EPA-440/5-78-004 0
MITIGATION FEASIBILITY
for the
KEPCNE-COMTAM1NATED
HOPEWELL/JAME3 RIVER AREAS
JUNE 9, 1978
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF HATER AMD HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS DIVISION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20450
-------
MITIGATION FEASIBILITY
for the
KEPONE-CONTAMINATED
HOPEWELL/JAMES RIVER AREAS
JUNE 9, 1978
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS DIVISION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
FOREWORD
In the Fall of 1976, the Governors of Virginia and Maryland
jointly requested that EPA evaluate the Kepone problem in the
Hopewell, Virginia area and James River system and explore corrective
or mitigative actions.
In response to this request, EPA Headquarters initiated the Keponl
Mitigation Feasibility Project. The project support teams included:
the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District; the Department of
Energy, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories; EPA's Gulf Breeze,
Environmental Research Laboratory; and the Virginia Institute of
Marine Science. Coordination channels were also established with thel
States of Virginia. and Maryland, and other related staffs and
agencies. The intensive on-going cooperation, critique and review
provided by the States of Virginia and Maryland were a major
contribution to the effectiveness of the research and quality of the
results.
The tight deadlines established for the project necessitated
completion of many participant tasks simultaneously, which ideally
would have been accomplished sequentially. A sequential programming
of such tasks would have required two to three years, rather than the
one year originally allotted. The great interdependence of many of
the separate participant tasks required establishment of conditional
findings and conclusions in their separate reports. Accordingly, the
overall project findings and recommendations are reflected in this
report.
There are no easy solutions to the Kepone contamination problem.
The work accomplished under the project should provide the basis for
focusing efforts on the most critical issues and promising solutions.1
In addition, the investigation of applicable technologies for
. mitigation will be useful in addressing other similar contamination
problems.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Background
Scope of Project
Findings and Recommendations
I. PROBLEM PERSPECTIVE
Problem Occurrence
Chronology
Kepone Production and Routes
Kepone Routes to the Atmosphere
Kepone Routes to the Sewer System
Hea lth Effects
Action level Determination
litigation and Registration Actions
II. PROBLEM RESPONSES
EPA, State, and Local Efforts
Request for an EPA Mitigation Feasibility
Guidelines Established for EPA Mitigation
Project
1
3
5
7
1-1
1-2
1-15
1-18
1-19
1-20
1-22
1-23
II-I
Project 11-6
Feasibility 11-6
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA
Hopewell and Prince George County
The James River
IV. PROJECT APPROACH
Organizing the Project
Laboratory Standardization
Project Field Efforts
Proj ect laboratory ,Efforts
Project-Related Field Efforts
Kepone-Related Investigations
Modeling Efforts for Kepone Tracking
V.
KEPONE TRANSPORT AND DISTRIBUTION
Behavior of Kepone in Sediments, Water Columns, and
Species
Kepone Degradation by Physical, Chemical, and
Biological Means
Distribution of Kepone
III-l
III-7
IV-l
IV-4
IV-6
IV-7
IV-2I
IV -22
IV -24
V-I
V-8
V-14
-------
VI. BIOLOGICAL FATE, IMPACT, AND CLEAN-UP INDICES
Acute Toxicity to Salt-Water Organisms
Chronic Toxicity to Salt-Water Organisms
Symptoms of Exposure
Kepone Bioconcentration from Water
Kepone Bioaccumulation from Food
Kepone Bioavailability from Sediment
Comparative Routes of Uptake
Kepone Mitigation Clean-up Indices
VII. KEPONE PROBLEM PROJECTIONS
Kepone Transport Projections
Summary of Implications of Kepone's Continued
Presence
VIII. NON CONVENTIONAL MITIGATION METHODS.
Dredge Spoil Fixation
ElutriatejSlurry Treatment
In-Situ Processes
Biological Treatment
Appraisal
IX. CONVENTIONAL MITIGATION METHODS
Scope and Approach
Potential Dredging Technology
Site Evaluation of Japanese Technology
Dredge-Type Approaches for Bailey Creek, Gravelly
Run, and Bailey Bay
Elutriate and Runoff Treatment and Dredge Spoil
Stabilization
Alternatives for Bailey Creek, Gravelly Run, and
Ba i1 ey Bay
James River Alternatives
Mitigation of Elevated Contaminated Areas
Alternatives for Bailey Creek, Gravelly Run, and
Bailey Bay
APPENDICES (Reports of Funded Participants)
VI-l
VI-2
VI-4
VI-4
VI-9
VI-ll
VI-lJ
VI-lS
VII-l
VII-3
VIII-l
V II 1-9
VIII-21
VIII-26
VIII-29
IX-l
IX-2
IX-5
IX-9
IX-lO
IX-14
IX-26
IX-32
IX-39
A. Department of Energy - Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
B. Department of The Army - Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District
C. EPA Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory and
Vi~ginia Institute of Marine Science
-------
\ KEPONE MITIGATION FEASIBILITY PROJECT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The hazard of highly persistant, toxic substances contaminating
large land and water areas is a problem of continuing concern
-.. ... ..
worldwide.
'rhe Kepone problem in Hopewell., Virginia surfaced through: -- - .
deleterious effects on production workers health at the Repone
production plant of Life Science Products.
Three years after the
closedownof the production site, contamination still persists in the
Hopewell area and in the James River.
-
-.. . - .
In the Fall of 1976, the Governors of Virginia and Maryland
jointly requested that EPA evaluate the Repone problem in the James
River system and explore corrective or mitigative actions.
In
response to this request, a plan was proposed in November 1976.
Phase
I involved
an assessment of: suspected continuing sources of Repone
contamination; the fate and transport of Repone in the James River
system; the current'and long-range effects of Repone-contamination-on----
~he biota; and an evaluation of mitigation and removal methods. -An~_:
allocation of $1.4 million was made for support-studies in-Phase I.-~
The project was initiated on March 31, 1977.. Following review-of --.
recommendations by EPA and the States of Virginia. and Maryland, ~- Phase
1
-------
II could involve a decision to: seek funding for a major cleanup or
mitigation program; proceed with pilot testing of alternative
corrective actions; or withhold action.
Project development and management responsibility was assigned to
the Criteria and Standards Division of EPA with project participants
including: the Corps of Engineers (COE); the Department of Energy .
(DOE); Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories; EPA's Gulf Breeze.
Environmental Research Laboratory; and the Virginia Institute of
Marine Science.
Extensive on-going coordination has been accomplished
with the States of Virginia and Maryland, EPA's Region III, and other
elements of EPA. Information also has been exchanged with the. State
of New York's PCB Task Force which faced a similar river contamination I
I
I
.1
problem.
This report documents the results of the project effort,
describing: the nature of the Kepone contamination in the Hopewell,
Virginia/James River area; Kepone effects and Lmpacts;. efforts
undertaken by the Kepone Mitigation Feasibility Project to assess the
problem and determine solutions; and the resulting findings and
recommen~ations.
,
The Appendices to the report document.the efforts of I
the individual funded participants.
. _. . - -.
.. _... ,".
. .. --I
I
I
I
I
2
-------
BACKGROUND
Kepone, a highly chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticide, was discharged
into the environment around Hopewell, Virginia from 1966 to 1975 from
two manufacturing operations.
The Allied Chemical Corporation's Semi-
Works Plant produced Kepone intermittently from 1966 to 1974.
Life
Science Products Company initiated Kepone production under contract to
Allied Chemical in 1974 and continued production until closure of the
plant in Sep~.1975.
Fish and sed~ent samples indicate Kepone
,
contamination existed in the James River as early as 1967.
Early warnings of Life Science Products' careless manufacturing-
and disposal practices were apparent with the malfunctioning of the
digestors of the Hopewell sewage treatment plant and the deleterious
health effects on the production workers.
Subsequently, the finding
of high levels of Kepone contamination in James River fish brought
about a ban on fishing for a wide range of species.
The releases from
the Life Science Products plant into the environment were associated
with atmospheric emissions, wastewater discharges and bulk disposal of
off-specification batches.
The atmospheric emissions-from the plant
settled on the surface soils.
Wastewater discharges entering-the
sewage system passed through the Hopewell sewage treatment-plant into--
Bailey Creek, passing into Bailey Bay and the James River. -Disposal
of off-specification batches and manufacturing residues of Kepone
occurred at a min~um of two sites - the Hopewell- landfill and a
3
-------
disposal trench at the former Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate Plante
Following closure of Life Science Products, residues from the
dismantled plant and site cleanup were buried at the landfill.
Drummed residues from Kepone production were stored at the Hopewell
sewage treatment plant and at Portsmouth, Virginia.
Kepone-
contaminated sludge from the Hopewell sewage treatment plant was
stored in a lagoon constructed at the sewage treatment plant site.
~ost three years following the closure of the Life Science
Products plant, the disposal of the drummed Kepone production residues
and the Kepone-contaminated sludge is unresolved.
Several sites in
the City of Hopewell contain Kepone; small inflows of Kepone continue
into the James River, and the levels of contamination remain
sufficiently high to cause continued closure of the James River to
recreational and commercial fishing for many species of fish and
shellfish.
Litigation related to the Kepone incident has continued.
The
original indictments against Allied Chemical Corporation, the City of
Hopewell and executive.s of the Life Science Products Company resulted
in large fines - $13.2 million in the case of Allied Chemical
Corporation.
However, several workers suits remain unresolved.
The
State of Virginia recently settled part of its claims against Allied
Chemical for $5.25 million, but reserves the right to sue Allied
4
-------
. .
if
i
"
1
J
"
Chemical for cleanup of the James River, and disposal of stored Kepone
residuals.
Allied Chemical is being sued in a Class Action Suit
(Pruitt ~. Allied Chemical Corp.) on behalf of all the people in the
Chesapeake Bay region who have lost income because of the Kepone
incident.
In addition, there are two watermen s~its (Adams and
Their suits against Allied Chemical are for loss of .
Ferguson).
fishing from the closed James River.
SCOPE OF PROJECT
The immensity of the Kepone contamination problem, the limited
u.s. experience in handling in-place toxic pollutant problems of this
type, and other constraints on the Kepone Mitigation
Feasibility Project limited the effort to specific areas.
The
project's primary focus was to evaluate the extent of the
contamination, its fate and transport, and explore mitigation
alternatives.
A full-scale environmental assessment, an economic
analysis of the effects of the contamination and a cost/benefit
analysis of potential cleanup options were beyond the scope of the . .
project.
Furthermore, the project represents only one of a series of
past and continuing efforts to fully assess and seek solutions to the
Kepone contamination problem.
For example, the States of Virginia and
Maryland both have substantial continuing programs to monitor and
5
-------
assess the Kepone problem.
In addition, the State of Virginia has
formulated a long-range plan to deal with the Kepone problem.
Despite constraints in time and scope, the project findings shoul9-
provide a sound foundation for progress in mitigating the Kepone
contamination problem and/or limiting the impact of the contamination.1
For example, more than 900 soil and sediment samples, combined with
the continuing sampling programs of the 'States of Virginia and
Maryland, have materially elucidated the extent of contamination and
delineated areas requiring special attention.
The analyses of a wide
range of research studies on the biota affected by Kepone have
provided guidance on both continuing impacts and promising areas of
investigation.
The engineering, field, and laboratory analyses of
both conventional and nonconventional mitigation methods have
established fruitful areas of development and eliminated others which
are ineffective or hazardous.
Finally, the analysis and sYnthesis of engineering and biological
studies, modeling studies and field investigations should provide a
useful reference source to move forward with a sense of perspective on
mitigation of the Kepone problem and to approach other serious
waterway contamination problems in this country.
6
-------
FINDDlGS and RECOMMENDA~IONS
The following findings and recommendations result from the
investigations of the Repone Mitigation Feasibility Project.
The
findings and recommendations are divided into foUr parts, those
.relative to: the James River, the Chesapeake Bay, the Hopewell. area,
and recommended research.
James River Findinqs
- Estimates indicate that there are 9,000 to.17,000 kg (20,000 to
38,000 lb) of Repone in the top one foot of James River sediments.
Estimates for deeper sediments cannot be made. reliably because of a
lack of investigative data.
However, the top foot of sed~ent is
believed to contain most of the Repone. . .
- Most. of the Repone in the James River is associated with the
sediments, with much lesser amounts fOWld in the water.
7
-------
- Modeling and laboratory-derived coefficients, show that an
average discharge of 89 kilograms (195.8 lb) per year of Repone leave
Burwell Bay downstream, of which 6606 kg (146.5 lb) is dissolved in
the water and 22.5 kg (49.5 lb) is attached to suspended sediments.
- Calculations indicate that an additional 72 kilograms (158.4 lb)
of Repone may leave the James River in the tissues of migratory fish.
- The present navigational dredging practice in the Repone
contaminated portion of the James River is to discharge the removed
dredged material back into the river away from the navigational
channel.
- Adequate dredge spoil facilities could be designed and developed
along the James River, but further investigation is needed to identify
and evaluate disposal sites.
- Based on modeling analysis, cleanup programs which address only
the areas of concentrated Repone contamination will not effectively
.
r~duce Repone residuals in the short term in James River biota below
the current FDA Action Levels.
9
-------
- Operational technology exists in the area of spoil fixation and
--
in situ stabilization.
A proven operational spoil fixation and in
~ stabilization technique for handling in-place toxic pollutants is
available.
This fixation system has been used effectively on
sludge/sediments contaminated by mercury, copper, zinc, cadmium, lead,
chromi um and PCBs.
Laboratory tests have shown the fixation process
to be effective on arsenic as well.
Current development results
appear promising for Kepone.
- The Japanese Oozer dredge is capable of high solids removal and
low secondary pollution via secondary suspension.
If dredging is
employed for mitigation, use of the Oozer will reduce elutriate
treatment requirements and permit the use of smaller disposal areas.
- The UV-ozone treatment process has demonstrated an effective
capability for the destruction of Kepone in slurries of high solids
content.
Preliminary cost estimates, not including equipment
amortization, are extremely favorable at $0.10 to $0.20 per cubic yard
for slurries containing 20 to 50 percent solids.
11
-------
y
.i,.l
'111/
. i
~ ;1
"
;Ii
~ A temporary filtration/adsorption wastewater treatment system
appears to be practical for elutriate treatment.
The effectiveness of
activated carbon in treating Kepone was demonstrated with the clean-up
of the Life Science Products plant site.
- Several techniques for adsorbing Kepone from sediments and
fixing sediments show some promise in laboratory evaluations, but
would require extensive additional laboratory investigation before
their operational utility could be addressed.
James River Recommendations
~ ..- -. - - ;-
- Based on the enormous costs of total James River amelioration
efforts, the lack of knowledge on ecological impacts of widespread
mitigation efforts, the unavailability of economic impact
determinations, and supportive evidence that most of the Kepone will
remain in the zone of turbidity maximum, no full-scale cleanup action
on the James River should be undertaken at this time.
1.2
-------
- The Oozer dredge should be seriously considered for any
navigational dredging in the turbidity maximum.
Navigational dredged
spoil from Kepone-contaminated "hot-spots" should not be disposed
overboard, but be placed in adequately protected dredge spoil sites
developed along the James River.
- Further evaluation of potential mitigation technologies should
be initiated to provide knowledge for immediate response to
unpredicted movement of Kepone in the James River.
Among the
technologies to be given priority evaluation are fixation techniques,
UV-ozone treatment and activated carbon processes for elutriate
treatment.
