27 AM
May 27 PM
May 28 AM
May 28 PM
May 29 AM
MAY MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
Overall Mean
STANDARD DEVIATION
2.7
3.8
0.0
2.7
0.8
2.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.4
2.7
3.5
1.4
2.7
2.0
2.1
2.7
2.7
1.5
0.5
0.6
0.0
1.6
0.9
1.9
0.9
9.2
12.7
7.5
8.4
10.6
6.4
9.1
6.4
6.7
0.0
7.7
3.2
8.9
3.6
22.5
29.0
10.6
17.6
19.7
25.1
19.9
12.6
15.4
1.3
17.4
7.5
18.6
7.2
29.8
12.2
53.6
36.4
31.5
33.5
48.7
67.4
46.0
86.7
44.6
20.1
36.1
21.8
6.3
6.2
4.2
5.1
6.8
4.8
2.2
2.4
4.4
2.2
4.5
1.6
5.5
2.7
16.2
16.0
10.6
12.8
14.8
14.6
9.8
10.6
27.0
6.2
13.9
5.3
15.0
5.2
11.9
17.4
11.3
14.8
13.2
10.8
8.4
0.0
0.0
3.6
9.1
5.7
11.2
6.1
100.0
100.0
99.8
99.9
100.1
100.0
100.1
99.9
100.1
100.0
100.0
0.1
100.0
0.4
2.3
1.5
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.9
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.5
2.0
0.4
1.9
0.4
26,000
23,000
28,000
24,000
24,000 *
23,000
25,000
23,000
16,000
29,000
21,000 *
24,000
3,300
28,500
9,000
-------
TABLE A-22: GRAIN SIZE, DENSITY, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, STATION 22
Grain Size
Percentage Retained by Screen Size (micrometers)
Date Time
OctSl AM
OctSl PM
Nov 1 AM
Nov 1 PM
FALL MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
May 28 AM
May 28 PM
May 29 AM
MAY MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
Overall Mean
STANDARD DEVIATION
Density
40.0/1
4.0
4.0
0.0
1.5
2.4
1.7
0.2
2.4
0.6
1.1
1.0
1.8
1.6
30.0/1
3.0
2.0
2.5
1.5
2.3
0.6
3.3
0.0
1.7
1.7
1.3
2.0
1.0
20.0/1
13.0
10.0
7.0
17.0
11.8
3.7
10.5
6.4
6.7
7.9
1.9
10.1
3.6
12.5/1
31.0
16.0
30.5
15.0
23.1
7.6
31.7
32.4
52.4
38.8
9.6
29.9
11.5
4.0/1
12.0
16.5
16.5
15.0
15.0
1.8
20.5
29.9
10.1
20.2
8.1
17.2
6.0
2.0/i
7.0
11.5
8.0
14.5
10.3
3.0
5.4
5.8
5.1
5.4
0.3
8.2
3.3
0.5/i
16.0
20.5
15.5
26.5
19.6
4.4
15.3
16.7
20.1
17.4
2.0
18.7
3.8
< 0.5/i Total (g/ml)
14.0
19.5
20.0
16.0
17.4
2.5
13.2
6.4
3.3
7.6
4.1
13.2
5.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
107.0
101.8
3.0
100.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
101.0
2.4
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.8
0.1
2.4
1.7
2.7
2.3
0.4
2.0
0.4
TOC
(mg/kg)
32,000
43,000
52,000
48,000
43,750
7,496
11,000
17,000
19,000
15,667
3,399
31,714
15,172
-------
RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Explanations of symbols
U - The parameter was undetected, the number presented denotes the detection limit.
When used in calculations with detected concentrations, it was assumed the value of
the undetected sample was one half its detection limit. When following a
statistic, it denotes the valve represents detection limits only.
o - Denotes the data point deleted from calculations of indicated mean and standard
deviation as it was identified as an outlier based upon the Dixon Criterion and
accepting a 4% chance of rejecting a valid data point (U.S. Department of Commerce,
1963, Chapter 17).
s - Denotes a statistic calculated without data identified as outlier or
unreliable.
i - Denotes data rejected as unreliable due to plant breakdown or data
implausibility.
-------
TABLE A-23: RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, STATION 13
Date Time Matrix %Dry
Weight
Oct31 AM Sediment 48.8
Oct31 AM Replicate 48.8
Oct31 AM Replicate 48.8
OctSl AM Average 48.8
Oct31 PM Sediment 45.8
NovOl AM Sediment 44.2
NovOl PM Sediment 28.6
FALL MEAN 41.9
Standard Deviation 7.8
May 17 PM Sediment
May 17 PM Replicate
May 17 PM Replicate
May 17 PM Average
May 20 AM Sediment
May 20 PM Sediment
May 21 AM Sediment
May 21 PM Sediment
May 22 AM Sediment
May 22 AM Duplicate
MAY 22 AM MEAN
May 27 AM Sediment
May 27 PM Sediment
May 28 AM Sediment
May 28 PM Sediment
May 29 AM Sediment
MAY MEAN
Standard Deviation
Overall Average 41.9
Standard Deviation 7.8
Cd Cr Cu Hg
ug/g ug/g ug/g ug/g
0.29 18.5 15.6 0.067
Ni
Pb
ug/g
Zn
ug/g
PCB
ng/g
0.56
0.55
1.47
0.72
0.43
13.0 u
18.2
54.1
24.3
20.3
18.4
23.2
74.9
33.0
25.6
0.114
0.170
0.512
0.216
0.176
1.55
1.55
1.43
1.51
1.74
2.25
2.93
1.42
1.43
1.43
1.43
0.73
0.65
0.70
0.46
0.64
1.31
0.74
1.16
0.72
32.3
37.8
31.6
33.9
43.9
53.6
61.6
52.1
37.9
48.4
43.2
27.7
15.0
27.1
20.2
27.8
36.9
14.3
33.6
16.3
10.8
15.7
19.2
66.2
28.0
23.0
15.9
17.2
28.4
134 o
20.5s
5.6s
60.1
81.0
121.4
363.0
156.4
124.5
4502
2469
3484
3485
3609
5880
9366
5585
2382
52.8 0.248 36.5
53.9 0.219 37.6
51.9 0.227 37.1
52.9 0.231 37.1
58.3 0.264 41.4
71.2 0.278 60.3
91.7 1.021 o 79.8
47.2 0.294 45.0
41.3 0.102 45.2
46.0 0.234 37.8
43.6 0.168 41.5
28.1 0.200 32.0
18.3 0.124 19.9
26.8 0.193 33.2
16.1 0.105 19.2
25.4 0.213 25.1
43.6 0.207 s 39.5
22.6 0.060 s 17.1
40.8 0.210 s 36.4
23.6 0.106 s 19.3
86.7 300.0 6990
56.0 281.0
44.5 270.0
62.4 283.6 6990
46.4 305.0 2907
55.5 368.0 1640
329 o 489.0 1770
72.9 253.0 2810
43.3 197.0 4070
36.6 173.0 3590
40.0 185.0 3830
31.5 102.0 4010
18.4 55.2 3770
21.6 75.8 2370
15.5 53.1 2830
20.4 76.4 2630
38.5s, 204.2 3232
19.2 s 140.0 1401
41.4 s 191.4 3860
31.4 s 136.9 2012
-------
TABLE A-24: RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, STATION 14
Date Time Matrix
Oct31 AM Sediment
OctSl PM Sediment
NovOl AM Sediment
NovOl PM Sediment
FALL MEAN
Standard Deviation
May 17 PM Sediment
May 17 PM Duplicate
May 17 PM MEAN
May 20 AM Sediment
May 20 AM Replicate
May 20 AM MEAN
May 20 PM Sediment
May 21 AM Sediment
May 21 PM Sediment
May 22 AM Sediment
May 27 AM Sediment
May 27 PM Sediment
May 28 AM Sediment
May 28 PM Sediment
May 29 AM Sediment
MAY MEAN
Standard Deviation
%Dry
Weight
88.0
90.1
87.0
86.6
87.9
1.4
Cd
ug/g
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.07
0.09
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.06
0.02
Cr
ug/g
9.2 u
31.9
18.3
17.0
17.0
18.0
9.9 u
27.2
9.2 u
21.6
9.0 u
9.6 u
9.1
8.4 u
12.2
6.1
Cu
ug/g
6.78
7.20
6.99
6.24
6.24
5.99
7.50
7.50
6.03
7.25
6.29
5.88
5.63
5.99
6.48
0.66
Hg
ug/g
0.013
0.011
0.012
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.016
0.010
0.007
0.006
0.007
0.005
0.009
0.010
0.008
0.003
Ni
ug/g
4.8
4.5
4.7
3.8
3.8
3.7
4.8
3.8
3.9
4.0
5.1
3.1 u
3.8
3.3
3.9
0.6
Pb
ug/g
22.0
8.60
15.3 o
7.34
7.34
8.27
7.10
10.7
6.60
6.43
7.03
5.41
8.52
9.45
7.69
1.49
Zn
ug/g
28.7
26.6
27.7
22.9
22.9
23.6
22.6
24.1
14.5
16.1
14.0
12.5
12.2
14.9
18.6
5.3
PCB
ng/g
238
169
227
213
212
26
145
180
162
196
235
216
204
382
277
273
139
141
200
159
215
73
-------
TABLE A-24: (continued)
Date Time Matrix
June 01
0900-1000
1030-1130
1200-1300
1330-1430
1500-1600
June 1 Mean
Standard Deviation
Overall Mean
Standard Deviation
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
%Dry
Weight
87.9
1.4
Zn PCB
ug/g ng/g
0.03
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.06
0.01
9.3 u
9.6 u
8.7 u
15.5
9.3
7.7
4.3
10.8
7.4
4.92
5.84
4.98
6.70
7.05
5.90
0.87
6.30
0.78
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.009
0.058 o
0.008 s
0.001 s
0.008 s
0.003 s
3.5
3.1
2.0 u
3.2 u
3.0 u
2.1
1.0
3.3
1.2
7.35
5.84
8.49
6.51
6.33
6.90
0.93
7.42
1.38
13.9
16.8
15.9
16.1
15.8
15.7
1.0
17.7
4.62
214
73
-------
TABLE A-25: RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, STATION 19
Oct31 AM Water
OctSl PM Water
NovOl AM Water
NovOl PM Water
NovOl PM Rerun
Fall Mean
Standard Deviation
