vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
540R04508
      Dredged Material
      Reclamation at the Jones Island
      Confined Disposal Facility

      Innovative Technology
      Evaluation Report
              SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
             TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION

-------
                                            EPA/540/R-04/508
                                               October 2003
  Dredged Material Reclamation at the
Jones Island Confined Disposal Facility
 Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
          National Risk Management Research Laboratory
              Office of Research and Development
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                  Cincinnati, Ohio 45268

-------
                                     Notice
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in partial fulfillment of Contract Nos. 68-C-00-179 (TO#7) and 68-C5-0036
(WA#2) with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). It has been subject to the
Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names, companies, or commercial products does not constitute an
endorsement or recommendation for use by either the U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency or
other organizations or individuals who have participated in the preparation of this information.
Links to Web sites outside the EPA Web site are for the convenience of the user. EPA does not
exercise any editorial control over the information found at these locations.

-------
                                     Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land,
air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the
ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program
is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a
science knowledge base  necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand  how
pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.

The National  Risk  Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL)  is  the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human
health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods for the
prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water
quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites and ground water; and prevention
and control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze development and
implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental technologies; develop scientific and
engineering information needed by EPA to support regulatory and policy decisions;  and provide
technical support and information transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies.

This publication had been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It
is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the  user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
                                            Sally Gutierrez, Acting Director
                                            National Risk Management Research Laboratory
                                          HI

-------
                                      Abstract
The Jones Island Confined Disposal Facility (JICDF) located in Milwaukee Harbor Wisconsin,
receives dredged materials from normal maintenance of Milwaukee's waterways, and has done so
for many years. Like many CDFs across the country, Jones Island faces the dilemma of steady inputs
and no feasible alternative for expansion. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) in partnership
with the Milwaukee Port Authority is exploring a large range of beneficial reuse options for the
dredged material, from building and road fill, to landscape material.

Aged dredged material at Jones Island is heterogeneous in composition because it comes from
waterway sources over a wide area over many years. Some dredged materials contain EPA listed
wastes  from  industrial discharge, spills, and  urban  run-off in  varying concentrations.  Natural
attenuation processes occur at differing rates due to random placement in the CDF and fluctuating
oxygen and moisture levels and weathering impacts.

The first step taken on this project toward determining appropriate end use of the stored material was
a detailed characterization across the CDF with samples taken at three  depths and analyzed for
PAHs, PCBs, DRO, and metals. The resultant map showed areas of high and low concentrations,
and pinpointed areas of opportunity for testing.  Concurrent treatability studies conducted by the
USAGE using crops and grasses determined that plants would survive in the material and degrade
the contaminants.  A corn hybrid had the highest degradation effect over the short test period.

Field plots were established on the CDF by excavating, mixing, and depositing soil in test cells. The
test plots closely follow established protocols for plot size, sampling, and statistical design. The field
demonstration involved four different treatment plots: hybrid corn, an indigenous willow, local grasses,
and an unplanted control. The EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program (SITE) and
USAGE evaluated the demonstration for a two-year period (2001-2002).  The effectiveness of the
various  plantings was monitored directly through soil sampling and indirectly with a variety of plant
assessments.

This Innovative Technology Evaluation Report presents the results from sampling, monitoring, and
modeling efforts to date.
                                           IV

-------
                                     Contents
 Notice	jj
 Foreword  	jjj
 Abstract  	 iv
 Tables	viii
 Figures	 ix
 Acronyms, Abbreviations and Symbols  	x
 Acknowledgments  	xii


 Section 1       Introduction	1
               1.1 Background	1
               1.2 Brief Description of SITE Program and Reports 	1
               1.3 The SITE Demonstration Program	3
               1.4 Purpose of the Innovative Technology Evaluation Report	3
               1.5 Technology Description	3
                  1.5.1 General Technology Description	3
                  1.5.2 Detailed Technology Description	4
               1.6 Jones Island/SITE Background	5
               1.7 Key Contacts	7

 Section 2       Technology Applications Analysis 	9
               2.1 Key Features	9
               2.2 Operability of the Technology 	9
               2.3 Applicable Wastes	10
               2.4 Availability and Transportability of the Equipment	10
               2.5 Materials Handling Requirements	10
               2.6 Site Support Requirements	11
               2.7 Range of Suitable Site Characteristics  	11
               2.8 Limitations of the Technology 	12
               2.9 Technology Performance versus ARARS	13
                  2.9.1  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
                        and Liability Act	13
                  2.9.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 	14
                  2.9.3 Clean Air Act 	14
                  2.9.4  Clean Water Act	15
                  2.9.5  Safe Drinking Water Act	15
                  2.9.6 Toxic Substances Control Act	16
                  2.9.7 Occupational Safety & Health Administration Requirements	16
                  2.9.8 State Requirements	17

Section 3      Economic Analysis	20
              3.1  Introduction	20
              3.2 Conclusions	20
              3.3 Issues and Assumptions  	20
                 3.3.1 Site Size and Characteristics	20
                 3.3.2 System Design and Performance Factors	25
                 3.3.3 System Operating Requirements	25
                 3.3.4 Financial Assumptions	 25
              3.4 Basis of Economic Analysis	25
                                          v

-------
                                Contents (Con't)
                  3.4.1  Purchased Equipment Costs	25
                  3.4.2  Direct Installation Costs	25
                  3.4.3  Indirect Costs	26
                  3.4.4  Direct Annual Operating Costs  	26
                  3.4.5  Indirect Annual Operating Costs 	26
               3.5 Summary of Economic Analysis  	26

Section 4   Treatment Effectiveness	28
               4.1 Background 	28
               4.2 Project Description	28
                  4.2.1  Physical Setting	28 
                  4.2.2  Site Characterization 	29
                  4.2.3  Treatment Options	29
                  4.2.4  Treatment Plots  	30
                  4.2.5  Planting 	30
                  4.2.6  Irrigation System  	32
                  4.2.7  Plot Maintenance	32
                  4.2.8  Monitoring   	32
               4.3 Project Objectives 	33 .
                  4.3.1  Primary Project Objective  	33
                  4.3.2  Secondary Project Objectives 	33
               4.4 Performance Data	34
                  4.4.1  Summary of Results - Primary Objective	34
                  4.4.2  Summary of Results - Secondary Objectives  	34
               4.5 Discussion	34
                  4.5.1  Primary Objective	34
                  4.5.2  Secondary Objective #1	36
                  4.5.3  Secondary Objective #2	37
                  4.5.4  QA Review of Critical Sampling and Analysis Data	38
               4.6 Other Issues Related to this Demonstration  	40
                  4.6.1  Establishing the Baseline Condition at the Site	40
                  4.6.2  General Observations  	41
                  4.6.3  Potential for Formation of Biogenic Hydrocarbons  	41

Section 5       Other Technology Requirements	44
               5.1 Environmental Regulation Requirements  	44
               5.2 Personnel Issues	44
               5.3 Community Acceptance	44

Section 6       Technology Status	45
               6.1 Previous Experience 	45
                  6.1.1  USAGE Dredging Operations and Environmental Research	45
                  6.1.2  Volatilization Study	45
                  6.1.3  Centerfor By-Product Utilization 	45
               6.2 Ongoing Studies  at Jones Island	46
               6.3 Scaling Capabilities	46
                                           VI

-------
                             Contents (Con't)
References Cited  	46

Appendix A  Tukey Test	 47
Appendix B  Plant Assessment Report	 50
Appendix C  Selected DRO Chromatograms	 91
                                     vii

-------
                                     Tables
2-1     Borrow Area and Baseline Levels of Agronomic Parameters   	12
2-2     Federal and State ARARs for the Phytoremediation System  	18
3-1     Cost Breakdown for Two-Year Treatment using Corn 	21
3-2     Cost Breakdown for Two-Year Treatment using Willow	23
4-1     PAH Treatment Results vs. NR 538 Category 1 Standards 	35
4-2     PAH Treatment Results vs. NR 538 Category 2 Standards 	36
4-3     PCB and DRO Treatment Results vs. Project Standards	36
4-4     Overall Accuracy Summary - Jones Island CDF Critical Sample Data	39
4-5     Overall Precision Summary - Jones Island CDF Critical Sample Data	40
4-6     Comparison between T=0,1 & 2 Analyte Data	42
                                        VIII

-------
                                      Figures
1-1    Location of Jones Island CDF	2
1-2    Layout of Treatment Plots at Jones Island CDF	6
1-3    Test Plot and Treatment Cell Configuration  	6
4-1    Jones Island CDF with Illustrated Test Plot and Borrow Area Locations 	31
                                        IX

-------
               Acronyms, Abbreviations and Symbols
ac          ac
AQMD       Air Quality Management District
ARAR       Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Regulation
C          Degree Centigrade
CAA        Clean Air Act
CERCLA    Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
CDF        Confined Disposal Facility
CERCLA    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Cleanup, and Liability Act
CFR        Code of Federal Regulations
cm          centimeter
CV          Coefficient of Variation
CWA        Clean Water Act
DOER       Dredging Operations and Environmental Research
DRO        Diesel Range Organic
EPA        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F          Degree Fahrenheit
ECD        Election Capture Detection
ERDC       Engineer Research and Development Center
FID         Flame lonization Detection
ft           foot
FY          Fiscal Year
g           gram
gal          gallon (US)
GC/MS      Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
ha          hectare
HASP       Health and Safety Plan
HAP        Hazardous Air Pollutant
HAZWOPER Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response
in           inch
ITER        Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
JICDF       Jones Island Confined Disposal Facility
kg          kilogram
km          kilometer
L or I        liter
LCS/LCSD   Laboratory Control Sample/Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate
LRD        Lower Reference Datum
m          meter
mg          milligram
mi          standard mile
mm         millimeter
MS/MSD    Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates
NAAQS      National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOAA       National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NCP        National Contingency Plan
NESHAP    National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

-------
          Acronyms, Abbreviations and Symbols(Cont'd)
NPDES      National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NPL         National Priority List
NPK         Nitrogen, Phosphorous, and Potassium
NRMRL      National Risk Management Research Laboratory
O&M         Operations & Maintenance
OSHA       Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OSWER      Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
ORD         Office of Research and Development
PAH         Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PCS         Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PPE         Personal Protective Equipment
ppm         part per million
PVC         Polyvinyl chloride
QA/QC       Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RCL         Residual  Cleanup Level
RCRA       Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RTDF        Remediation Technologies Demonstration Forum
s            second
SAIC         Science Applications International Corporation
SARA        Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SDWA       Safe Drinking Water Act
SIM          Selective Ion Monitoring
SITE         Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program
T=0          Baseline Sampling Event
T=1          Mid-Term Sampling Event
T=2          Final Sampling Event
TER         Technology Evaluation Report
TSCA        Toxic Substances Control Act
UCL         Upper Control Limit
ug           microgram
USAGE       U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
VOC         Volatile Organic Compound
WDNR       Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
                                    XI

-------
                             Acknowledgments
This report was developed by SAIC and ARCADIS under the direction of Steven Rock, the EPA
Technical Project Manager for this demonstration. Gratefully acknowledged are the participation and
contributions by the USACE technical and management team, including David Bowman and Richard
Price.  Their tireless efforts were instrumental in making this project a success.
                                         XII

-------
                                       SECTION 1
                                    INTRODUCTION
This section provides a discussion on the origin and need for remediation of contaminated dredged materials,
the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program, the purpose of this Innovative Technology
Evaluation  Report (ITER), phytoremediation technology, and  introductory information  concerning this
phytoremediation  SITE Project.  For additional information  about the  SITE Program visit  the  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) SITE Program web page at http://www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE/. For
information on this SITE project and the technology involved, key contacts are listed at the end of this section.

1.1     Background

In this SITE demonstration, phytoremediation technologies were applied to contaminated dredged materials
from the Jones Island Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) located in Milwaukee Harbor, Wisconsin (Figure 1 -1).
The Jones Island CDF is an active facility, having received dredged materials from normal maintenance of
Milwaukee's waterways and tributaries for many years. Like many CDFs across the country, Jones Island
faces the dilemma of steady inputs yet with no feasible alternative for expansion. One of the more attractive
options for optimizing existing CDF space is to 'beneficially reuse' the dredged sediments, which effectively
allows  for a recycling of the sediments and the available CDF space. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE), in partnership with the Milwaukee Port Authority, is exploring several beneficial reuse options for
the dredged material, including use as building materials, road fill, landscaping soil, and other uses.  However,
direct beneficial reuse is not possible because a  significant portion of the dredged material is considered
contaminated and must be cleaned before it can be reused.

Dredged material at Jones Island is similar to many other CDFs in that the soil, pore water, and  entrained
contaminants are often very heterogeneous. They arise from airborne and waterway sources draining large
industrialized  areas over a period of many years.  Dredged materials often contain USEPA listed wastes
generated from airborne and regulated industrial  discharges, spills, and urban run-off. Dredged materials
used in the  SITE demonstration were  contaminated with polycyclic  aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and diesel-range organics (DRO) at levels exceeding applicable Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and USEPA standards.

This demonstration project was designed to evaluate and compare different treatment schemes for feasibility
to remediate Jones Island CDF material to applicable or relevant and appropriate regulations for  beneficial
use of  dredged  materials containing PAHs, PCBs and DRO.  Three plant-based and  one microbe-based
treatments were evaluated.

1.2     Brief Description of the SITE Program and Reports

The SITE Program is a formal program established by EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) and Office of Research and Development (ORD) in response to the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). The SITE Program promotes the development, demonstration, and use
of new or innovative technologies to clean up Superfund sites across the country.

The SITE Program's primary purpose is to maximize the use of alternatives in cleaning hazardous waste sites
by encouraging the development  and   demonstration of  new, innovative  treatment  and monitoring
technologies.  It consists of three major elements described below:

    Demonstration Program
    Monitoring and Measuring Technologies Program.
   Technology Transfer Program.


                                             1

-------
                                  CONFINED
                              DISPOSAL FACILITY
Figure 1-1. Location of Jones Island CDF
The objective of the Demonstration Program is to develop reliable performance and cost data on innovative
technologies so that potential users can assess the technology's site-specific applicability.  Technologies
evaluated are either available commercially or imminently so.  SITE demonstrations usually are conducted
on hazardous waste sites under conditions that closely simulate actual operations, thus producing useful,
reliable information. Data collected are used to assess:  (1) the performance of the technology, (2) the
potential need for pre- and post-treatment processing of wastes, (3) potential operating problems, and (4) the
approximate costs. These field trials also provide opportunities to evaluate the long-term risks, capital and
operating costs associated  with full-scale application of the  subject technology, and limitations of the
technology.

New devices and test procedures that improve field monitoring and site characterizations are identified and
tested in the Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program. New technologies that provide faster, more
cost-effective contamination  and site assessment data are supported by this program. The Monitoring and
Measurement Technologies  Program also formulates the protocols and standard operating procedures for
demonstrating methods and  equipment.

The  Technology Transfer Program disseminates technical information on innovative technologies in the
Demonstration,  and the Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Programs through various activities.
These activities increase the  awareness and promote the use of innovative technologies for assessment and

-------
 remediation at Superfund and other hazardous waste sites. The goal of technology transfer activities is to
 develop interactive communication among individuals requiring up-to-date technical information.

 1.3    The SITE Demonstration Program

 Technologies are selected for the SITE Demonstration Program through annual requests for proposals. ORD
 staff review the proposals to determine which technologies show the most promise for use at Superfund sites.
 Technologies  chosen must be at the pilot- or full-scale stage, must be innovative, and must have some
 advantage over existing technologies. Mobile and in-situ technologies are of particular interest.

 Once EPA has accepted a proposal, cooperative agreements between EPA and the technology developer
 establish responsibilities for conducting the demonstration  and  evaluating the data. The developer is
 responsible for demonstrating the technology at the selected site and is expected to pay any costs for
 transport, operations, and removal of the equipment.  EPA is responsible for project planning, sampling and
 analysis, quality assurance and quality control, preparing reports, disseminating information, and transporting
 and disposing of treated waste materials.

 The results of this evaluation at the Jones Island CDF are published in this ITER. A companion Technology
 Evaluation Report  (TER) is available as a supporting document to the ITER. The  ITER contains detailed
 information concerning sampling  and sampling  strategy, cited analytical procedures along with detailed
 descriptions of non-standard  procedures, all supporting  QA/QC information, and relevant information
 concerning project design not contained in the ITER. The ITER is available upon request from the EPA. (See
 contact information at the end of this section.) The ITER is intended for use by remedial managers making
 a detailed evaluation of the technology for a specific site and  waste. The function of the ITER is explained
 below.

 1.4    Purpose of the Innovative Technology Evaluation Report

 This ITER provides information on the Jones Island CDF project including a comprehensive description of the
 demonstration and its results.  The  ITER is intended for  use by EPA remedial project  managers, EPA
 on-scene coordinators, contractors, and other decision  makers responsible for implementing remedial actions.

 To  encourage consideration of demonstrated  technologies, EPA  provides information regarding  the
 applicability of each technology to other sites and wastes.  The  ITER includes information on cost  and
 performance as observed during the demonstration.  It also discusses advantages,  disadvantages,  and
 limitations of the technology.

 Each SITE demonstration focuses on the performance  of a technology in treating a specific waste. The waste
 characteristics  of other sites may differ from the characteristics of the treated waste. Therefore, a successful
 or failed field demonstration of a technology at one site does not necessarily ensure that it will  similarly
 succeed or fail  at other sites. Data from the field demonstration may require extrapolation for estimating the
 operating ranges in which the technology will perform  satisfactorily. Only limited conclusions can be drawn
 from a single field demonstration.

 1.5 Technology Description

 1.5.1   General Technology Description

Phytoremediation represents a group of innovative technologies that use plants and natural processes to
remediate or stabilize hazardous  wastes in soil, sediments, surface water, or groundwater.  The term
Phytoremediation, used widely in the literature prior to 2001, has more recently been supplanted by the term
phytotechnologies, in recognition of a more broad range of plant-facilitated processes involved (ITRC, 2001).

-------
Phytotechnologies use plants as  agents to remediate various media  impacted with different types  of
contaminants, and can be implemented either in situ or ex situ. Phytotechnologies have been successfully
demonstrated in laboratory, bench-scale, or full scale projects involving:

       Organic contaminants, including petroleum hydrocarbons, gas condensates, crude oil, chlorinated
       compounds, pesticides, PCBs, and explosive compounds.
       Inorganic contaminants, including salts, heavy metals, metalloids, nutrients, and radioactive materials.


Effective design of a phytotechnology system requires a  clear understanding of its mechanisms and
associated benefits and limitations. A proper phytotechnology system must be designed, developed, and
implemented using detailed knowledge of the site layout, soil characteristics, hydrology, climate conditions,
analytical needs, operations and maintenance requirements, economics, public perception, and regulatory
environment (ITRC, 2001).

Phytoremediation relies upon natural systems.  Thus, it is often more easily adaptable to varied sites. Over
the last decade, phytoremediation has been (and continues to be) evaluated at a variety of sites and on myriad
contaminants to determine the conditions under which phytoremediation systems are effective in reducing
contamination.

Because it is based on natural processes, Phytotechnologies research represents a progression of discoveries
of how these natural processes interact with contaminated media.  In this sense, Phytotechnologies are being
'discovered' more so than they are being 'invented' or 'developed'. This SITE report is an attempt to advance
the phytotechnology  knowledge base by deploying the technology  at the Jones Island CDF, and then
observing and reporting the results.

1.5.2 Detailed Technology Description

Phytoremediation, or phytotechnologies, are currently defined as "The use of vegetation to contain, sequester,
remove, or degrade organic and inorganic contaminants in soils, sediments, surface water,  and groundwater
(EPA, 2000).

Six different plant-facilitated processes have been recognized as  contributing to phytoremediation success.
These processes are as follows:

       Phytoaccumulation, referring to a process where plant roots uptake and translocate contaminants
       (typically metals and radionuclides) to their above-ground biomass where they are concentrated and
       can be harvested and disposed of.
       Rhizostabilization, which refers to a process whereby contaminants (typically metals) are sorbed onto
       plant roots and therefore not available for migration.
       Rhizodegradation, which describes the complex interactions of roots, root exudates,  and the
       surrounding soil and microbial community, and how these interactions can break down contaminants,
       (typically organics) in situ to less toxic or non-toxic by-products.
       Phytodegradation, which describes processes occurring inside the plant which can  degrade or
       detoxify contaminants, (usually organics).
       Phytovolatilization, referring to the process whereby contaminants are extracted from soil or ground
       water and then transferred into the  atmosphere via evapotranspiration processes, (more typical of
       organics).
       Phytostabilization, which describes how certain plants which have high water use (typically trees) can
       slow or reverse ground water flow paths thereby containing,  and often remediating, contaminated
       groundwater plumes.

Of these six processes, rhizodegradation is emerging as one of the most important, and complex, means by
which plants degrade contaminants, especially large molecule organics  like PAHs and PCBs found at the
Jones Island CDF.   'Phytostabilization' can be important in dewatering  dredged sediments  using high
evapotranspiration plants (e.g. hybrid poplar or willow). The other phytotechnology processes described

-------
above were not thought to be significant contributors to the remediation of PAH and PCB contaminated
sediments during this SITE project.

The rhizosphere is generally described as an area within 1 mm to 3 mm of the nearest plant root (Schnoor,
1997). Rhizodegradation occurs when roots exude complex secretions containing carbohydrates that feed
and stimulate local microorganisms, which may result in respiration of organic contaminants.

Rhizodegradation has two recognized components: 1) Biodegradation, which converts contaminants to food
source for the plants, and 2) Cometabolism,  in which bioactivity degrades the contaminant without providing
a direct food source for the plant.

Biodegradation refers to breakdown of contaminants in the soil through bioactivity in the rhizosphere. This
bioactivity is facilitated by proteins and enzymes produced and exuded by plants or from soil organisms such
as bacteria, yeast, and fungi. Many organic contaminants can be broken down into harmless products or
converted into a source of food and energy for the plants or soil organisms, or both (Donnelly and Fletcher,
1994).

Cometabolism  describes how  natural substances released by the plant  roots (i.e., sugars,  alcohols,
carbohydrates, and acids) contain organic carbon  which provide food for soil  microorganisms, thereby
enhancing their biological activities.

Thus,  the  root zone  processes of biodegradation  and Cometabolism,  collectively  referred  to  as
rhizodegradation, are thought to represent the primary mechanism through which PAHs, PCBs and other
organic contaminants in Jones Island CDF material might be remediated.

1.6   Jones Island/SITE Background

The first step taken on this project toward determining appropriate beneficial end use of the dredged material
present in the  CDF was  a detailed characterization  across the CDF with samples taken at three intervals
below ground surface and analyzed for PAHs, PCBs, and agricultural parameters. DRO analysis was also
run to determine if the less expensive DRO test could be substituted for PAH testing. The analytical results
confirmed the heterogeneity of the material, revealing a wide variety of contaminant concentrations and also
indicating areas of opportunity for phytoremediation.

Treatability  studies conducted at the USAGE Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) in 2000
by the technology developer using crops and grasses determined that plants would survive in the material and
degrade  the contaminants.  Over the  short test  period, a fast-maturing corn hybrid showed the highest
reduction effect. (See section 4 5.2 for  more details).

In June 2001, four field plots containing four treatment cells each were established on the CDF by excavating,
screening, and depositing soil in  the cells.  The test plots closely followed the Remediation Technology
Development Forum (RTDF) protocol for plot size, sampling, and statistical design.  The RTDF Protocol is
available at http://www.rtdf.orci/public/phvto/protocol/protocol99.htm.  Each  plot had four  randomized
treatments:  a corn  hybrid, sandbar willow, local grasses, and a n unplanted control. Corn was planted twice
during the growing season, which  was designated as June through September.

Figure 1 -2 shows an "as-built" layout of the Jones Island test plots and irrigation system. This photo was taken
during the  an  early stage of the first growing season  in 2001.  Figure 1-3 is  a  schematic of the  test
plot/treatment cell configuration including construction details.