- Based on the demonstrated operational capabilities of a fixation
system on other contaminants and promising results with Kepone,
developmental funding should be provided to continue specific Kepone
fixation investigations.
- The promising UV-ozone treatment should be funded for performing
bench tests to define approximate operating parameters, including
costs, for various slurry concentrations, and to conduct concurrent
chemical analyses to determine the degree of. degradation of Kepone by
UV-ozone required to negate Kepone's toxicity.
13
-------
- In light of the proposed NCI and NIEH joint carcinogenicity
study and with the implications to commercial fishing of long-term
closure of the James River, the present FDA Action Levels of 0.3 ug/g
(ppm) for finfish and shellfish and 0.4 ug/g (ppm) for crabs should b~
re-examined and re-evaluated.
Systematic monitoring of Kepone levels in water, sediment and
biota should be continued in the tidal James River by the State of
Virginia, in order to provide warning of unexpected movements of
Kepone contamination toward Chesapeake Bay.
Chesapeake Bay Findings
-. .. -- - ... - ..
"-.-'.--
- Present evidence regarding the potential spread of Repone
.contamination, including historical trends, recent sampling data, and
transport projections, does not provide justification for Kepone
The~
cleanup actions in the James River to protect the Chesapeake Bay.
data indicate no imminent danger of Kepone contamination to the
Chesapeake Bay at this time.
However, major coastal storms and like
events could alter these predictions.
14
-------
- While early Kepone sediment tests of the James River are few,
historical evidence from oysters, bluefish and bald eagles indicate
that Kepone was present in the James River as early as 1967.
sediment contamination of Chesapeake Bay is not evident.
Kepone
- Following a 10 year period of Kepone contamination in the James
River, sediment samples collected by VIMS from twelve stations in the
lower Chesapeake Bay in September 1977 contained no detectable amounts
of Kepone.
- In a report submitted to EPA by VIMS in November 1977, it was
concluded that: "Most Kepone concentrations are located in and above
the null zone and they persist with time, both over the short term (8
months of sampling) and over the long term as demonstrated from
di stribution at depth with cores".
- Male Blue crabs with Kepone concentrations above the FDA Action
Level of 0.4 ug/g (ppm) have been found in Chesapeake Bay, but are
believed to have migrated into the Bay from the James River.
Finfish
in Chesapeake Bay have exhibited Kepone concentrations but not above
the FDA Action Levels.
15
-------
- Predictive modeling, simulating a variety of flow rates, and
supportive field sampling data from the past 10 years involving two
major storms, indicate that the Kepone will remain predominantly
situated in the James River sediments upstream from Burwell Bay in the
zone of Turbidity Maximum.
However, such modeling results and field
data could be influenced by major coastal storms and like events and
could alter predictions.
Chesapeake Bay Recommendations
- Continued systematic monitoring of Kepone levels in water,
sediment, and biota should be conducted in the Chesapeake Bay by the
States of Virginia and ~~ryland to provide warning of unexpected
movements of Kepone contamination into Chesapeake Bay.
- A long-term strategy should be developed for the expeditious
implementation of emergency mitigation measures for the possibility of
unexpected movement of Kepone contamination.
The strategy should
include engineering studies, such as investigation of the use of
submerged silt dams for the containment of Kepone movement from the
lower James River, assessment of the feasibility of rapid, large-scale
dredging operations, and an integrated development program for
assessment of technologies previously described.
16
-------
Hopewell ~ Findings
- Kepone residuals persist in the Hopewell soil areas.
Estimates
of such surface soil residuals range from 45k~991b)to 450 kg (990 lb)
of Kepone.
- Kepone concentrations in the soil are highest in the vicinity of
the former Life Science Products plant and diminish with distance from
the site.
The highest Kepone surface concentrations ranged from
9.5 ug/g (ppm) to 1,530 ug/g at the former Life Science Products
plant, from 9.2 ug/g (ppm) to 770 ug/g in Nitrogen Park, from 1 ug/g
(ppm) to 940 ug/g in the Station Street neighborhood, and from
0.01 ug/g (ppm) to"1,860 ug/g (sUbsurface) at the Pebbled Ammonium
Nitrate site.
- Human health effects have not been determined for Kepone
dispersion by soil or air transfer.
- An estimated 1,363 kg (3,000 lb) of Kepone is in the top four
inches of a Bailey Creek marsh adjacent to the southeast portion of
the Hopewell landfill.
\
The marsh encompasses approximately one-fourth
acre.
17
-------
- The Kepone/sludge lagoon, which contains an estimated 100 kg
(220 Ib) of Kepone, may be leaking and discharging Kepone into Bailey
Creek.
- A small amount (6 grams/day average) of Kepone is routed from
the Hopewell primary sewage treatment plant to the Regional sewage
treatment plant.
- Runoff from the Hopewell area is estimated to contain 3.3 grams
per day of Kepone under low flow conditions and 64 grams per day under
storm flow conditions.
- No other significant amounts of Kepone were found in the
Hopewell soil areas, including domestic groundwater sources.
Hopewell ~ Recommendations
--'.'..-'.
..- - ~ . - -- -. .-- . ..
- Potential health impacts in areas of elevated Kepone
contamination should be investigated.
18
-------
- Final disposal of the. contaminated material through incineration
or other appropriate means in the Kepone/sludge lagoon should be
expedited.
If disposal action is delayed, it is recommended that all
runoff and precipitation be prevented from entering the lagoon.
- Action should be initiated to eliminate or contain the Kepone
from the concentrated source in the southeast portion of the Hopewell
landfill and the adjacent marsh.
Research Recommendations
Research actions should concentrate on developing appropriate
mitigation technologies including retrievable and non-retrievable
sorbents, molten sulfur sludge fixation, electron beam and gamma
radiation, and amine photodegradation treatment.
Additional research should be undertaken to more fully evaluate
impacts of Kepone on the important commercial and recreational species
of fish and shellfish in the James River.
19
-------
I.
PROBLEM PE1
-------
HOPEWELL,VIRGINIA
K EPONE STUDY
V I C I N I TY MAP
NORFOLK 01 STRICT
CORPS OF ENGI NEERS
SEPTEMBER 1977
HOPEW E LL ,
VIRGINIA
NORTH-CAROLINA
Exhibit I-l
10 0
~
SCALE I N MILES
10 20
I
30
40
I
~
~
~
NOIITN
CA"O~INA
:
.
~
.
I.OCATI ON "A'
~
'-c
~
'"
Il
~
'"
'"
:t
~
~
~
4J
~
~
~
.....
.....
~
"'t
-...I
....
~
-------
C~~!~-{>-') Mo'''' ." (/;:~~t 'o" ~~1'-' ," '~~J,~~;),.(~!;~;;i¥'J;!' . . /}r-~-
~ . - - - -- - -- ~- -: :.~.. " ,,' I , '"'.r- :' "r~jl..,,: , " '/ .' ~, '. ,-
.- - - ~ ---.~~;. _<:'_':-, ,',.. '\ ..', \ ,~, ,,:,\C,,~~ - -. , ,/"
~~~--iL:.: \:_~:~~~~t\ ,~.':'~/~ '\, ), ~1\<>:'::'\: J~ : ~J ';-:~,~>,,"~,", ~ ~ J. ~~ €t& '~, "~~,,,:- ~ Jordan
> - ~ -~~- ~; ~0\/ . ~.." y : . :~i:\~ III. ~~"!r~,,!;,;q'!,~~t~g!,t,t~",::, ., ~. .... "','" '" ~.jJ'~<)''' .J~ c' , ~t~L,
- \' ,'/ t , ,,' ..J:';&' U "\,,'\.. ":~"!?",~:;;,;,,,,,:::-,:::,:!"':":"':'"'''':''''' - ~i>'" I
~~(::: < "iI5~~_~.. 4\~:;J~~!~??~~~~~;~:::~,~~~',"'~<';Y~~~.1~:.:}fl!~j).:;;;!:~.. . :)~
I - ~ , ~~ 110''''1.1, J't...;""'",--',,, ,..~':' / ~o1"/ ,'~";:};:'K. " "';"" "', '--" ".:,;olilhl :':,::_,
."- ..: '. , ~')-:t ~ sJ J ~. ',.r ::'" '," -... '.=' .j!" -t. r-;,,;:.~ I ':': ."', . ~....-,!.~ - "" ~..... ":'. ~ ~:~.._., J,. .tope...
"~ /;., , ! .~'r""Jl '::">;''-.:;;1 ~";'-:I"'~"""'s:..~', ",-1-'-"'/ ,'",,;: ;!1~'<.':\.) \, "':;',:::':>' a.t.il!!_- -----~.;;--- , .:... A"',rlol
" i' c. ':" ::J! ;~'\ . .~I,' :-' " 'A I n ~ d "\..;~~~~~--:;\,,,:: :WX'''.'''' :::'j;;}~;;,-' :-':-:~-,-~~nc:"'--'~ ~.. :,: ,: ,
l~~ : ?~'~ ~-J.~'~h~j.(~):'~" '~t~)Chem~,~.~',~~~~\,~":"'~. ,''-'ii~::~';:~I;', BAILEY " "',
~ 2~~ ."';i :1 ~ -,......... t.. (.1. /"~.' -- "..8' ..,.. )), ~, . -':.=.i;:.'::;1i.. ' '. .
, ,'>p'" ,'t. ~ I; ,t, ~ ~ Pt"":;1 ..-:' '..... . ':. ..' j.."" " \\""...:'):- A.~' J'.t..&..< ,;"9' : ',' ,
,I' , . '" , "~;~ .r,.,!; " ,'t...;.~~' ~ \~';::L; S~"'~'",~:,.,1,o:~.. '..-1" .\~'J.~!,:~:;;.~'1J ..~ ""'.'('\. ~'I'~J.c '.. BAY ~:~~~~/'c.''J.,,: '''~
":::, ,'.-.J,"..;r"" - . "': "~' '.J."o;'11':;>.~~//'~,,,~~\\. 'J"..;., , ""~~ ~ ;
. '...! \ . o. -', . ~ '1 - j:f"! . . .~', :', . ], ~~;. J ;""I:~~' ...it. /!,... ow '1 .,: ......... .)~.. ~C..A' "" "'~".'.:. '. ' . ': ,. . ,
" " ." '..' , ,","," ..., 'ooO:.OWIO/,,).\..,.{\Q,f"'/' 'I'~C~O":""""'.'."!"""'" , ' -'
n,,,,,:' '" U'OI}.K\\t'EL .... iU '~, ,.......s.-:: I";f,:..i,~ ~\\\~~;.~,\"':<~-\:'~;\I In4~'I""W""I'Gf". -.;' _tQ~';/";;':,,\;-\:.;".,' ," ' ,---:-""",,\. ~'
,.to ,.'~'.'.. ":., ' " , . . '::.H.>,~,~". ' J A"" ',"Io'f/ " :.Ii ~4~r~~' ~J ~cr- : -.. - . ,-'»- fl.' ..':: ,'!<::,:?;;" ",: \ .' -_/' ' ,-'" ,......, . \, l c'
""" '. ~\:!.. J I ",' '-.. 'l' l...r-') ...' .. .... /, --,' , " .' ;
"I...r....,,,,~ PO, 'r A."",..- ~ I .wf,'" '(', "'-:- '"., c..' 'ndu.It, w..I' Re'2lo ai' ,,';';{ ", \ ' 'f ' ",-' "
',,' '~. " '.i/~"If. \ a'i'.' \', "--!".f, ,-. ifxtJI \, ':'l7~~':[;' ,- , S--r ~,- :'J,',;.t'J ," ~'1'-""')' . ," ,-ltJ;~'"'' ") ! ,
,r, 6' ''''J.,.r!1 /~~';":",,, \.I,~ "':.:'i!1 ;, "'.::<'!J()r:--..Jlnd."'I'I'lw.~It<"~ ;::~~;~:.~'~~. --:----).,,\.,"":'0~?J"~':'\S~-'::l, ' ':""'-'v'i>'.~/ '"'' ,: -,,' :'
,. "I .' -. ,- p ~ I P4N' . . g., 7~ "/' r}. ........ " ,
", 7,' \"".~'."~'5~,."! , 'l~" ,'I \y--7"'''' ""~0~\2.' ~ :!/!~i\'> .":~:.... (l\!'~;;~I)!:'-{/'::K:'--!. -\.~.:-~ . ,'. ,~~ . \ ,'''''. "...'
, . i( . '...\ ..,~. ", L~ .p ~ ./"~"";/\ '., ,., Y''''''''- .'./1"'- - i: . . : ~_... ..J ~
~f~.fJ"'-9.D 'j' , ,'~:~:;tl~~ ;j,,\~,,\) ( :~\,' ".0,;:" -' /Jl'tJ.;'!f)r ' ~~'::. &~, ~ -~ t .... ,/"-/l,,'2': '" ( '.
;/;"',0,,,, ~.~ " " t'?' i.' \ I '.~f."",.. ': ;~ ,'," ( '" ilK' J ~ r,', , ',(,~~'t\ i,', . \.--". -..-/',~--'...' .. J ,:' '~ (,'
,~: """'~"':' CM:iL...--f ;,:,:'::,-.:;;)I"~',.i~''.i:.ig...",~., ';';~;~:I\' (~~," ~f""<, ~'I~'! ,;" '::u:."~(~~ ""~ )/" ' 'iA\ .
, >/: ),I,,'...... i/.~ ..- '~'';''';'~>~~{;''.'\,'';r~ ,~\3:~:'~r!~~'l. ~i ;'./""'<)':' _. }!~tl j~ " -,_.":f'~'-',:;iJ ' ~1~l'\\ . ~;. - '/ - V( ~- .---.., ~
I ' . ' '/ 1 ,: Illj'iJ"t'j"""''''' ."- V ~ ,,,,,,,,,,,)"""l,l/~' - ,--,,:,\, ' " ./ ( .J . . ~-,
','" . 1'" o' O~;:"'I ~.-; ".. ~.,". .,......"""',",::. I .~ ~')'':i:'',. ~.,"W ..'-'~I-'.)t ".\, ,..., " ..'