May 17 PM Water
May 17 PM Replicate
May 17 PM Mean
May 20 AM Water
May 20 PM Water
May 21 AM Water
May 21 AM Replicate
May 21 AM Mean
May 21 PM Water
May 22 AM Water
May 27 AM Water
May 27 AM Water
May 27 PM Water
May 28 AM Water
May 28 AM Replicate
May 28 AM Mean
May 28 PM Water
May 29 AM Water
May Mean
Std Deviation
Overall Average
Overall Standard Deviation
TSS
mg/1
< 1.0 i
< 1.0 i
< 1.0 i
110.0 i
21
21
37
22
27s
7s
27s
7s
PCB
ng/1
300 u
300 u
300 u
726 i
500 u
350 us
87 us
383 u
682 u
533 u
558 u
888 u
45.1 u
32.2 u
38.7 u
61.5 u
25.1 u
47.7 u
70.4 u
84.3 u
133 u
61.7 u
97.4 u
69.4 u
35.3 u
209 u
273 u
244 us
248 us
-------
TABLE A-26: RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, STATION 20
Date Time Matrix %Dry Cd Cr Cu Hg Ni Pb Zn PCB
Weight ug/g ug/g ug/g ug/g ug/g ug/g ug/g ng/g
OctSl AM Sediment 72.9 0.70 31.1 20.5 0.078 16.1 32.0 171.5 1397
Oct31 AM Replicate 0.69 38.0 21.9 0.071 13.5 29.3 175.3
Oct31 AM Replicate 0.75 25.7 23.6 0.074 13.7 32.9 184.6
Oct31 AM Mean 72.9 0.71 31.6 22.0 0.074 14.4 31.4 177.1 1397
Oct31 PM Sediment 77.0 0.49 28.3 17.9 0.069 8.8 22.9 99.9 934
NovOl AM Sediment 76.5 0.38 14.0 u 11.6 0.051 8.9 16.9 83.2 3238 o
NovOl PM Sediment 80.9 0.40 23.9 13.8 0.054 9.2 20.1 100.8 739
Fall Mean 76.8 0.50 22.7 16.3 0.062 10.3 22.8 115.3 1577
Standard Deviation 2.8 0.13 9.5 4.0 0.010 2.4 5.4 36.4 988
May 17 PM Sediment 0.42 18.3 12.5 0.043 8.2 19.2 88.1 932
May 20 AM Sediment 0.54 34.5 17.6 0.065 13.2 23.3 126 1680
May 20 AM Duplicate 0.63 35.5 21.1 0.052 15.5 26.5 163 1170
May 20 AM Mean 0.58 35.0 19.4 0.059 14.4 24.9 145 1425
May 20 PM Sediment 0.57 25.4 20.4 0.084 14.2 25.3 134 1060
May 21 AM Sediment 0.45 16.9 17.2 0.096 11.3 22.5 105 1440
May 21 PM Sediment 0.56 40.4 19.9 0.055 13.0 21.6 106 1310
May 22 AM Sediment 0.65 34.8 23.9 0.055 17.9 31.3 196 1480
May 22 AM Replicate 0.62 44.5 24.0 0.055 18.7 29.2 205
May 22 AM Replicate 0.63 28.2 25.4 0.056 17.8 30.2 210
May 22 AM Mean 0.63 35.8 24.4 0.055 18.1 30.2 203.7 1480
May 27 AM Sediment 0.64 27.8 20.5 0.073 11.5 22.3 64.7 1110
May 27 PM Sediment 0.39 22.6 15.0 0.038 10.0 15.8 66.0 1370
May 28 AM Sediment 0.36 16.9 13.6 0.044 8.1 14.5 52.2 1150
May 28 PM Sediment 0.35 23.2 13.3 0.037 9.0 10.9 51.0 1020
May 29 AM Sediment 0.59 15.1 13.9 0.046 9.2 13.3 41.0
May Mean 0.50 25.2 17.3 0.057 11.5 20.0 96.0 1230
Standard Deviation 0.10 8.2 3.7 0.018 3.0 5.6 47.2 188
-------
TABLE A-26: (continued)
Date Time Matrix
June 01
0900-1000
1030-1130
1200-1300
1330-1430
1500-1600
June 1 Mean
Standard Deviation
Overall Mean
Standard Deviation
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
%Dry
Weight
Cd
ug/g
0.52
0.46
0.50
0.44
0.60
0.50
0.05
0.50
0.10
Cr
ug/g
14.8
18.4
17.8
21.0
38.4
22.1
8.4
23.9
8.1
Cu
ug/g
19.1
15.7
19.6
19.9
27.6
20.4
3.9
17.9
4.1
Hg
ug/g
0.062
0.071
0.048
0.084
0.072
0.067
0.012
0.061
0.016
Ni
ug/g
10.1
11.4
11.9
11.1
16.8
12.3
2.3
11.5
2.8
Pb
ug/g
18.2
16.9
17.7
17.5
25.6
19.2
3.2
20.4
5.2
Zn
«g/g
61.8
64.9
74.6
81.6
122
81.0
21.7
96.1
41.7
PCB
ng/g
1182s
229s
-------
TABLE A-27: RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, STATION 21
Date Time Matrix TSS Cd Cr Cu Hg Ni Pb Zn PCB PCB
mg/1 ug/g ug/g ug/g ug/g ug/g ug/g ug/g ng/g ng/1
OctSl AM Slurry 1131
Oct31 PM Slurry 1007
NovOl AM Slurry 535
NovOl PM Slurry 1425
NovOl PM Rerun 5550
NovOl PM Rerun 4132
NovOl PM Rerun 3460
NovOl PM Mean 3642
Fall Mean 1579
Standard Deviation 1212
May 17 PM Sediment + 2.17 94.4 72.9 0.211 51?9 92.4 556 7069
May 17 PM Water + 217 3560
May 17 PM Water + 203
May 17 PM Water + 230
May 17 PM Mean + 217 2.17 94.4 72.9 0.211 51.9 92.4 556 7069 3560
May 20 AM Sediment + 1.95 82.4 78.4 0.207 52.3 95.6 571 2110
May 20 AM Water + 6 1270 u
May 20 PM Sediment + 2.00 94.6 73.2 0.226 49.4 94.6 547 4680
May 20 PM Water + 48 1400 u
May 21 AM Sediment + 1.70 92.6 72.0 0.214 53.4 91.2 524 6410
May 21 AM Water + 260 797 u
May 21 PM Sediment + 1.99 86.9 70.8 0.233 48.5 84.0 470 5150
May 21 PM Water + 230 417 u
May 22 AM Sediment + 1.85 97.7 69.1 0.232 45.5 70.4 383 4730
May 22 AM Water + 347 413 u
May 27 AM Sediment + 1.81 86.6 66.6 0.231 51.0 59.2 284 4950
May 27 AM Water + 98 759 u
May27 PM Sediment-.- 1.66 84.5 67.6 0.222 47.8 60.9 271 4490
May 27 PM Water + 22 585 u
-------
TABLE 27: (continued)
Date Time Matrix TSS Cd Cr Cu Hg Ni Pb Zn PCB PCB
mg/1 ug/g ug/g ug/g ug/g ug/g ug/g ug/g ng/g ng/1
May 28 AM Water 1240
May 28 AM Sediment 3220
May 28 PM Water 1210
May 29 AM Water 326 u
May 29 AM Sediment 3130
May Mean 153 1.89 90.0 71.3 0.222 50.0 81.0 451 4,594 818*
Standard Deviation 118 0.15 5.2 3.5 0.010 2.5 14.3 115 1,418 940*
* Calculated for water samples only.
+ These samples were collected at Station 22 but the clarifier was not operating.
-------
TABLE A-28: RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, STATION 22
Date Time Matrix %Dry Cd Cr Cu Hg Ni Pb Zn PCB
Weight ug/g ug/g ug/g ug/g ug/g ug/g ug/g ng/g
Oct31 AM Sediment 40.3 1.88 86 77.8 0.205 44.4 91.0 593 2075
Oct31 AM Replicate 1.78 99 68.2 0.195 47.1 91.5 595
Oct31 AM Replicate 1.87 106 70.7 0.208 45.3 90.6 587
Oct31 AM Mean 40.3 1.84 97 72.2 0.203 45.6 91.0 592 2075
Oct31 PM Sediment 41.5 1.91 109 U 73.1 0.205 49.2 93.3 590 1866
NovOl AM Sediment 43.6 1.54 112 68.3 0.223 43.2 82.0 573 1623
NovOl PM Sediment 38.7 1.70 107 70.9 0.233 43.0 81.3 546 2219
Fall Mean 41.0 1.75 93 71.1 0.216 45.3 86.9 575 1946
Standard Deviation 1.8 0.14 23 1.8 0.013 2.5 5.3 18 225
May 28 AM Sediment 1.20 60.0 40.3 0.166 30-2 38.1 181 2360
May 28 AM Replicate 1.15 69.9 42.8 0.142 31.8 39.7 187 2830
May 28 AM Replicate 1.10 63.7 43.4 0.128 29.0 37.8 184
May 28 AM Mean 1.15 64.5 42.2 0.145 30.3 38.5 184 2595
May 28 PM Sediment 1.58 96.8 58.7 0.199 48.0 54.8 260 2920
May 29 AM Sediment 1.79 85.2 60.1 0.183 43.1 54.6 274 1770
May 29 AM Replicate 1820
May 29 AM Mean 1.79 85.2 60.1 0.183 43.1 54.6 274 1795
May Mean 1.51 82.2 53.7 0.176 40.5 49.3 239 2,437
Standard Deviation 0.27 13.3 8.1 0.022 7.4 7.6 40 473
Overall Mean 1.64 88.1 63.6 0.199 43.2 70.8 431 2,156
Standard Deviation 0.24 19.9 10.3 0.027 5.7 19.7 169 429
-------
TABLE A-29: RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, STATION 23
Date Time Matrix TSS PCB
mg/1 ng/1
Oct31 AM Water 11505 811
Oct31 PM Water 7895 2238
NovOl AM Water 11510 1213
NovOl PM Water 2670 1078
NovOl PM Replicate 1700
NovOl PM Replicate 2930
NovOl PM Mean 2433
Fall Mean 8336 1335
Standard Deviation 3713 541
May 28 AM Water 280
May 28 AM Replicate 286
May 28 AM Replicate 312
May 28 AM Mean 293
May 28 PM Water
May 29 AM Water 96
May 1992 Mean 194
May 1992 Std Deviation 98
Overall Mean 5622 1335
Std Deviation 4891 541
-------
APPENDIX B
DATA REPORTS FROM LABORATORY ANALYSES
Battelle Data (Metals and PCBs)
Volumes 1 and 2
Thermo Analytical Inc. (Grain Size. Density. Total Organic Carbon)
U.S. Bureau of Mines (Apparent Grain Size)
Wright State University (Toxicitv Evaluation)
-------
APPENDIX C
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMS ILLUSTRATING
DAILY MODES OF OPERATION
-------
Water
Feed
Water—»•
May 28,29
Co-Current
darffier On Una
Derrick ft DMS Under to Sump 3
DMS @ 1.5
Paniculate Organic*
Mode of Operation for May 28. 29.