-------
Figure 1-2. Layout of Treatment Plots at Jones Island CDF
 Outer Berms -
   (3ft wide)   A
                                 Test Plot Layout (One of Four)
                                 Intercell
                                  Berms
                                 (2ft wide)
Dimensions
                                                            Test Plot, 60ft x 23ft
                                                            Treatment Cell. 12ft x 20ft each
                                                            Outer Berm, 3ft wide
                                                            Cell Separation Berms. 2ft wide
                            Downhill slope
Figure 1-3. Test Plot and Treatment Cell Configuration

-------
1.7    Key Contacts

Additional information on the Jones Island CDF field demonstration and the SITE Program can be
obtained from the following sources:

This SITE Demonstration:
Mr. Steven Rock
EPA SITE Project Manager
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
5995 Center Hill Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45224
Tel: (513) 569-7149
Fax:(513)569-7879
Email: rock.steven@epa.gov

USAGE Project Managers:
Richard Price
U.S.  Army Engineer Research and Development Center
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Tel: 601-634-3636
Email: Richard.A.Price@erdc.usace.army.mil

David Bowman
U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers
Detroit District
477 Michigan Avenue
P.O.  Box  1027
Detroit, Ml 48231-1027
Tel: 313-226-2223
Email: David.W.Bowman@lre02.usace.army.mil

The SITE Program
Ms. Annette Gatchett
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Tel. (513)569-7697
Email: qatchett.annette@epa.gov

Information on the SITE Program also is available through the following on-line information clearinghouses:

       The Hazardous Waste Clean-up Information Web Site  provides information about  innovative
       treatment technologies to  the hazardous waste community. It describes programs, organizations,
       publications and other tools  for federal and state personnel, consulting engineers, technology
       developers and vendors, remediation contractors, researchers, community groups and individual
       citizens. CLU-ln may be accessed at http //www.clu-in.org/.
       EPA REmediation And CHaracterization innovative Technologies (REACH IT) is a system that lets
       environmental professionals use the power of the Internet to search, view, download and print
       information about innovative remediation and characterization technologies. EPA REACH IT will give
       you information  about more than 650  service  providers that  offer almost  1,300 remediation

-------
       technologies and more than 150 characterization technologies. EPA REACH IT combines information
       from three established EPA databases, the Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment
       Technologies (VISITT), the Vendor Field Analytical and Characterization  Technologies  System
       (Vendor FACTS), and the Innovative Treatment Technologies (ITT), to  give users access  to
       comprehensive information about treatment and characterization technologies and their applications.
       used  and  the service  providers  that  offer them.    EPA  REACH IT  can be  accessed  at
       http://www.epareachit.org/.

Technical reports may be obtained by contacting the Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI),
26 West Martin Luther King Drive in Cincinnati, Ohio, 45268 at 1-800-490-9198 or (513) 569-7562.

-------
                                         Section 2
                         Technology Applications Analysis
 2.1    Key Features

 Phytoremediation is a relatively low-cost, remediation technology that produces little or no process residual,
 Compared to tradition electro-mechanical remediation methods, phytoremediation systems generally require
 less long-term operational and maintenance effort and cost.

 Phytoremediation is a solar-energy driven, passive technique that is applicable for the remediation of sites
 having low to moderate levels of contaminants at shallow depth. Depending on the nature of contamination
 problems at a site and its particular hydrogeologic  setting, plant species are selected based on these
 characteristics:

        Growth rate and yield
        Evapotranspiration potential
        Production of degradative enzymes
        Depth of root zone
        Contaminant tolerance
        Bioaccumulation ability.

 Despite the fact that most of what is known about this technology is derived from laboratory and small-scale
 field studies, phytotechnologies have received higher public acceptance than most conventional remedial
 options. Phytoremediation systems can be used along with or, in some cases, in place of intrusive mechanical
 cleanup methods.   Compared to mechanical treatment approaches, plant-based remediation systems
 generate fewer air and water emissions, generate less secondary waste, and  generally cost much less and
 have the advantage of being an in-situ technology.

 2.2    Operability of the Technology

 This discussion on technology operability will summarize several design considerations for site-wide, scaled-
 up phytoremediation systems planted in shallow soils or solids such as those  at the Jones Island CDF.

 A wide variety of plant  types may be used  in this application, from ground cover and grasses to trees.
 Mechanisms of contaminant degradation by plants is described in section 1. For the Jones Island CDF SITE
 project, rhizodegradation in the root zone is the dominant process by which remediation of PAHs and PCBs
 would be expected to occur.

 Full-scale  design considerations include plant selection, site preparation, planting density  and methods,
 distribution and dimensions of plots, agronomic conditions, irrigation and maintenance requirements, all of
 which are highly site specific.   It is becoming  increasingly apparent that the design  and monitoring of
 phytoremediation systems can be at least as complex as many traditional mechanical remediation methods.
 Designers of phytotechnology systems,  who often rely heavily on the biological and ecological sciences,
 should not assume that plant-based phytotechnologies are inherently  simplistic.  In fact, the site-specific,
complex nature of phytotechnology systems needs  to be recognized by all concerned parties  prior to
deployment of the plants. Factors that affect the operability of a phytoremediation system include, but are not
limited to:

       Hydraulic framework,  (depth to  groundwater,  seasonal flucuations, plume  configuration  and
       movement)
       Physical and chemical properties of the soil (both contaminant  and agronomic chemistry)
       Distribution and  magnitude of contamination (degree of heterogeneity)

-------
        Climatic conditions
       Site characteristics and land features (access by people or animals to the treatment area) and
        Treatment goals.

For a soil remediation application, effective phytoremediation system is dependent upon an adequate and
even distribution of plant roots  throughout the target area.  It is therefore important to identify, and if
economically feasible, eliminate any obstacles or restrictive features on a property that might hamper the
effective placement or growth of the selected plants.  The site should  be cleared of any above-ground or
below-ground obstructions that might interfere with the establishment and health of the remediation plots.

An understanding of the physical and chemical properties of the contaminated soil is important in knowing
what adjustments need to be made to the soil to foster healthy plant growth,  including vigorous root growth.
Soil condition is also a factor in determining appropriate planting procedures.  The soil in a proposed plot area
might require reworking by plowing and discing appropriate mixtures of fertilizer and amendments (i.e., organic
matter, drainage-enhancing media) into the upper portions of the soil profile.  Soil moisture retention, soil
moisture profiles, drainage and infiltration rates factor into decisions regarding the necessity of an irrigation
system or ground cover.

Climatic conditions at a site need to be evaluated with regard to selecting appropriate plant type, determining
the arrangement and size of the plots, and assessing  the need for an irrigation system. Ideally, the plants
should be obtained locally to ensure that the species is well adapted to the local climate and less susceptible
to disease.

2.3    Applicable Wastes

A biomound study conducted by the USAGE Detroit District in 1998 at the Jones Island CDF concluded that
there were  indigenous microorganisms within the dredged material capable of degrading PAH and PCB
compounds (Bowman, 1999).  Subsequent greenhouse studies conducted in  2000 by the USAGE ERDC
suggested that plants could stimulate and enhance the actions of the microbes within the dredged material.
PAHs and PCBs are fairly insoluble compounds, with  log Kow values in excess of 3. These and similarly
insoluble organic compounds (e.g. DRO) are not likely candidates for plant  uptake. It is hypothesized that
rhizodegradation (see section 1.5.2) is the primary treatment mechanism for these and other similar wastes.

2.4    Availability and Transportability of the Equipment

The availability of phytoremediation "equipment" is generally not a barrier to development. Site preparation
equipment is typically farming-type or construction-type and readily available. Materials for soil amendments
are similarly available.  Plant  materials used  in phytoremediation systems can usually be found at local
nurseries, through industry sources, or via the Internet. Equipment necessary for monitoring phytoremediation
systems might include standard, inexpensive, and readily available equipment (i.e. soil moisture probes,
weatherstations, etc.) or may include more specialized and expensive instruments (e.g. sap flow gauges, leaf
index analyzers, etc.).

Equipment  used in phytoremediation is easily transportable.  Farming equipment may require large trailers
to mobilize,  and large trees incorporated into a design may also require out-sized equipment. Other tools used
in phytoremediation systems (hand tools, plant seed or seedlings, etc) are easily transportable.

Phytoremediation is generally considered a single-use technology. Plants deployed at one site are not
removed and redeployed at another site.  In this sense the technology is not "transportable".

2.5    Materials  Handling Requirements

For the proper preparation of dredged sediments for planting, certain areas might require some degree of in-
situ material handing.  Handling is defined as plowing, tilling, and discing  to facilitate fertilizer infiltration,
increase soil porosity, ease planting and foster vigorous root growth.
                                              10

-------
In addition to the contaminated material handling, operators might also need to handle fertilizer, pesticides,
and other agronomic amendments. Fertilizer and soil conditioning components could include any variety of
commercial fertilizer mixes, organic carbon, aged manure, sewage sludge, compost, straw and mulch. A mix
mill/grinder and spreader might be needed for handling the fertilizer and subsurface combs (portable vibrating
screens) may also be necessary to remove debris and cobbles from the soil and to remove debris from soil
conditioning material.

Contaminated, dredged material is subject to specialized handling, storage and disposal requirements: testing
or deploying phytotechnologies offers no relief from these requirements.  A full description  of the regulatory
and handling requirements for contaminated media likely to be found in a given CDF are beyond the scope
of this document.

Since rhizpdegradation does not translocate or accumulate contaminants in above-ground biomass, plant
materials used for the phytoremediation of PAHs and PCBs generally do not require special handling.

2.6     Site Support Requirements

Site support requirements for phytoremediation systems occasionally include one or more  of the following:

        Electricity to run groundwater pumps or other circulatory system, which can be utility-connected or
        solar powered
        Water, for irrigation, which may be spray, flood, or drip-applied, and may be contaminated or clean
        in origin
        Any equipment deemed  necessary for site monitoring and maintenance (e.g. soil moisture probes,
        sap flow equipment, data loggers, telemetry)
        Personnel or animal fencing, depending on the site location, plant sensitivity hazard  analysis, etc.

2.7     Range of Suitable Site Characteristics

Generally, any given location which supports or can support plant life probably has characteristics suitable
for some form of phytotechnology application.  However, while the range of suitable site characteristics is
wide, there are significant  limitations to the technology as described in the following section.

To determine the suitability of the dredged materials at the  Jones Island CDF, grab soil  samples were
collected and analyzed for various agronomic parameters  as part of a scoping study in September 2000.
Similar sampling and analysis was performed again at the  start of the test period in June  2001.  Table 2-1
compares results from the eventual borrow area identified during the scoping study (GP17 and GP19) with
the mean (n=16) of baseline sampling after the dredged material was placed into the treatment cells (before
fertilizer was applied). The data between the two sampling  events agrees well and was considered suitable
by the USACE for the purposes of this field demonstration.

Insect attack and available responses may limit plant choices from both a physical and regulatory standpoint.
During the second half of the 2002 growing season, the hybrid corn crop and adjacent natural vegetation
became infested with the Western Corn Rootworm Beetle  (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera).  The pest is well
known in agriculture, and a number of commercial pesticides are available as well as other natural organic
and biological controls, all with varying degrees of predicted success.   Sevin, a non-restricted carbamate
insecticide available at local garden shops, was selected for use at the demonstration site. A license was not
required for its use.  Several applications were required.
                                              11

-------
Table 2-1 . Borrow Area and Baseline Lewis of Agronomic Parameters
Parameter
SoilpH
Soluble Salts (mmhos/cm)
Excess Lime
Organic Matter (%)
Nitrate-Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Potassium
Sulfur
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Zinc
Cation Exchange Capacity
(milUequivatents/100 g soil)
Borrow Area

-------
effectiveness over these months. However, rhizosphere processes can continue for short periods without
living plants above offering some degree of remedial benefit even during dormant periods.

2.9    Technology Performance versus ARARs

This section  discusses federal environmental regulations that act as drivers for waste cleanups across the
country. These "applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements," which are referred to as "ARARs," are
presented in Table 2-2 at the end of this section. In this section, the ARARs are reviewed with respect to the
SITE demonstration. Readers are advised that state and local requirements, which are described only briefly
in this section, may be more stringent.

2.9.1  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended by
SARA in  1986 provides for federal funding to respond to releases or potential releases of any hazardous
substance into the environment, as well as to releases of pollutants or contaminants that  may present an
imminent or significant danger to public health and welfare or to the environment. As part of the requirements
of CERCLA,  the EPA has prepared the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) for hazardous substance response. The NCP is codified in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Part 300, and delineates the methods and criteria used to determine the appropriate extent of removal and
cleanup for hazardous waste contamination.

SARA states a strong statutory preference for remedies that are reliable and provide long-term protection.
It directs EPA to do the following:

       Use  remedial alternatives that permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility
       of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
      Select remedial actions that protect human health and the environment, are cost-effective, and involve
       permanent solutions and alternative treatment or resource recovery technologies to the maximum
       extent possible.

In general, two types of responses are possible under CERCLA: removal and remedial action. Superfund
removal actions are conducted in response to an immediate threat caused by a release of a hazardous
substance. Many removals involve small quantities of waste of immediate threat requiring quick action to
alleviate the  hazard.  Remedial actions are governed by the SARA amendments to CERCLA.  As stated
above, these amendments promote remedies that permanently reduce the volume, toxicity, and mobility of
hazardous substances or pollutants. The phytoremediation system is likely to be part of a CERCLA remedial
action.

Phytoremediation systems will in general meet most of the SARA criteria. It is an in situ treatment technology,
thus the treatment process occurs in place and the removal of the contamination is permanent and protective
to human health and the environment;  the volume and mobility of organics in the soil is  reduced to help
prevent the migration of contamination off-site or to uncontaminated water supplies; phytoremediation reduces
the toxicity of the treated waste media (soil or groundwater); and phytoremediation is cost-effective and an
alternative treatment technology.

On-site remedial actions must comply with federal and more stringent state ARARs.  ARARs are determined
on a site-by-site basis and may be waived under six conditions: (1) the  action is an interim measure, and the
ARAR will be met at completion; (2) compliance with the ARAR would pose a greater risk to health and the
environment  than noncompliance; (3) it is technically  impracticable to meet the ARAR; (4) the standard of
performance  of an ARAR can be met  by an equivalent method; (5) a state ARAR has not been consistently
applied elsewhere; and (6) ARAR compliance would not provide a balance between the protection achieved
at a particular site and demands on  the Superfund for other sites.  These waiver options apply only to
Superfund actions taken on-site, and justification for the waiver must be clearly demonstrated.
                                             13

-------
The CDF demonstration site is not part of a Superfund site; therefore, CERCLA/SARA does not provide the
appropriate requirements for remediation.   The  goal  of this  demonstration  is to evaluate whether
phytoremediation can reduce contaminants to levels that, under federal and state of Wisconsin regulations,
would allow the material to be removed from the CDF for beneficial reuse.

2.9.2  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(SWDA), is the primary federal legislation governing hazardous waste activities.  It was passed in 1976 to
address the problem of how to safely dispose of the enormous volume of municipal and industrial solid waste
generated annually. Subtitle C of RCRA contains requirements for generation, transport, treatment, storage,
and disposal of hazardous waste, most of which are also applicable to CERCLA activities. The Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 greatly expanded the scope and requirements of RCRA.

RCRA regulations define and regulate hazardous wastes. These regulations are only applicable to the
phytoremediation system if RCRA-defmed hazardous wastes are present.  If soils are determined to be
hazardous according to RCRA (either because of a characteristic or a listing carried by the waste), essentially
all RCRA requirements regarding the management and disposal of this hazardous waste will need to be
addressed by the remedial managers. Wastes defined as hazardous under RCRA include characteristic and
listed wastes. Criteria for identifying characteristic hazardous wastes are included in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart
C. Listed wastes from specific and nonspecific industrial sources, off-specification products, spill cleanups,
and other industrial sources are itemized in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart D.  RCRA regulations do not apply to
sites where RCRA-defmed wastes are not present.

Unless they are specifically delisted through delisting procedures, hazardous wastes listed in 40 CFR Part 261
Subpart D remain listed wastes regardless of the treatment they may undergo and regardless of the final
contamination levels in the resulting effluent streams and residues. This implies that even after remediation,
treated wastes are still classified as hazardous wastes because the pre-treatment material was a listed waste.

For generation of any hazardous waste, the site responsible party must obtain an EPA identification number.
Other applicable  RCRA requirements may include  a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest (if the waste is
transported off-site), restrictions on placing the waste in land disposal units, time limits on accumulating waste,
and permits for storing the waste.

Requirements for corrective action at RCRA-regulated facilities are provided in 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart F
(promulgated) and Subpart S (partially promulgated). These subparts also generally apply to remediation at
Superfund sites. Subparts F and S include requirements for initiating and conducting RCRA corrective action,
remediating groundwater, and ensuring that corrective actions comply with other environmental regulations.
Subpart S also details conditions under which particular RCRA requirements may be waived for temporary
treatment units operating at corrective action  sites and provides information regarding requirements for
modifying permits to adequately describe the subject treatment unit.

The Jones Island CDF is a disposal facility for contaminated dredged sediments.  This disposal facility does
not accept hazardous waste;  therefore, RCRA is not relevant or appropriate for the treatment technology
occurring on-site. The goal of this demonstration is to evaluate whether phytoremediation can reduce
contaminants to levels that under federal and state regulations would allow the  material to be removed from
the CDF for beneficial reuse.

2.9.3  Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for sulfur
oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. It also limits the emission of
189 listed hazardous pollutants such as vinyl chloride, arsenic, asbestos and benzene. States are responsible
for enforcing the CAA. To assist in this, Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR) were established. Allowable
emission limits are determined by the AQCR, or its  sub-unit, the Air Quality Management District (AQMD).


                                              14

-------
These emission limits are based on whether or not the region is currently within attainment for National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

The CAA requires that treatment, storage, and disposal facilities comply with primary and secondary ambient
air quality  standards.  Fugitive emissions from  the  phytoremediation  system may come from (1) soil
conditioning and plot construction and (2) periodic sampling activities. Soil moisture should be managed
during system installation to prevent or minimize the impact from fugitive emissions. Although rhizospheric
biodegradation and breakdown of chemicals through metabolic activities within plant tissue are components
of phytoremediation, these processes as they relate to this technology are not well understood. There is some
concern that organic contaminants are only partially broken down, implying that an unknown portion of the
original contaminants and its daughter products may be released to the atmosphere during evapotranspiration.

Phytovolitilization can be an  important process  when using high evapotranspiration  plants to remove
chlorinated solvents from ground water plumes.  However, the larger-molecule contaminants in the Jones
Island material are not amenable to phytovolitilization and as such  no air permits are required for the
phytoremediation system as operated at the CDF.

2.9.4  Clean Water Act

The objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological
integrity of the nation's waters by establishing federal, state, and local discharge standards. If treated water
is discharged to surface water bodies or Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW), CWA regulations will
apply.  A facility desiring to discharge water to a navigable waterway must apply for a permit under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). When a NPDES permit is issued, it includes
waste discharge requirements.  Discharges to POTWs also must comply with general pretreatment regulations
outlined in  40CFR Part 403, as well as other applicable state and  local administrative and substantive
requirements.

Other than the plant and tree's capacity to use surface/ groundwater, phytoremediation technologies generally
do not involve the mechanical pumping, treatment and discharge of surface/groundwater. In a few rare cases
where contaminated groundwater occurs at depth, mechanical pumping might be used to bring the water to
the surface where it would then be applied to the plants via drip irrigation.  Since this water technically would
likely  be completely utilized by the phytoremediation system  it would not be discharged to a navigable
waterway and it is unlikely that a NPDES permit will apply.

At the CDF, water for the drip  irrigation system was obtained from Lake Michigan located adjacent to the
demonstration site. This CDF was constructed with a grout or bentonite slurry. Although a filter system is also
located along a portion of the northern wall; it is generally assumed that water entering the CDF (rainfall, water
associated with dredged sediment, and groundwater recharge from the west) is lost though evaporation.  A
NPDES permit was not required for the phytoremediation system operated at the CDF.

2.9.5  Safe Drinking Water Act

The Safe Drinking  Water Act (SDWA) of 1974, as most recently amended by the Safe Drinking Water
Amendments of 1986, requires the EPA to establish regulations to protect human health from contaminants
in drinking water. The legislation authorized national drinking water standards and a joint federal-state system
for ensuring compliance with these standards. The National Primary Drinking Water Standards are found in
40 CFR Parts 141 through 149. These drinking water standards are expressed as maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) for some  constituents, and maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) for  others.  Under
CERCLA (Section 121 (d) (2) (A) (ii)), remedial actions are required to meet the standards of the MCLGs when
relevant. Since the phytoremediation system at the CDF is targeting the shallow soils, it is not likely that these
standards would be applicable.
                                              15

-------
However, if a phytoremediation system is targeting groundwater, Parts 144 and 145 discuss requirements
associated with the underground injection of contaminated water.  If processing pumped, contaminated
groundwater through the plantation's drip irrigation system is an option, approval from EPA for constructing
and operating the phytoremediation system in this mode will be required.

2.9.6  Toxic Substances Control Act

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 grants the U.S. EPA authority to prohibit or control the
manufacturing, importing, processing, use,  and disposal of any chemical  substance that presents  an
unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment. These regulations may be found in 40 CFR
Part 761; Section 6(e) deals specifically with  PCBs. Materials with less than 50 ppm PCB are classified as
non-PCB; those containing between 50 and 500 ppm are classified as PCB-contaminated; and those with 500
ppm  PCB or greater are classified as PCB. PCB-contaminated materials may be disposed of in TSCA-
permitted landfills or destroyed by incineration at a TSCA-approved incinerator; PCBs must be incinerated.
Sites where spills of PCB-contaminated material or PCBs have occurred after May 4,1987 must be addressed
under the PCB  Spill Cleanup Policy in 40 CFR Part 761, Subpart G. The policy establishes cleanup protocols
for addressing  such releases based upon the volume and concentration of the spilled material.

The CDF is a disposal facility for contaminated dredged sediments, including detectable concentrations of
PCBs.  The concentrations of PCBs identified in the surface soils at the CDF ranged from non-detectable to
less than 5 ppm. TSCA regulations under 40  CFR 761.61(a)(4)(i)(A) establish 1 ppm PCBs as the cleanup
level for sediments (referred to as "bulk PCB remediation waste") in "high occupancy areas." One of the goals
of this  demonstration  is to evaluate whether  phytoremediation  occurring  primarily  through  enhanced
rhizospheric bioremediation can reduce PCBs to levels that under TSCA would allow the  material to be
removed from the CDF.

2.9.7  Occupational Safety and Health Administration Requirements

CERCLA remedial actions and RCRA corrective  actions must be  performed  in accordance with the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements detailed in 20 CFR Parts 1900 through
1926, especially Part 1910.120, which provides for the health and safety of workers at hazardous waste sites.
On-site construction activities at Superfund or RCRA corrective action sites must be performed in accordance
with Part 1926  of OSHA, which describes safety  and health regulations for construction sites.  State OSHA
requirements, which may be significantly stricter  than federal standards, must also be met.

Technicians involved with the construction and operation of a phytoremediation system may be required to
have completed an OSHA training course and be familiar with OSHA requirements relevant to hazardous
waste sites. Workers on hazardous waste sites must also be enrolled in a medical  monitoring program. The
elements of an  acceptable program must include: (1) a health history, (2) an initial exam before hazardous
waste work starts to establish fitness for duty and as a medical baseline, (3) periodic examinations (usually
annual) to determine whether changes due to exposure may have occurred and to ensure continued fitness
for the job,  (4) appropriate medical examinations after a suspected or known overexposure, and (5)  an
examination at  termination of employment.