:', -.~c'\o- ''';0' '~'r ArIi:\I(IOII' " '. ':' "i;':1J:,/V'""l,'r,.J':'f~~::\"1 '~, ~\il:',:"f~.b ~--..,,-:~r./, ',a:~".", G'.j.::.!I\\.' \:\1 .::"'-",
".. .' v'' :\'0 ,', "~':"It '!It / /"'--.\ ,',' I',;:, " /,';, ",-' \,. -.. :-_~" d ,,,; ,I \",' f '
"",0' . '~".")O' , ,"';- "I~f !:/JI/',' . '\...-)!:~',t\::'l'.y'~ ':'-""',~',i- ~'... -.:: ',,1' . t'~?', b <--""'&c-r" '- r-'h r'
"',",.' "O~~'<'" 1;",.- . I ,'Lei'"" ," 'i1(('!~~s.....:a;"~I.\\.~~"'7"~f~~-~ '--'~1'" '~~Y" --7'. 'IJ.. d~:'~",/\,~ "'-:---"'\\" '.:- :\\'
" 1 " ' , '... I d III ~ Oi - ~~,,' .,-'~ "', 01'
,~~, . ",.~'Y4- ..,~,: . ,:'.. .... n~.",., 8 "i'QSI~ -. ,'" "', :.1'."" . .. ,.-" -- 8.' ,.- .. 'C"O~
.;1'. to ,r' '1" .. .j: '., -r: W.n"'f'ond'~~ -,' ..... - I' . ,'. .' ,"
,": " 'I.... '-' -I \,' 'bl .", ' " - /:\-/. - ~,1,~~. - - ;;, :,!',.' I; .'-, , " Exhlbl t 1-2 :::':"/"', , ',1
,.' ) . 0,' ". , S.."t;... .,... ' "; ./~ I..,g. . I . ,
....', "'\ \\..' ,.,~ ' '", "<()"''''''',:,..'i:.~ ".':;""':"(-:I~"'._' u.S. Geological SUl'vey 'I-~",
u' ',~' '", ',""" ',0 ""'/I:~~' ,..,-:,\,(1: , """~ Washington D C '~~-\,
, '\l~ "rl~'K,,,,~,~',i.\,, ~"J ,:' , :.;.- . 'PSf1mTapry'.'~'V:";"~:'1"I\~;''\~' ;t~"I"~"'(;:'J/' '" \ ,,' )if\' "F" , . 0 If/:: I
\, \. ", ".. ,: , " ~ "" -, :'\ '.' ,-j{, "!-', , ' ,\ '" Ji " r~-o":',
, ~. , ' " , '. .,' '. :-':', ,.. .- t'"- -W-l,!,;; ~I J~;.:nl ~,~ . ..' " ,..1, , ," ,..,-,..........- \ \ \' ~ .
. :. " .' "," - -I' , SCALE 1'24000 ~/ ',I'
i ';~"~.''''' ',' . , .\ ,"'. . >."-j/.: ~-:T=~=c=F~ 0' -! Md 'T, G.. I "),~;."
,', " .. ,.-~~ ~ -, - -= ---- -, -\. - - - -'::; 10"li I~.".~!-'~ --~ )001, -~~ ~ - 6UOO 1000 HU ... ) ~) {5 ( , ,
,:: " 'i~:'- \-~\'_,~i:'~.1. - - ~;;;--~~~~,- ~.~ - ';""C: .1,~' ~,,:,I.
\'" Y-:;'~'III"" ,~\- .,,' ~ oro'TI' ,."o..r., .>In <:oll,m'''r.<; ,,., H'f'I- n'I1IM 1$ Mf,/IIOW WATER ,... -, :'
-------
diagnosed to have Kepone pOisoning.
More than 70 individuals
developed ailments ranging from slurred speech, loss of memory,
irritability and sleeplessness, to liver "damage and sterility.
At the
present time, all but a few such individuals have recovered and no
longer show symptoms.
CHRONOLOGY
Listed below is a chronology of relevant events associated with
the Kepone problem at Hopewell.
The events and dates are taken from
various proceedings, including the Senate Subcommittee Hearings on
Kepone Contamination in January 1976 (Senate Hearings, 1976), the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ, 1976) and other Federal and
State documents.
The Senate Hearings and the CEQ Report have been
chosen as the prime sources, since the exact dates of certain events
varied between the several documents used.
1966 - March 1974
Intermittent manufacture of Kepone by
Allied Chemical occurred at its
semi-Works plant in Hopewell, Virginia.
october 1 973
Life Science Products applied to the
Virginia State Water Control Board for
!-2
-------
pe%D1i t to discharge sani tary wasuwa ter s
into the Hopewell sewage treatment plant. $..
The application claimed no industrial
discharges would enter the Hopewell
treatment plant.
November 1973
Life Science Products signed an agreement
wi tb Allied Chemical to produce Kepone on
a toll processing contract basis.
February 1 974
Life Science Products began production of
Kepone.
Malfunctions .0£ production
equipment allowed the release of sulfur
trioxide to the atmosphere.
The Virginia
Air Pollution COntrol Board cited Life
Science Products for failure to obtain an
air pend t.
october 1974
A bag-filter collector was installed at
the Life Science Products plant.
During survey of the Hopewell treatment
plant, the Virginia Water Conuol Board
.Referred to hereafter as the Hopewell treatment plant
I-3
-------
discovered the plant's digester was
operating improperly.
Kepone was being
discharged into the city's sewage system.
A meeting to discuss the matter was
attended by si:aff members of the City of
Hopewell, the Virginia state Water
Control Board, the Virginia Department of
Heal th, and Life Science Products.
Staff
of the Board stated that the levels of
Repone discharged to the Hopewell
treatment plant must be drastically
reduced.
November '97~
The Virginia Water Control Board
develofed an effluent limitation of
o.~ parts per billion for Kepone
discharges into the municipal system.
Life Science Products agreed to implement
a continuous monitoring system in order
to establish those levels of Kepone to
protect the integrity of the Hopewell
treatment plant.
I-4
-------
i
d
"}
, i
'.:J
"
"
:,.?
. DeceD1.ber 197 q
April 9, 1975
. .
The staffs of the Virginia Department of
Heal th and State Water Control Board met
with representa~ives of the City of
Hopewell and Life Science Products.
Further pretreatment of wastewater
discharged by the company would be
required to meet the lim:i.tation of 0.017
pounds Repone per day in the Hopewell
treatment pl.ant effluent.
The staff of the Virginia Water Control
Board recommended amendments to the
Bopewel~ National Po~utant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
These I
amendments provided for limitations on
Repone in the Hopewell treatment plant
effluent of 1.0 ug/l (ppb) maximum
., instantaneous concentration, 0.5 ug/l
(ppb) daily average, and 7.59 g/day
(0.017 lb/day) daily maximum.
The
amendments also contained the condition
that the City of Hopewell require Life
Science Products to pretreat Kepone to a
level of 100 ug/l (ppb), effective June
6, 1975.
I-5
-------
April 1975
The City of Hopewell began construction
of an aSphalt-lined lagoon to contain
Kepone-contaminated sewage sludge from
the Hopewell treatment plant.
July 11, 1975
The Atlanta Center for Disease Control
received a blood specimen of a Life
Science Products worker.
Analysis
revealed a 7.4 ug/g (parts per million)
level of Repone.
July 23, 1975
virginia health officials conducted an
inspection of the Life Science Products'
operations and examined 10 employees
working in the plant.
Seven of the
employees had symptoms of neurological
illnesses.
Several had symptoms severe
enough to require hospitalization.
Plant
inspection revealed building, air, and
grOt1nd contamination by Kepone.
July 24, 1975
Life Science Products management agreed
to close the plant and comply voluntarily
with all the conditions of the Virginia
Heal th Department.
I-6
-------
1
~
~y
/ ::
,
July 25, 1975
.1
~
j
p
Virg~a State Hea~tb Department ordered
Life Science Products to stop production.
However, limited production continued
into September.
August 19, 1975
The u.S. Occupational Safety and aealth
Administration (OSHA) first visited
Hopewell where Repone production
continued despite the State order to
close.
OSSA issued citations to Life
Science Products for four violations of
the OSHA Act of 1970, including failure
to prevent employee exposure to harmful
levels of Repone.
Fines total~ng
$16,500 were proposed.
August 20, 1975
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
issued an order to Life Science Products
under the authority of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) to stop the sale or use of
Repone, as wel~ as to prevent its removal
from the premises.
I-7
-------
September 9, 1915
An Ad Boc COmmittee, consisting of
members of the state Water Control Board,
State Health Department and the City of
Hopewel~ was established to determine
methods and costs involved in cleaning up
the Life science Products plant site and
disposing of any waste materials.
November 20, 1915
State Beal th Department submitted oyster,
sediment and fish samples from the lower
James River for analysis of Kepene
content to EPA at Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina.
December 5, 1975
An interagency Kepone Task Force was
establisbed by the Commonwealth of
Virginia to coordinate all State
activities related to Kepone.
The State
Department of Health was chosen as the
lead Agency.
December 18, 1915
Governor Mills E. Godwin, Jr., of
Virginia, closed the entire James River
and its tributaries from Hopewell to the
Chesapeake Bay for the taking of
I-8
-------
she~lfish and finfish until July 1, 1976,.
or until such time as the order might be
rescinded.
February 3, 1976
~he EPA recommended to the Food and Drug
Administration an Action Leve~* of
0.3 ppm in shellfish and the removal from
the market of any Kepone-contamina ted
shel~fish exceeding this level.
February 25, 1976
The EPA recommended to the Food and Drug
AdminiS1:ration an Action Level of 0.1 ppm
in the edible portion of finfish.
May 7, 1976
A Federal grand jury indicted Allied
Chemical, Life science Products, the City I
of Hopewell, and several individuals of
1,097 counts for violating Federal
anti-pollution laws.
*Action Level is the allowable level of residue of the substance
(Kepone). The level is used as an enforcement guide.
I~9
-------
August 19, 1976
Allied Chemical pleaded no contest to 940
criminal charges and was convicted of
discharging Kepone wastes into the James
River.
August 25, 1976
The EPA Administrator designated a Kepone
Coordinator for the Agency and for an EPA
Beadquarte.rS/Region U.! working group.
August 26, 1976
The Federal/State Kepone Task Force
recommended a Kepone mitigation
feasibility project.
August 30, 1976.
The Governor s of Virgini a and Mary land
requested the EPA Administrator to
undertake a mitigation feasibility
project on the Hopewell, Virginia/James
River Kepone contamination problem.
september 1976
The EPA recommended to the Food and Drug
Administration an Action Level of 0.4 ppm
in crabs.
I-IO
-------
September 2, 1976
The EPA Administrator announced EPA's
intent to undertake a Kepone mitigation
feasibility project.
Actions were
initiated to develop a project plan and
establish funding.
October 5, 1976
Allied Chemical was fined $13.24 million
by Judge Robert Merhige on its no contest
plea of 940 pollution counts.
The fine
later was reduced to $5.24 million when
Allied agreed to give $8 million to
establish the Virginia Environmental
Endowment.
October 11, 1976
First Repone seminar was held at
Gloucester Poin~, Virginia.
Early 1977
A Kepone incineration test program was
conducted, which demonstrated that Kepone
could be incinerated in a safe and
effective manner.
I-II
-------
March 17, 1977
Following a series of hearings, the
Federal Food and Drug Administration
adopted an Action Level for Kepone in
finfish of 0.3 ppm.
March 31, 1977
EPA Headquarters initiated the Kepone
Mitigation Feasibility Project with
support funding of $1.4 million.
July 6, 1977
The virginia Health Department signed a
contract with Flood & Associates, Inc.,
of Virginia, to conduct a design study
that would culminate in a facility plan
to suggest methods to dispose of
Kepone-contaminated wastes stored in
Hopewell.
August 31, 1977
The first public meeting on the initial
screening of alternatives for the
ultimate disposal of Kepone-contaminated
wastes stored in Hopewell was held in
Hopewell.
I-12
-------
september 18, 1977
Governor Godwin of Virginia closed part
of the lower Chesapeake Bay to the
harvesting of male blue crabs.
september 19, 1977
The second Kepone Seminar was held at
Easton, Maryland.
October. 1977 - .
The state of Virginia agreed to a partial
settlement with Allied Chemical for
$5.25 million.
October 18, 1977
The second public meeting was held at
Hopewell at which the final alternatives
to be evaluated in a facility plan for
the altimate disposal of Kepone-contam-
inated wastes stored in Hopewell were
presented.
December 30, 1977
Governor Godwin extended the fishing ban
order for the James River for one year.
February 8, 1978
Draft report of EPA Kepone Mitigation
Feasibility Project was distributed for
technical review.
I-13
-------
In August 1975, the State of Virginia asked the EPA Health Effects
Research Laboratory in North Carolina to institute a human and
environmental sampling program-to ascertain the extent and effec~s of
Kepone contamination.
EPA reported its resul~s on December 16, 1975.
Blood and sebum skin samples from 28 hospitalized Life Science
Produ~s workers and one worker's wife contained Kepone residues
ranging from 0.2 to 7.5 ug/g (ppm).
Kepone was found in the James
River water samples at concentrations of 0.1 to 14 ug/g (ppm).
-Some
.' - -
of the water and sbelilish samples were collected 40 and 64 miles
downstream from aopewell, respectively (EPA, 1975).
Sewage sludge and
James River sediments contained significant Kepone concentrations.
As a result of Kepone contamination, the Governor of Virginia
closed the James River to fishing on December 18, 1975.
Restrictions
were placed on the taking of fish, shellfish and crabs from the James
River.
The river, which enters the lower Chesapeake Bay, had
supported the livelibood of many watermen and o"tber individuals in
fishery-related activities.
Thus, the Kepone restrictions have had,
and continue to have an adverse effect upon tbe economy of the region.
I-14
-------
KEPONE PRODUCTION AND ROUTES
A~ied Chemical's Semi-Works plant was a flexible facility used to
produce specialty or small volume products.
AS noted previously, it
produced Kepone intermittentl.y from 1966 to 1974. Life science
Products began production of Kepone in early 1974, soon after Allied
chemical ceased its Kepone production. The company was formed by an
agreement with Allied Chemical, whereby A~ied Chemica~ supplied raw
I
materials to Life Science Products, paying a prearranged price for the
Kepone product.
Exhibit I-3 shows the amount of Kepone estimated by
Ferguson (1975) to have been produced by Allied Chemical and Life
Science Products.
The Kepone losses from Life Science Products were principally from
four basic sources: (1) atmospheric releases from drying and bagging
operations;
(2) routine daily wastewater discharges; (3) releases to
the sewer from spills, malfunctions, and bad batches; and (4) bulk
liquid and solid waste loads discharged to the terrestrial sites
around Hopewell.
Estimates of the Kepone losses from Life science Products and the
Allied Chemical's Semi-works plants are difficult to calculate because
of the limited amount of information available.
However, James River
oyster samples from 1967 to 1970 exhibited Kepone concentrations as
high as 0.21 ug/g (ppm)
(Oswald, 1976).
Bluefish, menhaden and spot
I-15
-------
Exhibi t I-3
Production Levels of Kepone from Allied Chemical's Semi-works Plant
Production
~ kq lb
1966 35, 935 78,125
1967 47,990 105,800
1968 36,535 80,550
1969 46,990 103,600
1970 41,460 91,400
1971 204,800 451,515
1972 176,970 390,150
1973 100,~35 221,425
1974 72,260 159,300
Total 762,875 1,681,865
Production Levels of Kepene from Life Science Products
~
kq
Production
lb
1974
1975
Total
385,370
3 E4, 020
769,390
849,600
84 6 , 6 2 5
1,696,225
I-16
-------
fish samples from 1973 also showed Kepone conceni:J:ations in the flesh
as high as 0.62 I1g/g (ppm)
(SWCE, 1973).
In addition, u.s. Fish and
Wildlife Service samples of Chesapeake Eay area bald eagles from 1970
to 1972 exhibited Kepone in livers as high as 83 I1g/g (ppm)
and Wildlife Service, 1977).
(U. S. Fish
!-17
-------
KEPONE ROOTES TO THE AXMOSPHERE
Production at the Life Science products plant resulted in
significant releases of particu~ate Kepone into the atmosphere.
During the period of operation, complaints were received on these
particulate emissions.
The complaints led to State of Virginia action
requiring installation of a bag-filter house in October 197q.
Subsequent analysis of preserved filters fzom state-operated air
sampling stations revealed contamination of particulate matter to be
a~ much as qO percent Kepone.
Detectable levels of Kepone were
measUIed at distances of 25 km (16 mi) fIo~ Hopewell.