Feed
June 1-4
Counter Current
Clarifler On Line
Derrick undera to Sump 2
DMS @ 1.4 (4O%)
+6 mn\
Partlculate Organlca
Mode of Operation for June 1-4 (test 1 under SITE Program).
-------
Feed
+6 mn
Water •
May 20,21 & 22
Counter Current
Clarifler Off Line
Derrick unders to Sump 2
DMS @ 1.4- (40%) May 20
DMS @ 1.j> (50%) May 21-22
Participate Organlcs
Mode of Operation for May 2O, 21, 22.
Water
Feed
Water.
May 27
Co-Current
Clarlfier Off Line
Derrick a DMS Under to Sump 3
DMS @ 13
+6 mm
Partlculale Organlcs
Sludge to CDF
Mode of Operation for May 27.
-------
Feed
November 1 PM
Counter Current
Clarlfier On Line
DMS On Line
Attrition Scrubber On Line
Mode of Operation for PM run on November 1, 1991.
Feed
Water-*
May 17
Counter Current
Clarifler Off Line-
Derrick unders tcJ Sump 3
DMS @ 1.4 (40%)
+6 mm
Mode of Operation for May 17.
-------
APPENDIX D
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
PILOT DEMONSTRATION
OF HYDROCYCLONES AND ASSOCIATED PARTICLE SEPARATION
TECHNOLOGIES
FOR REMEDIATING CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS FROM
SAGBVAW RIVER/BAY, MICHIGAN
Revision 1.3
22 November 1991
Prepared by:
Submitted to:
In Support of:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Detroit District
477 Michigan Avenue
Detroit, MI 48226
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Assessment and Remediation of
Contaminated Sediments Program
-------
USEPA OLNPO - QAHP
SAOINAW - REV. 1.3
22 November 1M1
Contents
Page
0.0 Introduction 1
1.0 Project Description 2
1.1 Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated
Sediments (ARCS) Program 2
1.2 Saginaw River/Bay Area of Concern 2
1.3 Sediment Quality 3
1.4 ARCS Demonstration Program 3
1.5 Saginaw River/Bay Demonstration Project Description 3
1.6 Project Objectives 5
1.7 Experimental Design 6
1.8 Schedule 9
2.0 Project Organization and Responsibilities 11
3.0 Quality Assurance Objectives 12
3.1 Precision Accuracy Completeness, and Method Detection
Limits (from Battelle QAPjP for ARCS) 12
3.2 Representativeness, Comparability, and Completeness 16
3.3 Method Detection Limits 17
4.0 Site Selection and Sampling Procedures 18
4.1 Contaminated Sediment Sample for Testing 18
4.2 Sampling the Demonstration Project 18
4.3 Sample Containers and Preservation Technique* 18
4.4 Sampling Procedures 18
5.0 Sample Custody Procedures 19
6.0 Calibration Procedures and Frequency 21
7.0 Analytical Procedures and Calibration 22
8.0 Data Reduction, Validation and Reporting 23
9.0 Internal Quality Control Checks 24
10.0 Performance and System Audits 25
10.1 Internal Audits 26
10.2 Systems Audit 26
10.3 External Audit 26
11.0 Preventive Maintenance 26
12.0 Calculation of Data Quality Indicators 27
13.0 Corrective Action 28
14.0 Quality Assurance Reports to Management 29
15.0 References 30
-------
UtEPA OLNPO • QAPJP
•AOINAW • REV. 1.3
22 Notwmter 1M1
List of Tables
Table 1 Saginaw River Sediment Composite Areal Analyses 5
Table 2 Saginaw River/Bay Demonstration Project Sampling Plan 7
Table 3 Sample Bottle Requirements 8
Table 4 Analysis of Soil or Sediment Samples 13
Table 5 Analysis of Water Samples 14
List of Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Nap for Saginaw River/Bay 31
Figure 2 Dredging Location for Demonstration Sediment Collection 32
Figure 3 Layout for Demonstration at Saginaw CDF 33
Figure 4 Process Flow Sheet and Sampling Points 34
Figure 5 Project Organisational Structure 35
Figure 6 Points of Contact for Project Organisation 36
Figure 7 Chain of Custody Form 37
List of Appendices
Appendix A Sample Analysis Schedule Al
Appendix B Field Procedures for Filling Sample Containers and for
Filling Sample Containers and for Packing and
Shipping Ice Chests Bl
Appendix C Battelle Quality Assurance Plan Cl
-------
IMEPA OLNTO . OAff
•AOINAW • REV. 1.3
22 Novwitor 1M1
0.0 IMTRODUCTZON
This Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP) supports the pilot-seal*
demonstration of hydrocyclones and associated partial* separation technologies
for contaminated sediments from the Saginaw River. This demonstration is
sponsored by the Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS)
Program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Great
Lakes Rational Program Office (GLNPO). The pilot demonstration will be
conducted by the U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit. Analytical laboratory
support will be furnished by the Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory and
Thermal Analytical/ERG (TMA/ERG) Laboratory of Ann Arbor, Michigan. The firm
•warded the contract for the particle separation processing is Bergmann USA.
This QAPjP will be supplemented by QAPjP's prepared by Battelle a
for the laboratory chemical analysis part of the work. Battelle's QAPjP is
included as Appendix C to this QAPjP.
-------
UKPA OLNPO - QAPJP
•AOINAW - REV. l'j
22 MoMmtwr 1M1
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 A»««i«»ent and Remediation of Contaminated
Sediments fARCSl Program
The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act, Section 118(c)(3),
mandates the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (DSEPA) Great Lakes National
Program Office (CLNPO) to conduct a 5-year study and demonstration project on
the control and removal of toxic pollutants from bottom sediments. Five
areas, including the Saginaw River and Bay Area of Concern (AOC), were
specified in the Clean Water Act as requiring priority consideration in
locating and conducting demonstration projects. CLNPO initiated the
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) program to assess
the nature and extent of bottom sediment contamination at selected Great Lakes
AOCs, evaluate and demonstrate remedial options, and provide guidance on the
assessment of contaminated sediment problems and the selection and
implementation of necessary remedial actions in the AOCs and other locations
in the Great Lakes.
1.2 Saoinaw River/Bav Area ^of Concern fAOCl
Saginaw Bay extends from the western shore of Lake Huron into
Michigan's lower peninsula (Figure 1). The bay is 52 miles long, up to 26
miles wide, and receives the flow of 28 rivers, creeks, or agricultural drains
which collect runoff from 15 percent of Michigan's land area. The boundaries
of the AOC include all 22 miles of the Saginaw River and all of Saginaw Bay
(1143 sq. miles) out to a line between Au Sable Point and Point Aux Barques.
The Saginaw River and its sediments have been polluted by past
industrial and municipal discharge and disposal of waste, as well as
agricultural and urban runoff. A number of beneficial uses of the waters in
the AOC have been impaired as a result of the presence of excess nutrients,
PCBs, dioxin, heavy metals, and bacteria. Considerable progress has been made
toward reducing the discharge of contaminants into the waterways; however,
contaminated sediments are believed to be one of the sources of pollutants
causing continued impairments to the river and bay. The principal sediment
contaminant of concern is polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Other
contaminants present are heavy metals, including cadmium, chromium, copper,
mercury, lead, nickel, and sine.
-------
USEM OINPO • QAPJP
•AOINAW . REV. 1.3
22 Novwitor 1M1
1.3 pediaent Quality
The sediments present in the Saginaw River and Saginaw Bay ar« a
mixture of sand and silt. In contrast to other AOCs where th« sediment is
predominantly fin* grained, sediment in the lower Saginaw River i» often
dominated by coarser sandy material. Some of these sediments are seriously
contaminated with PCBs in single-digit mg/kg concentrations. More than 75
percent by weight of this material generally exceeds 0.075 mm grain sice.
The U.S. Bureau of Mines (BOM) Laboratory in Salt Lake City has
applied bench-scale hydrocyclone processes to samples of sandy, PCB-
contaminated, Saginaw River sediment. BOM observed an effective silt and sand
split of the material. In addition, and more importantly, PCBs demonstrated a
high degree of association with the fine particles, leaving the major sand
fraction substantially diminished in silts and PCBs. Thus, the hydrocyclone
appeared to be an effective and relatively low cost physical treatment process
to beneficiate contaminated Saginaw River sediments.
1.4 ARCS Demonstration ProorfF
•
As stated previously, one of the objectives of the Assessment and
Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) program is to evaluate and
demonstrate remedial options for contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes.
