v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
540R04508A
SITE Technology Capsule
Dredged Material
Reclamation at Jones Island
Confined Disposal Facility
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Abstract
In this SITE demonstration, phytoremediation tech-
nologies were applied to contaminated dredged materials from
the Jones Island Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) located
in Milwaukee Harbor, Wisconsin (Figure 1). The Jones Is-
land CDF is an active facility, having received dredged ma-
terials from normal maintenance of Milwaukee's waterways
and tributaries for many years. Like many CDFs across the
CONFINED
DISPOSAL FACILITY
Figure 1. Location of Jones Island CDF
country, Jones Island faces the dilemma of steady inputs and
no feasible alternative for expansion. One option for optimiz-
ing existing CDF space is to "beneficially reuse" the dredged
sediments, which effectively allows for a recycling of the sedi-
ments 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, etc. 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 con-
taminants are often very heterogeneous. Dredged materi-
als used in the SITE demonstration were contaminated with
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated bi-
phenyls (PCBs), and diesel-range organics (DRO) at levels ex-
ceeding relevant Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) and USEPA standards.
The SITE program and USAGE evaluated the dem-
onstration for two growing seasons. The effectiveness of the
treatments was monitored directly through soil and irrigation
water sampling and analysis and indirectly via the assessment
of plant root and shoot growth. Weather data was gathered to
help establish irrigation schedules. At the end of the second
growing season, residual organic contaminant levels were com-
pared against guidelines suggested by the WDNR for gauging
beneficial use options.
This Technology Capsule presents the results from
data collecting efforts to date. The project has demonstrated
success in establishing viable growing conditions and meeting
several guideline targets. The system has also been evaluated
-------
on seven criteria used for decision-making in the Superfund
feasibility study process. Results of that evaluation are sum-
marized in Table 1.
Introduction
In 1980, the U.S. Congress passed the Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund, which is commit-
ted to protecting human health and the environment from
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. CERCLA was amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
in 1986 to emphasize long-term effectiveness and permanent
solutions with a preference for alternative treatment technolo-
gies or resource recovery to the maximum extent possible.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has focused on policy, technical, and awareness issues related
to new remediation technologies. A prominent response to
these issues is EPA's Superfund Innovative Technology Evalu-
Table 1. Feasibility Study Criteria for the Jones Island
Reclamation Project
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Criterion
Overall Protection
of Human
Health and the
Environment
Compliance with
Federal ARARs
Long-Term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
Reduction of
Toxicity, Mobility,
or Volume
Through Treatment
Short-Term
Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
Performance
Protects human health and the
environment by degrading organic
contaminants in soil. Impacts from
excavation should be minimized
through the use of engineering controls.
Specific ARARs for dredged material not
yet available. PCBs must comply with
40CFR76l.61(a)(4)(i)(A).
Construction activities may require
permits.
Permanently reduces (through biological
destruction) contamination from the
affected soil matrix. End-of-treatment
residuals (biomass) are non-hazardous.
Toxicity of contaminants minimized by
treatment
Aesthetically pleasing solution that
presents minimal risk to workers and the
community.
Implementation needs vary with
application. Requires minimal site
utilities.
Approximately $20/ton for corn or
willow treatment on a per acre basis.
ation (SITE) program, which was established to accelerate de-
velopment, demonstration, and use of innovative technologies
for site clean-ups. EPA SITE Technology Capsules summarize
the latest information available on these technologies. These
Capsules are designed to help EPA Remedial Project Managers
and On-Scene Coordinators, contractors, and other site clean-
up managers understand the types of data and site characteris-
tics needed to evaluate a technology's suitability for Superfund
cleanup.
This Capsule provides information about the dredged
material reclamation field demonstration on the Jones Island
CDF. The project goal was to determine if either cultivated or
indigenous plants could reduce the level of organic pollutants
in dredged material and permit their offsite use in some benefi-
cial capacity. Information provided in this SITE Technology
Capsule is based on results from the testing period June 2001
through September 2002.