For most sites, minimum personnel protective equipment (PPE) for workers will include gloves, hard hats,
steel-toe boots, and Tyvek coveralls. Depending on contaminant types and concentrations, additional PPE
may be required, including the use of air purifying respirators or supplied air. At the Jones Island CDF, noise
levels are not expected to be high, except during the ground preparation and potentially during the planting
phase which will involve the operation of heavy equipment. During these activities, noise levels should be
monitored to ensure that workers are not exposed to noise levels above a time-weighted average of 85
decibels over an eight-hour day. If noise levels  increase above this limit, workers will be required to wear
hearing protection. The levels of noise anticipated are not expected to adversely  affect the community, but
this will depend on proximity to the treatment site.
                                              16

-------
2.9.8  State Requirements

State and local regulatory agencies may require permits prior to the operation of a phytoremediation system.
Most federal permits will be issued by the authorized state agency. An air permit issued by the state Air Quality
Control Region may be  required if air emissions in excess of regulatory criteria, or of toxic concern, are
anticipated. Local state agencies will have direct regulatory responsibility for environmental media issues. If
remediation is at a Superfund site, federal agencies, primarily the U.S. EPA, will provide regulatory oversight.
If off-site disposal of contaminated waste is required, the waste  must be taken to the disposal facility by a
licensed transporter.
                                               17

-------
Table 2-2.
Federal and State Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements for the Phytoremediation System
        Process Activity
                                        ARAR
                                                                    Description
                                                                                Comment
   Characterization of
   untreated waste

   Site preparation activities
   related to system installation
   Waste processing using
   Phytoremediation
   technology
   Cleanup standards are
   established
   Storage of waste
              RCRA: 40 CFR 261 (or
              State Equivalent)

              OSHA: 29 CFR 1910.120
              RCRA: 40 CFR 264
              Subpart J and 270 (or
              State Equivalent)


              SARA Section
              121(d)(2)(A)(ii); SDWA: 40
              CFR 141
                               SARA Section
              RCRA: 40 CFR Part 264
              Subpart J (or State
              Equivalent)
Untreated waste should be characterized to determine if it is a hazardous
waste, and if so, if it is a RCRA-listed waste.

Personnel need to be protected from volatile emissions and airborne
paniculate during soil boring and excavation activities. Personnel need to be
provided with protective equipment and be involved in a medical monitoring
program.
Treatment of a RCRA hazardous waste requires a permit. If non-RCRA
waste, then a permit or a variance from the State hazardous waste agency
may be required.
Remedial actions of surface and groundwater are required to meet MCLGs
(or MCLs) established under SDWA.
Site-specific Remediation Goals can be established through the Record of
Decision (ROD). Remediation Goals may be developed during treatability
work for treatment of soil.

Storage tanks for recovered liquid waste must be placarded appropriately,
have secondary containment, and be inspected daily.
If applicable perform chemical
and physical analyses.

Provide air monitoring
equipment during site
preparation and planting;
Provide personal protection
equipment as necessary.

If activity is conducted within a
one year time period,a full
RCRA permit may not be
required.

If applicable for surface and
groundwater; relevant and
appropriate if drinking water
source could be affected.

If applicable, relevant and
appropriate.
If storing non-RCRA wastes,
RCRA requirements are still
relevant and appropriate.
Liquid wastes generated may
include decontamination
rinsates
                               RCRA: 40 CFR Part 264
                               Subpart I (or State
                               Equivalent)
                                        For non- CDF sites, containers of contaminated soil from excavation
                                        activities may need to be labeled as a hazardous waste, the storage area
                                        needs to be in good condition, weekly inspections should be conducted, and
                                        storage should not exceed 90 days unless a storage permit is acquired.
                                                                      CDFs are disposal facilities;
                                                                      contaminated materials are
                                                                      managed on site. If applicable
                                                                      for RCRA wastes; relevant and
                                                                      appropriate for non-RCRA
                                                                      wastes.

-------
Table 2-2 (Cont'd). Federal and State Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements for the Phytoremediation System
      Process Activity
        ARAR
                        Description
        Comment
   Waste Disposal
RCRA: 40 CFR Part
262; SARA Section 121
                            CWA: 40 CFR Parts
                            403 and/or 122 and 125
                            SDWA: 40 CFR Parts
                            144 and 145
                            RCRA: 40 CFR Part
                            262 and 263 (or State
                            Equivalent)
                            RCRA: 40 CFR Part
                            268
Generators of hazardous waste must dispose of the waste at a
facility permitted to handle the waste. Wastes generated include
soil cuttings and recovered liquid waste. Generators must obtain an
EPA ID No. prior to waste disposal.
                        Discharges of non-hazardous wastewater to a POTW must meet
                        pre-treatment standards; discharges to a navigable water must be
                        permitted under NPDES.

                        Specifies standards that apply to the disposal of contaminated
                        wastewater in underground injection wells. Permission must be
                        obtained from U.S. EPA to use existing permitted underground
                        injection wells or to construct and operate new wells.

                        Hazardous wastes transported off-site for treatment or disposal
                        must be accompanied by a hazardous waste manifest, and must
                        meet packaging and labeling requirements. Hazardous waste
                        haulers must be EPA-licensed.
                        Hazardous wastes must meet specific treatment standards prior to
                        land disposal, or must be treated using specific technologies.
Not applicable: CDF is a
disposal facility. Only
remediated soils that meet
federal standard will be
removed from the site.

Applicable and appropriate
for decontamination
rinsates.

Applicable if underground
injection is selected as a
disposal means for
contaminated wastewater.

Not applicable: CDF is a
disposal facility. Only
remediated soils that meet
federal standard will be
removed from the site.

Not applicable: CDF is a
disposal facility. Only
remediated soils that meet
federal standard will be
removed from the site.

-------
                                         Section 3
                                  Economic Analysis
3.1    Introduction

This economic analysis presents cost estimates for using phytoremediation to treat contaminated dredged
material in CDFs.  The cost estimates are based on the results of the SITE demonstration that utilized four
replicated test plots at the Jones Island CDF in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This economic analysis estimates
expenditures for remediating a total volume of 1,613 yds3 (1 acre surface area, 1 foot deep) of dredged soil
by phytoremediation. Two phytoremediation treatments are considered in this analysis: treatment plots
planted with sweet corn (corn treatment) and treatment plots planted with willow trees (willow treatment).

Consistent with standard practice in the United States and in keeping with the typical expanse of CDFs in
general, costs have been estimated on an acre foot basis. This unit of measure is particularly relevant to the
Jones Island project because the demonstrated technology was applied to the upper foot of dredged material
with the intent being to  remediate  the upper foot, remove the upper foot, and subsequently apply the
phytotechnology to the next underlying one foot lift of dredged material.

The actual SITE demonstration treated approximately  142 yds3 of dredged material in 16 treatment cells with
an overall dimension of 60 feet by 23 feet. Dredged material was passed through a soil screener, placed in
the cells using a front-end loader, tilled with a rotary tiller, and leveled with a drag.  For purposes of this
economic analysis, the remediation is anticipated to  be  performed on dredged  material in-place, and it is
assumed that each treatment area will be graded, tilled, planted, fertilized and irrigated.  Estimated costs do
not include excavation or hauling of treated soils off site.  No additional run-off controls are assumed other
than the existing CDF structure. The cost estimates provide adequate detail such that if a greater area is
treated, the acreage-dependent costs can be increased by the total acres treated to estimate the anticipated
costs. Although not evaluated in this cost analysis, it is anticipated that greater economies of scale can be
obtained from the fixed cost elements of this treatment by increasing the area treated to equal the available
area typically encountered at a CDF.  This method of  determining  costs will likely become increasingly
inaccurate if the treated acreage cannot be planted and maintained adequately with the assumed equipment
(e.g., irrigation, tilling, and planting).

3.2   Conclusions

Estimated costs for the  1-acre plot remediating a total volume of 1,613 yds3 of dredged material are
approximately $47,227 and $44,280 for corn and willow treatments, respectively. Tables 3-1  and 3-2 break
down these costs into categories. Costs presented in this report are order-of-magnitude estimates as defined
by the American Association of Cost Engineers, with an expected accuracy within +50% and -30%.

3.3   Issues and Assumptions

3.3.1  Site Size and Characteristics

Costs have been provided for a plot that is 1 acre in size or 1,613 yds3. It is intended that this cost can be
adjusted to fit the CDF remediation project being considered by scaling it relative to the actual acreage being
remediated.  This method of estimating costs for the specific project is only applicable for a project that is a
similar magnitude. That is, the project being considered should be of a size at which the equipment used to
estimate costs for grading, tilling  and irrigating can practically be used. Cost differences may result from
changing the  methods of grading, tilling and irrigating.
                                               20

-------
Table 3-1. Cost Breakdown for Two-Year Treatment using Corn
Purchased Equipment Costs
Consumables and Supplies
Hose Reel Traveling Sprinkler (2)
Soil Test Kit (NPK)
Taxes (5% of EQ)
Freight (4% of EQ)
QTY
1
1
1
1
1
Unit
Unit Cost
Lump $500.00
Lump $8,895.00
Lump $320.00
Equipment Subtotal (EQ):
Lump $485.75
Lump $388.60
Total Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC):
Extension
$500.00
$8,895.00
$320.00
$9,715.00
$485.75
$388.60
$10,589.35
Direct Installation Costs
QTY
Unit
Unit Cost
Extension
Mobilization
1
Medium Brush with Average Grub and some Trees, Clearing 1
Rough Grading, D4 Dozer
Soil Tilling, D4 Dozer with Tiller Attachment
8
4
Lump
Acre
Hr
Hr
$170.00
$624.74
$104.80
$81.72
Total Direct Installation Cost (Dl):
I
Indirect Costs
Engineering
Construction Oversight (25% Dl)
Permits (1% DC)
Bonds (1.5% DC)
Profit and Overhead (8% DC)
Contingencies (5% DC)
TOTAL DIRECT COST (DC) [PEC + Dl] :
QTY
1
1
1
1
1
1
Unit
Lump
Lump
Lump
Lump
Lump
Lump
Unit Cost
$2,000.00
$490.00
$125.49
$188.24
$1,003.95
$627.47
Total Indirect Cost (ICJ:
I TOTAL
Direct Annual Operating Costs
Sampling Event (Analytical Costs) (3>
Sampling (Labor)
Irrigation (Labor)
Fuel
Equipment Delivery w
First Corn Planting (Tractor with Spreader and Drill)
Corn and Fertilizer <5)
First Corn Planting (Labor) (e)
Incorporate 1st Corn (Tractor with Plow and Disk)
Second Corn Planting (Tractor with Spreader and Drill)
Corn Seed and Fertilizer (5>
Second Corn Tilling and Planting (Labor) (7)
Incorporate 2nd Corn (Tractor with Plow and Disk)
Winter Clover Planting (Tractor with Drill)
Winter Clover Tilling and Planting (Labor) (7)
Clover Seed <8)
CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI) [DC + 1C]:
QTY

4
56
1
1

1
8
1

1

1


1
Unit
1
Hr
Hr
Season
Season
1
Acre
Hr
Day
1
Acre
16
Day
1
16
Acre
Unit Cost
Annual
$60.00
$20.00
$500.00
$2,200.00
Day
$1,900.00
$20.00
$450.00
Day
$1,900.00
Hr
$450.00
Day
Hr
$10.00
$170.00
$624.74
$838.40
$326.88
$1,960.01
$12,549.36)
Extension
$2,000.00
$490.00
$125.49
$188.24
$1,003.95
$627.47
$4,435.15
$16,984.51|
Extension
$1,680.00
$240.00
$1,120.00
$500.00
$2,200.00
$450.00
$1,900.00
$160.00
$450.00
$450.00
$1,900.00
$20.00
$450.00
$300.00
$20.00
$10.00
                                            Total Direct Annual Operating Cost (DAC): $12,450.00
                             TOTAL 2-YEAR DIRECT OPERATING COST (DOC) [DAC X 2]: $24,900.00|
                                            21

-------
 Table 3-1 (Con't)

 Indirect Annual Operating Costs
QTY
Unit
Unit Cost
Extension
Profit and Overhead (8% of DOC)
Administrative Charges (2% TCI)
Property Taxes (1% TCI)
Insurance (1% TCI)

I

I

I
1 Lump $1,992.00
1 Lump $339.69
1 Lump $169.85
1 Lump $169.85
Total Indirect Annual Operating Cost (IAC):
TOTAL 2-YEAR INDIRECT OPERATING COST (IOC) [IAC X 2]:

TOTAL OPERATING COST (TOO [DOC + IOC]:

TOTAL COST (TCI + TOG):
$1,992.00
$339.69
$169.85
$169.85
$2,671.38
$5,342.76)

$30,242.76|

$47,227.27)
Notes:
(1) Costs are considered to be order-of-magnitude estimates with an expected accuracy within 50% above and 30% below the
actual cost.
(2)  Includes hose and booster pump. Booster pump is required if excessive relief exists between lake level and sprinkler head.
(3) Four composite samples per acre analyzed for DRO, PAH and PCB
(4) Delivery of seed drill is estimated to be $700 for each dilivery. Seed drill must be hoisted onto flat bed due to roadway width
restrictions.
(5) Seed requirement is 440,000 seeds/ac. There are approximately 23,000 seeds per bag so 20 bags of corn seed would be
required. A bag of seed corn costs approximately $90/bag
(6) Assumes that com can be planted in one day.
(7) Assumes that plowing and disking can be completed in one day. Assumes corn/clover can be planted in one day.
(8) Assumes clover planted at a rate of 6 Ibs/ac.
                                                       22

-------
Table 3-2. Cost Breakdown for Two-Year Treatment using Willow
Purchased Equipment Costs
Consumables and Supplies
18-Inch Sandbar Willow Cuttings m
Hose Reel Traveling Sprinkler <3)
Taxes (5% of EQ)
Freight (4% of EQ)
Direct Installation Costs
Mobilization
Medium Brush with Average Grub and some Trees,
Rough Grading, D4 Dozer
Soil Tilling, D4 Dozer with Tiller Attachment
Equipment Delivery
Fertilizer Spreader
Fertilizer <4>
Tree Planting (Tractor with Planter and Spreader)
Tree Planting (Labor! <5)
QTY Unit Unit Cost Extension
1 Lump $500.00 $500.00
1 Acre $10,585.08 $10,585.08
Coverage
1 Lump $8,895.00 $8,895.00
Equipment Subtotal (EQ): $19,980.08
1 Lump $999.00 $999.00
1 Lump $799.20 $799.20
Total Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC): $21,778.29
QTY Unit Unit Cost Extension
1 Rental $170.00 $170.00
Unit
Clearing 1 Acre $624.74 $624.74
8 Hr $104.80 $838.40
4 Hr $81.72 $326.88
1 Season $200.00 $200.00
1 Day $150.00 $150.00
1 Acre $100.00 $100.00
1 Planting $1,350.00
80 Hr $20.00 $1,600.00
Total Direct Installation Cost (Dl): $5,360.01
I
Indirect Costs
Engineering
Construction Oversight (25% Dl)
Permits (1% DC)
Bonds (1.5% DC)
Profit and Overhead (8% DC)
Contingencies (5% DC)
TOTAL DIRECT COST (DC) [PEC + Dl]: $27,1 38.30|
QTY Unit Unit Cost Extension
1 Lump $2,000.00 $2,000.00
1 Lump $1,340.00 $1,340.00
1 Lump $271.38 $271.38
1 Lump $407.07 $407.07
1 Lump $2,171.06 $2,171.06
1 Lump $1,356.91 $1,356.91
Total Indirect Cost (ICJ: $7,546.44
| TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT (TCI) [DC + 1C]: $34,684.74|
Direct Annual Operating Costs
Sampling Event (Analytical Costs) (8)
Sampling (Labor)
Irrigation (Labor)
Fuel
QTY Unit Unit Cost Extension
1 Annual $1,080.00 $1,080.00
4 Hr $60.00 $240.00
56 Hr $20.00 $1,120.00
1 Season $500.00 $500.00
Total Direct Annual Operating Cost (DAC): $2,940.00
| TOTAL 2-YEAR DIRECT OPERATING COST (DOC) [DAC X 2]: $5,880.00|
Indirect Annual Operating Costs
Profit and Overhead (8% of DOC)
Administrative Charges (2% TCI)
Property Taxes (1% TCI)
Insurance (1% TCI)
QTY Unit Unit Cost Extension
1 Lump $470.40 $470.40
1 Lump $693.69 $693.69
1 Lump $346.85 $346.85
1 Lump $346.85 $346.85
                                             Total Indirect Annual Operating Cost (IAC):
$1,857.79
                                               23

-------
 Table 3-2 (Con't)
I	TOTAL 2-YEAR INDIRECT OPERATING COST (IOC) [IAC X 2]:      $3,71S.68|


I                                          TOTAL OPERATING COST (TOO [DOC + IOC]:      $9,595.58|


I                                                             TOTAL COST (TCI + TOG):     $44.280.31 |

Notes:
(1) Costs are considered to be order-of-magnitude estimates with an expected accuracy within 50% above and 30% below the
actual cost.
(2) 39,204 cuttings at $0.27 per cutting
(3) Includes hose and booster pump. Booster pump is required if excessive relief exists between lake level and sprinkler head.
(4)460lbs/acof13-13-13.
(5) Two laborers for one 40 hour week.
(6) Four composite samples per acre analyzed for DRO, PAH and PCB
                                                  24

-------
 It is also assumed that the condition of the site is such that it can be cleared and graded in the time and with
 the equipment specified in the cost estimate. Additionally, it has been assumed that debris (concrete, metal,
 etc.) can be removed by hand.

 3.3.2 System Design and Performance Factors

 It is assumed that drainage and run-off requirements will require minimal consideration for implementation.
 Design considerations are assumed  to be limited to plot layout,  irrigation coverage, and coordination of
 equipment, mobilization, and demobilization.

 3.3.3 System Operating Requirements

 It is assumed that the area will be initially graded and tilled by trained equipment operators with oversight.
 Ongoing  tilling and  planting is assumed to be  conducted by general laborers with minimal oversight.
 Technician labor will be limited to sampling for performance demonstration.

 3.3.4 Financial Assumptions

 All costs are presented in 2003 U.S. dollars without accounting for interest rates, inflation or the time value
 of money.

 3.4    Basis of Economic Analysis

 The cost analysis was prepared by breaking down the overall costs into the following categories:

       Purchased equipment costs
       Direct installation costs
       Indirect costs
       Direct annual operating costs
       Indirect annual operating costs

 These cost factors are examined below.

 3.4.1 Purchased Equipment  Costs

 Equipment costs are provided for frequently used equipment where rental cost would likely exceed the
 purchase cost. Specifically, costs are provided for a hose reel sprinkler system. The hose reel system is a
 self-propelled sprinkler that crosses the planted area at predetermined  transects.  The hose reel is not a
 permanent system and can be operated with minimal labor.  For the corn treatment,  it is anticipated that the
 nitrogen/phosphorus/potassium  ratio  (N-P-K) will  be  monitored frequently to optimize plant growth.  An
 equipment vendor cost was obtained for a kit that allows for in-field measurements of N-P-K.

 3.4.2 Direct Installation Costs

 For the corn treatment, direct installation costs include equipment mobilization, medium brush clearing with
 some tree removal, rough grading, and tilling in preparation for planting. A combination of equipment rental
 costs and  RSMeans cost data were used to estimate these costs.

 For the willow treatment, in addition to costs for rough grading and tilling, costs have been provided for
fertilizing and tree planting. Fertilizer would be applied using a spreader mounted on a conventional tractor.
Tree planting would be accomplished using mechanical tree planter pulled behind  a  conventional tractor.
Planting for a one-acre area is assumed to take one week. Ten percent of the planted area is assumed to be
left without trees to accommodate transects for the hose reel sprinkler. Assuming the trees are planted on one-
foot centers results in a total of 39,200 trees planted per acre.
                                             25

-------
3.4.3  Indirect Costs

Indirect costs include engineering,  construction oversight, permits, bonds,  profits and  overhead and
contingencies. These costs are estimated as percentages of direct costs and direct installation costs.

3.4.4  Direct Annual Operating Costs

For the corn treatment, direct annual operating costs include equipment rental, services, and materials
required for tilling, planting and irrigation. Rental equipment and analytical services have been estimated
based on vendor-provided estimates. Material costs, including seed and fertilizer, were estimated based on
various sources of information including the budgetary numbers provide on the University of Tennessee's
Extension Services web site. Values for rental equipment and materials were conservatively rounded for
purposes of this cost estimate.

Corn will be planted using a seed drill. Fertilizer application is assumed to be accomplished using a spreader
mounted on a three-point hitch.  Daily rates for the tractor, plow, disk, spreader, and planter are $150/day
each. Efforts to estimate delivery costs revealed that load width restrictions are imposed on roadways used
to access the Jones  Island CDF. As a result, additional fees would be incurred to pick up and load the drill
for transport to the CDF. These costs are assumed to be appropriate for the general case because CDFs are
frequently located in urban  areas that may also  have width restrictions associated with their roadways.
Additionally, it is assumed that soil preparation  (including corn incorporation using a plow and a disk) and
planting fora one-acre area can be accomplished  in two days.  To achieve the high and low moisture levels
suggested by the USAGE, irrigation is assumed to be conducted every other week during the growing season.
During the weeks with irrigation activity, watering would occur every other day.  Sampling for constituents of
concern is assumed to include collection of four composite samples per acre. One sampling round will occur
a the beginning of the treatment and one after the completion of the second growing season. Samples will
be analyzed for DRO, PAH and PCS.

For the willow treatment, direct annual operating costs are limited to irrigation and sampling. The same
irrigation and sampling assumptions were used for the willow treatment and corn treatment.

3.4.5   Indirect Annual Operating Costs

Indirect annual operating costs include percentage-based estimates of profit and overhead, administrative
charges, property taxes, and insurance.  Profits  and  overhead are  estimated as  a percentage of direct
operating costs. Administrative charges, property taxes, and insurance are estimated as percentages of total
capital investment.
                                             26

-------
3.5    Summary of Economic Analysis

The distinguishing factor between the treatment alternatives is the difference between direct operating costs
and direct installation costs.  Direct installation costs for the corn treatment are small compared to direct
operating costs. The inverse is true for the willow treatment. Despite this observed difference, the costs per
ton are comparable for the corn and willow treatments: $20.91 and $19.74, respectively. This is largely due
to a two year operating assumption.  For treatment periods extending beyond two years, costs for the corn
treatment would continue to increase at a significant rate, whereas operating costs for the willow treatment
increase more modestly.  In this case, the willow treatment would likely be the more economical alternative.
If irrigation was deemed unnecessary (a  realistic possibility), costs for either treatment would be reduced by
about 30%.
                                               27

-------
                                       SECTION 4
                           TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
This  section describes the effectiveness  of  the  plant- and  microbe-based  treatments  in  reducing
concentrations of PAHs, PCBs and DRO  in dredged materials during a field-scale demonstration of
phytoremediation technology at the Jones Island CDF in Milwaukee Harbor, Wisconsin. Information provided
in this section includes:  (1) site conditions prior to treatment, (2) technology implementation and monitoring,
(3) project objectives, including the methods implemented to achieve these objectives,  and (4) results and
performance, including system reliability and process residuals.

4.1 Background

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is tasked with maintaining approximately 140 navigation projects around
the Great Lakes. These navigation projects include harbors and channels for commercial and recreational
navigation users.   Due  to the  migration of sediments, periodic dredging is required to maintain both
commercial and recreational navigable waterways. USAGE dredges approximately 3 to 5 million yd3 (2.3 to
3.8 m3)of sediments annually from navigable waterways  around the Great Lakes (Miller, 1998).

In 1967, the USAGE began investigating environmentally sound alternatives to the open water disposal of
dredged material.  It was during this time that the concept of a confined disposal facility was first conceived
and implemented. As of 1998, there were a total of 45 CDFs in the Great Lakes  region (Miller, 1998). Of
these 45 CDFs, 28 remain operational and 17 are full.  Six of the 28 operational CDFs are now nearing design
capacity (i.e., 85% full).  Because the construction of replacement CDFs is  cost-prohibitive, USAGE policy
now encourages the development of beneficial uses for dredged material.