The ARCS Engineering/Technology Work Group (BTWG) is responsible for
recommending and implementing these demonstrations. The program places
priority for demonstration projects on the five AOCs specified in the Clean
Water Act for priority consideration. The purpose of pilot scale
demonstrations is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost of innovative
technologies, develop information for full-scale planning of remediation
projects, assess contaminant losses during remediation, and assess techniques
for treatment of residuals.
1.5 laainaw River/Bay Pilot De»on«tration Project Description
1.5.1 pediment Collection
Based on available sediment sampling and analysis data there are two
areas of the Saginaw River/Bay Area of Concern where the sediments generally
have higher concentrations of PCBs than remaining portions of the river.
Sediment for the demonstration will be collected from the river navigation
channel 1700 feet upriver of the Bay City Wastewater Treatment Plant (Figure
2). Approximately 400 cu yd of sediment will be collected using a clamshell
dredge, will be placed in a barge, and will be transported to the Saginaw Bay
-------
(MEM OLNPO • QAPT
•AOINAW - REV. 1.3
22 Novmntwr 1M1
confined disposal facility (CDF) and placed on a prepared site (graded/etc.).
The dredging site was selected to obtain sediment with a PCB concentration of
approximately 2 mg/kg. Dredging depth required to obtain this concentration
is approximately 2.5 ft.
The Detroit District Saginaw River navigation channel sediment data
records suggested that appropriate material could be located within a
particular 2-mile reach of the river downstream of Middle Ground Island and
upstream of the Bay City Hastewater Treatment Plant. Six 100- by 50-ft
rectangles were chosen as candidate ARCS dredging sites and were plotted on
USAGE sounding charts such that one 100-ft line coincided with the east
channel line. The other 100-ft line extended SO ft further east on to the
shoulder of the channel. This configuration of strict adjacency to the
channel was chosen in order to provide an ARCS dredging site that would
minimize encumbering channel traffic while the ARCS dredging was proceeding.
Suitable sediment for this demonstration process should be
predominantly sandy, and contain easily quantifiable levels of PCBs, but low
enough to assure that the hydrocyclone production of consolidated fines would
not exceed the TSCA rule level of SO mg/kg, which by regulatory definition is
•toxic." While the small volumes produced and stored within the CDF would not
result in discernable environmental effects, the regulatory maze for obtaining
a variance was deemed too cumbersome and inimical for effective project
management. The project managers decided that a range of 1-4 mg/kg PCBs would
be a suitable range. As a worst case, 4 mg/kg was selected as the high end of
target sediment PCB concentration. Sediment with PCBs of this overall
concentration would have a silt fraction of 40 mg/kg if separated.
On B August 1991, a tug, barge, and clamshell operation was engaged
to conduct the candidate dredge site sampling. Each 100- by SO-ft rectangle
was marked by buoying the corners. The buoys were set by a survey crew from
the DSACE Saginaw Area Office. They used a Del Norte Electronic Position
System to set the buoys. This system utilizes two transponders on shore at
precisely known positions to establish positions within an error of 1-3
meters. Thus, we could be confident of re-establishing any of the six test
rectangles as dredging rectangles.
In each rectangle, a sampling pattern of 5 interior spots was
employed. The clamshell bucket was placed on deck, and opened so as to expose
a wedge-shaped crack accommodating access to the dredged material content by
spades. The sampling crew took small spaded portions from the top 2.5 ft of
dredged material from each interior spot and placed that material in a metal
trough. The contents were mixed by spades and 4 gallons were transferred to a
-------
USEPA OLNPO - QAPf
•AOINAW - REV. 1.3
22 Novwnbw 1M1
5-gal pail. Content* of the pail represented a composite of the rectangle
sampled. The samples were analyzed at TMA/ERG in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
TMA/ERG subsampled the material in the pails, on two separate days for
duplicate PCB analyses. A summary of these analyses is presented in Table 1.
Rectangular areas SC8-B and SC8-A were designated for the ARCS
hydrocyclone demonstration project. On 3 October and 5 October, approximately
300 cy dredged material from Area SC8-B was transferred to the CDF prepared
site. On 7 October, approximately 100 cy was dredged and transferred from
Area SC8-A, which is a 100- by 50-ft rectangle abutting and immediately
upstream of Area SC8-B.
Table 1 - Vagina* River Sediment Composite Areal Analyses*
Area ID
SC10-A
SC10-B
SC9-A
SC9-B
SC8-A
SC8-B
Percent Solids
62
59
50
51
69
67
PCBs, rag/kg
0.53, 1.4
0.85, 2.7
0.30, 0.83
0.50, 0.39
0.66, 1.3
2.0, 3.8
Percent Sand
81
85
68
66
88
89
* Each analytical subsample taken from a composite representing a volume,
100 ft x 50 ft x 2.5 ft.
1.5.2
Treatment Site
The demonstration project will take place at the Saginaw Bay CDF.
Bergmann USA will mobilize its equipment and erect the processing plant on <
barge which will be located adjacent to the CDF dike so as to facilitate
conveying the ARCS dredged material from its location on the CDF (Figure 3).
The barge will be spudded in place to provide a stable platform.
l.C
Project O^ectives
The primary objective of this project is to demonstrate the
effectiveness of particle separation technologies for separating coarser,
cleaner sediment from finer, more contaminated sediment, thereby reducing the
volume of contaminated sediment requiring further treatment, as well as
producing a more treatable material by virtue of isolating the contaminants.
-------
USEFA OLNFO - QAffP
•AOINAW • MEV. IIS
22 November 1M1
The •valuation of this project will be conducted by characterizing
liquid and Blurry streams at various points of the process scheme as shown in
Figure 4. Sediment collected from the river was initially sampled as
described in section 1.5.
The critical contaminant for the evaluation is PCBs. Operational
efficiency of the hydrocyclones, screens, hydrosicars, clarifiers, and other
unit operations will be evaluated by determining grain sice distributions and
density (specific gravity) of the particulates.
Steady-state operation is intended to be characterised. The
operation is expected to require an hour or less to reach steady state
following daily start-up. Accordingly, sampling will begin after notification
by the Bergmann USA operator. The steady-state operation will be sampled at
various points as shown in Figure 4. The sampling design calls for hourly
sampling at each numbered point. Four hourly samples are accumulated in equal
portions in compositing containers kept at each station. Laboratory analyses
are to be conducted on morning composites and afternoon composites in
accordance with the schedule shown on Table 2. Contents of the containers
will be in the form of various solids slurry strengths (Table 3 and Appendix
A) . To assure genuine aliquot apportioning into the assorted parameter
containers, the various slurries in the station composite containers will be
mixed with a stainless steel spoon as the contents are withdrawn or poured
off.
The operation schematic and sampling points are shown in Figure 4.
Unprocessed stored mechanically dredged sediment (Station 20) is conveyed to a
•lurrying screening apparatus labeled Trommel. The proceeded material is
screened of particles >6 mm (Station 18) and is in the form of a 15% slurry
(Station 1). The slurry is fed in to the no. 1 Separator (hydrocy clone)
resulting in high solids content coarse-material coming out of the underflow
(Station 2). The fines associate with the overflow (Station 8) in a low
(approximately 2%) solids slurry. This slurry is further treated by flow
through a rotating screen which screens out low density large sice (X).5 mm)
organic particles. These are scraped and dewatered in the SPLIT DECK. The
semi-dry product is produced and available for sampling at Station 13.
The other half of the SPLIT DECK receives coarse material (Station
6) from the no. 3 separator underflow. Following dewatering, the semi-dry
clean sandy material is produced at Station 14. This product is the final
product consisting of beneficiated dredged material. Upstream in the overall
process, the separator no. 1 underflow (coarse) feeds the Hydrosicer also
-------
(MEM OLNTO -
SAOINAW - NEV. 1.3
22 Novmnter 1M1
Table 2
SAGINAW DEMO ANALYSES
SAMPLE/PARAMETER
SEDIMENT
% TOC
Density
Grain Sice, Coarse
Srain Sice, Fine
Metals (Cr, Cd, Cu,
As, Pb, Zn, Hg)
PCBs
Physical
Description
WATER
PCBs
SS
1
X
X
X
2
3
4
5
6
7
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STATION NUMBER (SEE Figure 4)
8
9
10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
12
13
14
15
16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
17
X
X
18
X
19
X
X
20
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
21
x
X
X
X
X
X
22
23
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SAMPLING STRATEGY
1. Sample each point each hour. Collect material in its own designated/ labeled compositing container.
2. Each day each point is to produce an AN and a PM composite of 4 hourly samples. Ten days of operation
would produce 20 composites at each station.
3. All metals are to be archived, except Day 5 and Day 10 PM samples.
4. All fine Grain Sice samples are to have an aliquot archived in order to do a subsieve analysis at a
later time.
-------
t»EPA OLNPO • OAF?
SAOINAW - REV. iTs
22 November 1M1
Table 3
SAMPLE BOTTLE REQUIREMENTS
SAGINAW BAY HYDROCYCLONE DEMO
TOC/Deneitv
Grain Size
2% Solids
4-10% Solid*
15% Solids
20-30% Solids
60% Solids
75-80% Solids
No. Samples
((No. sta x 20 days)+QC)
21 x 20 + 21 - 441
3 x 20 + 3 QC - 63
2 x 20 + 2 QC - 42
1 x 20 + 1 QC - 21
5 x 20 + 5 QC - 105
1 x 20 + 1 QC - 21
6 x 20 + 6 QC - 126
Sample Volume , mi
100
5,000
2,500
1,500
1,000
500
250
Battelle Analyses
PCBs
Sediment
HP
Metals
Sediment
SS
H,0
4 x 20 + 4 QC - 84
2 x 20 + 2 QC - 42
3 x 20 * 3 QC - 63
2 x 20 -f 2 QC « 42
100
1,000
100
500
Archived Grain Size
2% Solids
4-15% Solids
60% Solids
3 x 20 -f 3 QC • 63
3 x 20 + 2 QC - 42
1 x 20 + 1 QC • 21
2,500
2,500
250
-------
USEPA OLNPO - QAPJP
•AQINAW - REV. 1.3
22 MoMiitor 1M1
known as a density media separator (DMS). This process acts to separate the
low density large size organic particles entrained in the hydrocyclone coarse
fraction. The DMS overflow carrying light, large organics is added to the
Velmet Rotary Screen. This material ends up as a component of the Split Deck
discharge (Station 13).