Details are presented in the following format:
• Abstract
• Technology description
• Technology applicability
• Technology limitations
• Process residuals
• Site requirements
• Performance data
• Technology status
• Source of further information
Technology Description
Phytoremediation, or phytotechnologies, are current
defined as the use of vegetation to contain, sequester, remove,
or degrade organic and inorganic contaminants in soils, sedi-
ments, surface water, and groundwater. 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 (typicallmetals and radio
nuclides) to their above-ground biomass where they are con-
centrated and can be harvested and disposed of.
Rhizostabilization, which refers to a process whereby contami
nants (typically metals) are sorbed onto plant roots and there-
fore 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 con-
taminants, (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 contami-
nants are extracted from soil or ground water and then trans-
ferred 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 organ-
ics like PAHs and PCBs found at the Jones Island CDF.
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. The
analytical results confirmed a wide variety of contaminant con-
centrations and also indicated areas of opportunity for phy-
toremediation.
Treatability studies conducted at the USAGE Engi-
neer 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 con-
taminants. Over the short test period, a fast-maturing corn
hybrid showed the highest reduction effect.
In June 2001, four field plots containing four treat-
ment 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 Error! Hyperlink reference
not valid.. Each plot had four randomized treatments: the
corn hybrid, sandbar willow, local grasses, and an unplanted
control (aka, plant suppression). Corn was planted twice dur-
ing the growing season, which was designated as June through
September.
Figure 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 3
is a schematic of a nominal test plot/treatment cell configura-
tion including construction details.
Technology Applicability
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
Figure 2. LLayout of treatment plots at Jones Island CDF
run-off in widely varying concentrations. Natural attenuation
processes occur at differing rates due to random placement in
the CDF and various oxygen and moisture levels and weather-
ing impacts.
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. During 2000
the ERDC conducted a series of greenhouse trials to evaluate
the ability of different plant varieties to enhance the action of
the local microbes and further reduce the level of PAHs and
PCBs in Jones Island dredged materials. 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 (Figure
4). Results show the best reductions were achieved with a corn
hybrid, which reduced the concentration of PAHs and PCBs
by 78% and 64%, respectively on unamended dredged mate-
rial.
In Spring 2001 the ERDC conducted a brief floristic
survey of the Jones Island CDF for the purpose of identifying
the types of natural vegetation that might develop during this
SITE demonstration. The ERDC reported that the CDF nat-
urally supports dense native (annual and perennial) vegetation
during the growing season, and identified 85 species of vas-
cular plants. In the older areas of the CDF, on sediment that
may have exceeded 10 years of age, the dominant vegetation
was Phalaris arundinacea (Reed Canary Grass), Salix interior
(Sandbar Willow), and Urtica procera (Tall Nettle). Dredged
material used for this demonstration came from one of these
older areas.
-------
Outer Berms
(3ft wide)
Test Plot Layout (One of Four)
intercell
Berms
(2ft wide)
Dimensions
Test Plot, 60ft x 23ft
Treatment Ceil, 12ft x 20ft each
Outer Berm, 3ft wide
Cell Separation Berms, 2ft wide
Downhill slope
Figure 3. Configuration of Test/Plot Treatment Cells
Technology Limitations
The most significant limitation to successful phyto-
technology is plant mortality. While plants need not necessar-
ily be in perfect or optimum health to perform satisfactorily,
they must be living. Therefore, plant stress, whether it arises
from extreme contamination levels, poor quality soils, inade-
quate moisture, disease or pests, must be prevented. Inadequate
root development can pose a limitation to phytoremediation
Figure 4. ERDC Greenhouse Soil/Amendment Experimentation
effectiveness. Root mass must develop sufficiently to reach and
achieve an effect on pollutants. For the Jones Island project,
root depth is not a key factor since the soil in the cells was less
than 30 cm (12 in) deep (easily within the reach of plant roots),
and are not likely to be much deeper in a full scale operation.
Depending on plant spacing, lateral root development can be
important. Planting density should be high enough for full
subsurface coverage at crop maturity, and for full above ground
canopy closure to crowd out weeds that compete for space and
resources (i.e. water, nutrients, and sunlight).
In general, the growing season at the Jones Island CDF
is expected to commence in May. October typically brings
colder weather that is unsuitable for growing the types of plants
involved in this demonstration and limits effectiveness over
these months. However, rhizosphere processes can continue
for short periods without active shoots, offering some degree of
remedial benefit even during dormant periods.