~a~
monitoring station was about 200 yards fzom the Life Science Products
. plant.
From these aiz filters, calculations indicated Kepone levels
would have been between 0.2 to 50 u9/m~ of air during the period of
March 197q to April 1975 (EPA, 1975).
Monitoring of air in the Hopewell area after the Life Science
Products closure revealed a decline in Kepone concentrations to
nondetectable levels.
Consequently, it can be assumed that the
atmosphere held Kepone only for a short period and the air should not
be considered a majoz reservoir for Kepone.
I-1S
-------
KEPONE ROUTES TO THE SEWER SY STEM
Wastewater from Life Science Products passed through the Station
Street pumphouse to the Hopewell treatment plant where it was treated
and discharged to Bailey creek.
Analysis of samples revealed that
wastewater discharges from the Life Science Products plant contained
Kepone up to 36.9 mg/l (ppm).
Analysis of one of the digesters at the
sewage treatment plant revealed a level of 68 mg/l (ppm) in digester
sludge (Senate Hearings, 1977).
Initially, the sewage sludge was disposed in the city's sanitary
landfill.
However, after concern developed over contamination by the
sludge, it was decided to contain the sludge to prevent leaching of
Kepone.
In May 1975, a Kepone/sludge lagoon was completed on the'
grounds of the Hopewell treatment plant (see Exhibit I-2), and the
digester sludge was placed in it.
The lagoon holds approximately
5,700 cubic meters (1.5 million gallons) of sludge.
Sludge sample s
taken from the Kepone/sludge lagoon and from the Hopewell sanitary
landfill contained 598 and 189 ug/g (ppm) Kepone (EPA, 1975).
The
remains of the dismantled Life science Products plant is in another
clay and PVC-lined pit at the Hopewell sanitary landfill.
Effluent levels of Kepone from the Hopewell treatment plant have
been monitored since 1976 on a weekly, and at present, on a monthly
basis.
The Kepone concentrations have ranged from 0.04 to 5.26 ug/l
I-19
-------
J~
Iii
fJ
'}
'/
/
, (ppb f.
In July 1977, Kepone levels rose to 5.26 ag/l (ppb) and have
often stayed above 0.5 ug/l (ppb) through much of 1977.
HEALTH EFFEC'I'S
Production workers at Life Science Products were the most severely
affected individuals from their exposure to Kepone.
Production
personnel exhibited a symptoms rate 'of 64 percent with an average
latent period of six weeks.
Generally, non-production persons, who
were exposed less directly to Kepone, were less affected by the
symptoms of Kepone poisoning ('6 percent)
(Cannon, ~ al., in press).
However, there were also exposures to the Hopewell populace to Kepone
near the Life Science Products plant when Kepone was produced.
seventy-six Life Science Products personnel contracted a
previously unrecognized clinical illness characterized by nervousness,
tremor, bursts of rapid eye movement (o~soclonus), weight loss, and
pleuristic and joint pain.
Other symptoms included ataxia, skin rash,
sterility, liver enlargement and abnormal liver functioning.
The
relative blood concentration of Kepone workers with the illness was
2.53 ug/g (ppm), while workers without the illness averaged 0.60 ag/g
(ppm) .
Residents and other workers within a mile of the Life Science
Products plant had blood levels ranging from undetectable to 32.5 ng/g
(ppb)
(cannon, ~ al., in press).
I-20
-------
Physicians at the Medical College of V~rginia, in recent work with
Life Science Products workers, have developed a method which reduces
Kepone by fecal excretion an average of seven times the natural rate.
Kepone output in the bile was 10 to 20 times greater than in the
feces, suggesting that Kepone was being reabsorbed by the intestine.
Cholestyramine, an anion-exchange resin, was found to bind Kepone and 1
allowed accelerated elimination of Ke~one from the workers' bodies
involved in this program.
After completion of the trial, all patients
were given cholestyramine,. and s~x months later, blood levels were
undetectable in 12 of 22 patients and none were judged to have more
than "mild" neurologic signs (Cohn, et al., 1978).
Kepone has been tested under the auspices of the National Cancer
Institute (1976).
Osborne-Mendel rats and B6C3F1 mice, fed Kepone in
their diets at two dose levels for 80 weeks, developed a significant
increase in liver tumors (bepatocellular carcinomas) in the
high-dose-level rats and at both dose levels for mice.
Some
controversy has surrounded the NCI study concerning the experimental
methodology and the identification of the tumors.
A new joint study
between NCI and the National Institutional of Environmental Health
(NIEH) is being developed.
The human carcinogenicity risk associated.
wi th Kepone at the level found in the Life Science Products workers
will be assessed.
starting about October 1978, NIEH will examine
dose/response relationships in subchronic studies on tremor, memory
loss, sterility and other adverse Kepone effects.
From tbis
I-21
-------
.f
"II
,/7
. ,.
,
.,
.;
]
information NCI ~i~l perform chronic toXicity studies to project
threshold levels which could be carcinogenic.
anticipated to last three years.
The entire program is
ACTION LEVEL DETERMINATION
In February 1976, EPA recommended "Action Levels" to the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) of 0.3 ug/g (ppm). in the edible portion of
shellfish (oysters and clams), 0.1 ug/g (ppm) in finfish, and 0.4 ug/g
(ppm) in crabs.
EPA ~so recommended a 0.3 ug/g (ppm) Action Level in
processed oyster stew.
These recommendations were made using
classical estimating procedures for threshold effects.
At that time,
EPA committed itself to further consideration of this Action Level for
possible revision if new data warranted it.
EPA revised i't.s
recommendations in early 1977.
Revised Action Levels are 0.3 ug/g
(ppm) for fish and shellfish and 0.4 ug/g (ppm) for crabs.
The
January 1 ~ 1978 Emergency Rule of the state of Virginia for the James
Ri ver allows the taking of catfish, shad, herring, baby eels and
turtles.
The harvesting of blue crabs is permitted only in certain
parts of the river and only under certain conditions.
I-22
-------
LITIGATION AND REGISTRATION ACTIONS
Criminal indictments were brought against Allied Chemical Life
Science Products and the City of Ho~ewell, Virginia.
In addition,
criminal actions were brought against individual employees of both
companies.
I
In two trials, Allied Chemical was convicted on 940 counts
for violation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of.
1972 and the Rivers and ~arbors Act of 1899 ("the Refuse Act..), with
an imposed fine of approximately $13.24 milliono
Life Sc.ience
Products w~s convicted on 153 counts and fined approximately
$3.8 million.
The City of Hopewell ~leaded guilty, ~as fined $10,000,
and was placed on five years probation-(Whitman, 1977).
Criminal suits were brought against the president and vice-
presiden~ of Life Science Products and against four employees of
Allied Chemical.
The president and vice-president were convicted and I
each fined $25,000 and placed on five years probation.
Several
indi viduals pleaded "nolo contendere" to reduced charges
(misdemeanors) in return for dismissal of the felony conspiracy
charges.
Two defendants were acquitted before u.S. District Court
Judge Robert R. Merbige, Jr.
The De~ari:men t of Justice determined
that sentencing of the other individuals for the same conduct would be
unjust, therefore, charges were dismissed against the remaining
defendants.
Allied Chemical's S13.2Q million fine was reduced to
$5 million with the establishment of the Virginia Environmental
I-23
-------
Endowment financed with $8 million of Allied Chemical.' s money
(Whi tman, 1977).
Suits brought by individual workers of Life Science Products
against Allied Chemical have been se~tled out of court.
Less than
five workers' suits remain unresolved.
The State of Virginia recently
has settled part of its claims against Allied Chemical for
$5.25 million.
The State reserves the ri.gbt to sue Al.lied Chemical
for cleanup of the James River, and disposal of s~ored Kepone
residuals.
Allied Cbemical is being sued in a Class Action Suit (Pruitt~.
Allied Chemical Corp.) on behalf of al~ tbe people in the Chesapeake
Bay region wbo have lost income because of the Kepone incident.
In
addition, tbere are two watermen suits (Adams and Ferguson) .
Their
suits against Allied Chemical are for loss of fishing from the closed
James River.
In an agreement with Allied Chemical, EPA has cancelled technical
and manufacturing use re9is~ations of ~epone (Federal Reqister,
1976).
Some pesticide formulators were permitted to utilize small
percentages of Kepone in inaccessible ant and roach traps until stocks
were used or until May 1, 1978, whichever came first (Federal
Reqister,
1977) .
I-24
-------
!
. '!:r
.Jf!
'0.:7
; .
,
~!:1
/'
II.
PROBLEM RESPONSES
EPA, STATE, AND LOCAL EFFORTS
The Kepone-related problems which Virginia encountered prompted
Governor Mills E. Godwin, Jr.
to establish a coordinated effort to
deal with the issue.
At the direction of the Governor,
Mr. Otis L.. Brown, Secretary of Human Aff airs, and
Mr. Earl J. Shiflet, secretary of Commerce and Resources, established
the interagency Kepone Task Force on December 5, 1975.
The Sta te
Department of Health was assigned the role of lead Agency and
Dr. James B. Kenley, then Deputy Commissioner of Health, now
Commissioner of Health, was appointed the Chairman of the Kepone Task
Force.
The Kepone Task Force was charged with the responsibility for
coordinating the. comprehensive efforts by relevant State agencies and
organizations in dealing with the problem of Kepone.
subsequen tly I
EPA established an internal task force to work with State and other
Federal agencies to offer technical assistance and research support.
Other Virginia State agencies and organizations which provided
representation to the Virginia Kepone Task Force included: Air
Pollution Control Board; Attorney General's Office; Division of
Consolidated Laboratory Services; Department of Labor and Industry;
Virginia Commonwealth University/Health Sciences Division; and State
Water Control Board.
II-l
-------
Subsequent to the initial organization of the Virginia Kepone Task
Force, other State agencies and groups assumed responsible roles in
the Task Force.
These included: the Virginia Council on Environment;
Department of Agriculture and Commerce; Virginia Institute of Marine
Science; virginia polytechnic Institute and State University; Marine
Resources Commission; and the Office of Emergency Services.
To supplement the Virginia Kepone Task FOrce expertise, assistance
was solicited from numerous Federal agencies and private
organizations, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal
Food and Drug Administration, Center for Disease Control in Atlanta,
and Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
The major problem areas, which confronted the Virginia Task Force
. at the time of its establishment~ some of which persist today,
included: cleanup of Life Science Products facilities in Hopewell;
cleanup and disposal of wastes located at the Hopewell primary sewage
treatment plant; epidemiological studies; marine studies; cleanup of
the James River; and assessment of the economic impact of closing the
James River.
In December of 1975, the Virginia state Water Control Board
developed a long range program for monitoring the contamination in the
James River.
This program was initiated in January 1976 and has
involved extensive water and a sediment sampling and a fish sampling
II-2
-------
i ,j
> Ii
lJ
program wi t.h the Virginia Institute of Marille scf'ence.
..;{
J//I
//; Ii
. i
Forty-eight.
locat.ions for wat.er and sediment sampling were designated, ranging
from the discharge area at. t.he Hopewell primary treatment' plant. to the
Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel. Seven zones were defined in the fish
sampling plan, extending from Hopewell to Chesapeake Bay. The
continuing comprehensive sampling program of the Virginia Water
Control Board has been invaluable for its guidance in the design of
complementary sampling efforts for EPA's Repone Mit.igat.ion Feasibility
project.
Concurrently with the development and implementation of the
Virginia Water Control Board's Repone monitoring program, Virginia's
Division of Consolidated Laboratory S.ervices, with assistance of
Allied Chemical, developed and implemented protocols and the
analYtical methods for determining the quantit.y of Kepone residing in
the air, water, soil, sediment and biota.
Specific protocols were
developed for determinat.ion of Repone in:
1.
Shellfish and Fish
2.
Dairy Products, Eggs, and Feeds
3.
Vegetables, Fruit, and Juices
4.
Air Filters, Wall wipes, and Vacuum Dust Bags
5.
Water
6.
Sediment and soils
II-3
-------
The protocols are used in the State of v:irginia' s market sampling
and seed oyster sampling programs as well as the other continuing
Kepone monitoring programs.
while the immediate impact of the Repone contamination
necessitated a large scale Repone-related effort in the State of
Virginia, the State of Maryland also initiated efforts to continue to
assess potential impacts of Kepone in Maryland by appointing a
multi-agency, mUlti-disciplined state Task Force.
Its efforts guided
Allied Chemical in their containment and safe storage of Kepone
material located at an Allied Chemical facility in Baltimore.
In
1975, residents near the Baltimore Allied Chemical plant were screened
for Kepone.
No detectable amounts of Kepone were found.
A playing
field next to the Allied facility showed 10 ug/g (ppm) Kepone levels
along a common fence.
The park was closed, the land stripped, and
resodded with uncontaminated soil.
The Maryland Task Force also initiated efforts to sample
Chesapeake Bay for Kepone.
In the Bay, oyster bars with seed oysters
transplanted from the James River were tested for Repone.
There were
varying amounts of Kepone from low to non-detectable with only one
oyster bar near the mouth of the West River having concentrations
exceeding the FDA Action Levels.
The single oyster bar was closed and
reopened a year later when Kepone was not detected.
Blue crabs were
sampled on the Maryland side of Chesapeake Bay, but Kepone
!I-4
-------
concentrations were below the FDA Action Levels.
Likewise, bluefish
showed low levels of Kepone.
Kepone was not detected in the
sedimen ts.
At present, the state of Maryland has a continuing market
sampling program for Kepone and the Maryland State Health Department
requires Virginia to certify that seed oysters are free from Kepone
before they can be transplanted to Maryland waters of the Chesapeake
Bay.
The need for routine maintenance dredging of the James River for
navigational purposes posed an additional problem and requirements to
be assessed by a State of Virginia/Corps of Engineers/EPA effort.
Dredging of the James might disperse tbe Kepone contaminants
downstream and thus create more widespread contamination and threaten
Che$apeake Bay.
Accordingly, a test dredging of selected shoal areas I
was undertaken in July 1976 by the O.S. corps of Engineers in
coordination with EPA and the Virginia ~ater Contro~ Board.
Monitoring of the test dredge operation indicated that increased water
and sediment contamination by such dredging were confined to the areas
of dredging.
Dredging with disposal in the river near the channel is
now examined on a case by case basis by the Commonwealth of Virginia,
which may then issue a Water Quality Certificate.
In addition, a u.s.
Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit is required.
II-5
-------
REQUEST FOR AN EPA MITIGATION FEASIBILITY PROJECT
The results of the initial efforts to assess the nature and extent
of Kepone contamination in the Hopewell-James River areas indicated a
pervasive and critical problem.
Accordingly, on August 26, 1976 the
Federal/State Kepone Task Force recommended that a feasibility study
be undertaken to evaluate dredging or other means to mitigate Kepone
effects in the James River.
Based on this recommendation, Virginia's
Governor Godwin and Maryland's Governor Mandel issued a joint request
on August 30, 1976 to the Administrator of EPA to undertake a
feasibility study.
While requesting an analysis of dredging or other
means of containing the Kepone contamination, the Governors cautioned:
"While current research indicates dredging may be an alternative, the
impact on downsueam aquatic lile, the degree of reduction of
contamination, the cost involved, the problems of spoil disposal, and
long term effect on the River need to be determined before any
intelligent decision can be made as to the impact of dredging on the
River. "
GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED FOR EPA MITIGATION FEASIBILITY PROJECT
In response to the Governor's request, the Administrator of EPA
announced his intent on September 2, 1976 to initiate a feasibility
study.