The coarse material DMS (hydrosicer) underflow is passed to the
Attrition Scrubber which breaks up agglomerated large particles through the
action of impellers. It's purpose in this scheme is to break up sea shells
occluding possible significant amounts of sediment. A nonionic surfactant,
Union Carbide Triton X-100, is added the attrition scrubber to aid in
separation of the organic material. The light, large-size shell fragments
comprise a small portion of the coarse material in Separator no. 2 underflow.
Passage through the Derrick screen separates >0.4 mm shell fragments (Station
12). These add to the separated organic material at Station 13 via the Split
Deck.
The fine silt/clay portion accumulating in Sump 4 (Station 21) is
pumped to a clarifier tank after receiving a dose (<10 ppm) of aery1amide
based cationic and/or nonionic pglyelectrolyte flocculent (Percol 753 and 720
from Allied Colloids, Inc.). Clarifier sludge is available for sampling and
removal at Station 22. Station 23 is the outlet for clarifier water overflow.
The various unit operations are identified along with the sampling
Station numbers on page A3 labeled "SAGINAW BAY DEMONSTRATION UNIT OPERATIONS
SHEET" - The column numerical heading indicate Run numbers, Each run will have
its own combination of support operations engaged and not engaged. The
support unit operations that will be variously employed include DMS, Velco,
Derrick, and Clarifier. The Bergmann Project Manager will operate the system
initially with separators only. Then, in subsequent runs bring more of the
support operations on line. The combination of unit operations engaged will
be recorded by the Bergmann Project Manager making an "X" in the indicated
placed on the Unit Operations Data Sheet.
l.t Schedule
The schedule for the project is as follows:
15 September 1991 Begin preparation of dredged sediment
receiving site on CDF
03-07 October 1991 Dredge sediment and transfer to CDF
17 October 1991 Mobilize Bergmann equipment
25 October 1991 Initiate processing
06 November 1991 Complete processing
07 November 1991 Demobilize
-------
U*EPA OLNPO -
•AOINAW • REV. l'3
22 Novwnter 1M1
The above schedule is optimistic in that no down tine for
operational problems or inclement weather conditions are included. This
schedule also assumes 7 days per week operations.
10
-------
Uf EPA OLNPO - QAPJP
•AOINAW • REV. 1.3
22 NovmnbM 1M1
2.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES
A chart showing the project organisation and its lines of authority
is presented in Figure 5 and a list of points of contact and their addresses
is presented in Figure 6. Six key organizations are involved in this project:
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (DSEPA) Great Lakes National Program
Office (GLNPO)i the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), Detroit District;
the USBPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas (EMSL-LV);
the Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory; Thermal Analytical/ERG of Ann Arbor;
and Bergmann USA, the contractor for the treatment process. GLNPO has
ultimate responsibility for the completion of the project and for the quality
of the data collected. Mr. Steve Garbaciak, Environmental Engineer, will
serve as the GLNPO Technical Project Manager, will provide guidance in
executing the project, and will coordinate activities of the Detroit District,
Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, and the USEPA Quality Assurance Manager
for the ARCS Program, Dr. Brian Schumacher. The ARCS ETWG will provide
technical review of the project objectives and experimental design, and will
approve conclusions and recommendations developed as a result of the project.
Project Manager for operations is Dr. Jim Galloway. Mr. Frank Snitz
is responsible for development of the sampling/analyses plan and for
implementation via contracted field sampling and laboratory services. Mr.
Daniel Averett, USAGE, Waterways Experiment Station (WES), will provide
technical support to the Detroit District in field sampling activities and
implementation of this QAPjP. Bergmann project manager is Mr. Scott O'Brien,
who is responsible for collection and recording of all operational data for
the project. Laboratory analytical work for PCBs and heavy metals will be
performed by Battelle under the direction of Ms. Linda Bingler. Battelle QA
officer is Mr. Robert Cuello who will report all Battelle QA activities to Dr.
Schumacher. Laboratory analyses for grain size, total organic carbon, and
total solids density will be performed by Thermal Analytical/ERG of Ann Arbor,
MI. Project Manager for TMA/ERC for field services is Mr. Kirk Campbell. Mr.
Mike Dew is the TMA/ERC laboratory manager.
11
-------
UtEPA QUITO • OAPJP
•AOINAW - REV. 1.3
22 NovMitor 1M1
3.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE OBJECTIVES
3.1 Precision. Accuracy Completeness. and Method Detection
limits
Internal Quality control and data validation are an integral part of
any laboratory procedural analysis. Programs oust establish technically sound
methods for determining method validation, precision, accuracy, completeness,
comparability, and be representative of the data collected. Routine
procedures to be used to measure precision and accuracy include:
• Replicate analysis
• Certified reference materials (c. /? ft)
• Matrix spikes
• Surrogate spikes
Procedural blanks
• On-going calibration check standards
Discussion of data quality objectives (DQOs) for the ARCS program
requires consideration of the six different types of analysis being performed:
1) 7 metals in sediment, 2) PCBs in water and sediment, 3) carbon compounds in
sediments (TOC), 4) solids concentrations in water, 5) grain sice
distributions, and 6) solids densities. Each will be discussed separately in
terms of precision, accuracy and data acceptability. Method (instrument)
detection limits achievable in the Battelle Laboratory and ARCS required
detection limits are listed in Tables 4 and 5. Actual detection limits may be
somewhat higher in samples where large amounts of interfering compounds are
present. Balding times trill b» •peci/ietf in Battelle '* QA plan.
12
-------
UttPA OLNPO • OAPJP
•AOINAW-KEV. 1.3
22 NovcmlMf 1M1
Table 4 - Analysis of Soil or Sediment Sample*
Analysis
PCBS
(total Aroclors)
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Total' Organic1
Carbon
D«n«ityllJ
Grain Sir*'"3
ARCS
Required
Detection
Limit
ua/a
0.02
0.1
2
2
0.1
2
2
2
300
0.1 g/cc .
N/A
Method
NOAA 1985
HSL-M-33
PKL-SP-19B
PNL-SP-19B
MSL-M-11
PNL-SP-19B
PNL-SP-19B
PNL-SP-19B
EPA 9060
Plumb,
1981
&STM-D422
Instrument
Detection
Limit
JJQjO
0.02
0.1
1
1
0.02
2
1
2
0.10%'
(1000 yg/g)
N/A
N/A
Volume
Required
m£
100
50
See
Table 2
and
Appendix A
See
Appendix A
Container
4 or
glass
Spex Jar
plastic
REFERENCES
MOAA 1985
PHL-SP-19B
NSL-M-11
NSL-M-33
EPA 9060.
TOC
ASTM-D422
NOAA 1985, National Oceanic and Atawspheric Admniatration. National Statue and Trends
Program, Standard Analytical Procedures.
• PCBs: GC/ECO using capillary coli
Energy Dispersive X*Ray Fluorescence Spectraaetry
Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption.
Graphite Furnace Atoaiic Adsorption, adapted fro* EPA Method 200.9.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste: Physical/Chenfcal Methods. SV-846. U.S. Document No. 955-001-00000,
U.S.E.P.A., Washington, D.C.
American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM). 1972. Standard Method for Particle-Size
Analysis of Soil 0-422. ASTM, Philadelphia. Pennsylvania.
'Analysis by TNA/ERG
>luab, t. N., Jr. 1981. "Procedure for Handling and Chanical Analysis of Sedfa*nt and Water Saaples,"
Technical Report EPA/CE-81-1, prepared by Great Lakes Laboratory, State University College at Buffalo,
Buffalo, N. T., for the U. S. Environments! Protection Agency/Corps of Engineers Technical CoMittee on
Criteria for Dredged and Fill Material. Published by the U. S. Amy Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, CE. Vicksburg, Miss.
*Fine Grain-Sieves: 100. 140, 200. 270, 400 Coarse Grain-Sieves: 30, SO. 100, 140. 200, 270, 400
13
-------
UftEPA OLNPO . QAPJP
•AOINAW - NEV. ITS
22 Novunbm 1M1
Table 5 - Analysis of Hater Samples
Analysis
PCBs
(total Aroclors)
Total Suspended
Solids
ARCS
R*quir*d
O*t«ction
Limit
•a /I
0.01
1000
Method
NOAA 1985
EPA 160.2
Batt«ll«
Znctrumcnt
Detection
Limit
ma /I
0.01
1000
Volume
Required
ml
800
200
Container
600 ml
glaiB
500 ml
plastic
REFERENCES
EPA 160.2
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1983. Method* for Cheaical AnalyiU of Water
and Uastes, EPA-600/4-79-020, March, 1983.
14
-------
UtEPA OLNPO -
SAQINAW • REV. 1.3
22 November 1M1
3.1.1 Metals in Sedimenti
Precision will be determined based on analysis of laboratory
triplicates analyzed at the rate of 1 per 20 camples. The acceptable
coefficient of variation is <20%. Accuracy will be determined by analysis of
certified reference materials at the rate of 1 per 20 samples. Acceptable
results must agree within + 20% of the certified value. Samples for matrix
•pikes and matrix spike duplicates will be run at a rate of 1 per 20 samples.
Analyses of these samples should demonstrate spike recovery within ±15% of the
known spike concentration. Relative percent difference tor Matrix «pi*e
duplicates mhould b* < 20%. Method blanks will be prepared at a rate of 1 per
20. These blanks run at beginning, middle, and end of each analytical run for
the given parameter. Results should be less than the detection limits mbotm
in TaUe 4.
3-. 1.2 PCBt in Water and Sediment*i
Additional information for detection limits of PCBs is provided in
Tables 4 and 5. Precision will be determined based on analysis of laboratory
triplicates determined at the rat* of 1 set per 20 samples. The acceptable
coefficient of variation is < 20%. CRMs will be run at a rate of 1 per 20
samples and must be within + 20% of the certified value. For analytes that do
not have CRMs available, accuracy will be determined based on surrogate and
matrix spike recoveries. Samples for matrix spikes and matrix spike
duplicates will be run at a rate of 1 set of duplicates per 20 samples.