Many of the Great Lakes areas of concern contain sediments that have quantifiable  amounts of PAHs, PCBs,
and metals. Typically the concentration of these contaminants is low (barely exceeding solid waste criteria),
but high enough to restrict management options.  Unfortunately, as with other high volume/low concentration
wastes, disposal alternatives are extremely limited (Bowman, 1999).

The Jones Island CDF has received dredgings from the maintenance of surrounding waterways for nearly 30
years. The objective of the field demonstration was to evaluate the potential of four different treatment
schemes to "manufacture" a product suitable for beneficial use in the marketplace.  The long term goal of the
site owner and other stakeholders is to create a system that reduces the material inventory and prolongs the
service life of this and other CDFs.

4.2   Project Description

4.2.1 Physical Setting

The 44-acre (17.6-hectare) Jones Island CDF was constructed in  1975 and is of the "in-water" construction
type, meaning it was built by reclaiming a portion of Lake Michigan through the installation of breakwaters and
dikes. The CDF serves as a disposal facility for maintenance dredged material that is unsuitable for open-lake
disposal from both Milwaukee Harbor and Port Washington Harbor, located 25 mi (40 km) north of Milwaukee.
The design capacity of  the Jones Island CDF is 1.6 million yd3 (1.2 million m3).  Until recently, annual
maintenance dredging quantities  typically  ranged  from 50,000 to  95,000 yd3  (38,000  to  73,000  m3).
Completion of a storm-water interceptor system in Milwaukee in 1994 reduced annual dredged quantities to
around 25,000 yd3 (19,000 m3).  The remaining capacity is 425,000 yd3 (325,000 m3), and it is expected that
the  CDF will be filled in 20 years (Myers, 1999).
                                             28

-------
Water enters the Jones Island CDF primarily through three mechanisms:

1. Rainfall
2. Water associated with the dredged sediments deposited in the CDF
3. Groundwater recharge from the west

The sides of the CDF slope inward  generally toward a point north of center where a sizable pond has
developed.  After construction of the CDF, a grout "mattress" was injected along the north dock wall, and
bentonite slurry was injected along the northeast and southeast walls. As a result, all water entering CDF
boundaries is retained within or atop the dredged material and eventually lost through evaporation.

Approximately one-half of the CDF's areal extent has a depth to the water table equal to or less than 5 ft (1.5
m), which is to say 5 ft (1.5  m) above the low reference datum (LRD) of 576.8 ft (175.8 m) above mean sea
level. Information on the nature and extent of seasonal or episodic water table variations is not available. The
test site was located near the eastern tip of the CDF where the surface ranged from 4.4 to  7.3 ft (1.3 to 2.2
m) above the LRD.

4.2.2  Site Characterization

A site-wide characterization of dredged materials in the 0 ft - 4 ft (0 m -1.2 m) depth interval at the Jones
Island CDF was completed during  September 2000.  The  purpose of the study was to determine  the
concentration of PAHs, PCBs (aroclors), DRO, and various agricultural parameters in surface and near
surface  soils throughout the CDF in order to help select a suitable borrow area of test materials. Sampling
locations were identified using a 100 ft x 100 ft (30 m x 30 m) grid overlaying surface topography that is
greater than 5 ft (1.5 m) above the LRD. The grid produced 80 potential locations of which 26 were ultimately
sampled. Samples were drawn from three different intervals at each location.  These depths were 0 ft -1 ft
(0 m - 0.3 m), 1  ft - 2 ft (0.3  m - 0.6 m), and 2 ft - 4 ft (0.6 m -1.2 m).

Dredged materials encountered during the investigation generally consisted of brown to black silt, with plant
rootlets and trace shell material. Wood debris was encountered in samples within and near the portion of the
CDF previously  used for the biomound study.  Some apparent waste (e.g. slag-like materials) was identified
in several borings located in the northern and eastern portions of the site.

The analytical data indicate  that the soil from the 0 to 1 ft (0 to  0.3 m) interval at the GP-17 sampling location
had concentrations similar to the material used by the ERDC in its greenhouse study (section 4.2.3). The total
concentration of PAHs and  PCBs in the collect soil was 89 mg/kg and 2.7 mg/kg, respectively.  Since it was
desirable to use material with similar characteristics during the field test, the material around  GP-17 was
selected as the borrow area (Figure 4-1).

4.2.3  Treatment Options

Four treatments consisting  of three plant-based (corn, willow, natural vegetation) and one microbe-based
(unplanted) were evaluated during the CDF demonstration. Treatment options were  selected through a
combination of greenhouse testing, prior field experience, and plant surveys.

In 2000, the ERDC conducted a series of greenhouse trials to evaluate the ability of different plant varieties
to reduce the level of PAHs and PCBs in dredged materials collected from the Jones Island CDF.  Prior to the
trials, the ERDC performed  an extensive literature search for plants that showed an ability to treat PAHs and
PCBs and could grow well  in Milwaukee's climate during the spring and  summer months. A number of
candidate plants were identified and tested in combination with different soil amendments.

Results  show the best reductions were  achieved with a fast maturing, medium-height corn  hybrid.  On
unamended dredged material, the corn hybrid reduced the concentration of PAHs and PCBs by 78% and 64%,
respectively.


                                              29

-------
During a 1998 USAGE biomound study at Jones Island, a thick vegetative cover developed on the biomounds
during a period of relative inactivity.  The intensity of the plant cover indicated the existence of a large seed
bank in the surface layer of CDF material and the potential of the material to grow and sustain plant life without
a great deal of attention.  It was later surmised that the vegetation might also be capable of reducing
contaminant levels via phytoremediation.

In spring  2001 the ERDC conducted a brief floristic survey of the Jones Island CDF to identify the types of
natural vegetation that might develop during the field study. The ERDC reported that the CDF supports
vigorous  native annual and perennial vegetation during the growing season, and identified 85 species of
vascular plants. In the older areas of the CDF, which includes GP-17, the site of the test material borrow area,
the dominant vegetation was Phalaris arundinacea (Reed Canary Grass), Sa//x interior (Sandbar Willow), and
Urtica procera (Tall Nettle).  The sandbar willow, also known as coyote willow, was associated previously with
areas  of the CDF  exhibiting  some of  the  lowest pollutant concentrations  reported  from the 2000
characterization study.

The fourth treatment variation selected consisted of tilling and weed control. Weed control was maintained
through the use of herbicide (Roundup).

4.2.4 Treatment Plots

The experimental approach for this demonstration was based, in part, on the design recommendations made
by in the July 1999, Field Study Protocol, Phytoremediation of Petroleum in Soil produced by the RTDF
Phytoremediation Action Team.  This protocol was intended to promote uniformity in  test conditions and
enhance  comparability of results between demonstrations  of this technology.  One of the  key elements
described in the RTDF protocol is the use of a replicate-block configuration to evaluate treatments. In this
demonstration, the four  different treatments were evaluated in four replicate test plots.  Each test plot
consisted of the four different treatments.

The test plots were configured such that the end of one test plot was immediately adjacent to the beginning
of the next test plot.  The test plots were located in an area of higher elevation on the  CDF away from the
pond. (Figure 4-1). In general, the area gently slopes toward the pond and away from the CDF dikes.  Prior
to the construction of the test plots, the area was cleared of all vegetation and leveled. Debris (concrete,
metal, etc) that could damage equipment was removed from the test site.

The test plots were constructed with the overall dimensions of 60 ft W x 23 ft L (18 m x 7 m).  Each test plot
was divided into four treatment cells each measuring 12ftWx20ftL(4mx6m). The cells were constructed
with a 2 ft W x 1.5 ft H (0.6 m x 0.45 m) earthen berm, and the entire plot was constructed with a 3 ft W x  1.5
ft H (0.9  m x 0.45 m) berm except on the downslope side.  The berms were be covered with  black 40  mil
heavy-duty polyethylene sheeting to prevent erosion. The material for the berms was obtained from the area
surrounding the test plot location. A landscape fabric that maintains hydraulic conductivity with underlying soil
was installed to line the floor of each treatment celt to ensure that only the material placed for treatment was
sampled. Figure 1-3 illustrates the test plot layout.

4.2.5 Planting

The dredged material used  in the test plots was removed from the borrow area to a depth of 1 ft (0.3 m) using
a backhoe. The material was passed through a rotary soil screener to remove debris and homogenize  the
soil reducing it to a uniform aggregate mix. Once ready for use, a front-end loader was used to deposit the
dredged  material into each  treatment cell.  Initially, a tractor-mounted rotary tiller was used mix the material
within each cell. However, due to heavy rains between the placement of the material in the cell and tilling the
material  became wet and  the tractor-mounted tiller got stuck.   Thus, a walk-behind tiller was used to
thoroughly blend the dredged material in each treatment cell. A modest  slope over the cell length was
maintained to provide adequate drainage.
                                              30

-------

-------
The degree to which these collection, mixing, and placement activities distributed pollutants throughout the
soil bed in each treatment cell was unknown and, as a practical matter, could not be known until baseline
samples (considered non-critical) were collected and analyzed. Random multiple-aliquot composite sampling
was performed to help moderate the effects of potential high and low concentration spots and allow a more
accurate reflection of the true concentration of critical analytes.

For the corn treatment, a 45-day growing cycle corn was selected. Two growing cycles were completed during
each of the growing season. The corn was  seeded as "thick as possible" since root mass is considered
essential to treatment performance.  The seeds were planted using broadcast spreading techniques.

For the sandbar willows, root mass is also a key part of its treatment capability. As such, a close plant spacing
of 1 ft between tree centers was selected. This translates to 209 plants per treatment cell, 836 plants for all
four cells. The cuttings (36 in or 0.9 m) were placed in the soil beds down to the underlying landscape fabric,
nominally a depth of 1 ft (0.3 m) below soil surface. A total of 340 trees were replanted the beginning of the
second growing season (May 2002) due to mortality of the first year trees. The second batch of cuttings were
shorter (18 in or 0.45 m) and generally had a wider girth than the original cuttings.  Shorter cuttings were used
so that a larger portion of the stem would be fixed within the soil. The cuttings were obtained from Segal
Ranch, Grandview, WA (509- 840-1045).

4.2.6   Irrigation System

The irrigation system consisted of four 550-gallon polyethylene storage tanks, a trash pump, flexible hose, and
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping.  One storage tank was designated to each test plot. The  tanks were situated
on earthen mounds constructed at a higher elevation than the treatment cells to allow gravity flow.
Irrigation water was pumped from Lake Michigan via a vertical steel pipe placed over the CDF edge and down into
the lake surface. The pump outflow traveled through flexible hose and 2-in (5-cm) PVC piping to the storage tanks.
The vertical steel pipe was equipped with a ball-check valve at the bottom to prevent back flushing from the pump
and to keep the pump primed. Irrigation water gravity fed from the storage tanks to PVC header pipes on either
side of each treatment cell and ultimately to flexible drip hose laid across the soil.  Flow was controlled by a series
of ball valves on the supply and header pipes.  The modest slope of the treatment cells allowed the water to
infiltrate the seed/plant bed slowly and thoroughly hydrate the soil.

4.2.7  Plot Maintenance

The irrigation system was used to irrigate the test plots when the tensiometers readings were generally below
30 centibars and/or the plots appeared visibly dry (data not shown). Consideration was also given to the rain
forecast when making the determination to irrigate. The test plots were irrigated on 12 occasions in 2001 and
17 occasions  in 2002.

Due to  the healthy seed bank at the CDF,  the  willow treatment cells were weeded  by hand to  reduce
competitive growth. In this case, the use of herbicide was not a viable option due to the dense planting of the
cuttings and the windy conditions at the site that could spread the herbicide and damage the young trees. Soil
attached to the weed roots was removed and returned to the cell.

4.2.8  Monitoring

Data collected during the monitoring program was used to manage the system and evaluate the effectiveness
of the treatments. The following conditions were monitored during the demonstration:

               Soil PAH, PCB, DRO and agricultural (Row Crop Test/Complete Test) concentrations prior
              to planting the first season, also known as baseline  (T=0), prior to planting the  second
               growing season (T=1), and after the second growing season (T=2).
                                               32

-------
              Plant assessments were completed during the second growing season to evaluate percent
              cover, shoot biomass, and root parameters.

              Tensiometers were installed during the second growing season to measure soil moisture.

              Weather data was gathered from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
              (NOAA) station at nearby Mitchell Airfield in Milwaukee.

4.3        Project Objectives

In accordance with QAPP Requirements for Applied Research Projects (USEPA, 1998), the technical project
objectives of this demonstration are categorized as either primary or non-primary.  Critical data evaluated as
part of the demonstration  support primary  objectives,  and non-critical  data evaluated as part of the
demonstration support non-primary objectives.

4.3.1      Primary Project Objective

There was one primary objective:

1. The primary objective of this SITE demonstration was to determine after two growing seasons
whether the planned treatments attained residual contaminant levels, on a dry weight basis, for PAHs,
PCBs, and DRO, consistent with requirements suggested by the WDNR for this demonstration.
Management and disposition options for dredged sediments are being studied in a cooperative fashion by
government and industry stakeholders in the State of Wisconsin.  No promulgated standards exist for the
beneficial use of dredged sediments.  Therefore,  treatment goals for this demonstration were suggested by
the WDNR that are derived from the most relevant regulations currently available.   Results from the
end-of-treatment samples (T=2) were compared to the following criteria:

PAHs. The WDNR has suggested that the most appropriate standards for PAHs are in NR 538, Beneficial
Use of Industrial Byproducts. Some of these criteria are very low (e.g., benzo(a)pyrene, 0.0088 mg/kg). As
a result, selective ion monitoring (SIM) was employed, were appropriate, in an effort to achieve the lowest
possible analytical reporting limits.

PCBs. TSCA regulations under 40 CFR 761.61(a)(4)(i)(A) establish s1 ppm PCBs as the cleanup level for
sediments (referred to as "Bulk PCB remediation  waste")  in "High occupancy areas." High occupancy areas
are defined as any area where occupancy for any person not wearing dermal and respiratory protection is 840
hours or more per year.

DRO. Generic Wisconsin  residual clean-up levels (RCLs) for  DRO are set  forth in NR 720.09(4) of the
Wisconsin Administrative Code. The generic DRO RCLs are based on the hydraulic conductivity of soil at the
site. For soil that exhibits a hydraulic conductivity greater than 1 x 10"6 cm/second, DRO must be 100 mg/kg
or less. For soil that exhibits a conductivity less than 1x10* cm/second,  a clean-up level of 250 mg/kg or less
is required. The hydraulic conductivity at the Jones Island CDF site has been  estimated at greater than 1 x
10"6 cm/second.

4.3.2      Secondary Project Objectives

There were two secondary objectives:

1. Determine the best performing treatment(s) after two growing seasons. For this project, "best performing"
   is defined as achieving the lowest residual level, on a dry weight basis,  for each of the three critical
   analytes, PAHs, PCBs, and DRO.
                                             33

-------
 2.  Describe qualitatively the root and shoot characteristics of the three plant-based treatments over the
    course of the demonstration.

 4.4       Performance Data

 4.4.1     Summary of Results - Primary Objective

 Soil samples collected during the final sampling event show mixed results against suggested requirements,
 with only minor improvements between baseline and final sampling periods. None of the treatments produced
 final concentrations of total PCBs less than 1 mg/kg established in 40 CFR 761.61(a)(4)(i)(A) for bulk PCB
 remediation waste in high occupancy areas. None of the treatments produced final DRO concentrations of
 100 mg/kg or less established in NR 720.09(4) forsoils exhibiting a hydraulic conductivity greater than 1 x 1 (T6
 cm/second.

 4.4.2     Summary of Results - Secondary Objectives

 Soil samples collected during the final sampling event show that the treatments performed quite similarly when
 evaluated by the Tukey Test, a standard statistical tool designed to  make these types of comparisons. Plant
 suppression was found to  have a final DRO  concentration significantly lower (a = 0.10) than natural
 vegetation. No other significant differences were observed between the various treatments within the DRO,
 PAH, and PCB data sets.

 Vegetation growth was assessed two times during 2002 on July 29 and in September. The plant assessments
 showed vegetation treatments were successfully established.  Overall, the shallow depth of the soil in the
 treatment system probably limited plant growth and root development. The soil depth likely restricted plant
 nutrient availability and resulted in increased irrigation needs more than would probably be required in a
 system with a deeper soil profile.

 4.5     Discussion

 4.5.1   Primary Objective

 4.5.1.1  Method

 Full soil horizon aliquots were collected and composited onsite.  The samples were shipped offsite and
 analyzed by Analytical Laboratory Services, Inc., Middletown, PA (PAHs), Northeast Analytical Laboratory,
 Schenectady, NY (PCBs), and En Chem, Green Bay, Wl (DRO). Samples were analyzed according to the
 methods summarized in the project QAPP. Results were reported on a dry weight basis.

A total of 16 final (T=2) composite samples were collected and analyzed for each of the three target analytes.
 PAH data contain 16 individual compounds per sample. Results were reported with a small number of  non-
detects (6 of 256), which were set equal to the reporting limit (approximately  0.66 mg/kg). Three aroclors
 (1242,1254, and  1260) were determined for each PCB sample. One  PCB sample per treatment type was
further analyzed for the 209 PCB congeners. No non-detects were reported in either the aroclor or congener
data set. The concentration of aroclors was summed to produce a  total PCB concentration, likewise for the
congener samples.  The DRO data set consists of one value per sample result.  The value represents
hydrocarbons in the range of C10 - C28.  No non-detects were reported.

For each target analyte  (PAHs,  PCBs, DRO), the database from the final sampling event contains four
composites per target analyte per treatment type (e.g., four PAH corn, four PAH willow, and so on), with the
exception of PCB congeners for which there is only one sample per treatment type. The results for PAHs,
PCB aroclors, and DRO for each treatment type were averaged and a 90% upper confidence limit (UCL)
calculated prior to comparison with project objectives. As described earlier, only one PCB congener sample
was analyzed per treatment type.


                                             34

-------
4.5.1.2 Results

PAHs. In comparison with WDNR NR 538 Category  1 standards, corn, natural vegetation, and willow
produced 90% UCL PAH concentrations at or below numerical standards with 7 of 16 compounds; plant
suppression, 8 of 16 compounds (Table 4-1).  Against less stringent Category 2 standards, corn, natural
vegetation, and willow produced 90% UCL PAH concentrations at or below numerical standards with 8 of 16
compounds; plant suppression, 11 of 16 compounds (Table 4-2). A similar evaluation using mean T=0 data,
however, shows that most of the results described above had already been achieved (data not shown).
PCBs. None of the treatments produced a final mean concentration of total PCBs below this standard. This
holds true for both aroclor and congener-based results (Table 4-3).

DRO.  None of the treatments produced a final mean concentration of DRO below the applicable standard
(Table 4-3). It is interesting to note that the mean DRO concentration of three treatments was below the 100
mg/kg mark at the project outset (data not shown). A number of possible explanations for the increase in DRO
over the course of the field demonstration have been explored, ranging from uniformly higher spike recoveries
and obscured chromatographic peak areas to natural variability and even biogenesis of similar molecular
weight organic compounds.  None of these possibilities provides a complete explanation; however, the
occurrence underscores some of the inherent difficulty in using analytical techniques based upon fingerprint
identification and quantification.  Section 4.6.3 presents additional information on the biogenesis of organic
compounds.
 Table 4-1. PAH Treatment Results vs. NR 638 Category 1 Standards
 PAH Compounds
 Acenaphthene
 Acenaphtnytene
 Anthracene
 3enzo(a)anthracene
                        Jft
      _-H5!                                            l"i:T..,-,
                                                         t *.:'
                                                         *-.* -.--
                          ,
 Benzo(a)pvrene
 Benzo(b)fluoranthene
 Benzofg.h.Dperytene
 Benzo(k)fluoranthene
 Chrvsene
                                                                         10
 Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene
 Fluoranthene
0.0088
                                                                        1.2
 Fluorene

 Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
 0.088
3.2
3.5
                                                                        3.8
 Naphthalene
   600
                                n
 Phenanthrene
  0.88
                                                          9.2
                                               11
 Pyrene
   500
                             3!
 Note: Shaded results are at or below standard
                                               35

-------
Table 4-2. PAH Treatment Results vs. NR 638 Category 2 Standards
 PAH Compounds
 Acenaphthene
 Acenapmhylene
                               	
 Note: Shaded results are at or below standard

 Table 4-3. PCB and PRO Treatment Results vs. Project Standards
                       Standard!  1
                         Cms/kg
                            T
                                             B9S2 EMES BES!! Eilill BMSi EHE
Analytes
 PCB Arodors
BEES
                   4.2
                                                                                      5.0
 PCB Congeners
                   3,
                                                                                      NA
 PRO
                  1tC
                                                                                     200
 Notes;
 *PCB Congener results are for a single analysis
 NA Not applicable

 4.5.2  Secondary Objective #1

 4.5.2.1  Method

 This evaluation utilizes the soil data described in the primary objective with several exceptions: (1) the results
 were not averaged, (2) the concentration of individual PAH compounds was summed to produce a total PAH
 value, and (3) PCB congener data was not used. In addition, the correction for an increase in total organic
 carbon content was deemed unnecessary and therefore not performed. The correction was originally planned
 due to concerns (in particular) about dilution from the buildup of corn biomass recycled into test material after
 each crop cycle. Between T=0 and T=2, the TOC content of soils in corn-planted cells actually dropped (4.3
 to 4.1%).  The  other treatments had similar changes: natural vegetation declined from 4.1 to  4.0%; plant
 suppression increased from 4.1 to 4.5%; and willow did not change (4.1%).

 The final composite-sample database contains four composites per target analyte per treatment type.

 4.5.2.2 Results

 Soil samples collected during the final sampling event show that the treatments performed quite similarly when
 evaluated  by the Tukey Test, which  is a statistical procedure designed to determine the best performer
 through a series of pair-wise comparisons at a specified family-wise level of confidence (in this case, a = 0.10.
 The test is described in  more detail  in Appendix A. Plant suppression was found to have a final DRO
 concentration significantly lower than natural vegetation. No  other significant differences were observed
 between the various treatments within the DRO, PAH, and PCB data sets (calculation not shown).
                                               36

-------
4.5.3  Secondary Objective #2

The full report on plant assessment work is provided as Appendix B. A summary of the methods and results
is presented in the following subsections.

4.5.3.1 Method

The plant assessment procedure involved selecting three random points within each vegetation treatment plot.
The sampling points were at least 1 meter from the edge of the plot to allow for border effects. A 0.5 meter
by 0.5 meter sampling frame was place at each sampling point. The following parameters were estimated.

Percentage cover: Percentage vegetation cover was estimated within the sampling frame. A list was made
of all species occurring with the frame. The coverage of each species was visually estimated. The percentage
of bare ground also was estimated. The percentage cover analysis was especially important for the natural
vegetation treatment to document plant species composition following natural colonization of the plot.

Plant height: Plant height was measured as the height of the tallest plants within the sampling frame.

Above-ground biomass. Shoot biomass is the amount of dry plant material produced in grams per square
meter. Vegetation within the area covered by the sample frame was clipped down to the ground surface,
placed into plastic bags,  shipped a central processing location, dried in an oven, and weighed. Vegetation
leaning outside the frame was not included. Sandbar willows were not harvested for biomass. Willow trees
that occurred within each sample frame were measured for stem diameter and plant height. Six to nine willow
trees were measured from each plot.

Root parameters. Root parameters include root mass, total root length, root surface area, average root
diameter, and root length density. Within each quadrat, one full profile core sample was collected using a 78
mm diameter coring device. Each soil core was sampled to the depth of the treatment cell where the synthetic
liner was encountered. In the laboratory, soil cores were processed by cleaning the soil from roots using a
series of water washes. The cleaned roots were stained with methyl violet, spread on transparency sheets,
and scanned using a flatbed scanner. Estimates were obtained from total root length, root surface area,
average root diameter, and root length density. Scanned roots were spread for drying to estimate root mass
in each sample.