Process Residuals
The biomass generated as plants mature is a process
residual. For this project corn biomass was tilled back into the
test material prior to the next planting event and consumed bi-
ologically during the next growing cycle. No net corn biomass
was generated. Although Sandbar willows were found growing
naturally on the CDF, the ones used in this field demonstration
will be harvested ultimately. The accumulated biomass may
-------
chipped and disposed of or recycled for landscaping purposes Table 2. Borrow Area and Baseline Agronomic Parameters
offsite.
Site Requirements
Site support requirements for phytoremediation sys-
tems 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-ap-
plied, 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)
• Perimeter fencing, depending on the site location, plant sen-
sitivity hazard analysis, etc.
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 previously.
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 compares results from the eventual borrow area (GP17
and GP19) identified during the scoping study 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 USAGE for the purposes of this
field demonstration.
Insect attack and available responses may limit plant
choices from both a physical and regulatory standpoint. Dur-
ing 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 pre-
dicted success. Sevin, a non-restricted carbamate insecticide
available at local garden shops, was selected for use at the dem-
onstration site. A license was not required for its use. Several
applications were required.
Performance Data
The following conditions were monitored during the
demonstration:
Parameter
Soil pH
Soluble Salts
(mmhos/cm)
Excess Lime
Organic Matter (%)
Nitrate-Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Potassium
Sulfur
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Zinc
Cation Exchange
Capacity
(milliequivalents/
1 00 g soil)
Borrow Area
GP17
8.2
0.37
Hi
3.8
3
58
80
37
4100
160
170
16
23
GP19
7.9
0.33
Hi
5.0
3
69
140
17
4100
190
31
16
22
Baseline
Mean
8.6
0.61
Hi
4.1
9.5
63
100
49
4300
140
610
60
26
All concentrations in mg/kg unless otherwise noted
pH is reported as -log[H+]
"Hi" indicates potential for iron chlorosis or injury from
pesticide carryover
• Soil PAH, PCB, DRO and agricultural (Row Crop Test) con-
centrations prior to planting the first season, also known as
baseline (T=0), prior to planting the second growing season
(T=l), and after the second growing season (T=2).
• Plant assessments were completed during the second grow-
ing season to evaluate percent cover, shoot biomass, and root
parameters.
• Tensiometers were installed during the second growing sea-
son to measure soil moisture
• Weather data was gathered from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) station at nearby Mitch-
ell Airfield in Milwaukee.
Baseline samples were collected during June 2001
shortly before initial planting. A second set of samples was
collected in May 2002 before the start of the second growing
season, and a third and final collection occurred in September
2002. Baseline results indicate that preparation of the soil
prior to placement was successful in adequately distributing
-------
the pollutants amongst the 16 treatment cells. Analyte con-
centrations in individual cells ranged from 77 no 161 mg/kg
PAHs, 2.0 to 3.6 mg/kg PCBs and 24 to 440 mg/kg DRO.
After the establishment of the test plots, management
routines were not set up appropriately, 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. However, irrigation and maintenance schedules were
better coordinated during the 2002 growing season, and plant
vitality was much improved, as seen in Figure 5.
Figure 5. First Corn Crop during 2002 Growing Season.
PAHs. In comparison with WDNR NR 538 Category
1 standards, corn, natural vegetation, and willow produced
90% UCL PAH concentrations at or below numerical stan-
dards with 7 of 16 compounds; plant suppression, 8 of 16 com-
pounds (Table 3). 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).
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 5).
DRO. None of the treatments produced a final mean
concentration of DRO below the applicable standard (Table
5). 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 bio-
genesis 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 identifica-
tion and quantification.
Vegetation growth was assessed two times during
2002 in July and September. The plant assessments showed
vegetation treatments were successfully established. However,
the shallow depth of the soil in the treatment system (much
less than the 30 cm design criterion) 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.
The only plots that had plant growth for most of the
first growing season were 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 6), concentration reduc-
tion 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. Re-
ductions 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 (data not shown). With better weed control in the
willow plots during the 2002 growing season, less root mass
was produced and PAH reduction ceased.