As reflected in the caution of the Governors' request to EPA,
it was immediately apparent that a much more thorough data acquisition
II-6
-------
and analysis effort wouJ.d be requiJ:ed to provide a basis for assessing I
I
the problem and exploring mitigation measures for the Hopewell/James
River areas. Accordingly, a se.ri-es of approaches were developed which I
evolved into a two-phased project plan proposed in November 1976.
Phase I, the subject of this report, involved a detailed assessment
of: suspected continuing sources of Kepone contamination; fate and
transport of Kepone in the James River system; current and long-range
effec~s of Kepone contamination on the biota; and evaluation of
mi tigation and removal me~hods. The results of Phase I are to provide I
a basis for action recommenda~ions. Following review of the
recommendations by EPA and the Sta~es of Virginia and Maryland, Phase I
II might involve a decision to: seek funding for a major cleanup or
mitigation program; proceed with pilo~ te~ing .of alternative
corre~ve and mitigative actions; or withhold further ac~on.
!I-7
-------
III.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA
The area under investigation, as shown on Exhibits I-1 and I-2 is
the City of Hopewell, Prince George County, and the James River from
Hopewell to Chesapeake Bay.
HOPEWELL AND PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY
physical Features
As indicated in Exhibit I-1, Hopewell and Prince George County lie
entirely in the coastal plain of Virginia and encompass about 11 and
276 square miles, respectively.
The topography at Hopewell generally
is hilly with steep streambanks in the vicinity of Bailey Creek and
Gravelly Run, with elevations ranging from near sea level to
approximately 130 feet above sea level.
Slopes -in the Prince George
County portion of the study area can ap~oach 40 to 50 percent in some
steeper areas.
In the City of Hopewell, slopes generally are more
gradual and amenable to the development that has occurred.
Temperatures in the area average 27 degrees C (80 degrees F) in July
and 4.5 degrees C (40 degrees F) in January, with precipitation
averaging approximately 40 inches per year.
In 1913, Hopewell developed from a population of about 300 people
into a boom town after the completion of a dynamite plant by the
II!-l
-------
DuPon t de Nemours Company.
With the beginning of World War I, the
factory was converted for the production of gun cotton and was making
more than one million pounds a day until the end of the War.
The
population of Hopewell was estimated to be approximately 40,000 during I
I
this period, with 15,000 to 20,000 peo{:~e working at the factory.
with the end of World War I and the closing of the DuPont factory,
peop~e left Hopew~l as rapidly as they had come.
By 1920, the census
showed a city population of o~y 1,320.
However, during the next
decade, the pop~ation began to increase again as new indus1:ries moved I
to the area formerly occupied by DuPcnt's gun cotton plant.
One company to locate in Hopewell after World War I was Hercules
Powder Company.
The principa~ product was explosives, but they also
manufactured film, lacquers, and material for rayon, transparent
cellulose, and stationery.
Today, Hercules employs over 1,000 people
in the production of plastic materials, synthetic resins, and chlorine
induS1:rial inorganic chemicals.
Another large industry in Hopewell is
the Forest Industries, formerly known as Continental Can Company,
which produces liner board and material for corrugated boxes.
In 1928, Allied Chemical and Dye corporation established a nitrate
plant through their subsidiary, the Atmospheric Nitrogen Corporation.
In 1954, Allied's National Aniline Divisicn located a fiber operation
in Hopewell.
The General Chemical Division of Allied Chemical built a
small alum plant near Route 10.
Currently, Allied Chemical maintains
III-2
-------
two plants in Hopewell, the Fibers Division and the Industrial
Chemicals Division.
The Fibers Division manufactures industrial
organic chemicals and the Industrial Chemicals Division manufactures
al um.
Together, these two plants employ approximately 1,150 people.
Firestone located in the city in 1960 arid produces nylon and
polyester yarns.
With approximately 1,500 employees, this company is
the largest industrial employer in HopeweU.
Social Backqround
The populations of both Hopewell and Prince George County have
increased since 1950.
The most recent estimates indicate that
Hopewell had a popu1ation of 23,300 and Prince George County had a
population of 18,700 as of July 1, j975 (University of Virginia,
1975).
projections for the area's po~ulation through the year 2000
show small but steady increases for both aopewell and Prince George
County.
Manufacturing is the foundation of Hopewell's economy, and it
directly provides slightly over 50 percent of the city's jobs.
Additional jobs are found in wholesale.and retail trade and in
government.
By contrast, in Prince George County, governmental
agencies, primarily Federal, accounted for two-thirds of the
III-3
-------
employment as of 1972.
Income levels for both Hopewell and Prince
George County are close to State levels.
Land-USe Patterns ~ Plans
The Land-Use Plan for Hopewell indicates that 56 percent of the
land area in 1970 was developed.
The majority was included in the
residential and industrial categories.
Probably the most important
factor influencing the land-use pattern is Bopewell's large industrial
complex.
This complex has forced residential development westerly
away from the James River.
The'section of the city bordering the western side of Bailey creek
is currently zoned for heavy industry to just past the Hopewell
primary sewage treatment plant and zoned for residential in other
parts.
Although much of this area zoned residential is vacant,
housing construction is currently taking place between the Hopewell
treatment plant and Route 156.
The county land areas adjacent to
Bailey creek are planned primarily for residential development through
the year 2000.
III-4
-------
Archeoloqical Resources
At present, little is known concerning th~ archeological resources
of the Hopewell area, although at least five upland archeological
sites have been identified by the Virginia Historic Landmarks
Commission.
Principal sites of archeological or historical
significance are Eppes Island, located at the confluence of the James
and Appomattox Rivers, and Shirley Plantation, located five miles.
.. - .- -. .. "-
north of Hopewell.
Environmental Description
MrQ~li~
Suspended particulates and sulfur dioxides are measured regularly
in the Hopewell area by the Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board
(SAPCB) .
Recent tests indicate that sulfur dioxide does not appear to
be a problem.
For the year ending March 1977, there were no
violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards noted in the
Hopewell area.
However, violations for suspended particulates have
occurred in the past (SAPCB, 1977).
Odor is also a problem in this area.
Odor-causing substances are
emitted from the several fiber mills in Hopewell.
Also, odors emanate
from Eailey creek and Bail~y Eay waters.
III-5
-------
Water Quality
The water quality in Bailey Creek and Gravelly Run has been
influenced by the effluent from Hopewell's primary treatment plant,
industrial outfalls, and cooling water outlets located on these
tributaries.
The volume of waste entering Bailey Creek and Gravelly
Run is the cause for its severe water quality problem.
Dissolved
oxygen, pa, BOD, TKN, nitrate and ortho~osphate vary significa~tly
from the values that would be expected for these types of streams.
Additionally, a black plume originating in Bailey Creek and Gravelly
Run is normally visible in the James River from the air for at least 5
to 10 miles (8 to 16 kilometers) below Hopewell (NASA, 1977).
In late 1977, the Regional secondary ~ewage treatment plant* at
Hopewell began operation.
Evidence of water quality improvement in
the project area is expected.
The disso~ved oxygen, BOD, and pH wi~~
be improved, but the exact effect of the plant on the receiving waters
cannot be estimated at this time.
*Hereafter referred to as the Regional treatment plant
III-6
-------
Environmental Set t.ing
The land area in Hopewell and vicinity consists of areas that are
heavily industrialized, urbanized, and suburbanized.
It is compJsed
of agricultural areas, upland woods, wooded swamp, and marsh.
Data
gathered by the u.S. Fish and wildlife Service personnel during August
1977 indicate that while the upland and marsh areas appear normal,
exclusive of the odor and color of the water and sediments, there are
significant differences between the wooded swamps of Bai~ey.Creek and
a simi~ar area downriver.
The survey made particular note of the
absence of fish-eating birds and songbirds in the Bailey creek area.
Al though the new Regional treatment plant should lessen the impact
that pollution in Bailey creek has had on Bailey Bay and the James
River, improvement in water quality of Bailey Creek and Gravelly Run
will continue to be inhibited by the effects of the polluted sediments
in these streambeds.
THE JAA.'1ES RIVER
The James River is the largest of Virginia's river systems.
Although the James River originates in West Virginia, consideration in
this study is limited to the tidally influenced region from Hopewell
east to its confluence with the Chesapeake Bay.
Most of the study
area is flat, rising less than qO feet above sea level.
!!I-7
-------
The James River is tidal from the falls at Richmond to its mouth,
a distance of 153 km (95 mi.).
Its width varies from approximately
0.3 kIn (1/2 mi.) wide near Richmond to approximately 8 km (5 mi.) wide
near its mouth.
The tidal portion of the river has four main
tributaries: the Appomattox, the Chickahominy, the Na~semond, and the
Elizabeth Rivers.
The flow in the James River at Richmond has varied-
from 8,863.17 cubic meters per second (ems) to 9.06 ems with the
average flow being 212.38 ems.
Lands adjoining the river are f enile agricu~ tural tracts,
forested upland and bottomland, and marshes and swamps that afford
high value habitat for migratory waterfowl, other birds, game and fur
animals.
Bunting and fishing are important recreational pursui ts
along the tidal section of the James.
There are numerous privately
owned hunting and fishing camps and two public wildlife refuges in the
area.
The Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries maintains
a 2,100 acre waterfowl refuge on Hog Island and the 0.5. Fish and
Wildlife Service maintains Presquile National Wildlife Refuge, a 1,329
acre refuge on Turkey ISland upstream of Hopewell.
The only major population area along the River downstream from
Hopewell is at the mouth of the river where Newport News, Hampton,
Portsmouth, and Norfolk form the Ham~ton Roads Area.
I II-8
-------
t
,}
. i
, ,
:1
"
:!
The tidal ~r~on of the James River is sluggish and is
characterized by a sandy/silty bottom.
Both fresh and salt water
species are typically found in the James River with the species found
according to their salinity r=gimes.
The tidal James River has long
been utilized for commercial and sport fishing.
Fishery resources are
diverse and productive.
The river contains freshwater and marine
fish, including many migratory species.
The commercial fishing
grounds extend from upstream of the BOJ;:ewell area to the mouth of the
James River.
The freshwater and upJ;:er J;:ortion of brackish water zones
are extensively used as spawning and nursery grounds.
estuary is a productive shellfish zone.
The lower
Due to Kepone contamination, fish harvesting is now res'tricted by
the FDA Action Level determinations J;:reviously discussed.
The river
is open to the taking of oysters, clams, some migratory species,
female crabs downstream from the James River Bridge, and several
resident species, such as catfish.
The river is closed to the taking
of most freshwater sport species, except on a catch/release basis.
Because of the nature, size, and depth of the river, commercial
navigation has been important on the James since colonial times.
The
complex river currents, augmented by tides, constantly shift and move
sediments in the river.
As a result, the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers
maintains a deep water navigation channel from the Chesapeake Bay to
Richmond.
!II-9
-------
The chemi.s1:ry and bi.ology of the James River varies from the mouth
to Ri chmond.
It is largely dependent on the magnj. tude of the
freshwater discharge and the 1:i.dal action.
Salinity concentrations
change as a resuJ. t of the salt wedge migration whi.ch is governed by
the quantity of fresh water discharged to the estuary.
The reach of
the James River from Turkey Island near Hopewell to the Chesapeake Bay
can be divided into four salinity zones.
They are generally as
follows:
Ti.dal Freshwater River Mile 40 to 80 Salinity 0 to 0.5 ppth
oligohaline River Mile 25 to 40 Salinity 0.5 to 5 ppth
Mesohaline River Mile 12 to 25 Sali.nity 5 to 1 5 pp th
Polyhaline River Mile 0 to 12 Sali.nity greater than 15 ~pl
I II -10
-------
-
":1
!f
'.' I
, i
IV.
PROJECT APPROACH
"
"
ORGANIZING THE PROJECT
Development and management of the Kepone Mitigation Feasibility
Project was assigned to EPA'S Criteria and Standards Division, Office
of Water and Hazardous Materials.
Among the respons~bilities of this
Division is Section 115 of Public Law 92-500, "In-place Toxic
Pollutants." However, since funding was not available under Section
115 appropriations, Phase I of the s~udy was funded from other EP~
resources.
Resolution of resources and negotiations for support to
conduct the proje~ were initiated in November 1976.
An allocation of
$1.4 million for support was made.
A comprehensive work plan was
developed and negotiations were begun for support studies through
interagency agreements with the u.S. Corps of Engineers (COE), the
Depar~ment of Energy (DOE - at that time the Energy Research and
Development Agency), and an allocation of funds to EPA's Gulf Breeze
Environmental Research Laboratory and the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science (VIMS).
However, with detailed work plans and support
agreements completed, the Agency was requested to delay action until
the implications of the project could te evaluated in terms of the
State of Virginia Kepone plan.
Following this evaluation, the
interagency agreements were consummated with the DOE and the COE on
March 31, 1977.
!V-l
-------
At the same time the interagency agreements were signed, funds
.ere transferred to the ongoing research programs of EPA's Gulf Breeze
Laboratory and VIMS for specific tasks to be accomplished in time to
support the requirements of the Kepone ~oject.
A year was allocated
for project completion.
The completicn date was later extended to
May 31, 1978 in order to permit more effective col~aboration with the
State of Virginia in review and pre~aration of the final project
report.
Under the interagency agreement with the COE, Norfolk District,'
engineering studies to contain, stabilize, or remove Kepone-con-
taminated sediments were specified.
Alternatives were to be evaluated
'with funding provided on a task basis to S400K.
Arrangements were
~lso made by the COE with the u.s. Fish and wildlife Service (USFWS)
of the Department of Interior for com~lementary ecological surveys of
the Hopewell/James River area.
Under the interagency agreement with
DOE, the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories ~ere tasked with
responsibility for: conducting sampling and analysis of the suspected
sources of Kepone contamination in Ho~ewell and the James River; in
coordination with VIMS, obtaining water quality, sediment, hydrologic
and other data on the James River; modeling the transport and fate of
sediments in the river; evaluating nonconventional Kepone mitigation
techniques, which would complement those of the COE; and assessing tne
overall ecological impact of the current Kepone contamination and
possible mitigation approaches.
The funding for this effort was $800K
I~2
-------
with work proceeding under detailed task orders.
The EPA Gulf Breeze
Laboratory was assigned responsibility to provide scientific data and
analysis on the effects of Repone on the estuarine biota, including
the biological accumulation, distrituticn and fate of Kepone.
Of the
S200K transferred to Gulf Breeze, S100K went to VIMS for associated
field studies on the biota and hydrolcgy of the James River.
Exhitit
IV-1 summarizes the individual project responsibilities.
To insure effective administration and coordination of the
project, a management plan was developed concurrently.
As shown in
Exhibit IV-2, the project director was supported by an environmental
scientist and an environmental engineer.
Coordination channels were
also established with the states of Virginia and Maryland, EPA's
legion III, and other elements of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Simultaneously, channels for information exchange were established
with the state of New qork's PCB Task Force which was faced with a
similar river contamination problem.
.
I~3
-------
EXHIBIT IV-1
KEPONE MITIGATION FEASIBILITY PROJECT RESPONSIBILITIES
DOE/BATTELLE
Sampling and analysis of suspected Repone contamination to comple-
ment existing data.
Acquisition of water quality, sediment, hydrologic and other data
in the James River in coordination with VIMS.