Minimum acceptable matrix spike recovery is 70% to 130%. Xelative percent
difference for matrix mpHc* duplicates mhould b» <20\. Surrogate spike
recovery must be within 70 to 130%. (Surrogates used are specified in the
SOPs.) Method blanks will be prepared at a rate of 1 per 20 samples. These
will be run at beginning, middle, and end of each analytical run for the given
parameter. Method blanks should be less than detection limits mhown in Table*
4 mod 5.
3.1.3 _
Precision for TOG will be determined based on analysis of laboratory
triplicates analysed at the rate of 1 set of triplicates per 20 samples. The
acceptable coefficient of variation is < 20%. Accuracy will be determined
based on CRMs (TOG) analyzed at the rate of 1 per 20 samples. The
concentration of TOC in CRMa must be within ± 20% of the known concentration
value. Method blanks will be run at beginning, middle, and end of each
analytical run and should be less than detection limits presented in Tmblm 4.
15
-------
USEPAOLNK
•AOINAW . REV. 1.3
99 SBA^MM^^k* 4 •)• 4
•* vev^vfiMr iwi
3.1.4 Impended Solids in Water.
Quality control for suspended solids analyses will be evaluated on
the basis of precision for triplicate analyses. Triplicates will be analyzed
at the rate of 1 per 20 samples. The acceptable coefficient of variation is <
20%.
3.1.5 Brain iiie Analysis
Quality control for grain size analysis will be determined on the
basis of laboratory triplicates (including all sieve sizes) analyzed at the
rate of 1 set per 20 samples. Standard deviations shall be computed for each
sieve size and an average standard deviation determined for the sample. The
acceptable relative percent standard deviation is < 20 percent averaged over
all sieve sizes.
3.1.C Field Replicates
Field duplicates of sediments will be collected and analyzed for
TOG, grain size and PCBs at the rate of 1 set of duplicates for every set of
20 collected. The goal for precision among these replicates is < 30%
expressed as a relative percent difference.
3.2 Representativeness. Comparability, and Completeness
Representativeness and comparability are qualitative criteria and
completeness is a quantitative criterion that must be considered during the
project planning stages and during data assessment. Representativeness is a
key concern during field sampling activities. However, the chemical analysis
plan should also be designed so that the objectives for these criteria will be
accomplished.
Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data
accurately represent the site, specific matrices or parameter variations at a
sampling point. Representativeness is a qualitative parameter which is
dependent on both the proper design of the sampling program and proper
laboratory methods. The representativeness criterion is best satisfied by
making certain that sampling locations, procedures, and quantities are
selected based on the project objectives, and that proper analytical
procedures are utilized, preservation requirements are met and holding times
are not exceeded in the laboratory. To improve representativeness, samples
will be composited over time, four subsamples per half day composite.
16
-------
USEPA OLNPO - OAPJP
•AOINAW - NEV. t's
22 Nowntor 1M1
Comparability expresses the confidence with which on* data set can
be compared with another. Sample data will be comparable with other
measurement data if consistent documented analytical procedures are used for
similar samples and sampling methods and conditions. Comparability is defined
as similarity of chemical results from different batches of samples or
different days of operation. The analyses of certified reference materials is
used to provide data on comparability. The data obtained in this program will
be comparable because all the methods are taken from proven protocols, and all
the analyses of a single type will be conducted at the same laboratory.
Reporting units for each analysis are consistent with standard reporting units
for the ARCS Program.
Completeness is defined as the percentage of measurements or amount
of data required in order to make a decision concerning a site. The
completeness goal is essentially the same for all data uses: that all data
necessary for a valid study be generated. Completeness will be measured for
each set of data received by dividing the number of valid (passing QA/QC
requirements) measurements actually obtained by the number of measurements
made. Completeness has been set at 90%.
•
3.3 Method P«t«ctj"" IfJMJtff
The method detection limits achievable by the analytical
laboratories were presented in Tables 4 and S. Based on the analytical
methods appropriate for the analyses and the amount of samples specified in
the methods, the required detection limits listed in Tables 4 and 5 should be
achievable. Generally practical detection limits are defined as 3 times the
standard deviation of IS blanka or standards with a concentration within a
factor of 10 of the limit of detection. Detection limits should be determined
prior to any routine sample analysis.
17
-------
USEM OLNPO • OAPJP
•AOINAW • ttV. 1.3
22 NovmitM 1M1
4.0 SXTB SELECTION AND SAXPLXMO PROCEDURES
4.1 Contaminated Bedi>ent 8a»ple for T
The contaminated sediments for this pilot seal* demonstration CUM
from the Saginaw River location shown on Figure 2. Refer to Section 1.5 for
additional information regarding cample collection.
4.2 Sampling the Treatment Processes
Sample points selected for evaluation of the various steps in the
remediation process are illustrated on Figure 4. Host streams are a mixture
of sediment and water. Grab samples will be collected for analysis. Sediment
samples from the stored unprocessed material will be collected using a scoop
or a core sampler. Solid samples collected for the various process steps will
be retrieved using a scoop or dipper. Liquid or slurry samples will be
collected from valved drains or bins. Samples for the composite will be mixed
in clean wide mouth containers appropriate for the analysis.
4.3 Sample Containers and Preservation Techniques
All samples for analysis of PCBs will be collected in precleaned
glass containers. Samples for analysis of metals, solids, TOC, and grain size
in sediment or soil samples will be collected in plastic containers. The
separate containers required for each analysis are indicated in Tables 3, 4
and 5. All samples for PCB, metals, suspended solids, and TOC analysis will
be placed on ice immediately after collection, and will be maintained at
approximately 4*C until analysed. Samples will be shipped by TMA/ERG to
Battelle twice weekly by overnight air mail.
4.4 Sampling procedures
Sampling procedures and frequency of collection are described in
Table 2. Total number of samples to be collected are shown in Table 2.
Instructions for filling, labeling, handling, packing, and shipping samples
have been provided by Battelle (see Appendix C).
18
-------
USEPA OLNPO - OAF?
•AOINAW-MEV. 1.3
22
5.0 WIMPLE CUSTODY PROCEDURES
Samples collected for evaluation of the pilot project will be
maintained under chain of custody to document that the integrity of the
samples was maintained during storage and transport. A Chain of Custody
Record similar to that shown in Figure 7 will be completed for each cooler
•hipped to Battelle. The samples collected during the field evaluation will
be labeled clearly. The labels will document the sample I.D., time and date
of collection, and the location from where the sample was taken. The sample
ID will be placed on the label adjacent to the "sponsor no." The sample ID
will be written in the following format:
CO XXX XXX O XX
Day of Month Sample Type
Month Point Run (1,2,3...) Sample
where: Sample point « No. on Figure 4
Type sample * M for metals
P for PCBs
G for grain size
S for solids
Detroit District contract personnel with TMA/ERG will pack and ship
the field samples twice/weekly. Samples will be shipped by overnight delivery
service to the Battelle Laboratory in coolers containing blue ice. Samples
will be initially cooled with regular ice prior to being packed in coolers
with blue ice. Samples should be protected from freezing prior to arriving at
the laboratory. The Chain of Custody Record will be completed for each cooler
shipped to the laboratory. Custody records will be filled out using permanent
water insoluble ink. Sample descriptions on the custody record will agree
exactly with the identifications on the samples. The original for the custody
record will be placed in a water-tight plastic bag and taped to the inside of
the cooler lid. The field crew will retain a copy of the custody form and
receipts for shipping the samples. Bubble packing material or styrofoam
packing material will be used to carefully wrap and protect all glass
containers during shipment.
Because TMA/ERG is located about 2 hours driving time from the
demonstration site, a TMA/ERG truck and driver will make a round trip twice
weekly to collect the accumulated samples. TMA/ERG will ship PCB and metals
samples for sediment and PCB and suspended solids samples for water to
Battelle from Ann Arbor. TMA/ERG will keep the sediment and water samples for
PCB, metals, TOC, and suspended solids cooled at 4*C prior to and during
shipment .
19
-------
UKPA OLNFO • OAFJP
•AOINAW.NEV. 1.3
TMA/ERG Co. sample custodian for the samples collected on site is
Mr. Kirk Campbell. Alternate custodian on sit* is Mr. Paul Baxter. Sample
Custodian at the TMA/ERG Laboratory is Ms. Chris Pardo. Ms. Linda Bingler
will act as sample custodian at Battelle and is authorised to sign for
incoming field samples, obtain documents of shipment (e.g., bill of lading
number or mail'receipt), and verify the data onto the sample custody records.
Dr. Erie Crecelius will act as the alternate custodian in the absence of Ms.
Bingler. Upon receipt of samples at Battelle, the samples will be logged in,
and immediately placed in a secured, continuous temperature-monitored walk-in
refrigerator maintained at a temperature of 4 degrees C. Inter-laboratory
custody procedures are described in Battelle's QAPjP for the ARCS Program.
20
-------
UCEPA OLNPO - QAPJP
•AOINAW - MEV. 1.3
22 Novcmtor 1*91
«.0 CALIBRATION PROCEDURES AND FREQUENCY
Laboratory instruments used for measurements of chemical parameters
are calibrated and standardized according to SOPs. Instrument calibration
will include a 3-point calibration curve with r1 of > 0.97 for acceptance,
where appropriate.. On-going calibration check standards are to be run at the
beginning, middle, and end of each analytical run with mid-calibration range
concentrations and acceptance criteria of + 10 percent of the known
concentration. Calibration will be performed prior to sample analysis.
Calibration data are recorded in the project files. When obtainable, standard
reference materials such as HIST certified reference materials will be
analyzed. When no HIST CRM is available, other reference materials such as
National Canadian Research Council CRMs will be used.