4.5.3.2 Results

Digital photographs were taken of each plot at the two sampling times. Both sets of photographs show good
canopy development in corn and natural vegetation plots. The willow plots show good plant survival but rather
limited growth of trees during this second growing season.  Significant efforts were made to control volunteer
vegetation; however, the cycles of  weed growth followed by control measures may affect treatment
comparisons. This observation is common in many phytoremediation trials. Volunteer vegetation in the plant
suppression plots and in the willow plots was well controlled at the time of the second plant assessment event.

The  corn treatments were beginning to tassel at the time of the plant assessments. This suggests corn
biomass production probably reached close to its maximum potential for each of the corn crops. The stature
of the corn plants was quite short indicating that corn growth may have been  much less than is usually
observed in optimal corn growing conditions. The limited corn growth may be either due to the varieties of corn
that were used or due to growth limiting conditions at the site. One important growth limiting condition was the
shallow soil depth (about 15 cm) of the treated soil.

Percentage cover was almost 100% in the corn plots for each crop. Plant height was similar for both crops
at 74 cm. Above-ground biomass was similar for both plantings. However root mass was significantly greater
in the first planting compared to the second planting. Since the plant rooting depth was limited by the depth
of the treated soil, the root mass estimate for the corn plots may be a good estimate of total corn root mass.
The  ratio of root mass to aboveground biomass is only about 10% for the corn plots. A higher ratio of root

                                              37

-------
mass to aboveground biomass would usually be expected. This further indicates that limited soil volume may
have limited corn growth potential.

Both the corn and natural vegetation treatments showed nearly 100% vegetation cover while the willow plots
has less than 10% vegetation cover. This is a clear indication that the willow plantings have not fully developed
by the end of the second growing season. Root growth in the willow plots was also limited compared to the
other treatments. This should be taken into consideration in interpreting the results of this trial. The similarity
of average  root diameter in the willow plots  compared to the other treatments also indicates that a limited
number of tree roots were recovered in the sampled soil cores. Willow roots would usually be expected to
have higher root diameter then the other herbaceous species such as the grasses found  in this study. The
natural vegetation treatment had significantly higher root production than either the corn or willow treatments.
These results indicate that natural recovery of vegetation produced good root growth undera low management
treatment scheme.

Corn plots produced higher above-ground biomass than the natural vegetation plots. Although root parameters
for the total corn data were higher than for the natural vegetation treatment,  most of these differences were
not statistically significant. These results show, however, that an intensively managed cropping system such
as several corn plantings could produce greater root growth than a less intensively managed system. System
performance, management considerations, and economics would determine if an intensively managed plant
system is warranted compared to a minimally managed plant system. During the limited term of this trial, the
corn and natural vegetation treatments clearly produced greater root growth than the willow treatment. A
longer term treatment system would be needed for effective assessment of the willow treatment.

Correlation coefficients between each pair of plant assessment parameters were calculated within each of the
vegetation  treatments. Above-ground plant growth, either measured as plant height or as above-ground
biomass  production was not correlated with root growth parameters. This suggests that under the conditions
of this trial, it was necessary to evaluate plant root growth separately from above-ground growth to understand
the extent of plant root development. Root mass, root length, root surface area, and root length density were
all highly correlated. This observation held for each treatment. The association of root parameter estimates
suggests that an assessment of root mass may provide as a reasonable estimate of plant density. Root mass
is easier to measure than root length and density. This observation may  be helpful in planning future trials.

Assessment of the vegetation composition of the natural vegetation treatment was important for determining
which plant species occupied the site. The plant community at represents an early stage  of ecological
success. Composition of the plant community would be expected to change with the length of time the plots
are allowed to grow. Twenty-four total plant species from 12 plant families were identified in the natural
vegetation  plots. Nine of the species were members of the Asteraceae  or sunflower family. The dominant
species in all plots was Phalaris arundinacea L. or reed canary grass.  The proportion of bare ground in the
plots was limited to an overall average of 5%. Only plant species present within the sample quadrats at the
time of the  assessment in late September were recorded in this survey.  Additional species were present in
other part of the plots and at other times during the growing season. These results  show the treated soil can
support diverse plant communities from seeds naturally present at the CDF.

4.5.4  QA Review of Critical Sampling  and Analysis  Data

A review of the critical sample data and associated QC analyses was performed to determine whether the data
collected were of adequate quality to provide proper evaluation of the project's technical objectives.  The
critical data consisted of the DRO, PAH and PCB analyses of samples from the test plots collected during the
final post-treatment event. The results of the measurements designed to assess the data quality objectives
are summarized below, along with a discussion of the impact of data quality on achieving  the project's
technical objectives.

Accuracy: Select samples from the test plots were spiked, analyzed and evaluated for accuracy based upon
analyte recoveries.  Additionally, spiked blanks or LCSs were also analyzed. Results summarized in Table
4-4 indicate that all average recoveries were within specified control limits for all critical analyses.  Several
PAHs had recoveries outside QA objectives in one or more of the individual spikes analyzed; however, when

                                               38

-------
spikes were re-extracted and re-analyzed at a higher concentration more appropriate to the native sample
concentration, all recoveries were within control limits. Average recoveries of all 16 PAHs in the low and high
spikes were the same. As a further evaluation of potential bias, a continuing calibration check standard,
analyzed at least daily, was prepared using a second source standard and used to verify the accuracy of the
initial calibration. These QC measurements indicated that sample analysis was performed in the absence of
significant bias and results can be considered to have met accuracy objectives.

Precision: For this project,  precision was assessed by the analysis of spiked duplicates as well as the
collection of homogenization replicates. All DRO and PCB  spiked duplicate  pairs had relative percent
differences (RPO) within specified criteria. Six PAH compounds had RPO values that exceeded the 35% RPO
criteria.  Results for analyte precision, based on the RPD between spiked duplicate pairs, LCS/LCSD RPD
values where appropriate and the homogenization replicates are summarized in Table 4-5. One of the two
DRO homogenization replicates had RPO values outside the 35% guidelines and two of 32 RPD values for
the low  level PAH spikes  analyzed were above  35% but re-extraction and re-analysis at  a higher
concentration resulted in all RPD values within limits.  Overall, precision data indicated representative samples
were collected and analyzed.

Table 4-4. Overall Accuracy Summary - Jonas Island CDF Critical Sample Data
Parameter
DRO
PAHs: Low (1)
PAHs: High (2)
PCBs
Avg Spiked
Recovery
72%
98.5%
99%
111%
Recovery
Range
64-79%
19-187 %
69-139 %
106-116%
# Spiked
Recoveries QC*
0/2
19/64
0/64
0/4
Average tCS Recovery
76%
88%
88%
101%
*OC * Number of spiked recoveries for each analyte that was outside control limits, out of the total number of spiked anatytes
analyzed.
(1) Accuracy data based on spikes performed at a low level relative to native sample concentrations; average spiked recovery based
on al 16 compounds for the four spikes analyzed.
(2) Accuracy data based on spikes performed at a level five times higher than the low spike concentration; average spiked recovery
based on al 16 compounds for the four spikes analyzed. Note that the LCS was not spiked at an elevated concentration.

Detection limit objectives were met for all samples.  DRO and PCB results were all reported at levels more
than 10 times above the detection limits (DLs) specified in the QAPP (10 and 0.1 mg/kg, respectively). All
PAH compounds had DLs below the specified limits, or were detected at levels above the detection limits
specified in the QAPP; for some compounds, these  limits would have required the use of SIM analysis
(e.g., benzo(a)pyrene and dibenz(a,h)anthracene had DLs of 8 ug/kg; benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene had DLs of 80 ug/kg).

Completeness objectives for the project were met.

Comparability expresses the extent to which one data set can be compared to another. To generate
comparable results, standard methods that are widely accepted along with strict analytical and field
protocols were used. These methods were clearly specified  in the QAPP and reviewed before samples or
data were collected.
                                                39

-------
Parameter
DRO
PAHs:Low(1)
PAHs: High (2)
PCBs
MS/MSD
RPD Range
21
0-78
0-30
0-8
f OC*
0/1
6/32
0/32
0/2
ICS/LCSD
RPORangt
9.3
NA
NA
NA
# QC*
0/1
NA
NA
NA
Homoeenizatkmfteplkate
. , RPD Range ,,. -
18-37
0-45.9

1.1-5.1
*OC = Number of RPD values for each analyte that was outside control limits, out of the total number of RPD values calculated for
the spiked duplicate pairs analyzed.
NA: LCSs not analyzed as spiked duplicates
(1) Precision data based on spiked duplicates performed at a low level relative to native sample concentrations; RPD range based
on all 16 compounds for the two spiked duplicate pairs analyzed.
(2) Precision data based on spiked duplicates performed at a level five times higher than the low spike concentration; RPD range
based on all 16 compounds for the two spiked duplicate pairs analyzed.

Representativeness refers to the degree with which a sample exhibits average properties of the site at the
particular time being evaluated. This is achieved by ensuring that collection procedures are appropriate for
the matrix and sampling location.  An independent QA audit conducted during sampling ensured QAPP
approved procedures were being followed. Homogenization replicates, collected and analyzed throughout
the project, indicated  that samples were well-mixed and representative.

Based upon the review of the data quality indicators  as  discussed above, it appears the critical data
generated during the final sampling and analysis post-treatment event for the Jones Island CDF Dredged
Material Reclamation demonstration met QAPP-specified criteria. These data are considered suitable without
qualification for use in evaluating the project objectives for the demonstration of the reclamation and remedial
process.


4.6    Other Issues Related to this Demonstration

4.6.1  Establishing the Baseline Condition  at the Site

Purposeful effort was expended to mix the dredge materials as thoroughly as possible at baseline prior to
planting.  It was hoped that the  16 treatment cells would be nearly homogeneous with respect to the levels
of the contaminants of interest. After baseline primary and field  duplicate  samples were collected and
analyzed, the results  were evaluated statistically in order to answer three fundamental questions:

0.  Are the contaminants uniformly distributed  across the 16 treatment cells at  baseline?
1.  Do the primary and field duplicate samples tell the same story?
2.  Is the mean of a given analyte (PAHs, PCBs, or DRO) essentially the same in the cells of the four types
    of treatments being tested?

The evaluations arrived at the following conclusions:

3.  PAHs and PCBs  were uniformly distributed among the treatment cells at T=0,  but DRO was not.
4.  In terms of means (or medians), there was no significant difference between primary and field duplicate
    samples for PAHs and DRO. However, there was a significant difference between PCB primary and field
    duplicate  samples.
5.  The means for PAHs, PCBs, and DROs were not significantly different among each of the four treatment
    types.

Details of the statistical evaluations are presented in the companion Technology Evaluation Report.
                                               40

-------
4.6.2  General Observations

In the summer of 2001, after the establishment of the test plots, management routines were not set up
properly, leading to less-than-optimum irrigation schedules and inadequate weeding in the willow and plant
suppression plots.  Corn did not germinate in the initial planting and was replanted by the ERDC in August,
2001. The only plots that had plant growth for most of the growing season was the natural vegetation and
the willow plots (which had significant weed growth).  Comparing the total PAH data for T=0 and T=1 (see
table 4-6), concentration reduction ranked by treatment was natural vegetation>willow>corn.   Natural
vegetation and willow plots had the longest period of exposure to plant roots during the 2001 growing season,
which is possibly the reason for the greater reduction in PAHs.

Reductions of PAH concentrations in 2002 were ranked natural vegetation>corn>willow, which is consistent
with total root mass natural vegetation>corn>willow determined by the plant assessments (see Appendix B).
With better weed control in the willow plots during the 2002 growing season, less root mass was produced
and PAH reduction ceased.

4.6.3  Potential for Formation of Biogenic Hydrocarbons

Chromatograms from DRO analyses were analyzed to determine likely causes of observed fluctuations and
increases in DRO  concentrations over the treatment period.  Two causes of the observed behavior were
deemed likely: biogenic hydrocarbons, and organic carbon decay.

An analysis of Chromatograms was completed to determine whether the observed fluctuation of diesel range
organic concentrations was due to biogenic hydrocarbon sources. Biogenic hydrocarbons are generated by
biological sources such as land plants,  phytoplankton, animals, bacteria, and algae (Wang  et al, 1999).
Plants in particular emit a wide range of  hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, the most abundant being
isoprene and monoterpenes. Based on  a review of the available literature, a potential for the formation of
biogenic hydrocarbon exists in treatment cells where corn was planted because decomposition of corn
biomass tilled into these cells as a  function of the demonstration design could theoretically lead to the
formation of biogenic hydrocarbons. These hydrocarbons and their corresponding peaks, called the biogenic
cluster, are present in a specific range of the Wisconsin Modified DRO (WDNR, 1995) method and would be
expected at around 20 minutes on the chromatographs (Wang et al, 1999).

For  this  project,  DRO  Chromatograms  from the  three  sampling  events were  evaluated.  These
Chromatograms show peak integration from 5 to 13 minutes. The Wisconsin Modified DRO method requires
a diesel standard  be run to establish the DRO range, and  states that the DRO range  comprises the
chromatographic responses falling between the n-decane (C10) to n-octacosane (C28) peaks. A diesel
component standard run with this method would typically have the standard peaks ranging from  10.44
minutes to 28.126  minutes.  Consistent with the Wisconsin Modified DRO method, the laboratory's standard
operating procedure for the DRO method requires the diesel component standard be run to  establish the
DRO range.  The diesel component standard used by the laboratory has a time range of 10 to 28 minutes,
however individual GC columns may vary when running the Wisconsin Modified DRO method. In running
the standards, the  laboratory found their  DRO range to be from 5 to 13  minutes. As a result, the DRO peak
integration stopped at 13 minutes regardless of whether more  peaks were present. The peaks beyond the
13 minutes were considered outside of (i.e. heavier than) the  DRO range.  Assuming a linear relationship
between Chromatograms, a biogenic cluster peak observed at 20 minutes in the 10 to 28 minute range
corresponds to 8.9 minutes in the 5 to 13 minute range.

A comparison of Chromatograms for the  Plot C corn cell samples to Chromatograms for natural vegetation,
plant suppression, and willow samples from Plot C was conducted. The detection of biogenic hydrocarbons
would  not be expected at the T=0 sampling interval since steps were taken to homogenize the dredged
material present in all the test cells and no divergence in DRO would have occurred yet as a result of
vegetative differences among test cells. The fingerprints of DRO Chromatograms for natural vegetation, plant
suppression, and willow samples appear quite comparable.
                                                41

-------
 Table 4-6. Comparteon between T0,1 & 2 Analyte Data
                                                       Poiynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons {mg/kg)
PAH Compounds
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthytene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
                                                       Natural Vegetation   |   Ptant Sy ppiwsion
                      T=C
                       1.3
                     0.72
                      4.0
                       1C
                       12
         T=1
          1.1
          1.1
         2.4
         7.9
          11
                T=J
       0.74
                                                                           	"	""IT?
               ms
       0.78
        2.0

        6.1

        8.8
                                                                        Willow
                T=0
                      T=1
                                              0.94
                               0.86
                                              0.76
                               0.96
                                               2.6
                                 1.8
                                               8.6
                                 7.0
                                                10
                                9.2
                                                     T=2
                               0.76
                               0.69
                                2.0
                                6.8
                                8.4
Benzo(b)fiuoranttiene
                       18
          18
         13
          1
                                       'tt
                  16
                        15
Benzo(q,h,i)perylene
3.4
  3.6
3.3
                3.0
  m
ai
         *.
4.1
2.8
                               3.5
Benzo(k)fluoranlhene
                      7,6
         7.0
        8.7
        jy
                 5.6
                       6.8
                                                              8.5
Chrvsene
                       12
         9.5
        8.8
                                       T4
                          11
                         8.3
                               8.7
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
                       1.2
          1.1
        1.0
                                       1J
                 1.4
                      0.91
                                        1,
Fluoranthene
                       22
          20
         19
                                        H
                         18
                         18
                               17
Fluorene
                       1.7
         1.3
       0.86
                                               1.1
                               0.96
                               0.83
Indenod ,2,3-cdtovrene
              : 3J
  4.0
3.6
                3.2
4,1
                 S.1
               4.4
        3.2
                                3.5
Naphthalene
                      2.2
          1.7
        2.2
                                               2.3
                                 1.6
                                1.
                                9.2
                                 13
                                 97
Phenanthrene
                       15
          11
         10
                                                12
                                8.7
Pyrene
                       18
          14
         13
                                                15
                                 12
Total PAHs
               94
 130
110
                100
                        110
                        98
                                                                 PCB Aroclors (mg/kg)
                                      ;<&*_
Natural Vegetation   /Plant Suppress ton
                                                                        Willow
PCBArodors
                      T=0
                                      T=0
                                                      T=1
                                                             T=2
1242
                     0.94
         1.6
        1.6
                                              0.94
                                1.6
                                                               1.5
1254
                       1.2
         2.1
        2.2
                                       .u
                         1.2
                        2.0
                               2.0
1260
                     0.36
         1.1
        1.1
*H
                                      0.86
                        0.41
                      0.87
                             0.94
Total Arodors
                      2.5
         4.9
        4.8
                                               2.5
                                4.5
                                4.4
                                                                PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
                                                       Natural Vegetation
                                            Plant Suppression
                                                   Willow
a
                                                                       T=2
a
                                                                   T=0
                                                              T=2
Total Congeners
                              4.6
                 3.9
                               3J
                 3.9
                       3.4
                              3.6
                                                             Diesel Range Organics (mg/kg)
                                                       Natural Vegetation
                                                                        Willow
                                                        T=0
                             T=1
                T=2
                        T=0|   T=1
                         911   280
                                                     T=2
DRO
                      140
         250
       230
                                       110
                                160
Note: Resutts rounded to two significant figures

-------
A comparison of chromatograms for the Plot C corn cell samples to chromatograms for natural vegetation, plant
suppression, and willow samples from Plot C was conducted. The detection of biogenic hydrocarbons would not
be expected at the T=0 sampling interval since steps were taken to homogenize the dredged material present in
all the test cells and no divergence in DRO would have occurred yet as a result of vegetative differences among
test cells. The fingerprints of DRO chromatograms for natural vegetation, plant suppression, and willow samples
appear quite comparable. Comparison of chromatograms for samples withdrawn from corn test cells to the nearly
identical fingerprints associated with the DRO samples from other test cells revealed that numerous individual
peaks not found in DRO chromatograms for other test cells are present on the leading edge of the com test cell
DRO chromatogram. This difference in DRO fingerprint is most notably present at the T=1 sample interval. The
T=1 sample interval occurred in the spring of 2002 after tilling in one 2001 corn crop and the elapse of the winter
season, which potentially provided time for biogenic hydrocarbon formation. Though there is a difference in the
DRO fingerprints of corn versus other test cells, the magnitudes of the extra peak areas that distinguish the T=1
corn DRO chromatogram are small relative to the total DRO detected during the analysis suggesting that the
impact of any biogenic hydrocarbons that are present on the total DRO concentration for this sample is limited.
Though one crop of corn was grown  and tilled into the corn test cells during the 2002 growing season, a
comparison of the Plot C, T=2 DRO chromatograms does not as clearly support the notion of biogenic hydrocarbon
formation as  the comparison for T=1.  A compilation of chromatograms analyzed for evidence of biogenic
hydrocarbons can be found in Appendix C.
                                                43

-------
                                         Section 5
                         Other Technology Requirements
5.1    Environmental Regulation Requirements

This demonstration was conducted under the jurisdiction of the WDNR. Similar phytoremediation efforts
conducted outside of the  state of Wisconsin will likely be  subject to alternate federal, state and/or local
regulations consistent with the change in jurisdiction.  Governing agencies may require permits prior to
implementing a phytoremediation technology on dredged,  material. An air permit issued by the state Air
Quality Control Region may be required if air emissions in excess of regulatory criteria, or of toxic concern,
are anticipated. If remediation is conducted at a Superfund site, federal agencies, primarily the U.S. EPA, will
provide regulatory oversight. Section 2 of this report further discusses the environmental regulations that may
apply to this phytoremediation process.

5.2   Personnel Issues

A number of personnel are required to implement this phytoremediation technology with its various stages.
The exact number will be largely dependent on the size of the area to be treated. Because this technology
lends itself to the remediation of large sites, extensive site preparation with mechanized large equipment and
assembly of a large irrigation system may require several individuals (inclusive of contractors). After site setup,
labor associated with a phytoremediation system such as the one demonstrated at the Jones Island CDF is
limited to  tilling, fertilization, replanting and irrigation as needed. These tasks could be accomplished at time
critical points by a small group of individuals over a one to three day period. Monitoring and sampling events
will likely involve decisions about the need for irrigation and the collection of samples to determine the
progress  of the remedial effort. Estimated labor requirements for the treatment of an acre to one foot depth
are discussed in detail in Section 3 of this report.

For most  sites, the personnel protective equipment (PPE) for workers will include steel-toed shoes or boots,
safety glasses, hard hats, and chemical resistant gloves. Noise levels would usually not be a concern for an
application of this phytoremediation technology. However  some equipment used for crop cultivation and
vegetative clearing and regrading (i.e. tillers, mowers, chain saws, etc.) could create appreciable noise. Thus,
noise levels should be monitored for such equipment to ensure that workers are not exposed to noise levels
above the time weighted average of 85 decibels over an 8-hour day. If this level is exceeded and cannot be
reduced,  workers would be required to wear hearing protection.

5.3   Community Acceptance

Potential  hazards to a surrounding community may include exposure to particulate matter that becomes
airborne during regrading and tilling operations.  VOC air emissions are possible if VOCs are also present in
the soil.  Particulate air emissions can be controlled by dust suppression measures.

Overall, there are few environmental disturbances associated with phytoremediation. No appreciable noise,
beyond that generated by the short term use of agricultural  equipment, is anticipated for the majority of the
treatment time. A fence may be desirable to keep animals and unauthorized visitors from entering the site.

The Jones Island CDF has become an impromptu wildlife sanctuary that is well recognized by local residents
who frequent it for activities such as birdwatching. Should this be the case at other CDFs, remediation efforts
may be met with concerns about wildlife habitat destruction.
                                              44

-------
                                         Section 6
                                   Technology Status
 6.1     Previous Experience

 6.1.1  USACE Dredging Operations and Environmental Research

 For the USACE, this demonstration is part of a continuum of projects under its Dredging Operations and
 Environmental Research (DOER) program.  A compendium of DOER efforts examining dredged material
 characterization, treatment and beneficial use options is available in the form of Technical Notes, which can
 be downloaded in PDF format at the following address: http://www.wes.armv.mil/el/dots/doer/technote.html.

 For more information on DOER activities surrounding this and  other similar projects, contact Richard Price.
 Communication information for Mr. Price is given in section 1.7.

 6.1.2  Volatilization Study

 One potential pathway of migration from a  CDF is volatilization of compounds.  Disposal,  storage, and
 treatment operations associated with placement of dredged materials in CDFs can increase the opportunity
 for emissions. The emission of organic compounds from exposed contaminated dredged materials is known
 to depend upon  a  variety of factors related to sediment physical characteristics, contaminant chemical
 properties, and environmental variables.

 To verify previous  work in assessing contaminant emission  losses from CDFs, a controlled simulation
 experiment was conducted in the field in October of 1999 with contaminated sediment used in previous
 laboratory investigations.  The field location was the Bayport CDF located in  Green Bay,  Wl.  Volatile
 emissions of PCBs were monitored from a biomound treatment containing one part each of dredged material,
 wood chips and biosolids.  The mound measured 132 ft L (40  m) by 9 ft W (2.7 m) with 5 ft (1.5 m) sloped
 sides.  Sampling was conducted before and immediately after the mounds were turned.  Emissions were
 monitored using a modified flux chamber developed for  previous field experiments.  The apparatus was
 designed to form an air tight seal over a fixed surface area of the biomound.  Air was passed across the
 exposed sediment area for 6 hours. The mounds were turned, and then the flux chamber was reapplied
 immediately.