Modeling of transport and fate of Repone in the ,James River.
Evaluation of nonconventional mitigation techniques.
Assessment of the overall impact of current Repone contamination
and possible mitigation approaches.
~ (With OSFWS)
Analysis of worldwide sediment removal/dredging techniques and
applicabili ty.
Engineering studies to contain, stakilize, or remove Kepone-con-
~aminated sediments.
Evaluation of environmental impact of selected engineering alter-
natives.
~ GULF BREEZE LABORATORY
Effect of Kepone on estuarine biota, including biological accumu-
lation, distribution and fate.
~
Field data on biota, sediments and hydrology of the James River.
~ HEADQUARTERS
Program management and report.
-------
Exhibit IV-2
KEPONE PROJECT r~1ANAGEMENT AND ORGAHIZA nON
State of Virginia
Department of Health
Water Control Board
Kepone Task Force
-
""
-
-
--
-
""
""
-
PCB
Hudson River
Task Force
COE
&
USF&\'iS
EPA Region III
--
--
--
-
--
--
--
--
-
--
Kepone Project
i-1anageliJen t
Director
Environmental Scientist
Environmental Engineer
-
-
--
--
--
--
--
--
-
-
-
-
""
-
-
-
. .......
.......
-
-
DOE
(Sattelle)
EPA
Edison Lab
RTP
E!' .A.
Gulf Breeze
VIf1S
-------
LABORATORY STANDARDIZATION
Kepone is a very complex chlorinated hydrocarbon which can be
detected by the use of electron capture-gas chromatography.
When the
Kepone incident occurred, techniques for measuring the chemical were
rudimentary at best.
Since many sample types were involved (i.e.,
sediments, plants, animals and water), and Kepone concentrations
. ranged between parts per mil~ion and parts per bi~lion, chemists were
confronted with a variety of problems which had to be solved to assure
reliable analyses.
The first efforts on quality control and assurance were those of
the State of Virginia Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services.
In this program, samples of so~, fish, blood and water were sent to
participating laboratories.
The results of the analyses were
statistically examined by the Consolidated Laboratories and returned
to the participants.
Following these efforts, fish and oyster samples
were sent by the Food and Drug Administration in Washington, D.C. to
their field laboratories and some laboratories within the State of
Virginia.
In addition, individual investigators exchanged samples
with each other.
With the initiation of the Kepone Mitigation Feasibility project,
participants believed it necessary to institute a standardization
procedure to assure the precision of Ke~one results between the
IV-4
-------
laboratories.
Accordingly, the project arranged for the development
lnd administration of a standardization procedure by the EPA Health
Effects Research Laboratory at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Participating laboratories were:
u.s. EPA Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory
u.s. Fish and Wildlife patuxent Wildlife Research Center
State of Virginia Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Wil~iam H. Jennings Laboratory, Inc.
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Four sediment sampl.e groups were distributed and anal.yzed: . (1)
control without Kepone; (2) control known to have interfering
compounds (PCB-Aroclor 1254);
(3) James River Repone-contaminated
sediment sample; and (4) fortified (spiked) sample of known Repone
quantity.. Participating laboratories were sent twelve blind 21-gram
samples of the above groups, including replicates.
In addition, an
analytical standard was forwarded for the laboratories' use.
In general, the results of the laboratories appeared good -
excellent in some cases - considering that several different analyti-
cal methods were employed in the various laboratories.
The
standardization procedure has been valuable for the laboratories in
the Kepone Mitigation Feasibility Project because instruments have
been thoroughly tested, analytical techniques have been perfected, and
future Repone results can be compared with greater confidence.
Since
the standardization, contractors and laboratories have examined
initial project data and data generated prior to the project
IV-5
-------
j~
.,/
.J',
j
./
,#.n.i tiation.
No significant adjustments were necessary in the use of
?revious data for the Kepone Mitigation Feasibility project analyses.
For wate~ analyses of Kepone, laboratories have placed the limits of
detectability with good reliability at approximately 0.02 parts per
billion (ppb).
A few laboratories feel confident about stating values
lower than this.
sediment and animal tissue lower limits of
detectability are usually placed at 0.02 parts per million (ppm).
PROJECT FIELD EFFORTS
Laboratory and field programs were undertaken as part of the EPA
Kepone Mitigation Feasibility study to ~rovide the data needed to
assess the possibility of eliminating the problem of Kepone
contamination from the James River.
These programs built upon the
results of previous Kepone studies, as .well as addressed new research
areas required for a fuller understanding of the issue.
The following
sections discuss the details of the Kepone Mitigation Feasibility
Project field efforts.
The field studies undertaken as part of the Feasibility Project
were designed to satisfy the following needs:
1 .
Provide additional data on Ke~one contamination in the James
Ri v er;
IV-6
-------
2.
Provide input data for modeling efforts of Kepone movement in
the James River;
3.
Provide an engineering and environmental data base for
assessing alternative conventional mitigation measures in the
Bailey Bay area;
4.
Establish the distritution of Kepone residuals in Bailey Bay
and its tributary streams;
5.
Establish the distribution of Kepone residuals in the
terrestrial areas of the Hopewell region; and
6.
Identify potential sources of continuing Kepone contamination
into the James River.
~ lli Modelinq
A plan was developed to undertake a joint field sampling program
of the James River in June 1977.
The sampling data were designed for
use in developing, calibrating, and verifying computer simulations of
Kepone movement in the James River as well as to provide data for the
further assessment of Kepone contamination in the James.
Eleven sampling transects were designated.
Eight of these
transects were sampled by Battelle and four by VIMS.
One transect was
duplicated by Battelle and VIMS for com~arison purposes.
However,
logistics and equipment acquisition froclems prevented a simultaneous
IV-7
-------
sampling cruise by Battelle and
f
./t!
;/Q
?;.f
<~/
"
!!
VIMS.
The VIMS sampling was therefore
accomplished in August 1977.
June Sampling Program
In June, Battelle Laboratories collected data at eigbt transects
along a 70-mile reacb of the James ~iver from City Point at Hopewell
to the James River Bridge.
Three stations were located on each
transect and one to three depths were sampled per station for each of
three current conditions (flood, slack and ebb).
The locations of
these stations are listed belcw:
. James River Bridge
Rocklanding Shoal
Hog Island
West Swann Point
Win dmill Point
Jordan Point
Bai ley Bay
City Point
The first four stations were located in the saline portion of the
estuarj, while the latter four stations were located in the freshwater
portion.
The Jordan Point, Bailey Eay and City Point stations were
IV-8
-------
selected to provide better resolution in the Kepone source area.
Al~
=ross-sections are tidal~y influenced.
The sampling data gathered in the field included: meteorolo~ical
and hydrologica~ information; channel and flow characteristics;
physical and chemical characteristics of suspended load and bed
sediments; and water quality charactexistics.
Repone analyses were
conducted on water, suspended load, and bottom sediment samples.
Water quality parameters measured at each station and depth included
water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity.
August Sampling Program
In August 1977, personnel from VIMS performed their hydrographic
survey at four James River transects which bracketed the turbidity
maximum with three stations at each transect. The transects were
located near the fOllowing: Herring Creek, West Swann Point, Brandon
and Fort Eustis. Each survey was conducted for a period of
approximately 100 hours to span eight tidal cycles.
Parameters
measured included total suspended sediment, sa~inity, dissolved
oxygen, current direction and speed and tidal stage.
IV-9
-------
'r
Mitiqation Alternatives ~ ~
::,1
. ,
'/
/;l
?'
Other field work involved compiling data required to assess the
conventional Repone mitigation alternatives developed by the Corps of
Engineers for the Bailey Bay area.
This included the collection of
geotechnical, hydrological, and environmental information.
Under the supervision of the Nor£olk District Corps of Engineers
borings were taken in May 1977 in Bailey Bay and Bailey Creek to
provide data on foundation potential for dams or dikes.
Since the
Kepone study was only in the concept stage of development, the
subsurface investigation was limited to 12 borings with standard
penetration testing.
The locations of these borings, labeled DH-1
through 5, and 7 through 13 azoe shown on Exhibit IV-3.
aydrologic fie1d work was undertaken because no known detai1ed
topographic data existed to facilitate the required pre1iminary design
and associated cost estimates.
cross-sections were obtained on both
Bailey Creek and Grave1ly Run to aid the development of pre1iminary
design featuzoes for each alternative, including flood routings and
channel designs.
The location of each cross-section is shown on
Exhibit IV-~.
Under an agreement with the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the U.s. Fish
and wildlife Service performed an environmental assessment of Bailey
IV-IO
-------
--- "'.---'- ...
. - --.--.
----
. -_.._-- ----
.~ ~~~~.
. ".
.>~~~~i~~~:if~;'.~;.~
\.
. "
. '"
..
. .
.' ,
- .
";"...
...
BA/LEY
BAY
.
.
"
~ VELLY
,?UN
I
CREEK
,
(
~
.
,'.f
~" '\
\
".
. .
Exhibit r"-3
COE Boring Locations
:
SCALE
IN
FEET
2000
],
4C
1
. .--. --- .--. ---
..----...---- ...-- --- -----..
2000 0
-- .....J:-_-----_...~
-------
\
,~~:,W" R~ .~tm-
.....;~. . to';' ...~
. ~:~:~;~ c ~ :t. . :-t:- ti..~
'''d;:b~~'~' : ',' , ~.N, ";';"
",..:.... ~A.:t, I, ~f!,~~'~'~'''~,,:
J O'R\ F'D<~~~i \ :r",{: ;~!:~~:'
, ., ., ~1, I~:':' ,;~~"f-:.~'
P 0'1 N J;~t:'(: '~Y}i\i>."
, , . " : '::"~l" ~~'i"
: ;'~'~"'. "1!.~ ...:,.;.;,., I~".t"......
',' ~',;": :,.~. .I~"\' .l~'r .~.:, ",;
.' ..t'~' '-"''''~" >,'
'Y.,;1i'~ ,'11 ., 1', ''''''-; " " ,',
..'( rJ1 ~; 'Go" .', ""',
. ;', "or .~; ~"'I ,.",.', ~ '
'.; l:.~~-~~:~~~~:J'.ii;_~ "~:~~;j~: . .
'~:..: i<;. '-"'~' tJ" \-'[,(/11' '
.~. ~l -,', , '~t-' ,,:-) " '
L~l"";" ,",j}" 'I:
, :h,'~:~:;)~:.«,
" ~,'j" J",~
", '..~,," .-\;!..~r:'
BAILEY
BAY
.
\
"
CREEK
(
.
SE WAGE
TREATMENT ~
PLANT
B-3
" \
/ \, \
".
I : .
{
Exhibit IV-4
COE Ilydrologlc Sampling
.
SCALE
IN
FEET
Stations
.,J,
. .
2000 0 2000
~~~,...~J"
...---.
4000
'.,
\
-------
Creek and its associated wetlands in August 1977.
Involved in this
procedure was an environmental description of the sector and a habitat
evaluation.
This was accomplished through the use of an environmental
inventory of the specified areas and with preparation of a general
habitat map.
Biologists made observations of wildlife through signs
or actual sightings.
The Corps did some limited water quality work
and sediment analyses in preparation of the environmental assessment.
Fish and Wildlife Service biologists conducted their
investigations of the wetland creeks to determine which wildlife
species or groups of species appeared to be absent from the ecosystem
and which would be expected in Bailey Creek if the Creek were not so
heavily polluted.
For comparison, similar field studies w.ere
undertaken in Powell creek, the closest creek system along the James
~iver with physiographic features similar to Bailey Creek.
An att~mpt
was made to identify pollutant pathways through the Bailey Creek
ecosystem.
preliminary impact evaluaticns of the various structural
alternatives being designed by the Corps were determined by the Fish
and wildlife Service.
Bailey Bay Kepene Distribution Determination
The thrust of the Battelle field sampling program in Bailey Bay
was the collection of sediment cores for Kepone analysis.
To
establish sampling sites in the bay, a grid network was overlain to
IV-II
-------
yield squares of 305 meters (1,000 feet) on a side.
Every other
square in a checkerboard was designated for core sampling.
The
sampling points were illustrated in Exhibit IV-5.
Twenty-seven sites
were identified for sampling in Bailey Eay.
This is 37.5 percent
greater than the minimum number necessary to evaluate contaminated
sediments according to the EPA formula for aquatic sediments (EPA,
1974) .
Seven of these cores were divided into 2.5 em (1 in.) thick
slices to yield Kepone variations with depth.
Four. sampling locations
were designated for heavy metals and broad spectrum gas
chromatograph/mass spectrograph organic analysis.
These samples
served to indicate the presence of other contaminants which could
potentially interfere with Ke~one cleanup.
Identifvinq Kepone Distribution ~ TranspOrt 1B Hopewell
A comprehensive sampling plan for Bailey Creek, Gravelly Run, the
terrestrial areas of the town of Ho~ewell, the primary sewage
treatment plant area, and the munici~al landfill was established to
quantify inflows of Kepone to Bailey Eay and the James River system.
S edimen t
Since it was believed that significant amounts of Kepone were
associated with the sediments of creeks flowing into Bailey Bay,
sediment cores at 2,000 foot intervals beginning at the creek mouth
I V-12
-------
tHy
I'uilll
. . .Jurddfl Point
. J4r Ooy
balley,Uay .
. .
. ..
.,.~ .
. .
. . .
. .
. \ I \
, l \ \.
I I. C. '~k
... \ 1131\ .!y I t:
. Sed 11I1I:nt (IIr~ Sililipies
..r---'
. Sedl,ucnl COl'e Salllpies wi III
Vu/'liclc OiSLdlmlluu
y IIcavy "eta h .:Ind U,'oilll
Slicclnull O"!j.lll ics Allalysc~
.
Exhibit IV-5
Sampling Patl~rn for Bailey Bay and Tributaries
U.:..II:.' Silli'ldc:;. 'Jud l'orLlclc
Silt! Ui~ll"il.uLiLlIl (~ suls)
-------
were taken on Bailey creek" Cattail Creek, Gravelly Run, and Poythress
Run.
The upstream limit of sampling was State Highway 156 for Bailey
Creek" a point 1,000 feet above any possible influence of the
landfill; for Cattail Creek, the State Highway 10 bridge; for Gravelly
Run and for Poythress Run" Station Street.
sediment samples taken in
the Creeks were a composite of three stations on a bank-to-bank cross
section.
The map in Exhibit IV-5 plots the location of sediment
samples taken from Hopewell area creeks.
Soil
. Soil samples were taken at several locations in the Hopewell area
to determine the extent of Repone contamination in the soils of the
area's watersheds.
The sampling points were so located to ascertain
;he distribution and magnitude of soil Kepone levels, thereby giving
insight into the possible significance of contamination of the Jam~s
River from terrestrial sources.
Particular attention was given to the
area around the former Life Science Products plant.
Other points were
dispersed throughout the City of Hopewell and the area immediately
surrounding the City, as illustrated in Exhibit IV-6.
descriptions are given in Exhibit IV-7.
Site
Water samples were taken to measure inputs of Repone from
streamflow, runoff, ground water, and seeps.
Streamflow samples were
collected from several locations on Bailey Creek, Cattail Creek,
IV-13
-------
------.
--.
. -- 'h.- - . - -_..- .
.. _.- ---
-.-.. -- .. ..--. ....