Records of calibrations, regular performance checks, and service for
each device are maintained in bound log notebooks in such a manner that the
history of performance of the instruments may be easily reviewed. Analytical
reagents are labeled and dated when received, and are protected from
deterioration.
Bergmann will be responsible for calibrating all equipment for
measuring process rates and performance of the processing system.
21
-------
IMEPA OINFO . OAFT
•AOINAW - REV. V3
22 NewwnbM 1M1
7.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES AND CALIBRATION
Analytical procedure* to be used by Battelle are presented in Tables
3 and 4. These methods have been previously accepted for analyses of samples
produced by the ARCS program. The required calibration for all analyses are
specified in the analytical procedures and will be followed. Section 9.0
discusses internal and external quality control checks. QAPjP prepared by
Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory is provided as an Appendix to this report.
22
-------
UKPA OLNPO -
•AOINAW - REV. 1.3
22 Nommter 1M1
t.O DATA REDUCTION, VALIDATION AND REPORTING
Data will be reduced by the procedures specified in the methods and
reported by the laboratory in the unit* also specified in the methods. The
USACK Project Manager or Project Engineer will review the results and compare
the QC results with data quality objectives defined in Section 3.
All data will be reviewed to ensure that the correct codes and units
have been included. All PCBs and metals data for solids or sediments will be
reported as pg/g on a dry weight basis. TOC and grain sice fractions will be
reported as percent. PCB concentrations in water will be reported as pg/1.
Suspended solids in water will be reported as mg/4. Density will be reported
as g/cc.
Laboratory data will be reduced and placed in tables or arrays and
appropriate statistical techniques will be used to evaluate significant
differences between treatment runs, between replicate samples, and between
quality control known values vs. laboratory values. Final data will also be
submitted in computer-readable format on disk as well as hardcopy. At least
two technical reviewers, one from the DSEPA and one from the USAGE, will
review the results of the data reduction process and validate its
acceptability.
23
-------
UUPA OLNPO • OAPJP
•AOINAW • NEV. i:3
22 Movmnb* 1M1
f.O XNXERKAL QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS
Whan available, all methods will incorporate analysis of certified
reference materials and include epike additions of known amounts of material
of interest to the samples. These procedures are used to determine the
accuracy of the methods. Analytical triplicate analyses will be conducted at
a frequency of 1 per 20 samples analysed. For procedures involving chemical
determinations, at least one procedural blank will be analyzed for every 20
samples. Results for metals will be blank corrected and the blank correction
will be reported. Organic chemical results will not be corrected for any
contribution attributed to the procedural blanks or recoveries. Recoveries of
certified materials should be within + 20 percent of the certified value for
metals and within + 20 percent for organics. Recoveries of matrix spikes
should be within 85 to 115 percent for metals and 70 to 130 percent for
organics. Recoveries of surrogate spike in organic samples must be within 70
to 130 percent.
24
-------
USEPA OLNPO -
•AOINAW - REV. 1.3
22 November 1M1
10.0 PERFORMANCE AND ITSTEN AUDITS
10.1 Internal Audits
Internal performance audita for the laboratory work will be
conducted to insure that the analysts have the proper training, that
appropriate work plans and procedures are being followed, and that the study
is on schedule. These audits should be frequent enough to ensure the
integrity and completeness of the work being conducted. At least one internal
audit shall be documented during work on the Saginaw River project. Internal
audit of the Battalia work will be performed by Ms. Linda Bingler. Internal
audit of the work at TMA/ERG will be conducted by Mr. Mike Dew.
10.2 lYKteai Audit
Systems audits are conducted to determine an overall evaluation of
the project. At the conclusion of the study, Mr. Rob Cuello, Battalia QA
Officer, will conduct a systems audit to evaluate data produced by Battalia
Laboratory and verify the validity and integrity of the data. This review
will focus on the raw data package to be furnished to the Detroit District.
Laboratory analyaes and sample custody forms will be reviewed for completeness
and accuracy. Results of the audit will be archived in the project files.
Mr. Frank Snitr will be responsible for audit of the field data and for
insuring the completeness and accuracy of data collected by the USAGE, as well
as analyses by TMA/ERC. Results of the audit will be recorded in project
files.
10.3 External Audit
At least one external systems audit will be performed by the ARCS
Quality Aasurance Officer for GLNPO.
25
-------
UKPA OLNPO . QAPJP
•AOINAW • MEV. V3
22 NovMriMt 1M1
11.0 PREVENTIVE KAXNTKKANCK
Equipment maintenance records will be kept on file for all
analytical •quipo»nt u**d for laboratory chemical analyses. Th« maint«nanc«
procedures for all equipment used during the course of the study will be
conducted as recommended in the operations manuals for the equipment.
Instrument performance for equipment used in the field will be checked before
and after taking to the field.
26
-------
UKPA OLNFO • OAF?
•AOINAW - REV. 1.3
22 NoMinlMr 1t81
12.0 CALCULATIOK OP DATA QUALITY INDICATORS
Data quality indicators used for this project are precision,
accuracy, and completeness. Precision for duplicate analyses will be
calculated as a relative percent difference, and for three or store analyses as
• relative standard deviation or coefficient of variation. Accuracy for
measurement a where matrix spikes are used or certified reference materials are
analyzed will be calculated as a percent recovery. Completeness is defined as
the total number of valid (passing QA/QC requirements) obtained measurements
divided by the total number of measurements made.
27
-------
U8EPA OLNfO .
•AOINAW • REV. 1.3
22 Nev*mUr 1M1
13.0 OORRXCTZVK ACTION
At the earliest indication that a system in the laboratory or in the
field is not in compliance, th« analyst will immediately notify the laboratory
project manager or the field project engineer and take step* to effectively
implement corrective action. Corrective action may also be required a* a
result of systems audits described in the previous section. The problem of
noncompliance with the QA plan and corrective action taken will be documented
in the laboratory or field record book. Once corrective action has been
taken, analyses of questionable validity will be re-calculated or re-analyted
provided that the sample integrity has not been compromised. Where archived
samples are available, they may be used for repeated analyses.
The laboratory QA officer will be notified of any corrective actions
immediately, as well as the project manager or field engineer. Any problems
and subsequent corrective actions will be documented by the laboratory QA
officer and reported to the ARCS QA officer.
28
-------
IMEPA OLNPO - QAPT
•AOINAW • REV. 1.3
22 November 1M1
14.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT
Quality Assurance (QA) reports will be initiated at the request of
the GLNPO QA Officer or when a situation arises that requires corrective
action. The report will include a description of the variance, discrepancy or
problem, the required corrective action, the criteria for meeting site quality
control goals, and a schedule for completing the corrective action.
Laboratory QA reports will be thm responsibility of the Battelle QA
Officer. Field reports will be the responsibility of the DSACB Project
Manager. A laboratory and a field QA report will be written upon completion
of the study. Reports will include copies of chain of custody forms,
analytical data, results of the validation effort, corrective actions taken,
and systems audits.
29
-------
IMEPA OLNPO • QAPT
•AOINAW - KV. 1.3
22 NovMftw 1M1
15.0 . REFERENCES
Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, 1990. "Quality Assurance Project Plan
for Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Assistance,"
Seguim, WA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986. "Teat Methods for Evaluating
Solid Waste, • SW-846, Third Edition, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983. "Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes," EPA 600/4-79/-020, Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
American Public Health Association, 1989. "Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater," 17th Edition, Washington, DC.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1985. "National
Status and Trends Program, Standard Analytical Procedures of the NOAA National
Analytical Facility," U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA National Marine
Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA.
30
-------
WISCONSIN '
MILWAUKEE
VICINITY MAP
SCALE
ao o ao eo MI
Figure 1. Vicinity Map for Saginaw River/Bay
-------
ff'ttPZ" '^^--Ji---' •?•
'r^^^-2*^-"' '.- •• t
f'-i.^"*-*^ -• •. ... •" „. ••• -j
"""'-.r.*-— •" ••> '" „. "• '«
;;; -nr-c^^^ ;-, ,,; -'^
".-—^t*° »« "^—-#*-.«'-•*
CARROLLTON
TURNING BASIN
B ANGOR
^
Limit of
Fedenl Improvenn
ff a r«i>M/_
LV.-IV--
PROJECT DEPTH
22 FT.
DIKED DISPOSAL!
Stt Intel Mop "I
CHAMliEX
ISLAND
PROJECT DEPTH 27FT/
^O
T>
PROJECT DEPTH 2S FT.