 Air and soil samples were collected pre- and post-turning. Analysis of the soil samples revealed the presence
 of one aroclor and several congeners in ug/kg concentrations.  Comparison of pre- and post-turning results
 suggest that there was no significant change in soil concentration as a result of the mound turning operation.
 This observation  is  corroborated by the air sample analyses,  which were reported as non-detect for PCB
 aroclors and congeners.

 For details on this volatilization study, contact Richard Price. Communication information for Mr. Price is given
 in section 1.7.

 6.1.3   Center for By-Products Utilization

 In conjunction with the 1998 USACE biomound study mentioned in section 4.2.3, the University of Wisconsin-
 Milwaukee Center for By-Products Utilization (UWM-CBU) assisted in the effort to find beneficial uses for the
treated dredged materials. UWM-CBU identified potential users, and those which could utilize large quantities
of treated material include nurseries and associated stock dealers,  fertilizer manufacturers, arboretums,
botanical gardens, landscapers, golf courses, parks, government agricultural offices, and top soil marketers.
The companies targeted were primarily within 30 miles (48 km) of Jones Island or its sister facility in Green
                                             45

-------
Bay. This was judged to be the maximum distance to cost-effectively transport the treated materials. The
companies, which total approximately 200, were identified through Internet searches.

For details concerning the UWM-CBU effort, contact Dave Bowman.  Communication information for Mr.
Bowman is given in section 1.7.

6.2    Ongoing Studies at Jones Island

The USAGE is continuing studies at the Jones Island test site. In June 2003, the ERDC collected samples
for evaluation through earthworm bioassays. Earthworm bioassays are a widely recognized tool for evaluating
the toxicity of contaminated soils and establishing the bioavailability of the pollutants contained therein.
Testing results should be available Fall 2003.

For details on the earthworm bioassays, contact Richard Price. Communication information for Mr. Price is
given in section  1.7.

6.3    Scaling  Capabilities

The technology developer expects that this phytoremediation technology be scaled up for application to
substantial,  acre-size  footprints at the Jones  Island CDF and potentially at other  CDFs that exhibit
characteristics consistent with its implementation. Much of the design of this phytoremediation approach to
the remediation  of dredged  material has incorporated scale-up as it was developed.  For instance, ordinary
row crop farming techniques such tilling, fertilization, irrigation, and potentially pest management are readily
available in a broad geographic area and are applicable to scale-up during future implementation. Section
3 of this document discusses some of the techniques that will facilitate scale-up in greater detail.


                                       References

Bowman, D.  1999. Efforts to Develop Beneficial Uses for Dredged Material from the Milwaukee and Green
  Bay Confined Disposal Facilities. Detroit, Ml: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Engineer District,
  Detroit.

Donnelly, P.  and J. Fletcher. 1994. Potential use of mycorrhizal fungi as bioremediation agents.  In T.A.
  Anderson and J.R. Coats (eds.), Bioremediation Through Rhizosphere Technology, ACS Symposium
  Series, Volume 563. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.

Miller, J. 1998. Confined Disposal Facilities on the Great Lakes. Chicago, IL: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
  Great Lakes & Ohio River Division.

Myers, T. and D.W. Bowman,  1999.  Bioremediation of PAH-contaminated Dredged Material at the Jones
  Island CDF: Materials, Equipment, and Initial Operations, DOER Technical Notes Collection (TN DOER-C5).
  Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

ITRC. 2001. Phytotechnology Technical and Regulatory Guidance Document.  Washington, DC: Interstate
;  Technology &  Regulatory  Council.

Schnoor, J.  1997, Phytoremediation: Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Technology
  Evaluation Report TE-98-01, 37 p.

USEPA. 1998.  QAPP  Requirements for Applied Research Projects. Cincinnati, OH:  U.S. Environmental
  Protection Agency, Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division.

USEPA. 2000. Introduction to Phytoremediation. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
  Office of Research  and Development.

Wang, Z., M. Fingas, and D. Page. 1999. Oil spill identification. Journal of Chromatography A, 843 p. 369-
  411.

WDNR.  1995. Modified DRO, Method for Determining Diesel Range Organics. PUBL-SW-141.  Madison,
  Wl: Department of  Natural Resources.

                                              46

-------
Appendix A
Tukey Test
   47

-------
Of interest is a comparison of treatment results at time T=2.  The statistical hypothesis procedure presented
here is designed around making all pairwise comparisons between treatments, with a family-wise error rate
of 0.10. These pair-wise comparisons were performed using the Tukey test. Generally, the Tukey test is
associated with a one-way analysis of variance where interest lies in making all pairwise comparisons rather
than simply assessing whether the main effect is significant.

The Tukey test is designed to maintain the family-wise error rate at some specified level when all possible
pairwise comparisons between treatment means are made.  For this study, the family-wise error rate will be
set to 0.10. Conducting the Tukey test involves the following steps:

1.       Let a = the number of treatments.

2.       Let r = the number of replicates (composites) per treatment

3.       Let x,,  represent the value of the im data point in the f" treatment.


4.       Define  x^s the mean of f1  treatment.


5.       Calculate all treatment means. For a fixed j, define  x; =  ^^X,


6.       For each pair of means, define d( as the difference between treatment means. Calculate d, so that

       the smaller mean is always subtracted from the larger mean.  That is,  dij = (xl  -  x,)  should be
        positive.


7.       Calculate the minimum pairwise difference (H     ) between means that must be exceeded to be
                            r                  WTukey
       significant with the Tukey test.
8-
              where,
              such that
                                          x,=
                                              48

-------
                                           X =Jil
                                                   4

       qT is a value from a studentized range statistic table. Values from this table are dependent upon:
       a = number of treatments = 4 for this study
       df^r = degrees of freedom associated with MS^, = (a-1)(r-1) = (3) (3) = 9 for this study
       Family-wise error rate = 0.10 for this study.


9.      Compare each d,| with  r\      .  If d is greater than  A  ,    then it can be concluded that x  is
                      1      viTukey     *               vlTukey

       significantly greater then  *t.
                                              49

-------
   Appendix B
Plant Assessments
        50

-------
DREDGED MATERIAL RELCAMATION DEMONSTRATION
 AT THE JONES ISLAND CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY
              MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
            PLANT ASSESSMENT RESULTS
                    Submitted to:

       Science Applications International Corporation
               11251 Roger Bacon Drive
                Reston, Virginia 20190
                    Submitted by:

                   Peter Kulakow
               Department of Agronomy
         2004 Throckmorton Plant Sciences Center
                Kansas State University
             Manhattan, Kansas 66506-5501
                   March 22, 2003
                        51

-------
                               Executive Summary

Vegetation growth at the Dredge Material Reclamation Demonstration was assessed two
times during 2002 on July 29 and September. Vegetation cover, aboveground biomass
production, and root growth parameters were evaluated for the first corn planting at the
first sampling event and for the second corn planting, the natural revegetation plots, and
sandbar willow plots at the second sampling event.

The plant assessments showed vegetation treatments were successfully established. In
particular, the natural revegetation treatment showed rapid colonization of the plots
resulting in a diverse plant community dominated by Phalaris arundinacea (reed
canarygrass). Aboveground biomass production and root growth in the natural
revegetation plots was superior to a single planting of corn. Two crops of corn, however,
produced growth that equaled the natural revegetation plots indicating that an intensively
managed plant system may be able to produce higher plant biomass then a low
management system. System performance in meeting remediation objectives,
management considerations, and economics would determine if increased management is
warranted.

The sandbar willow planting produced small trees that did not fully cover the plots by the
end of the second growing season. This treatment has establishing well but had not
reached its full potential. A longer trial would be needed to evaluate the efficacy of the
willow planting.

Overall, the shallow depth of the soil in the  treatment system probably limited plant
growth and root development.  Both corn plantings reached a mean plant height of 74
cm. The soil depth in most of the trial area was  about 15 cm (6 inches). The soil depth
likely limited plant nutrient availability and resulted in increased irrigation needs than
would probably be required  in a system with a deeper soil profile.

Correlations among plant assessment parameters showed that aboveground biomass
production was not correlated with root growth.   Therefore, it is necessary to sample
roots to determine the extent of plant root development. In this trial, root mass was
highly correlated with root length, root surface area, and root  length density indicating
that estimation of root mass  may be a useful indicator of plant root development in
vegetative remediation trials similar to this one.
                                        52

-------
                             Introduction and Methods

Vegetation growth was assessed at two times during the 2002 growing season as
specified in the Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Dredged Material Reclamation
Demonstration at the Jones Island confined disposal facility in Milwaukee Wisconsin.
The scope of work for the vegetation assessment (Appendix 1) specifies that vegetative
treatments would be evaluated to show the success of establishing treatments and to
document root development.  The extent of root development is thought to be important
for achieving optimal phytoremediation activity.

The four vegetation treatments included corn, sandbar willow, natural revegetation, and a
plant suppression treatment.  In 2002, corn was planted on June 12 and August 1.  The
sandbar willow treatments were planted on June 22, 2001. The first vegetation
assessment took place on July 29, 2002, 47 days after the first corn planting and just prior
to tillage of the corn and replanting.  This event is called Time 1. At this event, only the
corn plots were sampled for biomass production and root growth.  Herbarium specimens
were taken at Time  1 from the natural revegetation plots in order to identify plant species.
The second  plant assessment event took place on September 23, 2002. This event is
called Time 2. This  was 53 days after the second corn planting. The corn, willow, and
natural revegetation treatments were sampled.

The plant assessment procedure involved selecting three random points within each
vegetation treatment plot.  The sampling points were at least 1 meter from the edge of the
plot to allow for border effects.  A 0.5 meter by 0.5 meter sampling frame was place at
each sampling point.  The following parameters were estimated.

Percentage cover:  Percentage vegetation cover was estimated within the sampling
frame. A list was made of all species occurring with the frame. The coverage of each
species was  visually estimated.  The percentage of bare ground also was estimated. The
percentage cover analysis was especially important for the natural revegetation treatment
to document plant species  composition following natural colonization of the plot.

Plant height: Plant height was measured as the height of the tallest plants within the
sampling frame.

Aboveground biomass: Shoot biomass is the amount of dry plant material produced in grams
per square meter.  Vegetation within the area covered by the sample frame was clipped down to
the ground surface, placed into plastic bags, shipped a central processing location, dried in an
oven, and weighed. Vegetation leaning outside the frame was not included. Biomass from the
corn and natural revegetation plots were estimated by this technique. Sandbar willows were not
harvested for biomass. Willow trees that occurred within each sample frame were measured for
stem diameter and plant height. Six to nine willow trees were measured from each plot. Stem
diameter was measured in two places on each tree. The main stem was measured 15 cm from the
ground surface. The largest new branch growing from the original planting stock was measured
10 cm from the branch point.
                                        53

-------
Root parameters: Root parameters include root mass, total root length, root surface area,
average root diameter, and root length density. Within each quadrat, one full profile core sample
was collected using a 78 mm diameter coring device. Although the intended depth of the soil to
be treated in the trial was 30 cm (12 inches), the actual soil depth in the treatment cells was very
close to 15 cm (6 inches). Each soil core was sampled to the depth of the treatment cell where the
synthetic liner was encountered. The depth of each soil core was recorded.  Soil cores were
stored in plastic bags and stored at 4C until processed.  In the laboratory, soil cores were
processed by cleaning the soil from roots using a series of water washes. Following a final hand
cleaning procedure to remove non-root organic matter, clean roots were stained with  methyl
violet.   Stained roots were spread on transparency sheets and scanned using a flatbed scanner.
Roots were scanned at a resolution of 300dpi. Scanned images were processed using WinRhizo
root image processing software. Estimates were obtained from total root length, root surface
area, average root diameter, and root length density.  Scanned roots were spread for drying to
estimate root mass in each sample.

Plant assessment data was analyzed using SAS statistical analysis software. Treatment means
and standard errors were estimated for each parameter.  Analysis of variance for a randomized
complete block design was used to determine if there were significant  differences among
treatments for each plant assessment parameter. Corn plots were analyzed several ways.  The two
corn plants were first compared with each other using analysis of variance with time  or planting
as the treatment. The three vegetation treatments were compared with each other in  the second
analysis using only the Time 2 for corn growth, as well as, the Time 2  data for the natural
revegetation and willow treatments. In the third analysis, the total root production and biomass
from the two plantings of com were compared with natural revegetation and willow sampled at
Time 2. Presumably the benefit of growing successive corn crops would increase potential
phytoremediation activity. -Correlation coefficients were calculated within each treatment to
examine the relationships between different plant assessment parameters.
                                           54

-------
                                     Results

Digital photographs of each plot at the two sampling times are shown in Figure 1 and
Figure 2. Both sets of photographs show good canopy development in corn and natural
vegetation plots. The willow plots show good plant survival but rather limited growth of
trees during this second growing season. Figure 1 illustrates the challenge of controlling
vegetation in the plant suppression plots and as volunteer growth in the willow
treatments. Significant efforts were made to control volunteer vegetation; however, the
cycles of weed growth followed by control measures may affect treatment comparisons.
This observation is common in many phytoremediation trials. Volunteer vegetation in
the plant suppression plots and in the willow plots was well controlled at the time of the
second plant assessment event.

Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the corn treatments were beginning to tassel at the time of the
plant assessments.  This suggests corn biomass production probably reached close to its
maximum potential for each of the corn crops.  The stature of the corn plants was quite
short indicating that corn growth may have been much less than is usually observed in
optimal corn growing conditions. The limited corn growth may be either due to the
varieties of corn that were used or due to growth limiting conditions at the site. One
important growth limiting condition was the shallow soil depth (about 15 cm) of the
treated soil.

Table 1 summarizes corn growth at Time 1 and Time 2.  Percentage cover was almost
100% in the corn plots for each crop. Plant height was similar for both crops at 74 cm.
Aboveground biomass was similar for both plantings. However root mass was
significantly greater in the first planting compared to the second planting.  Since the
plant rooting depth was limited by the depth of the treated soil, the root mass estimate for
the corn plots may be a good estimate of total corn root mass. The ratio of root mass to
aboveground biomass is only about 10% for the corn plots. A higher ratio of root mass to
aboveground biomass would usually be expected. This further indicates that limited soil
volume may have limited corn growth potential.

Table 2 shows the treatment means for each vegetation treatment at the second sampling
event.  Both the corn and natural revegetation treatments showed nearly  100% vegetation
cover while the willow plots has less than 10% vegetation cover. This is a clear
indication that the willow plantings have not fully developed by the end of the second
growing season. Root growth in the willow plots was also limited compared to the other
treatments. This should be taken into consideration in interpreting the results of this
trial. The  similarity of average root diameter in the willow plots compared to the other
treatments also indicates that a limited number of tree roots were recovered in the
sampled soil cores. Willow roots would usually be expected to have higher root diameter
then the other herbaceous species especially grasses found in this study.  The natural
revegetation treatment had significantly higher root production than either the corn or
willow treatments.  These results indicate that natural recovery of vegetation produced
good root growth under a low management treatment scheme.
                                        55

-------
Table 3 compares the total of two corn crops with the other treatments. In this
comparison, the corn plots produced higher aboveground biomass than the natural
revegetation plots.  Although root parameters for the total corn data were higher than for
the natural revegetation treatment, most of these differences were not statistically
significant. These results show, however, that an intensively managed cropping system
such as several corn plantings combined with clover could produce greater root growth
than a less intensively managed system. System  performance, management
considerations, and economics would determine if an intensively managed plant system is
warranted compared to a minimally managed plant system.  During the limited term of
this trial, the corn and natural revegetation treatments clearly produced greater root
growth than the willow treatment.  A longer term treatment system would be needed for
effective assessment of the willow treatment.

Correlation coefficients between each pair of plant  assessment parameter were calculated
within each of the vegetation treatments (Table 4).  Aboveground plant growth, either
measured as plant height or as aboveground biomass production was not correlated with
root growth parameters.  This suggests that under the conditions of this trial, it was
necessary to evaluate plant root growth separately from aboveground growth to
understand the extent of plant root development.  Root mass, root length, root surface
area, and root length density were all highly correlated. This observation held for each
treatment.  The association of root parameter estimates suggests that an assessment of
root mass may provide as a reasonable estimate of plant density. Root mass is easier to
measure than root length and density. This observation may be helpful in planning future
trials.

Assessment of the vegetation composition of the  natural revegetation treatment was
important for determining which plant species occupied the site. The plant community at
Jones Island CDF represents an early stage of ecological succession. Composition of the
plant community would be expected to change with the length of time the plots are
allowed to grow. Table 5 summarizes plant species composition and percent coverage in
the natural revegetation plots at the end of the growing season. Twenty-four total plant
species from 12 plant families were identified in  the natural revegetation plots. Nine of
the species were members of the Asteraceae or sunflower family. The dominant  species
in all plots was Phalaris arundinacea L. or reed canarygrass. In plots 1 and 2 reed
canarygrass represented about 90% of the vegetation coverage. Plots 3 and 4 had greater
diversity than plots 1 and 2. Reed canarygrass represented about 50 to 60% of the
species coverage in these plots. The proportion of bare ground in the plots was limited to
an overall average of 5%. Only plant species present within the sample quadrats at the
time of the assessment in late September were recorded in this survey. Additional
species were present in other part of the plots and at other times during the growing
season.  These results show the treated soil can support diverse plant communities from
seeds naturally present at the confined disposal facility.
                                        56

-------
                                   Conclusions

Plant growth was assessed two times during the 2002 growing season at the Dredged
Material Reclamation Demonstration. The assessments showed that vegetation
treatments were successfully established at the site. The corn and natural revegetation
treatments had good coverage of the plots.  The natural revegetation treatment showed
rapid colonization of the plots with a diverse plant community dominated by Phalaris
arundinacea (reed canary grass). Aboveground biomass production and root growth in
the natural revegetation plots was superior to a single planting of corn.  Two crops of
corn, however, produced growth that equaled the natural revegetation plots indicating
that an intensively managed plant system may be able to produce high plant biomass.
The sandbar willow trees survived well although they had not grown sufficiently by the
end of the second growing season to demonstrate their full potential impact on the treated
soil.

Overall, the shallow depth  of the soil in the treatment system probably limited plant
growth and root development.  Both corn plantings reached a mean plant height of 74
cm. The soil depth in most of the trial was  15 cm (6 inches). The soil depth likely
limited plant nutrient availability and may have increased irrigation needs than would
probably be expected in a system with a deeper soil profile.

Correlations among plant assessment parameters showed that aboveground biomass
production was not correlated with root growth.  Therefore, it is necessary to sample
roots to determine the extent of plant root development. In this trial, root mass was
highly correlated with root length, root surface area, and root length density indicating
that estimation of root mass may be a useful indicator of plant root development in
vegetative remediation trials similar to this one.
                                       57

-------
Table 1. Corn treatment means and standard errors for the plant assessment
parameters sampled at the end of two cropping cycles. Sample size is 12 for each
parameter.
Variable
Vegetation cover
Plant height
Aboveground biomass
Root mass*
Root length*
Root surface area*
Average root diameter
Root length density
Timel -
mean 
%
cm
g/m2
g/m2
cm
cm2
mm
cm/cm3
97.3
73.9
524.7
61.4
2347.9
384.7
0.51
3.0








 Corn
se
1.3
4.9
56.7
6.1
299.2
53.3
0.01
0.4
Time2  Corn
mean  se
97.3
73.7
505.3
34.2
1527.1
234.3
0.52
2.1








1.7
5.2
43.3
5.3
326.5
44.5
0.02
0.4
* Means for Time 1 and Time 2 are different by a paired t-test with p0.05.
                                      58

-------
                         Table 2. Vegetation treatment means and standard errors for the plant assessment parameters sampled on
                         9/23/02. Sample size is 12 for each parameter. Means followed by the same letter within a row are not
                         significantly different by a paired t-test with p<0.05.
en
CD
Variable
Vegetation cover
Plant height
Aboveground biomass
Root mass
Root length
Root surface area
Average root diameter
Root length density
Units
%
cm
g/m2
g/m2
cm
cm2
mm
cm/cm3
Time2 ~ Corn
mean  se
97.3 1.7 a
73.7  5.2
505.3  43.3
34.2  5.3 b
1527.1  326.5 b
234.3  44.5 b
0.52  0.02
2.1  0.4 b
Time2  Natural Reveg.
mean  se
94.6  2.5 a
94.9  6.5
540.3  65.3
116.1  29.2 a
3096.7  468.2 a
455.8  85.9 a
0.45  0.02
4.4  0.6 a
Time2 - Willow
mean  se
8.8  1.3 b
71.3  5.6

24.9  5.9 b
718.7  238.1 b
117.4  39.8 b
0.52  0.02
1.0  0.33 b

-------
Table 3.  Vegetation treatment means and standard errors for the plant assessment parameters using the total of two
corn crops sampled on 7/29/02 and 9/23/02 and natural revegetation and willow treatment sampled on 9/23/02.
Sample size is 12 for each parameter. Means followed by the same letter within a row are not significantly different
by a paired t-test with p<0.05.
Variable
Vegetation cover
Plant height
Aboveground biomass
Root mass
Root length
Root surface area
Average root diameter
Root length density
%
cm
g/m2
g/m2
cm
cm2
mm
cm/cm3
Corn  Total
mean  se
97.3 1.4 a
73.8  2.9 b
1030.0  47.7 a
95.6  5.3 a
3875.0  281.7 a
619.0  48.1 a
0.52  0.01 a
5.1  0.4 a
Time2  Natural Reveg.
mean  se
94.6  2.5 a
94.9  6.5 a
540.3  65.3 b
116.1  29.2 a
3096.7  468.2 a
455.8  85.9 b
0.45  0.02 b
4.4  0.6 a
Time2 - Willow
mean  se
8.8  1.3 b
71.3  5.6 b

24.9  5.9 b
718.7  238.1 b
117.4  39.8 c
0.52  0.02 a
1.0  0.3 b

-------
Table 4.  Pearson correlation coefficients of plant assessment parameters for two corn plantings.
Sample size is 12. The upper value is the correlation coefficient. The lower value is the probability
value the correlation is not greater than zero.
Time 1 -- Corn
Percentage cover
Plant height
Aboveground biomass
Root mass
Root length
Root surface area
Avg. root diameter
Time 2 - Corn
Percentage cover
Plant height
Aboveground biomass
Root mass
Root length
Root surface area
Avg. root diameter
Plant Aboveground Root
Height Biomass Mass
0.59 0.73 0.44
0.81 0.31
0.58




Plant Aboveground Root
Height Biomass Mass
-0.56 -0.58 -0.43
0.77 0.04
0.32




Root
Length
0.41
0.34
0.40
0.90



Root
Length
-0.61
0.19
0.42
0.95



Root
Surface
Area
0.44
0.38
0.39
0.85
0.98


Root
Surface
Area
-0.51
0.09
0.36
0.98
0.99


Average
Root
Diameter
0.45
0.30
0.29
0.25
0.35
0.49

Average
Root
Diameter
0.62
-0.50
-0.62
-0.52
-OJ2
-0.64

Root
Length
Density
0.32
0.19
0.28
0.88
0.97
0.95
0.38
Root
Length
Density
-0.61
0.19
0.42
0.95
0.99
0.99
-0.72
                                          61

-------
Table 4 (continued).  Pearson correlation coefficients of plant assessment parameters for natural
revegetation and willow treatments. Sample size is 12. The upper value is the correlation coefficient.
The lower value is the probability value the correlation is not greater than zero.
Time 2 - Natural reveg.
Plant Aboveground Root Root
Height Biomass Mass Length
Percentage cover 0.50
Plant height
Aboveground biomass
Root mass
Root length
Root surface area
Avg. root diameter
Time 2 - Willow
Plant
Height
Percentage cover -0.09
Plant height
Root mass
Root length
Root surface area
Avg. root diameter
0.58 -0.01 -0.34
0.43 0.11 -0.06
0.49 -0.02
0.69



Root
Root Root Surface
Mass Length Area
-0.13 0.07 0.10
0.21 0.12 0.11
0.81 0.82
0.99


Root
Surface
Area
-0.22
0.04
0.23
0.89
0.94


Average
Root
Diameter
0.38
-0.25
0.23
0.05
0.12

Average Root
Root Length
Diameter Density
0.14
0.15
0.72
0.89
0.37
0.65

Root
Length
Density
0.07
0.11
0.81
0.99
0.99
0.05
-0.33
-0.07
0.03
0.70
0.99
0.94
0.41






                                           62

-------
o>
w
                            Table 5. Mean percentage vegetation cover in four natural revegetation treatment plots assessed on September 23,2002. Each mean is based

                            three quadrats sampled per plot.  The percentage of bare ground is listed first followed by plant species in descending order of overall

                            dominance.
Family
Bare ground
Poaceae
Apiaceae
Asteraceae
Chenopodiaceae
Asteraceae
Asteraceae
Asteraceae
Asteraceae
Asteraceae
Asteraceae
Asteraceae
Polygonaceae
Fabaceae
Plantaginaceae
Asteraceae
Lamiaceae
Brassicaceae
Apocynaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Polygonaceae*
Rosaceae*
Poaceae*
Onagraceae*
Species

Phalaris arundinacea L.
Daucus car ota L.