.---.-...---.--------.-.------- --. - --
. H.ly 197/
Y 'Jf'l7//I
. IUn/ n
911/77
I '"'1
-_J/ (~~'~
\ '."h". ~~
.1 ,~
"''''-I~
f"'t>,. .
'~ 0
."
a."e~., ..r
.
~
~. -1....--
~'lO~ \1.ivH
~~
. ---------
.
..
.
..
.-,
-.,,:,,:,,.~,.~ ~"':~,:j",<,~
y ?4
t"ud.lu"L
....-
Y'l;'
8
~.&'
V LJ
Un"",",,,:I'
~-----
o
/81
/
I
/
.
14
----_._-- ---- -.---- .-- ---.---
'lh
'V
J" 11 16
~: T Y
t: 'I< ) ,.,
:: y (' y
~.~~.;i;)1-S II'I!.;-r-=.
. . -- . -. . -
-------.------..-. .----.---------
... _.. - - .u-
.. -.- ,. --.- -'. .-. .
.. - .._.. _... -- .u_-.- - --- ...- - ---"- __...n.- - -
. ----. .....- .. - .-. - . -
--_.---
Exhibit IV-6
SHe::! for Soil Smnples in IInpi:!\<1ell
-------
EXHIBIT IV-7.
SITE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SOILS SAMPLES
1.
Church, north corner of Boston and Sunnyside Streets.
2.
Baseball field behind James Schaal.
3.
North side Cavalier Ice Plant.
4.
Nitrogen Park between State well and Hopewell Streets.
Off northeast corner of Life Science Plant Building.
5.
6.
Park, corner of Burnside and AJ.len.
7.
Near main Pump Station.
Grove of trees on LaPrade street across from Industrial
8.
9.
Piping and Supply.
Southwest corner of state Highway 10 and Point of Rocks Road.
10. Apartments, southwest corner of 20th and Broadway.
11. North side of State Highway 10 at Civic Clubs ~ign.
12. Apartment, corner of 2nd and Ep~es.
13. Park, 100' east of the Ho~ewel~ News Bui~ding.
14. South side of State Highway 10 at FOP Lodge Road.
15. Just off road between shirley Plantation and Eppes Island.
16. Nitrogen Park.
17. Nitrogen Park.
18. Nitrogen Park.
19. Nitrogen Park.
20. Life Science Products site next to the railroad track.
21. 20 feet north of Highway 10 across from the PAN site.
-------
22. DuPont School playground
13. Main Pump Station.
24. Appomattox No.2 Pump Station.
25. Sussex Drive Pump Station.
26. Western Street Pump Station.
27. Pebble Ammonium Nitrate site.
28. Black field where liquid waste from tankers was disposed of.
29. Northwest corner of the Life Science Products site.
30. North side of A.l~ied CheDdcal's Semi-WOrks plant.
31. West side'of Semi-Works plant.
32. Between Grave~y Run and State Highway 10 across from the first
A~ied effluent discharge.
-------
-~.
z
.'j(
,/I
"'{
, ,.
,
"
.~ravelly
Run, Moody's Creek, Poythress Run, and Cabin Creek.
When
possible, each station was sampled on two days: one during low flow;
one during a period of high runoff.
samples of storm runoff were also taken from areas suspected to
contain high Kepone concentrations (Life Science Products plant area,
landfill area), as well as from representative points throughout the
city.
Sample ~ites are displayed in Exhibit IV-8 and described in
Exbibi t IV- 9.
Ground water samples for Kepone analysis were taken
from seven test wells bored by the State Water Control Board and two
private wells in the area.
Water was also sampled in the vicinity of
the Keone/sludge lagoon.
Samples were collected from within the
lagoon, in a puddle outside the dike, and from ground water seeps
flowing into Bailey creek immediately below the lagoon.
IV-14
-------
---- ---- -----
Y5/1'J/11
. ~/bll1
8911/11
8~b
............cll
8l~
814
~. - -----.--...-------------- -----
---.. ---------
,~
"'.
.~
11.11"1 ..,
-----
---- --..- -
Exhibit IV-8
Surface Water and Runoff Sample Locations
-------
EXBmIT IV-g.
SITE DESCRIP~ION
f
if
:' i
~ ,]
/;
t!
.// .
rOOR RUNOFF AND CREEK
WATER SAMPLES
1. Bailey Creek at State Highway 156.
2. Bailey Creek just above Cattail Creek.
3. Cattail creek at power line above Landfill.
4. Cattail Creek just above Eailey creek.
5. Gravelly Run at Continental Can Road.,
6. Drainage ditch at Station Street east of crossing.
7. Gravelly Run at State Highway 10.
8. Gravelly Run at Continental Can Road.
9. Bailey Creek at State Highway 10.
10. Bailey Creek below confluence with Cattail Creek.
11. Bailey Creek above confluence with Cattail Creek.
12. Bailey Creek at State Highway 156.
13. Bailey Creek at power line above Hopewell Trea~ment Plant.
14. Drainage ditch at Station Street easternmost crossing.
15. Cattail Creek a~ State Highway 156.
16. Cattail creek at power lines.
17. Cattail Creek at sewer line crossing.
18. Corner of LaPrade and Highway 156.
19. Corner of Arlington and Highway 156.
20. Bailey Creek upstream of Hopewell Treatment Plant effluent and
the seeps below the Kepone/sludge lagoon.
21. Corner of Locust and Dellrose.
-------
22. DinwiddIe Avenue 100 feet southeast of corner of Oaklawn.
23. Corner of Smithfield and Cedar Level.
24. Cabin Creek under Jackson Farm Road.
25. End of West Broadway near the railroad tracks.
26. Riverside Avenue across from the Eo~ewell Yacht Club.
27. Corner of Brown and Burnside.
28. Life Science Products plant site.
29. Corner of 14th and City Point.
30. Same location as Sample 20.
-------
Sewer System
Initial sampling in the Hopewell sewer system focused on the
sewage treatment plant and on the sewer line connecting it with the
Life Science Products site.
This included the Station Street and main
pump stations through which the effluent and runoff from the Life
Science Products plant site were pum~ed.
Samples were taken of the
water, slimes, and sludges in these facilities.
In addition, raw
sewage and slime samples were taken from 11 pump stations in the
Hopewell municipal sewage system through which Life Science Products
effluent and runoff has not flowed~
The ~mp stations of the sewer
system are located and described in Exhibits IV-10 and IV-11.
Follow-up Sampling
Following analysis of samples collected in the initial field study
plan, it became apparent that additional sampling would be beneficial.
certain significant findings warranted follow-up field sampling in
order to establish the magnitude of potential Kepone problems.
Additional field work was undertaken at the Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate
(PAN) plant site and the southeast corner of the Hopewell sanitary
landfill.
At the PAN site, 14 shallow holes were drilled with a hand auger.
Samples were collected from the surface and at a depth of five feet.
IV-15
-------
_u. I
86
.4
- - -- ------
-.----
.~
8
. )
uU~"cll
.2
.. - ---------.--------
---
----- .~
E.'xhibit IV-IO
Pump Stat Jon SolJds and Wastewater Sample LocatJolI:>
-------
EXHIBIT IV- 11.
1. Western Street
2. Sherwood Land
3. Sussex Drive
4. Cabin Creek
5. Appomattox No. 1
6. Appanattox No. 2
7. Park Avenue
8. Mansion B.i.lls
9. Sixth Avenue
10. Water street
11. Station street
12. Main
13. Bailey Creek
PUMP S~TIONS LOCATED IN EXHIBIT IV-10.
-------
Next, 8 deep holes were bored to depths between 35 and 50 feet, and
samples taken at 1 to 5-foot intervals.
Several sediment cores were
also collected in the marshy areas around the PAN site.
Four sediment
cores were taken from the site itself, and 9 cores collected from the
Moody's Creek marsh immediately down-flew.
A series of runoff samples
and several subsurface soil samples using a 10-foot hand auger were
also taken.
Several series of samples were collected adjacent to the
southeastern edge of the Hopewell landfill in order to. establish the
magnitude and transport of highly concentrated Kepone residuals
detected in this' area during previous sampling.
Field work included
collection of several 1 to 2-foot cores and q-inch grabs of. sediment
to calculate the amount of Kepone residing in this area.
Runoff and
hand-augered soil samples to depths of 10 feet were gathered to detect
any possible transport pattern.
IV-16
-------
PROJECT LABORATORY EFFORTS
Numerous laboratory studies were conducted to support the Repone
Mitigation Feasibility Project, including physical, chemical,
biological, toxicological and engineering.
The following describes
those efforts by the several contractors or laboratories.
~ ~ Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory
Studies of Repone Availability from Water
1.
Toxici ty and uptake of Repone in four
species of marine unicellular algae.
Output:
EC 50 values and Repone concentrations values
2.
Acute toxicity of Repone to es1:uarine animaJ.s.
Output:
Acute 96-hour LCSO values and average bio-
concentration factors for:
3.
Grass Shrimp
Blue Crab
Sheepshead Minnow
Spot
Mysid Shriml=
Oyster
Full life cycle bioassay studies.
Sheep shead Minnow
Mysid Shrimp
Palaemonetes puqio
Callinectes sapidus
Cvprinodon varieqatus
Leiostomus xanthurus
Mvsidopsis bahia
Crassostrea virqinica
Cvprinodon varieqatus
Mvsidopsis bahia
4.
Bioaccumulation and loss of Repone in estuarine animals
(multiple concentraticns).
Oyster
Sheepshead Minnow
Spot
I V-17
Crassostrea virqinica
Cvprinodon variecratus
Leiostomus xantburus
-------
Grass Shrimp
Blue Crab
Pa~aemonetes puqio
Ca~~inectes sapidus
s.
Studies on Kepone accnmulaticn from contaminated food.
Studies on the bioaccumulation and toxic effects of animals
exposed to Kepone-contained in their food, in Kepone-contam-
inated water, and in Kepone-uncontaminated water.
Algae-Oyster food chain
Brine Shrimp - Mysids - spot food chain
6.
Studies on sensitive life stages
Juveni~e Blue Crab
Larval Oysters
Sheepsbead Minnow
Ca~linectes sapidus
Crassostrea virqinica
Cvprinodon varieqatus
1.
Studies of bioaccumulation in, and toxicity to estuarine animals
in conta~ated sediments.
8.
Studies on biodegradation, vo~ati~ity, and sorption-desorption.
The above laboratory studies were made to determine the toxicity
of Kepone to representa~ive animals.
Both acute and chronic studies
were performed on these animals for which there are accepted culture
methods and comparative data for other toxic materials.
Many species
tested are indigenous to the James River and Chesapeake Bay ecosystem
and are economica~~y significant to the seafood industry.
They
constitute important links in the estuarine food chains.
Laboratory
Kepone exposure levels were re~ated to field observations on the James
River where possible.
This research was directed toward the
development of Kepone criteria for wa~er, sediment and food.
The virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) has also
undertaken a variety of studies relating to Kepone in the aquatic
environment.
Efforts with Kepone have concentrated on improving the
I V-18
-------
accuracy of Kepone detection, partition coefficient determinations,
and instrumentation development.
Biologists at VIMS studied the
Kepone effects on James River organisms in the laboratory, such as
clams and oysters.
These shellfish were examined over time as they
were exposed to Kepone-contaminated sediments, either in suspension or
by association with sediments.
Such efforts are continuing under new
funding from the State of Virginia as a result of a recent partial
settlement on Kepone claims between the State and Allied Chemical.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in developing their eighteen
conventional alternatives in Bailey Creek, Bailey Bay, and Gravelly
Run, used data from a previous grain size study at Windmill Point to
perform their engineering studies.
The data were used to evaluate the
foundation, stability and settlement ~otential at or near the mouth of
Bailey creek.
The data also were used to determine the availability
and type of borrow material available and subsequent shear strengths.
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories performed numerous
experiments while investigating nonconventional mitigation techniques.
Fixation and stabilization processes were evaluated on the basis of:
(1) short-term elutriate tests; and (2) long-term leach tests.
Physical/chemical, elutriate/slurry treatment processes were also
investigated.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories performed degradation
experiments with radio-labeled Kepone.
IV-19
-------
Several aspects of photolysis were examined.
"Landfarm" vessel
~xperiments were used to investigate ~hotochemical degradation.
The
effects of amine solutions and sunlight exposure were tested for their
efficiency in degrading Kepone as well as experiments using chlorine
dioxide (Oxine) to oxidize Kepone with and without sunlight.
Ozonation was tested because of its oxidizing capability.
Kepone contaminated sediments were exposed to x-ray radiation by
Battelle Laboratories to determine if Kepone degradation could be
achieved by oxidation of Kepone dissolved in water.
Also investigated
were in ~ Kepone amelioration techniques, including the use of
sorbents, such as activated carbon, coal, and some synthetic
adsorbents produced by Diamond Shamrock, Rohm and Baas, Bently
Laboratories, and Calgon.
Polymer films were investigated because
they might be abl e to provide a means of retarding or limiting the.
availabili ty of Kepone to the surrounding environment.
In the
selection of a sealing bottom film tear strength, tensile strength,
water resistance, chemical resistance, temperature resistance, and
handling characteristics were considered.
Battelle performed experiments with barley plants to determine if
plants could take up Kepone through their roots to edible parts.
There had been concerns that Kepone around the Hopewell area could be
taken into food crops or plants fed to livestock, 50 barley
experiments were deemed appro~riate.
I V-20
-------
PROJECT-RELATED FIELD EFFORTS
Integration of Previous Repone Studies
In designing an approach to the Repone Mitigation Feasibility
Study, an effort was made to integrate the study with previous Kepone
research programs.
FOllowing closure of the Life Science Products
plant in July 1975, several programs were undertaken to establish the
magnitude of the Repone problem.
These included collecting human and
environmental samples for Repone analysis, and laboratory studies
designed to understand the characteristics of the chemical.
Re sul ts
from a number of these studies were incorporated in the Kepone
Mitigation Feasibility project to provide insight into the problem.
These studies are discussed briefly below.
The Virginia Water Control Board collected a variety of samples
from the Hopewell area and the James River beginning in 1975.
These
included sediment, aquatic biota, soil, ground w?ter, and runoff
samples which were analyzed for Repone content.
Of particular value
to the Feasibility Project were the results of the sediment sampling
which established the general pattern of Repone residuals in the James
River.
Virginia Water Control Board sediment sampling is a continuing
program in which cores from more than 50 stations are collected
throughout the James River system annually.
I V-21
-------
Sediment cores analyzed in previous research efforts by
f
.~
,#
11.7
i
/1
~e
Virginia Ins~tute of Marine Science also provided useful data on
Kepone distribution in the James River.
Their sampling program
involved systematically collecting core samples during each of the
four saasons beginning in september 1976.
Data used from previous sampling were provided by the C~ty of
Hopewell.
Samples of sewage sludge and effluent have been collected
by the city on a regular basis and ana~yzed for Kepone.
In 1976 these
were sampled weekly, then beginning in April 1977, the sampling period
was changed to a monthly basis.
REPONE-RELATED INVESTIGAXIONS
In addition to the contractors' and laboratories funded through the
Kepone Mitigation Feasibility project, the following groups had been
or are continuing to study Kepone and its effects.
The information
and laboratory data generated by these groups has been incorporated by
the Feasibility project.
Allied Chemical has had its own research program examining ways in
which Kepone could be removed from the James River or ways in which
Kepone effects could by attenuated.