Figure 2. Dredging Location for Demonstration Sediment Collection
-------
N
SAGINAW BAY
I DOLPHIN PILES
PUMPOUT PLATFORM
CONFINED DISPOSAL AREA
DREDGE DISPOSALAREA
400 CU YDS OF MATERIAL
iNSlDEAREA
L 300 CU YDS SAND BYPRODUCT
', ^>RAGE AREA CAPACITY
/
ABANDONED PIPELINE, BURIED
B!NEAT>H AN EARTH DIKE
ENCLOSURE AND USED TO
DRAIN RUN-OFF FROM DRAIN
TILES UNDER TANKS
DREDGE PIPELINE
\
Figure
3. Layout for Demonstration at Saginaw CDF
-------
DREDGED
MATERIAL
FEED
(V) TO SUMP 1 -*—
TO SUMP 4
OAN.CS >0.5mm
30QPMHP
(4 J Into feed bi&x
Ctarlfter Located on ^- ToCDF
BermofCDF
Rgure 4. Saglnaw Bay Demonstration - Process Row Sheet and Sampling Points
-------
ARCS
ETWG CHAIRMAN
Steve Yakslch
1
USACEWES
TECHNICAL ADVISOR
Daniel Averett
USEPA GLNPO
ARCS PROGRAM
MANAGER
Dave Cowglll
USEPA GLNPO
TECHNICAL
PROJECT MANAGER
Steve Garbaclak
USACE DETROIT
PROJECT MANAGER
Jim Galloway/
Frank Snitz
BERGMANN USA
PROJECT MANAGER
Scott O'Brien
USEPA EMSL-LV
ARCS QA OFFICER
Brian Schumacher
1
BATTELLE MARINE
SCIENCES LABORATORY
PROJECT MANAGER
Linda Blngler
BATTELLE MARINE
SCIENCES LABORATORY
QA OFFICER
Robert Cucllo
THERMAL ANALYTICAL/
EfG
FIELD/LAB MANAGERS
Kirk Campbell/Mike Dew
Rgure 5. Project Organizational Structure
-------
flame /Title
Dave Cowgill
ARCS
Program Manager
Steve Garbaciak
Technical
Project Manager
Brian Schumacher
ARCS
QA Officer
Steve Yaksich
ARCS
ETWG Chairman
Jim Galloway
Frank Snitz
USACE
Project Manager
Linda Bingler
Battelle
Project Manager
Robert Cuello
Battelle
QA Officer
Scott O'Brien
Bergmann USA
Project Manager
Mike Dew
Thermal
Analytical/ERG
Lab Manager
Daniel Averett
USACE WES
Technical
Advisor
Address
USEPA GLNPO (5GL)
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
USEPA GLNPO
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
USEPA ORD EMSL-LV
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
U.S. Army Engineer District
Buffalo District (CENCB-ED-HQ)
1776 Niagra Street
Buffalo, NY 14207-3199
U.S. Army Engineer District
Detroit District (CENCE-PD-EA)
477 Michigan Avenue
Detroit, MI 48226-2550
Battelle
Pacific Northwest Division
iarine Sciences Laboratory
439 Vest Sequim Bay Road
Sequim, VA 98382
Battelle
Pacific Northwest Division
Iarine Sciences Laboratory
439 Vest Sequim Bay Road
Sequim, VA 98382
•ergmann USA
Stafford Springs, CT
Thermal Analytical/ERG
25 Avis Drive, Suite 7
(am Arbor, MI 48108
USAEVES
&TTN: CEVES-EE-S
909 Halls Ferry Road
icksburg, MS 39180-6199
Tel. No.
(312)353-3576
(FTS)353-3576
(312)353-0117
(FTS)353-0117
(702)798-2242
(FTS) 545 -2242
(716)879-4272
(FTS)292-4272
(313)226-6760 G
(FTS)226-6760 G
(313)226-6748 S
(FTS)226-6748 S
(206)681-3626
(206)683-4151
(203)684-6844
(313)662-3104
(601)634-3959
(FTS) 542 -3959
Fax No.
(312)353-2018
(FTS)353-2018
(312)353-2018
(FTS)353-2018
(702)798-2454
(FTS) 545- 2454
(716)879-4426
(FTS)292-4426
(313)226-2056
(FTS) 22 6 -2056
(206)681-3699
(206)681-3699
(203)68*6*55
(313)662-3344
(601)634-3833
(FTS)542-3833
Figure 6. Points of Contact for Project Organization
-------
C-Baneiie
SAMPLE CUSTODY RECORD D.t.
Page
of.
Pacific Nonhwt*t Division
Marine Science* Laboratory
439 West Sequim Bay Road
Saquim, Washington 98382
1 •
Protect Name
Project Mane)
Lab No.
f»T PhoM
Sample No.
Collection
Date
Relinquished by.
Signature Date Time
Printed Name
Company
Relinquished by:
Signature Data Tim*
Printed Name
Company
Matrix
•
Tasting Parameters
Received by.
Signature Date Tune
Printed Name
Company
Received by:
Signature Data Time
Printed Neme
Company
No. of Containers i
• .H
AXXr...
Anantian ...,,
Observations. Instructions
Total No. of Containers .
Shipment Method:
Special Acquirements or Comments:
DISTRIBUTION:
1. Provide white and yellow copies to the
Laboratory
2. Return pink copy to Project fi'e or to
project manager.
3. Laboratory to return signed white copy to
Battelle for protect files
EC-1800-192 (02/91)
Figure 7. Chain of Custody Form
-------
IWEPA OLNFO . QAPJP
•AOINAW - REV. 1.3
22 NovMntMr 1M1
APPEHDIX A - SAMPLE AKALYSZS COLLECTIOK AND DATA SHEETB
(Sum attached t«bl«.)
Al
-------
IMCPA OLNTO - OAPJP
8AOINAW - REV. 1.3
22 Novrnnbw 1M1
SAOINAU RIVER NYDROCYCLONE OPCRATION SAMPLING LOO
Operation Start-up Data_
Tina
Seattle
Point
1
2
3
I
5
6
r
8
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Archive 1/2
' PCIa In sol
X toll*
(Mt)
20
75
20
75
20
75
2
2
2
10
75
Cruahcd sheila
Orflanics
80
75
20
30
90
"/>
60
4
15
"a°
Hourly
Sample Vol.
(liters)
0.50
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.50
0.50
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.50
0.50
....
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1
Clock Tine Log
2
3
4
- '
Parameter/container Voltme, liters
TOC, Density
Grain Site
1.0
0.25
1.0
0.25
1.0
0.25
• 5.0
• 5.0
* 5.0
2.0
0.25
0.1
0.1
0.25
0.25
1.0
1.0
Metals
0.1
0.1
0.1
PCBs
0.1
0.1
Physical description only
• 0.5
• 2.5
* 1.5
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.1
2.0*
0.1
0.8
Field ..
Duplicate
indicated voluw. ** Mark an X in this coluwi whenever a duplicate field sanple is taken.
Ids and water decanted 48 hr* after Mttling.
-------
IWEPA OINPO - GAP?
•AQINAW - REV. 1.3
Z2 November 1M1
SACINAW SAY DEMONSTRATION
UNIT OPERATIONS SHEET
Ste.
j£J
I Station
Description
Run Start Tie*
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
g
9
10
11
12
13
U
15
16
17
18
10
20
21
22
23
Separator f1 Feed
Separator ff1 U/F
Separator §2 Feed
Separator *2 U/F
Separator *3 Feed
Separator f3 U/F
Separator §3 0/F
Separator *1 0/F
Separator 92 0/F
DMS 0/F
DMS U/F
Derrick Overs
Velco Organic*
Velco Clean Sand
Attrition Discharge
Derrick Under*
Velco Undent
Tromnel Overa
Tronmel Feed H^3
Tronnel Feed
Clarifier Feed
Clarifier Sludge
Clarifier Water
Project Manager Initial
Run No. (Process Flow Schedule)
'
* Unit operations being employed during a given run Mill be checked by the operator. The Jergaanr project
avnager Mill initial and give date tiatt.
A3
-------
USEPA OLNPO • QAP|P
•AOINAW-MEy. 1.3
Appendix B
Field Procedures for Filling Sample
Containers and for Packing and
Shipping Ice Chests
Bl
-------
USEFA m-NTO • OAPJP
SAOINAW • NEV. 1.3
22 Nevwnbw 1M1
1.0 Quantity of Material
Pill each container a* •pacified under that analysis description
(below).
2.0 Labels
Each container has a label specifying the analyses to be done on
that particular sample. The labels are very specific. If the label says to
collect a sample for PCBs, the sample placed in that container should be set
up for those analyses. Bach jar is chosen and specially prepared for
particular types of analyses, i.e., a metals sample collected in a PCB
container will not be a valuable metals sample.
All containers have a piece of protective clear tape over the label,
or have waterproof labels. Permanent marking pen ink will remain on the clear
tape so write your information (sponsor no., date, time, extra notes) on the
label with a permanent marking pen only.
3.0 Sampling Precautions
Sediments
3.1 Metals Containers
The metals containers (spex jars) are acid-cleaned prior to the
shipment. Care should be taken to maintain the clean environment within the
jar. When the sample is ready to be put into the jar, remove the lid and hold
it in one hand while placing the sample in the jar with the other hand.
Carefully replace the lid, tighten securely and keep cold, but not frozen.
Fill the metals containers fspex larsl 3/4 of the wav full.
82
-------
USEPA OLNPO - QAPJP
•AOINAW • REV. 1.3
22 Novwi*w 1M1
3.2 Organic* Container*
The organic* container* are *olvant-rin**d; us* the cam* protocol a*
instructed for the metal* container*. Keep the *ample* cold, but not frozen.
The jar* will be sent wrapped in bubble-pak. Re-wrap each jar before chipping
to Battelle.
fill the organic* container* 3/4 of the w«v full.
3.3 F-CB Container* for Water
The PCB container* are 1 litre *olvent-rin*ed glass bottle*.
Battelle cent a backup for each organic* cample due to the likelihood of
breakage during chipping or campling. Fill each container and cap tightly.
Sample* ehould be kept cold, but not frozen.
fj.ll each organic container 3/4 of the wav full.
4.0 Chipping
• Keep all refrigerated cample* cold, but not frozen.
• Pack all camplec appropriately for a rough ride. All glace
bottle*, jar* and jug* *hould be wrapped in bubble pack and
cituated in each cooler for lea*t movement during •hipment.
Stand all container* upright.
• Poly, Teflon and cnap-cap container* do not have to be packed in
bubble pak. Make *ur* all lid* are tightly closed to prevent any
leakage. Snap-cap bottle* *hould be taped cloced, but cince the
tape ic not transparent, do not tape the labelc. Stand all
bottle* and jar* in an upright position. If leakage occur*
during chipping, come cample* may be loct due to incufficient
volume or croec-contamination.
* Chain-of-Cuctody suet be maintained for all camplec. Fill out
the chain-of-cuetody form* completely, keep the pink copy and
•end Battelle the white and yellow copies. Battelle will fill
.out the yellow copy and return it to USAGE.
B3
-------
UKPA W.NPO . OAF?
•AOINAW - REV. 1.3
22 NovMitor 1M1
• Do not chip any samples on Friday or before a holiday.
• Organic and metals sediment samples must torn k«pt cold, but not
froren. TOC, IS, tSS and organic water sample* must be kept
cold, but not frot«n. Pack each cooler with sufficient blue ice
to maintain approximately 4°C during shipping. MOTBi If you
pack water samples in glass containers right next to the blue ice
packs, they will freeze and break before they reach Battelle.
Place some sort of insulation between the jars or bottles and the
blue ice.
ttUSGPO 1994, 548-419
------- |