Technology Status
The USAGE in partnership with the Milwaukee Port
Authority is exploring an extensive range of beneficial use op-
tions for the harbor dredgings, from building materials to road
fill to landscaping soil. Assisting the search is the University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Center for By-Products Utilization
(CBU). The CBU is working on combining dredged materials
with wood ash and other materials to make fertilizer and top-
soil that could be used by nurseries, Christmas tree farms, and
forests planted by paper mills.
For the USAGE, this demonstration is part of a con-
tinuum of projects under its Dredging Operations and Envi-
ronmental 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 and can be downloaded in PDF format at the
following address:
http://www.wes.army.mil/el/dots/doer/technote.html
-------
Table 3. PAH Treatment Results vs. NR 538 Category 1 Standards
PAH Compounds Standard Treatment Means (mg/kg)
Standard
(mg/kg)
90% UCL (mg/kg)
Corn Natural Supprn Willow Corn Natural Supprn Willow
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
900
8.8
5000
0.088
0.008
0.088
0.88
0.88
8.8
0.0088
600
600
0.088
600
0.88
500
0.7
0,72
1.9
6.5
7.9
11
4.2
7.5
8.4
1.3
17
0.75
3.9
2
8.8
12
0.74
0.78
2.0
6.8
8.8
13
3.0
8.7
8.8
1.0
19
0.86
3.2
2.2
10
13
0.54
0.63
1.6
5.8
7.0
10
3.7
5.4
7.5
1.2
15
0.64
3.7
1.5
7.5
10
0.76
0.69
2.0
6.8
8.4
12
3.5
8.5
8.7
1.2
17
0.83
3.5
1.5
9.2
13
0.8
0.91
2.3
7.4
9.1
13
5.3
9.7
9.6
1.4
19
0.87
4.4
2.6
10
14
0.88
0.96
2.4
7.9
10
16
3.5
9.7
10
1.2
21
1.1
3.8
2.9
11
15
0.6
0.75
1.7
6
7.4
11
4.9
5.7
8
1.5
1.7
0.7
4.7
1.7
8.1
11
0.9
0.82
2.4
7.4
9.4
14
4.8
11
9.4
1.5
20
0.95
4.5
1.7
10
14
Note: Shaded results are at or below standard
Table 4. PAH Treatment Results vs. NR 538 Category 2 Standards
PAH Compounds
Standard
(mg/kg)
Treatment Means (mg/kg)
90% UCL (mg/kg)
Corn
Natural Supprn Willow Corn Natural Supprn Willow
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo (b)fluoranthene
Benzo (g,h,i)perylene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
9000
88
50000
0.88
0.08
0.88
8.8
8.8
88
0.088
6000
6000
0.88
6000
8.8
5000
0.7
0.72
1.9
6.5
7.9
11
4.2
7.5
8.4
1.3
17
0.75
3.9
2
8.8
12
0.74
0.78
2.0
6.8
8.8
13
3.0
8.7 -
8.8
1.0
19
0.86
3.2
2.2
10
13
0.54
0.63
1.6
5.8
7.0
10
3.7,
5.4
7.5-
1.2
15
0,64
3.7
1.5
-7,5
10
0.76
0.69
2.0 ;
6.8
8.4
12
3.5
8.5
8.7
1.2
17
0,83
3.5
1.5
9.2
13
0.8
0.91
2.3
7.4
9.1
13
5.3
9.7
9.6
1.4
19
0.87
4.4
2.6
10
14
0.88
0.96
2.4
7.9
10
16
3.5
9.7
10
1.2
21
1.1
3.8
2.9
11
15
0.6
0.75
1.7
6
7.4
11
4.9
5.7
8
1.5
1.7
0.7
4.7
1.7
8.1
11
0.9
0.82
2.4
7.4
9.4
14
4.8
11
9.4
1.5
20
0.95
4.5
1.7
10
14
Note: Shaded results are at or below standard
-------
Table 5. PCB and DRO Treatment Results vs. Project Standards
Analytes Standard Treatment Means* (mg/kg)
90% UCL (mg/kg)
PCB Aroclors
PCB Congeners
DRO