Atriplex sp.
Symphyotrichum sp.
Ambrosia sp.
Helianthus annuus L.
Conyza canadensis (L.) Conq.
Arctium minus Bemh.
Symphyotrichum sp.
Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.
Polygonum lapathifolium L.
Melilotus qfficinalis (L.) Lam.
Plantago major L.
Sonchus oleraceus L
Nepeta cataria L
Sisymbrium qfficinale (L.) Scop.
Apocynum sp.
Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv.
Hordeumjubatum L.
Rumex salicifolius Weinm.
Potentilla norvegica L.
Agrostis stolonifera L.
Oenothera biennis L.
Common name

reed canarygrass
Queen Anne's Lace
thistle (sp. not identified)
atriplex (not identified)
asterl (sp. not identified)
ragweed (sp. not identified)
common sunflower
Canadian horseweed
lessor burdock
aster2 (sp. not identified)
ragweed
curlytop knotweed
yellow sweetclover
common plantain
common sowthistle
catnip
mustard
hemp dogbane
barnyardgrass
foxtail barley
willow dock
Norwegian cinquefoil
creeping bentgrass
common evening-primrose
1
0.0
89.7
1.0
1.7
0.7
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Plot
2 3
mean
0.0
90.3
1.3
0.0
1.0
5.1
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.3
47.0
5.0
1.7
5.3
0.0
0.0
7.0
2.0
1.7
6.3
1.7
2.3
3.0
2.0
0.7
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
8.3
62.7
2.0
5.3
1.0
3.0
6.7
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.7
0.7
0.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total
5.4
72.4
2.3
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.3
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
                            * Species observed in one quadrat only in low proportion.

-------
Figure 1. Phytoremediation trial individual plot photographs were taken on July 29, 2002. Images were taken from the top of the
berm on the east side of each plot looking westward.  Cell 1 is on the southern side of the trial.
Cell I
Plant Suppression

Cell 2
Natural Revegetation        Sandbar Willow
                           Corn
Corn
Plant Suppression
Natural Revegetation        Willow

-------
O)
01
                 Figure 1 (continued).



                 CellS
                 Corn



                 Cell 4
Natural Revegetation        Sandbar Willow
Plant Suppression
                 Natural Revegetation       Plant Suppression
                           Sandbar Willow
Corn

-------
Figure 2. Phytoremediation trial individual plot photographs were taken on September 23,2002. Images were taken from the top of
the berm on the east side of each plot looking westward. Cell 1 is on the southern side of the tnal.
September 23,2002
Cell!
Plant Suppression

Cell 2
Natural Revegetation                Willow
                   Com
Com
     Suppression
Revegetation        Willow

-------
Figure 2 (continued).
Cell 3
                         Natural Revegetation
Natural Revegetotion
Plant Suppression
Sandbar Wiltow
Com

-------
APPENDIX 1
    68

-------
                                 SCOPE OF WORK
                     EPA Contract Number: 68-C-00-179, T.O. # 7
                        SAIC Project Number: 01-0835-08-2178
                                     May 9,2002
Title:  Dredged Material  Reclamation Demonstration at  the Jones  Island CDF,  Milwaukee,
              Wisconsin.

Estimated Period of Performance:           June 2002 to February 2003

SAIC Task Order Manager:
              Jorge McPherson
              Science Applications International Corporation
              11251 Roger Bacon Drive
              Reston, VA20190

USEPA Task Order Manager:
              Steven Rock
              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
              National Risk Management Research Laboratory
              5995 Center Hill Avenue
              Cincinnati, Ohio 45224
              Tel: 513-569-7149

Background Information. The Jones Island confined disposal facility (CDF), located just south
of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is one of 26 federally funded CDFs built in the Great Lakes as a once
cost-effective means to manage materials dredged during navigation maintenance projects.
However, many Great Lakes CDFs are now nearing or exceeding design capacity and the cost of
creating new facilities is prohibitive.  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is actively
seeking alternatives for the CDFs and for current and future inventories of dredged materials.

In 1997, the USACE began a series of experiments at the Jones Island CDF (Milwaukee, WI)
using biopiles to reduce the concentration of polychlorinated biphenyls  (PCBs) and polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in dredged material scraped from a borrow area within the CDF.
The experiments demonstrated some success, and now the USACE has  partnered with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) program to expand the test program to explore phytoremediation as a potential
reclamation process.

Project Description. This project is  part of the USACE strategy to develop beneficial uses for
dredged material by creating a system to "manufacture" marketable topsoil that will meet the
requirements of a variety of potential  end users.  Four (4) treatments are being tested currently at
the Jones Island CDF to determine the ability of each to remove PCBs, PAHs, and gross organics
from dredged materials.

The first treatment involves corn.  A fast-maturing corn hybrid is used to begin the treatment
cycle in mid-June. After 45 days, the first crop is tilled in and a second corn planting occurs.
                                         69

-------
Again, after 45 days, the second corn is tilled in and a winter cover of clover (optional) may be
planted.
The second treatment involves planting 24-inch Sandbar willow cuttings; a third treatment
consists of allowing natural vegetation present as seeds in the borrow area soil to take root and
grow; and the fourth treatment consists of allowing natural microbial activity to act on the test
soil mass while actively suppressing plant growth with a post-emergent herbicide.

The four treatments are being evaluated in four (4) replicate test plots, nominally 60 ft x 20 ft in
size. Each test plot consists of four (4) treatment cells (nominally 12 ft x 20 ft) to which the four
treatments have been assigned in a random fashion. The schematic below is an example test plot.

                                       Test Plot 1

Natural
Veg.

Sandbar
Willow

Corn/
Clover

Plant
Supprsn

Dredged material selected from a 0-ft to 1-ft area within the CDF was excavated, screened,
mixed, and placed into each cell to create a soil bed with a depth of about 1 ft. The test plots are
being maintained for two full growing seasons (June 2001 through September 2002) according to
the following schedule:

   T=0, apply fertilizers (P and K) plant 1st corn, June 15, 2001
   Plant Sandbar willow, June22,2001
   Incorporate corn, add additional N, P, K, plant 2nd corn, August 1-15
   T=l, incorporate corn and add additional P and K, May 20-25, 2002
   Plant 3rd corn, June 15-30, 2002
   Incorporate corn, add additional N, P, K, plant 4th corn, August 1-15, 2002
   T=2, incorporate corn, September 15-30, 2002

Subcontractor Services.  SAIC requires subcontractor support to perform plant assessments at
predetermined intervals throughout both growing seasons.  The plant assessments are those
recommended in the Phytoremediation Action Team Field Study Protocol issued by the
Remediation Technologies Demonstration Forum (RTDF) in July 1999
(http://www.rtdf.org/public/Dhvto/phvtodoc.htm'). The plant assessments are described below in
Tasks 1 through 3 of this Statement of Work (SOW).
The subcontractor will provide pricing information (labor, materials, travel, and other direct
costs) for all four tasks. On-site labor for plant and root sampling will be provided by  SAIC. No
plant assessments were performed during the 2001 growing season.

Task 1: Percent Cover

Description. A 0.5-m square frame (quadrat) will be placed randomly at two spots on each
planted cell. A rating scale of 0%-100% will be used to assess the amount of bare ground and
plant cover. Example:  20% of total plot area is bare ground, 80% of total plot area is covered
with plants. Total should add up to 100 (e.g. 20% + 80% = 100%).

Frequency. For corn cells, a percent cover will be performed during the week prior to planting a
new corn rotation, just before the current crop is incorporated. For example, the first percent
                                           70

-------
 cover will be performed on the corn cells in late July or early August 2002, approximately 45
 days after planting.

 For the natural vegetation cells, a percent cover will be performed at the end of the second
 growing season (T=2). Additionally, a vegetative survey will be performed to identify species in
 the natural vegetation plots.

 For the Sandbar willow cells, a percent cover will be performed at the end of the second growing
 season (T=2).

 Task 2: Shoot Biomass

 Description. Shoot biomass is the amount of dry plant material produced in grams per square
 meter. Vegetation within the area covered by the sample frame will be clipped down to the
 ground surface, placed into paper bags, shipped to a central processing location, dried in an oven,
 and weighed.  Vegetation leaning outside the frame will not be included. Tree biomass in the
 Sandbar willow plots and natural vegetation plots will be assessed by measuring stem diameter
 and plant height for all trees growing inside a two-foot border in each plot.

 Frequency. A shoot biomass  assessment will be performed on each quadrat in conjunction with
 percent cover assessments.

 Task 3: Root Parameters

 Description. Root parameters include biomass, length, density, surface area, and diameter.
 Within each quadrat, one (1)  full profile core samples (0 in -12 in) will  be collected for
 evaluation using a 3 V4 -in diameter coring device.  Root parameters will be reported in two depth
 intervals of 0 - 6 and 6-12 inches.  Evaluation to be performed per RTDF Phytoremediation
 Field Study Protocol.

 Frequency. To be performed in parallel with percent cover and shoot biomass using same
 quadrats.

 Task 4: Data Reporting

The subcontractor will state routine turn-around time for data reporting. Final report package
must include a narrative detailing any problem  with the assessments as well as tabulated and
cross-referenced sample results. The final report for each growing season will be submitted four
months after the last field sampling.
                                          71

-------
 In addition, preliminary results may be requested as draft data to be transmitted via fax to the
 attention of the SAIC TOM as data become available after sample analysis but before formal data
 reporting.

                         Tablet. Plant Assessment Frequency
Fime
r=o-2
r=i,2
r=u
Description
Corn - collected at end of each corn
cycle from four clover/corn
treatment cells, estimated to be in
ate July and mid-Sept.
Natural Vegetation - collected at end
of each growing season from four
natural vegetation treatment cells,
est. mid-Sept.
Willows - collected at the end of
each growing season from four
willow treatment cells, est mid-
Sept.
Assessment
Percent Cover,
Shoot Biomass
Root Parameters
Percent Cover,
Shoot Biomass,
Vegetation Survey
Root Parameters
Percent Cover,
Tree height and diameter
Root Parameters
* ittri
Quadrats
16
-
g
-
whole plot
-
.TW*
Soil Cores
-
16
-
8
-
8
3.9    Additional Requirements

      The vendor should immediately report any technical problems to the SAIC
       QC Coordinator or TOM so that appropriate corrective actions can be
       determined.

      SAIC will supply in-field labor assistance.

      The vendor will need to inform SAIC how samples will be disposed of and
       whether the laboratory requires that samples be returned to SAIC after analysis.
5.0   Points of Contacts

Technical POC
Jorge McPherson
SAIC TO Manager
11251 Roger Bacon Drive

Reston,VA20190
Tel: 703-318-4602
Fax:  703-709-1042
mcphersonj@saic.com
Technical POC
Rita Stasik
SAIC QC Coordinator
411 Hackensack Avenue

Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: 201-498-8426
Fax:201-489-1592
schmonstasir@saic.com
Contractual POC
Tony Zoetis
Purchasing Manager
11251 Roger Bacon
Drive
Reston,VA20190
Tel: 703-318-4747
Fax:703-318-4754
zoetisa@saic.com
                                     72

-------
APPENDIX 2
    73

-------
Appendix 2. Original data from plant assessments Time 1 and Time 2.
Plot
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4









2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Treat
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
n
n
n
w
w
w
c
c
c
n
n
n
w
w
w
c
c
c
n
n
n
w
w
w
c
c
c
n
n
n
w
w
w
Time












2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 '
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quad
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Depth
cm
15.2
16.5
17.8
15.2
14.0
14.6
17.8
18.4
15.2
19.1
15.2
17.8
15.24
15.24
15.24
13.97
12.7
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
13.97
15.24
15.24
15.24
12.7
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
13.97
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
15.24
13.97
15.24
15.24
15.24
Perc.
Cover
100
100
100
99
100
100
98
90
90
100
100
90
100
100
80
100
100
100
10
5
20
100
92
100
100
100
100
10
10
10
100
100
100
85
75
100
5
5
5
100
95
100
100
90
85
10
5
10
Plant
Height
(cm)
92
90
94
86
90
80
46
53
58
69
62
67
97
96
112
85
95
87
62
48
48
70
70
55
125
105
130
80
98
68
60
64
70
52
73
75
103
57
53
70
60
60
115
92
105
77
68
97
Abovegroun
Biomass
(g/m2)
800
616
768
772
552
536
304
332
364
476
572
204
656
576
828
672
980
584



420
444
460
528
520
940



356
468
668
308
304
424



292
464
432
364
504
356



d Root
Mass
(g/m2)
74.3
61.7
81.2
73.7
82.9
31.8
66.6
35.0
79.1
50.0
77.6
22.8
38.1
14.0
50.0
43.7
138.3
168.5
49.8
32.2
10.9
20.5
60.5
68.4
61.7
63.2
385.1
68.9
22.0
10.5
21.6
13.2
45.2
191.7
148.6
55.9
49.6
13.0
13.8
25.5
34.7
18.2
50.0
54.0
32.0
7.5
12.6
8.0
Root
Length
(cm)
2593
2618
2991
2177
4353
1052
2345
838
3224
2062
2990
932
1787
473
2902
2147
2314
2196
1154
639
328
544
3648
2845
3204
1269
5700
3222
567
305
453
642
1977
5484
5076
1780
521
270
517
839
1755
460
4104
2794
1093
481
286
333
Root
Surface
Area
(cm2*
380.3
471.7
477.3
371.0
790.5
170.3
366.8
137.8
503.2
372.0
452.9
123.3
270.8
78.0
376.7
276.1
398.0
355.9
188.3
103.8
70.4
104.9
493.2
460.7
392.9
186.6
1149.0
535.7
100.6
47.4
86.9
91.3
320.2
821.2
716.1
212.6
93.0
43.3
75.1
151.0
287.9
90.0
464.6
361.0
135.8
62.7
50.4
37.8
Average
Root
Diameter
(mm)
0.47
0.57
0.51
0.54
0.58
0.52
0.5
0.52
0.5
0.57
0.48
0.42
0.48
0.52
0.41
0.41
0.55
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.68
0.61
0.43
0.52
0.39
0.47
0.64
0.53
0.56
0.5
0.61
0.45
0.52
0.48
0.45
0.38
0.57
0.51
0.46
0.57
0.52
0.62
0.36
0.41
0.4
0.42
0.56
0.36
Root
Length
Density
(cm/cm3)
2.9
3.6
3.5
2.6
5.0
1.5
3.2
1.3
4.6
2.8
3.8
1.1
2.5
0.7
4.0
3.2
3.8
3.0
1.6
0.9
0.5
0.8
5.0
3.9
4.4
1.9
7.8
4.4
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.9
2.7
7.5
7.0
2.4
0.7
0.4
0.7
1.2
2.4
0.6
5.6
3.8
1.6
0.7
0.4
0.5
                                                    74

-------
APPENDIX 3
    75

-------
             Appendix 3.  Original data for percentage vegetation cover in four natural revegetion treatment plots assessed on September 23, 2002.
             Three quadrats were sampled per plot.  The percentatge of bare ground is listed first followed by plant species in descending order of
             overall dominance.
Family Species Common name
Bareground
Poaceae Phalaris arundinacea L. reed canarygrass
Apiaceae Daucus carota L. Queen Anne's Lace
Asteraceae thistle (sp. not identified)
Chenopodiaceae Atriplex sp. atriplex (not identified)
Asteraceae Symphyotrichum sp. asterl (sp. not identified)
Asteraceae Ambrosia sp. ragweed (sp. not identified)
Asteraceae Helianthus annuus L. common sunflower
Asteraceae Conyza canadensis (L.) Conq. Canadian horseweed
Asteraceae Arctium minus Bernh. lessor burdock
Asteraceae Symphyotrichum sp. aster2 (sp. not identified)
Asteraceae Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. ragweed
Polygonaceae Polygonum lapathifolium L. curlytop knotweed
Fabaceae Melilotus officinalis (L.) Lam. yellow sweetclover
Plantaginaceae Plantago major L. common plantain
Asteraceae Sonchus oleraceus L common sowthistle
Lamiaceae Nepeta catena L catnip
Brassicaceae Sisymbrium officinale (L.) Scop. mustard
Apocynaceae Apocynum sp. hemp dogbane
Poaceae Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. barnyardgrass
Poaceae Hordeum jubatum L. foxtail barley
Polygonaceae* Rumex salicifolius Weinm. willow dock
Rosaceae* Potentilla notvegica L. Norwegian cinquefoil
Poaceae* Agrostis stolonifera L. creeping bentgrass
Onagraceae* Oenothera biennis L. common evening-primrose
Plotl
Quadrat
1 2 3
000
93 98 78
0.1 1 2
500
2 0 0.1
000
0.1 0 1
0 0.1 0
000
0 0 15
000
0 0.1 1
000
000
000
0.1 0 0
002
000
0 0 1
000
000
0 0.1 0
0 0 0.1
000
000
Plot 2
Quadrat
1 2 3
000
81 90 100
220
000
1 2 0.1
10 0.1
1 1 0
1 1 0
020
000
000
200
1 2 0
000
000
000
000
0.1 0 0
1 0 0
000
000
000
000
000
000
Plots
Quadrat
1 2 3
15 25 0
66 20 55
3 10 2
2 1 2
2 10 4
000
000
0 1 20
042
005
4 10 5
050
052
270
402
020
000
0 0 1
000
1 0.1 0
1 0 0
000
000
000
000
Plot 4
Quadrat
1 2 3
0 10 15
65 64 59
5 1 0
3 3 10
0 1 2
054
20 0 0.1
000
3 10 2
000
000
043
002
020
000
003
200
200
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
-v]
O)
              * Species observed in one quadrat in low proportion.

-------
APPENDIX 4
    77

-------
Appendix 4. Mean plant height and stem diameter of willow trees measured within
quadrats sampled on September 23, 2002.	

Plot
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4

Quadrat
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3

N
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
Mean Mean Mean
plant Plot stalk Plot branch
height mean diameter mean diameter
61.7
47.5
48.3 59.4
80.0
97.5
68.3 87.1
102.5
56.7
52.5 72.1
76.7
67.5
96.7 80.3
9.7
10.0
10.7 10.3
10.7
10.3
13.3 12.0
13.7
11.3
8.3 13.9
22.3
9.3
17.3 16.3
4.0
2.0
3.3
3.3
4.3
3.7
2.7
3.7
1.3
5.7
2.3
6.0

Plot
mean


3.2


3.5


3.3


4.7
                                            78

-------
APPENDIX 5
    79

-------
           Analysis of Variance for Plant Assessment Parameters
         Tests of Treatment Differences Time 2 Sampling on 9/23/02
Dependent Variable: Percentage Cover
                               Sum of
Source
Plot
Treatment
Error
Total
R-Square
0.99
Dependent Variable:

Source
Plot
Treatment
Error
Total
R-Square
0.47
Dependent Variable:

Source
Plot
Treatment
Error
Total
R-Square
0.78
Dependent Variable:

Source
Plot
Treatment
Error
Total
R-Square
0.87
DF Squares Mean Square F Value
3 50 17 0.8
2 20276 10138 473.8
6 128 21
1 1 20454
CV Root MSE Percentage Cover Mean
6.92 4.63 66.86
Plant height
Sum of
DF Squares Mean Square FValue
3 749 250 0.6
2 1352 676 1.7
6 2391 398
1 1 4491
CV Root MSE Plant height Mean
24.96 19.96 79.97 cm
Aboveground biomass
Sum of
DF Squares Mean Square F Value
3 126134 42045 3.6
1 2450 2450 0.2
3 35389 11796
7 163973
CV Root MSE Aboveground biomass Mean
20.77 108.61 522.83 gm
Root Mass
Sum of
DF Squares Mean Square F Value
3 5057 1686 2.6
2 20144 10072 15.8
6 3834 639
1 1 29036
CV Root MSE Root Mass Mean
43.30 25.28 58.38 g/m2
                                                                Pr>F
                                                                 0.548
                                                                <.0001
                                                                Pr>F
                                                                 0.624
                                                                 0.261
                                                                Pr>F
                                                                 0.162
                                                                 0.680
                                                                Pr>F
                                                                 0.144
                                                                 0.004
                                             80

-------
 Dependent Variable: Root Length
 Source
 Plot
 Treatment
 Error
 Total

     R-Square
          0.86

DF
3
2
6
11
Sum of
Squares
1768928
11696417
2151138
15616483

Mean Square
589643
5848209
358523


F Value
1.6
16.3



Pr>F
0.276
0.004


   CV    Root MSB Root Length Mean
 33.62      598.77       1780.83 cm
 Dependent Variable: Root Surface Area

Source
Plot
Treatment
Error
Total
R-Square
0.89

DF
3
2
6
11
CV
28.76
Sum of
Squares
66796
236364
35964
339123
Root MSE
77.42

Mean Square
22265
118182
5994

Root Surface Area
269.16 cm

F Value
3.7
19.7


Mean
2

Pr
0.
0.





>F
080
002




Dependent Variable: Average Root Diameter

Source
Plot
Treatment
Error
Total
R-Square
0.48

DF
3
2
6
11
CV
10.74
Sum of
Squares
0.004
0.012
0.017
0.033
Root MSE
0.05

Mean Square F Value
0.001 0.50
0.006 2.02
0.003

Average Root Diameter Mean
0.50 mm

Pr>F
0.698
0.213




Dependent Variable: Root Length Density
Source
Plot
Treatment
Error
Total
     R-Square
         0.88
  DF
    3
    2
    6
   11

  CV
30.85
   Sum of
  Squares
      3.2
     23.5
      3.5
     30.2
Mean Square
         1.1
        11.7
         0.6
F Value
    1.8
   20.1
Root MSE Root Length Density Mean
     0.77          2.48    cm/cm3
Pr>F
0.244
0.002
                                               81

-------
Comparisons of Least Squares Treatment Means from Time 2
Means followed by the same letter are not different by paired t-test.


Treatment
Corn
Natural reveg.
Willow
Percentage
cover
Ismeans
97.3
94.6
8.8

Standard
Error
2.3 a
2.3 a
2.3 b
P values for paired t-tests:
               Natural reveg.
                      0.446
Corn
Natural reveg
Treatment
Corn
Natural reveg.
Willow
                      Plant
                     height
                    Ismeans
                       73.7
                       94.9
                       71.3
P values for paired t-tests:
               Natural reveg.
Corn                  0.183
Natural reveg.

               Aboveground
                    biomass
Treatment           Ismeans
Corn                  505.3
Natural reveg.          540.3

P values for paired t-tests:
Treatment
Corn
Natural reveg.
Willow
                       Root
                      mass
                    Ismeans
                       34.2
                      116.1
                       24.9
P values for paired t-tests:
               Natural reveg.
Corn                  0.004
Natural reveg.
  Willow
  <.0001
  <0001
Standard
    Error
    10.0 a
    10.0 a
    10.0 a
                                 Willow
                                  0.873
                                  0.146

                                        HO:LSMean1=
                               Standard     LSMean2
                                   Error        Pr > |t|
                                   54.3         0.680
                                   54.3
Standard
    Error
    12.6 a
    12.6 b
    12.6 a
                                 Willow
                                  0.622
                                  0.002
                                                 82

-------
 Treatment
 Corn
 Natural reveg.
 Willow
      Root
     length
   Ismeans
      1527
      3097
        719
 P values for paired t-tests:
                Natural reveg.
 Corn                  0.010
 Natural reveg.
 P values for paired t-tests:
               Natural reveg.
 Corn                  0.007
 Natural reveg.
Treatment
Corn
Natural reveg.
Willow
P values for paired t-tests:
               Natural reveg.
Corn                  0.117
Natural reveg.
Treatment
Corn
Natural reveg.
Willow
Root length
    density
   Ismeans
       2.1
       4.4
       1.0
P values for paired t-tests:
               Natural reveg.
Corn                  0.006
Natural reveg.
 Standard
    Error
     299 b
     299 a
     299 b
                 Willow
                  0.105
                  0.001


Treatment
Corn
Natural reveg.
Willow
Root surface
area
Imeans
234
456
117

Standard
Error
39 b
39 a
39 b
                 Willow
                  0.077
                  0.001
Root
diameter
Ismeans
0.52
0.45
0.52

Standard
Error
0.03 a
0.03 a
0.03 a
                 Willow
                  0.852
                  0.153
Standard
    Error
     0.4 b
     0.4 a
     0.4 b
                 Willow
                 0.087
                 0.001
                                                  83

-------
Analysis of Variance for Test of Differences in Corn Growth from Time 1 to Time 2
Dependent Variable: Percentage Cover
                               Sum of
       Source          DF    Squares  Mean Square
Plot                      3        5.61          1.87
Time                     1        0.00          0.00
Error                     3       53.22         17.74
Total                     7       58.83
                                 F Value
                                   0.11
                                   0.00
                                    Pr>F
                                    0.952
                                    1.000
     R-Square
         0.10
  CV   Root MSE Percentage Cover Mean
 4.33       4.21         97.25
Dependent Variable: Plant height
Source
Plot
Time
Error
Total

DF
3
1
3
7
Sum of
Squares
1699.82
0.13
332.93
2032.88

Mean Square
566.61
0.13
110.98


F Value
5.11
0.00



Pr>F
0.107
0.975


     R-Square          CV   Root MSE Plant height Mean
         0.84        14.28       10.53         73.79

Dependent Variable: Aboveground Biomass
Plot
Time
Error
Total
Dependent Variable: Root Mass

:e




R-Square
0.80

DF
3
1
3
7
CV
19.33
Sum of
Squares
117814
748
29743
148305
Root MSE
99.57

Mean Square
39271
748
9914


F Value
3.96
0.08



Pr>F
0.144
0.802


Aboveground Biomass Mean
515


Source
Plot
Time
Error
Total
     R-Square
         0.91
  DF
    3
    1
    3
    7
 Sum of
Squares  Mean Square
    427          142
   1482         1482
    189           63
   2098
F Value
   2.26
  23.54
  CV   Root MSE Root Mass Mean
16.61       7.93         47.78
Pr>F
0.260
0.017
                                              84

-------
 Dependent Variable: Root Length
 Source
 Plot
 Time
 Error
 Total

 R-Square
     0.905017
    DF
      3
      1
      3
      7
  Sum of
 Squares
 1293723
 1347271
 277175
2918170
Mean Square
      431241
    1347271
       92392
F Value
   4.67
  14.58
    CV   Root MSE Root Length Mean
15.6881      303.96       1937.52
 Dependent Variable: Root surface area
 Plot
 Time
 Error
 Total
Dependent Variable: Average root diameter
Plot
Time
Error
Total
Dependent Variable: Root length density
Source
Plot
Time
Error
Total
    DF
     3
     1
     3
     7
 Sum of
Squares
   1.64
   1.55
   0.95
   4.14
Mean Square
        0.55
        1.55
        0.32
F Value
   1.73
   4.91
     R-Square
         0.77
    CV   Root MSE Root length density Mean
 22.14        0.56          2.54
Pr>F
0.119
0.032

36




R-Square
0.96

DF
3
1
3
7
CV
10.72
Sum of
Squares
32840
45268
3303
81411
Root MSE
33.18

Mean Square
10947
45268
1101

Root surface area
309.52

F Value
9.94
41.12


Mean


Pr>F
0.046
0.008





;e




R-Square
0.31

DF
3
1
3
7
CV
7.48
Sum of
Squares Mean Square
0.00192 0.00064
0.00013 0.00013
0.00452 0.00151
0.00658

F Value
0.43
0.09



Pr>F
0.749
0.788


Root MSE Average root diameter Mean
0.04 0.52


Pr>F
0.332
0.114
                                              85

-------
Comparisons of Least Squares Treatment Means from Two Corn Crops


Time
1
2


Time
1
2


Time
1
2


Time
1
2


Time
1
2


Time
1
2


Time
1
2


Time
1
2
Percentage
Cover
Ismean
97.3
97.3
Plant
Height
Ismean
73.9
73.7
Aboveground
biomass
Ismean
524.7
505.3
Root
mass
Ismean
61.4
34.2
Root
length
Ismean
2348
1527
Root surface
area
Ismean
385
234
Average
root diam.
Ismean
0.51
0.52
Root length
density
Ismean
2.98
2.10

Standard
Error
2.1
2.1

Standard
Error
5.3
5.3

Standard
Error
49.8
49.8

Standard
Error
4.0
4.0

Standard
Error
152
152

Standard
Error
17
17

Standard
Error
0.02
0.02

Standard
Error
0.28
0.28
                                          Pr>|t|
                                            1.00
                                          Pr>|t|
                                           0.975
                                          Pr>|t|
                                           0.802
                                          Pr>|t|
                                           0.017
                                          Pr>|t|
                                           0.032
                                          Pr>|t|
                                           0.008
                                          Pr>|t|
                                           0.788
                                          Pr>|t|
                                           0.114
                                           86

-------
                 Analysis of Variance for Plant Assessment Parameters
            Tests of Treatment Differences Using the Sum of Two Corn Crops
Dependent Variable: Percentage Cover
Source
Plot
Treatment
Error
Total
R-Square
1.00
Dependent Variable:

Source
Plot
Treatment
Error
Total
R-Square
0.76
Dependent Variable:

Source
Plot
Treatment
Error
Total
R-Square
0.96
Dependent Variable:

Source
Plot
Treatment
Error
Total
R-Square
0.84
DF
3
2
6
11
CV
3.67
Plant height

DF
3
2
6
11
CV
15.54
Squares
138
20276
36
20450
Root MSE
2.45

Sum of
Squares
1512
1346
927
3784
Root MSE
12.43
Mean Square F
46
Value
7.66
10138 1682.71
6



Percentage Cover Mean
66.86


Mean Square F
504
673
155

Plant height Mean
80.01 cm



Value
3.26
4.35




Aboveground biomass

DF
3
1
3
7
CV
12.71
Root mass

DF
3
2
6
11
CV
33.99
Sum of
Squares
169782
479547
29880
679209
Root MSE
99.80

Sum of
Squares
4601
18305
4309
27216
Root MSE
26.80

Mean Square F
56594
479547
9960


Value
5.68
48.15


Aboveground biomass Mean
785.17 g/m2


Mean Square F
1534
9153
718

Root mass Mean
78.84 g/m2



Value
2.14
12.74




                                                                Pr>F
                                                                0.102
                                                                0.068
                                                                Pr>F
                                                                0.094
                                                                0.006
                                                                Pr>F
                                                                0.197
                                                                0.007
                                            87

-------
Dependent Variable: Root length
Source
Plot
Treatment
Error
Total

     R-Square
         0.93

DF
3
2
6
11
Sum of
Squares
1364669
21631652
1848475
24844797

Mean Square
454890
10815826
308079


F Value
1.48
35.11



Pr>F
0.313
0.001


  CV   Root MSE Root length Mean
21.65      555.05       2563.46 gm
Dependent Variable: Root surface area

Source
Plot
Treatment
Error
Total
R-Square
0.94

DF
3
2
6
11
CV
20.10
Sum of
Squares
51037
523784
38280
613102
Root MSE
79.88

Mean Square
17012
261892
6380


F Value
2.67
41.05



Pr>F
0.142
0.000


Root surface area Mean
397.41
cm2

Dependent Variable: Average root diameter

Source
Plot
Treatment
Error
Total
R-Square
0.93

DF
3
2
6
11
CV
3.68
Sum of
Squares Mean Square F Value
0.0167 0.0056 16.7400
0.0108 0.0054 16.2000
0.0020 0.0003
0.0295
Root MSE Average root diameter Mean
0.02 0.50 mm

Pr>F
0.003
0.004




Dependent Variable: Root length density
Source
Plot
Treatment
Error
Total
  DF
    3
    2
    6
   11
 Sum of
Squares
   2.74
  38.04
   3.67
  44.44
Mean Square
        0.91
       19.02
        0.61
F Value
   1.50
  31.13
Pr>F
0.308
0.001
     R-Square          CV   Root MSE Root length density Mean
         0.92        22.51        0.78          3.47 cm/cm3
                                               88

-------
 Comparisons of Least Squares Treatment Means from Analysis Using the Sum of Two Corn
                                         Crops
Means followed by the same letter are not different by paired t-test.


Treatment
Corn
Natural reveg.
Willow
Percentage
cover
Ismeans
97.3
94.6
8.8

Standard
Error
1.2 a
1.2 a
1.2 b
P values for paired t-tests:
               Natural reveg.
Corn                  0.175
Natural reveg.
Treatment
Corn
Natural reveg.
Willow
   Plant
  Height
Ismeans
     74
     95
     71
P values for paired t-tests:
              Natural reveg.
Corn                  0.053
Natural reveg.

               Aboveground
                   biomass
Treatment          Ismeans
Corn               1030.00
Natural reveg.         540.33

P values for paired t-tests:
Treatment
Corn
Natural reveg.
Willow
   Root
   mass
Ismeans
     96
    116
     25
P values for paired t-tests:
              Natural reveg.
Corn                 0.321
Natural reveg.
              Willow
              <.0001
              <.0001
Standard
    Error
       6b
       6a
       6b
              Willow
              0.788
              0.036

                     HO:LSMean1=
           Standard      LSMean2
               Error        Pr > |t|
              49.90         0.006
              49.90
Standard
    Error
      13 a
      13 a
      13 b
             Willow
              0.010
              0.003
                                               89

-------
Treatment
Com
Natural reveg.
Willow
       Root
      length
    Ismeans
       3875
       3097
        719
P values for paired t-tests:
               Natural reveg.
Com                  0.095
Natural reveg.
Treatment
Com
Natural reveg.
Willow
Root surface
       area
    Ismeans
      619.0
      455.8
      117.4
P values for paired t-tests:
               Natural reveg.
Com                 0.0277
Natural reveg.
Treatment
Com
Natural reveg.
Willow
P values for paired t-tests:
               Natural reveg.
Corn                  0.002
Natural reveg.
Treatment
Com
Natural reveg.
Willow
 Root length
     density
    Ismeans
       5.08
       4.35
       0.99
P values for paired t-tests:
               Natural reveg.
Com                  0.239
Natural reveg.
 Standard
    Error
     278 a
     278 a
     278 b
                  Willow
                  0.0002
                  0.001
Standard
    Error
     39.9 a
     39.9 b
     39.9 c
                  Willow
                 0.0001
                  0.001
Root
diameter
Ismeans
0.52
0.45
0.52

Standard
Error
0.01 a
0.01 b
0.01 a
                 Willow
                  0.807
                  0.003
Standard
    Error
    0.39 a
    0.39 a
    0.39 b
                 Willow
                 0.0003
                  0.001
                                                 90

-------
    Appendix C
DRO Chromatograms
        91

-------
 
  II
 00
 Ji.
 I
 OQ
H
II
o
          1/5
     00
                                   0
                                   (D
                       0
                       01-
                       H
                       0
                       01'
M 
b
ft
L.
                                              CO
                                              b
                                              A
                                                          M
                                                          ft
                                                          1

                                                          3
Data File Name
Operator
Instrument
Sample Name
Run Time Bar Code
Acquired on
Report Created on
Last Recalib on
Multiplier
                       M
                       0
             G:\HPCHEM\3\DATA\062601\019R0301.D
             DJB
             DRO
             12656D015SVX1

             26 Jun 01   03:37  PM
             26 Jun 01   04:03  PM
             20 JUN 93  01:52 PM
             1
     Page Number
     Vial Number
     Injection Nuniber
     Sequence Line
     Instrument Method
     Analysis Method
     Sample Amount
     ISTD Amount
1
19
1
3
1QUICKMN.MTH
1QUICKMN.MTH
0
                                       92

-------
   d
   
    II
   OJ
   Wl
   3
   I
H
II
o
                                   0
                                   (D
                                    M
                                    b
            *
            0
                       0-r^
                                        .  .f  . .  . .  fr.  . .  ,f
                       01-
                       H
                       0
                       01
                                                 -10.164
               H-
               Hi
               H1

               (i

               P.
Data File Name
Operator
Instrument
Sample Name
Run Time Bar Code
Acquired on
Report Created on
Last Recalib on
Multiplier
                       M
                       0
           G:\HPCHEM\3\DATA\062601\011R0201.D
           DJB
           DRO
           12656D014SVX1

           26 Jun 01  12:07 PM
           26 Jun 01  01:51 PM
           20 JUN 93 01:52 PM
           1
Page Number
Vial Number
Injection Number
Sequence Line
Instrument Method
Analysis Method
Sample Amount
ISTD Amount
1
11
1
2
1QUTCK.MTH
1QUICKMN.MTH
0
                                        93

-------
          O
          90
          O
          II
          U)
          oo

         I
         00
H
II
o
                      H

                      b
              U
          0y_J_
                        01-
                        H
                        0
                        H

                        01
                                            N
                                            I
                                            0
                                            0
                                            __
                                      A
                               0
                               0
                                                  0
                                                  a
                                                  p
                                                  H
                                                  H-
                                                  (I
                                                  a
Data  File Name
Operator
Instrument
Sample Name
Run Time Bar Code
Acquired on
                        W
                        0'
      G:\HPCHEM\3\DATA\062601\014R0201.D
      DJB                          Page Number
      DRO                          vial Number
      12656D013SVX1                Injection Number
                                   Sequence Line
      26 Jun 01  01:26 PM          instrument Method
Report Created  on:  26 Jun 01  01:53 PM
Last Recalib on
Multiplier
      20  JUN 93
      1
01:52 PM
Analysis Method
Sample Amount
ISTD Amount
1
14
1
2
1QUICK.MTH
IQUICKMN.MTH
0
                                          94

-------
         I
                                   0
                                   a
                         R)
                         b
                         a
   u
   b
   A
                       01-
                       H
                       0
                       01
o
A
f
                                            0.
                                            H-
                                            H|
Data File Name
Operator
Instrument
Sample Name
Run Time Bar Code!
Acquired on
Report Created on
Last Recalib on
Multiplier
                      JO
                      0
Gs\HPCHEM\3\DATA\062601\020R0301.D
DJB
DRO
12656D005SVX1

26 Jun 01  04:03 PM
26 Jun 01  04:29 PM
20 JUN 93 01:52 .PM
1
Page Number
Vial Number
Injection Number
Sequence Line
Instrument Method
Analysis Method
Sample Amount
ISTD Amount
        1
        20
        1
        3
        1QUICKMN.MTH
        1QUICKMN.MTH
        0
                                     95

-------
                                                                                                                                            Cat)
                                                                                                                                            cxo
                                                                                                                                  H 00 eH rH i-H iH O
                                                          T_asirH
   (UH u 5 4JH an
H CTirt-o&w l KM
o id -H (4 a) cS
rH Pi > l-l tO M
o
OJ
00
o
o
                                                                                                                                                  n) co
                                                                                                                                                 CO M
                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                                                            iH

                                                                                                                                            H
                                                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                                                            (N
                                                                                                                                            O
                S
                  Q)
                U>
                ro ra
                 ID
                -I  
                o ,-)
                  o

                o m
                o cri
                                                                                                                                               9!
                                                                                                                                            H) hs
                                                                                                                                                             CO
                                                                                                                                                             en
                                                                                                                                            ro
                                                                                                                                            O
                n o
                O (N
SUPPRESSION
DRO = 340 mg/kg
          s
           o
 a)        u

 m         M
 S      a> to R
     u 6  "  ~

H M  OJ S
-rl O  g
 CM jj  pi a)
   Hi  CrH
 nJ n 4J a
 4J 0)  ffl B
 nl Pi C id
   g^

  T3 O
   0)
O (U rH M
_ M Id 0)
-OU U-d
0)   (1) r-H
M 4J rt P|
H W    -rl
d O 4J 4J
O4 Q4 CO rI

U Q) nJ d

-------
       U)
       *>
       o
       3
I
      OQ
                    H
                    *
                    o
                                            M
                                            b

           .r....f
                       01-
                       Ul
                                                            o
                                                           i
                                               M
                                               (D
                                               *1

                                               3
                                                              M)
                                                              H-

                                                              (I

                                                              P.
 Data File Name
 Operator
 Instrument
 Sample Name
 Run Time Bar Code
 Acquired on
 Report Created on
 Last Recalib on
.Multiplier
                       M
                       0
    G:\HPCHEM\3\DATA\060302\009R0101.D
    KEG
    DRO
    22695D013SWR2.5

    03  Jun 02  01:36 PM
    03  Jun 02  02:02 PM
    20  JUN 93 01:52 PM
    1
Page Number
Vial Number
Injection Number
Sequence Line
Instrument Method
Analysis Method
Sample Amount
ISTD Amount
1
9
1
1
1QUICKMN.MTH
1QUICKMN.MTH
0
                                      97

-------
      I
       II
      OJ
      4*.
      O

      I
      CTQ
H
II
                       01-
                       CJl
                           0
                           I
                        0
                        (I
                       i.
                                           M
                                           b
                                           A
                                u
                                b
                                o
            o
           1
Data File Name    :
Operator          =
Instrument        :
Sample Name       :
Run Time Bar Code:
Acquired on
                       M
                       0
        G:\HPCHEM\3\DATA\060302\007R0101.D
        KEG                          Page Number
        ORO                          Vial Number
        22695D011SWR2.5              Injection Number
                                     Sequence Line
                                                1
                                                7
                                                1
                                                1
        03 Jun 02
Report Created on: 03 Jun 02
Last Recalib on
Multiplier
           12:44 PM
           Ols10 PM
20 JUN 93  01:52  PM
1
Instrument Method:  1QUICKMN.MTH
Analysis Method   t  1QUICKMN.MTH
Sample Amount     :  0
ISTD Amount       -
                                      98

-------
O   "-3
?o    II
O   ~
     to
     o
     o

     05.
     7T
     oo
              O
              O
K

b
                                             M
                                             b
                                                P
                                                b
                                                o
             0
             A
                       01
                                                                P
                                                                M
                                                                I)



                                                                3
                                                                0
                                                                P.
                                                                H-
                                                                H)
                                                                H
                                                                (I
Data File  Name
Operator
Instrument
Sample Name
Run Time Bar Code
Acquired on
Report Created on
Last Recalib on
Multiplier
                       (0
                       0'
              G:\HPCHEM\3\DATA\OS3102\015R0101.D
              KEG
              DRO
              22695D005SWX1

              31 May  02   04:58  PM
              31 May  02   05:24  PM
              20 JUN  93 01:52 PM
              1
Page Number
Vial Number
Injection Number
Sequence Line
Instrument Method
Analysis Method
Sample Amount
ISTD Amount
                               1
                               15
                               1
                               1
                               1QUICKMN.MTH
                               1QUICKMN.MTH
                               0
                                     99

-------
                                                                                                                                              CJ CJ
                                                                                                                                                 l-t

                                                                                                                                              t>o
                                                                                                                                         H i-t H i-t O
                                                                                 idi:f is.
                                                                                                                                          QJ
                                 4 . O e 4-
                                 3 .Oe4-
                                 3 . O e 4-
                                  1 . 0 ,s 4-
                                         CD -


                                             O
                                                  U M S5
                                                  0) 0)
                                                 9.Q C
                                                                                                                                            0)
                                                                                                                                            a
:-d
i O

, u
 tu
 S
                                                                                                                                                    ii
4J
a


                                                 J2 jg |j pj -j tn (ji
                                               Q       U ,^
                                                  0) H 0) d U <-i Pi
                                               H  &) nJ -n o1 to nJ 6
                         4  
                         VM _
                            ^~v>vys.^ __ -
3. O
SUPPRESSION
DRO = 120 mg/kg
                                                         ID   fj
                                                         T)   O
                                                         o      a
                                               0        U   Tl O
                                               6             ai
                                               in        u   u X)
                                               Z       O,'  (X
                                                  id )i H E-i -H >-i   -'i
                                               m M AJ PI   3 o u  u
                                               u 
-------
     5
     O
      II
     K>
     tO
     O
H    ^
ii    2
tO    LH
     OQ
                                  0
                                 1.
                                0
                                a
                                UJ

                                0
                                (!)
                       p
                       0
                       01
                                                      0
                                                      p.
                                                      H-
                                                      Hi
                                 /
Data File Name
Operator
Instrument
Sample Name
Run Time- Bar Code
Acquired on
Report Created on
Lasc F.ecaiib on
MuL cisiier
G:\HPCHEM\3\DATA\092702\018R0101.D
KEG                           Page Number
DRO                           Vial Number
26159D012SFR4                 Injection Number
                              Sequence Line
27 Sep 02  OS:02  ?M           Instrument Method
27 Sec 02  06:28  ?M           Analysis Method
20 JUN 92 01:52 ?M            Sample Amount
1                             ISTD Amount:
                                                          1
                                                          18
                                                          1
                                                          1
                                                          1QUICKMN.MTH
                                                          1QUICKMN.MTH
                                      101

-------
        o
        
H
II
S3
         VI
         o

        i
        OQ
                                          M
                                     'CO
0
0"....f...
u
0
, f , ,
0
(0
0
ft
, , f ,


                       01-
                       01
                                                  c
                                                  M
                                                  ft
                                                  i
                                                               H
                                                               H
                                                               A
                                                               a
Data File Name
Operator
Instrument
Sample Name
Run Time. Bar Code
Acquired on
Report Created on
Last Recalib on
Multiplier
                       M
                       0
      G:\HPCHEM\3\DATA\092702\004R0101.D
      KEG                          Page Number
      DRO                          Vial Number
      26159D011SFR1                Injection Number
                                   Sequence Line
      27 Sep 02  11:52 AM          Instrument Method
      27 Sep 02  12:18 PM          Analysis Method
      20 JDN 93 01:52 PM           Sample Amount
      1                            ISTD Amount
1
4
1
1
1QUICKMN.MTH
1QUICKMN.MTH
0
                                    102

-------
  o
  
   II
  I 
  00
  o
O
o
  OQ
                                                  u
0 0
0 ft A
..... f. ... f. .


0
ft
. .f . .

,
0
. ft


                       H
                       0
                       01
                                                    Hi
                                                    H-

                                                    (I
 Data  File Name
 Operator
 Instrument
 Sample  Name
 Run* Time. Bar Code
 Acquired en
 P.eport  Created on
 Last  Recalib on
Muitiuiiar
                       10
                       0-
        G:\HPCHEM\3\DATA\092702\005R0101.D
        KEG                          Page Number
        DRO                          Vial Number
        26159D005SFR2                Injection Number
                                     Sequence  Line
        27 Sen 02   12:18 PM          Instrument Method
        27 Sep 02   12:44 PM          Analysis  Method
        20 JUN 93  01:52 PM           Sample  Amount
        1                            ISTD Amounc
1
5
1
i
1QUICKMN.MTH
1QUICKMN.MTH
0
                                   103

-------