(mg/kg)
<1
<1
100
Corn
4.4
4.1
150
Natural
4.8
3.9
230
Supprn
4.2
3.8
110
Willow
4.4
3.6
160
Corn
5
NA
180
Natural
5.6
NA
280
Supprn
4.5
NA
140
Willow
5
NA
200
Notes:
*PCB Congener results are for a single analysis
NA Not applicable
Table 6. Comparison between T=0, 1 & 2 Analyte Data
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (mg/kg)
PAH Compounds
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k) fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
T=0
0.9
0.73
2.6
7.4
9
14
3.4
5.6
9.2
1.1
16
1.1
3.7
1.7
10
14
100
Corn
T=l
0.85
0.96
1.8
7.2
9.2
15
3
5.7
8.5
1
18
0.98
3.2
1.7
8.6
12
98
Natural Vegetation
T=2
0.7
0.72
1.9
6.5
7.9
11
4.2
7.5
8.4
1.3
17
0.75
3.9
2
8.8
12
94
T=0
1.3
0.72
4
10
12
18
3.6
7.6
12
1.2
22
1.7
4
2.2
15
18
130
T=l
1.1
1.1
2.4
7.9
11
18
3.3
7
9.5
1.1
20
1.3
3.6
1.7
11
14
110
T=2
0.74
0.78
2
6.8
8.8
13
3
8.7
8.8
1
19
0.86
3.2
2.2
10
13
100
Plant Suppression
T=0 T=l
0.65 0.96
0.7 0.88
1.9 2,2
6.6 7.6
8.2 9.5
13 15
3 3.9
5.7 6.2
8,1 8,9
1 1.2
14 19
0.74 1.1
3.2 4.1
1.6 1.9
8.2 10
12 13
89 110
T=2
0.54
0.63
1.6
5.8
7
10
3J
5.4
7.5
1.2
15
0.64
3.7
1.5
7.5
10
74
T=0
0.94
0.76
2.6
8.6
10
16
4.1
5.6
11
1.4
18
1.1
4.4
2.3
12
15
110
Willow
T=l
0.86
0.96
1.8
1
9.2
15
2.8
6.8
8.3
0.91
18
0.98
3.2
1.6
8.7
12
98
T=2
0.76
0.69
2
6.8
8.4
12
3.5
8.5
8.7
1.2
17
0.83
3.5
1.5
9.2
13
97
PCB Aroclors (mg/kg)
PCB Aroclors
1242
1254
1260
Total Aroclors
T=0
1.1
1.3
0.4
2.8
Corn
T=l
1.5
1.9
0.75
4.2
Natural Vegetation
T=2
1.4
2
0.93
4.4
T=0
0.94
1.2
0.36
2.5
T=l
1.6
2.1
1.1
4.9
T=2
1.6
2.2
1.1
4.8
Plant Suppression
T=0 T=l
0.96 1.6
1.2 1.9
0,37 0.78
2,5 4.3
T=2
1.4
1,9
0.88
4.2
T=0
0.94
1.2
0.41
2.5
Willow
T=l
1.6
2
0.87
4.5
T=2
1.5
2
0.94
4.4
PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Corn
Total Congeners
T=0
4.2
T=l
3.2
T=2
4.1
T=0
3.7
Natural Vegetation
T=l
4.6
T=2
3.9
Plant Suppression
T=0 T*l
4.7 3.7
T=2
3.8
T=0
3.9
Willow
T=l
3.4
T=2
3.6
Diesel Range Organics (mg/kg)
DRO
T=0
64
Corn
T=l
140
Natural
Vegetation
T=2 T=0 T=l
150
140 250
T=2
230
Plant Suppression
T=0 T=l
59 220
.T-2
110
T=0
91
Willow
T=l
280
T=2
160
Note: Results rounded to two significant figures
-------
Sources of Further Information
An Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (ITER) of this
study is currently being prepared and should be available in
Fall 2003.
Contact Information
EPA Project Manager:
Steve Rock
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
5995 Center Hill Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45224
Tel: 513-569-7149
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
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, MI 48231-1027
Tel: 313-226-2223
David.W.Bowman@lre02.usace.army.mil
-------
«?/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA/540/R-04/508a
July 2004
www.epa.gov
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free
------- |