Allied Chemical also has various
contractors, such as EG&G, Bionomics, Inc.
who are examining some of
IV-22
-------
the biological implications of Kepone.
ALlied Chemical's laboratory
research efforts are continuing.
U.s. sport Fisheries and Wildlife columbia, Missouri Pesticide
Laboratory is conducting research on Ke~one and Mirex uptake, storage
and elimination in aquatic food chains.
Also being studied is the
microfaunal metabolism, including aerobic and anaerobic conditions.
Physiological profiles are .being derived and indications obtained to
determine how perturbations can interfere with geochemical cycles.
Dr. Rita Colwell at the University of Maryland has been
investigating possibilities of Kepone degradation by microorganisms
(Orndorff, ~ !l., In Press).
Design Partnership Consulting Engineers (Flood and Associates,
Inc.) had conducted several laboratory studies for the state of
Virginia in 1976, including the possibility of anaerobic
biodegradation of Kepone.
A report of all of their findings is
currently under review by the State of Virginia.
The EPA Office of Research and Development has funded a study,
conducted by the National Research Council, on Kepone, Mirex and
Hexac~orocyclopentadiene.
The report is now in draft form, but
should be publicly released later this year.
IV-23
-------
The National Cancer Institute (NCI, 1976) conducted a study on the
potential carcinogenicity of Kepone.
Their report covered a year and
a half of laboratory studies in mice and rats.
A new joint study is
being developed between NCI and the National Institute of
Environmental Health (NIEH) to examine the human carcinogenicity risk
associated with Kepone.
Envirogenics has recently been studying a process to destroy
chlorinated hydrocarbons through the use of catalysts which facilitate
the reduction of cblorinefunctional groups to form chlorides in
solution.
Their experiments have utilized a copper-iron catalyst in a
reductive column with sand as the working substrate.
Westgate
Research Corporation has experimented with the combined use of ozone
and ultraviolet irradiation in the degradation of Kepone.
of the above studies are included in Ap~endix A.
Details on
MODELING EFFORTS FOR KEPONE TRACKING
The assessment of Kepone distribution and its migration pattern
must take into account the Kepone/sedimentlriver water interactions.
Because of the lack of existing verified generalized mathematical
models, engineers have had to rely on field studies or experience to
estimate the distribution of contaminant concentrations.
Field
studies are useful to evaluate the present Kepone distributions in the
James River, but such measurements cannot be used to predict
IV-24
-------
accurately the future Kepone inventory and its dispersion unless
hydrological and other conditions remain similar in the future to
those which prevail during the monitoring periods.
To deal with such
eventualities, mathematical simulation must be undertaken.
Several model concepts were pro~osed for use in the Kepone
project.
However, the only comprehensive model sufficiently developed
to be utilized in the time frame of the project was Battelle's' model
of the FETRA and SERATRA codes by Onishi at Battelle (Onishi, -~ ~.,
1976, 1977a, 1977b, -1977c.
The appro~riateness of the model was
confirmed by a recent worksho~ on the evaluation of mathematical
models (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1978).
The workshop indicated
that there are only two computer. models, the FETRA and SERATRA codes,
presently available to calculate migration of contaminants by taking
into account the interaction between the contaminants and sediment
(e.g. contaminant adsorption by sediment, desorbtion from sediment,
deposition and resuspension of contaminated sediment).
Both models
are time-dependent, two-dimensional transport models that calculate
migration of sediment and dissolved and particulate pollutants.
FETRA
solves longitudinal and lateral distributions of sediments and
contaminants, while SERATRA predicts longitudinal and vertical
concentra tions.
Because of the importance of lateral distributions of
Kepone in the tidal James River, the FETRA code was selected for this
study.
IV-25
-------
~ Kepone Mitiqation Feasibility Pro;ect Model
The Battelle mathematical model was adapted to simulate sediment
and Kepone transport and their interactions in the tidal James River.
This model simulates transport of Kepone by taking account of
Kepone/sediment/river water interactions.
The original model was
developed for sediment and radionuclide transport prediction in the
Col umbi a Ri ver.
The expanded model applied to the James River has
been verified both through comparisons of analytic and model
predictions and by comparison with field data from the James.
This
verification, as well as model results, are discussed in Section VII.
The detailed description of the model is contained in Appendix A of
this report.
The mathematical simulation of Repone migration in the tidal James
River consisted of three submodels: .(1) sediment transport model;
( 2)
dissolved contaminant transport model; and (3) particulate contaminant
transport model.
The FETRA code, consisting of these three submodels,
then computes sediment and contaminant simulation for any given time.
Sediment transport has been modeled for three sediment types (i.e.,
cohesive sediments, noncohesive sediments, and organic matter).
The
simulation of Kepone transport considers dissolved and particulate
Kepone (attached to sediments).
Particulate Kepone has been analyzed
separately for that adsorbed by sediment in each sediment type.
rhe
model covers the tidal portion of the James River to Burwell Bay.
I V-26
-------
r
"
The output of the model assists in answering two key ques~on~
related to Kepone contamination of the James River.
;i
-.r
1.
How much time will be required for the River to "cleans.;"
itself through natural dis~ersion?
2.
What volumes and concentrations of Kepone can be expected to
pass Burwell Bay and enter the Chesapeake Bay?
other Modelinq Efforts
A related modeling effort under development is that of
Dr. Donald O'COnnor of Manhattan College, whose work has been
supported by EPA's Gulf Breeze Laboratory.
However, this model has
not been developed for operational a~plication to the James River
probl~m at this time.
The model under development is an extension of
a water quality model for estuaries.
The model design incorporates
physio-chemical mechanisms such as hydrodynamic transport, adsorption
to and desorption from the suspended and bed solids, and settling and
resuspension of these solids.
The model will also address bio-
ecological phenomena such as assimilaticn and excretion routes through
the various components of the food chain.
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science is also developing
mathematical models to simulate transport of Kepone in the tidal
I V-27
-------
portion of the James River.
One model simulates sediment transport,
including Kepone dissolved in water and Kepone adsorbed to sediment
particles.
The mod~l wi~l include consideration of the turbidity
maximum with expansion to account for Kepone pathways through living
organisms.
It will simulate the movement for a time period of days or
weeks.
A tid~-average model is being designed to simulate the Kepone
movement for a time period of months or years.
IV-28
-------
v.
REPONE TRANSFER, TRANSPORT AND DIS'mIBUTION
-
BEHAVIOR OF REPONE IN SEDIMENTS, WATER COLUMNS, AND SPECIES
Repone resides in the soil, sediments, water, and biota of the
Hopewell area and the James River Basin.
Much of this contam':.nation
has moved from where .it was originally deposited.
The translocation
continues at the present time and is an important factor in
determining the lonq-term implications of Repone contamination.
It
is,. therefore, important to examine the various pathways by which
Repone moved through the environment. -The pathways include physical
and biological mechanisms in the air and water as .diagrammed in
Exhibit V-1.
Pathways examined for Kepone movement patterns ~nclQded
volatilization, sorption-desorption, plant uptake, bioconcentration,
and physical movement of Repone-laden suspended solids.
Thesa are
discussed individually in the following sections.
Repone mo"~ment in
the James River is the subject of the sediment transport modeling
effort described in Cbapter VII.
Volatilization
..
Laboratory studies revealed the lack of Repone volatilization from
both water and sediment/water systems (Appendix C, No. 12; Ar?en~ix
A) .
The data suggest that volatilization is not a significant factor
in the fate of Repone in the James River.
Continued persistence of
Kepone in the James River supports these observations.
V-l
-------
<;
I
I\)
Air
c
o
.,....
+'
IU
L
.,....
VI
OJ
~
Solubilization. Uesor tion
AtJsor t"iol1
Soil
Seuirllents .
Biota
w
~ ~
IU rtI
.fJ U
0. QJ
;:) Q
I .
Wa te r
Exhibit V-l Kepone Pathw~1 in the EnvirOnment
-------
Sorption
Sorption dynamics predic:1: that an equilibrium exists for Kepone
" ,
between sediment and water (Rd = (ppb water) / (ppb sediment». Field
observations (Appendix C, No. 11; Appendix A) reflect higher
concentrations of Repone in sediments as compared to Repone
concen1:rations in water (at or below detection limits).
Par'ti tion coefficient (Rd) averages for wateJ: and sediment from
the James River near Hopewell are about 1 to 5 x 10-. (Appendix C, No.
17) .
These sediments contained high "levels of organic carbon (13 to
20 percent).
In the field, Repone concentrations -are highest in the
larger-sized, high-organic particles (Appendix C, No. 17; Appendix A) .
Laboratory studies (Appendix A; Appendix C, No. 12) with reference
sediments and with James River sediment revealed Kd values ranging
from 10-3 to 10-..
sediments with higher organic content displayed
greater affinity for Repone (marsh sediment; o.c~" = 20 percent; Rd =
10-.).
These coefficients were unchanged for a given sediment in
batch sorptj.on tests when Repone concentrations were varied 100-fold
(Appendix C, No. 12).
-
Repone partitioning was not affected by
salinity, temperature, aeration, or sunlight (Appendix C, No. 12 and
I
No. 17; Appendix A).
Although high pH ranges affect Kepone sorption
between sediment and water, environmental pH ranges (6 to 8) do not
influence the partition coefficient (Appendix C, No. 17; Appendix A).
V-3
-------
Since the partition coefficient for Kepone is independent of
concentration, temperature, aeration, and sunlight for a given
sediment, a replacement of Kepone-contaminated water, with
uncontaminated water will predictably cause Kepone to desorb from the
sedimen t.
Batch sorption experiments confirmed that Kepone was
desorbed from James River sediment by water replacement.
continuous-
flow sediment/water systems lost Kepone at constant rates and their
partition coefficients were similar to the batch experiments (Appendix
C, No. 12).
These considerations are important for predicting Kepone movement
in the James River.
Dae to Kepone's preference for sediments with
high orqa%U.c content (Kd = 10-4), Kepone movement in the river is
dependent on sediment transport mechanisms.
However, a dynamic
~xchange between Kepone-contaminated sediment/water and uncontaminated
sediment/water influences Kepone transport predictions.
Kepone in the
water of the James River is below conventional detection levels, but
it is still available for uptake by aquatic org~sms.
Contaminated sediment provides a direct source of Kepone to some
organisms and acts as a continuing reservoir of Kepone for dissol~tion
into vater.
Accordingly, any major cleanup efforts will have to be
directed toward the sediments, where the bulk of the Kepone resides.
V-4
-------
Kepene Bioconcentration !n Species
AJ.tbough Repone is intimate~y bound to sediments of the James
River, it can desorb from those sediments, or organisms can extract it
from the sediments to become incorporated into living systems.
It can
be passed between organisms readily as one organism uses another as
food.
Repone is also available to animals from the water, but the
exact mechanisms of exchange is not ful~y understood.
Walsh, et ale . (Appendix C, No.4) bas shown that unicellular algae
can readily bioconcentrate Kepone at many times the concentration
which had existed in the surrounding water.
For the four marine algae
tested, Repone bioconcentration factors ranged from 230 to 800 times
the amount of Kepone found in the surrounding water.
Thus algae,
constituting an in'tegral part of the James River food web, have the
poten tial of cone entrating Kepone on a primary level and then maki ng
it available to other species at higher levels.
Oysters, which fi~ter the water for food, could consume
contamina ted algae and increase the amount of Repone in the
. .
shellfi sb' s body.
Haven and Morales-Alamc (Appendix C, No. 18) have
shown in lab experiments that oysters (crassostrea virqinica) can
bioconcentrate Kepone from the surrounding water from quantities as
low as 0.082 ug/l (ppb) to near (0.203 ug/g (ppm» the FDA Action
Level for shellfish of 0.3 ug/g (ppm).
They also showed different
V-5
-------
.!
J
.:11
. i
oil
routes of Kepone transport e.~en in the same species.
"
Kepone
concentration usual.ly ranged higher in the oyster feces (11,500 to
55,500 times), than in the "pseudofeces" (3,000 to 20,000 times).
Pseudofeces are particles rejected by the shellfish as unfit to eat
and which never enter the mouth.
Bahner, et ale (Appendix C, No.9)
bas shown in oysters a Kepone bioconcentration factor from water of
approximately 9,300 times the amount of Kepone in the. surrounding-
water.
. Animals can gain Kepone by uptake from the water, from ingested
sediments, and from eating contaminated organisms or their remains
(Appendix C, No.5, 18 and 1~).
The alosin fish group, such as
alewife, shad and herring, filter the water to extract small particles
of food.
Through this process, Kepone CX)uld enter the fish, but it is
not clear if dissolv.ed Kepone is leaving the water as it passes over
gill membranes, or if Kepone attached to suspended particulate
material is consumed with the food particles.
For lugworms (Arenicola cristata) and probably for other benthic
invertebrates, Kepone can accumulate through feeding contact with
contaminated water.
Kepone was acutely toxic to luqworms during a
144 hour experiment at a concentration of 29.5 ug/l (ppb) (Appendix C,
No. 13).
In addition, James River sediments with 0.25 ug/g Kepone
were toxic to lugworms and fiddler crabs fUca puqilator).
These
animals ingested the sediments and accumulated high burdens of Kepone.
V-6
-------
No lugworms survived more than 21 days of exposure to the sediments,
while fiddler crabs did not appear to be affected by exposure to.
Repone, but depuration was slow (Bahner, et al. in preparation) .
Bluefish, carnivores at the top of the food web in the James River
ecosystem, eat large quantities of other fish, such as alewives,
menhaden, etc.
~hen bluefish enter the James Riv~r in the spring; as
part of their annual northward migration, they generally have
nondetectable to low amounts of Repone.
After several weeks in tbe
river, they may approximate or exceed the FDA Action Level of
0.3 parts per million for fish (Bender, et ale 1977).
Blue ,crabs (Callinectes sapidus) from the James River averaged
0.19 ug/g Repone for females and 0.81 ug/g for males.
The males spend
a greater proportion of their Uves in the river sYStem than do
females and this habit probably accounts for the observed difference
in Repone body residues (Bender, et ale 1977a).
Repone .was administered to blue crabs (callinectes sapidus) in
seawater (0.03 or 0.3 ug/l) or food (oysters at 0.25 ug/g).
The crabs
were found to take up Repone in the 56 day experiment primarily
through contamina tad food (oysters).
When the crabs. were held for 28
days in Repone-free water and with Repone-free oysters, no loss of
Repone was evident.
In a second phase of the experiment conducted
over a 90-day period, blue crabs were fed oysters (0.15 ug/g Repone)
V-7
-------
from the James River and labora1:ory-contaminated oysters. (0.15 or
1.9 uq/g Kepone).
Blue crabs fed Repone-contaminated oysters followed
by a diet of Repone-free oyst.ers for 90 days had detectable
concentrations of Repone in their t.issues.
crabs, which ate oyst.ers
containing Repone in concentrations similar to those found in James
River oysters, died or molted less frequently than blue crabs fed
Repone-free oyst.er meats (Appendix C, No. 114).
REPONE DEGRADATION BY PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL MEANS
Repone is an extremely st.able member of the cyclodiene
insecticides and there is no evidence to date that Repone degrades
under natural conditions in the environment..
Consequently, total
Repone residuals in the environment. can be expected to remain
relatively constant., with their distribut.ion reflecting the natural
movement of soil, sediment or organisms.
The half-life of Repone in the environment h~.s not b,een
det.ermined, but. laboratory evidence suggests it. may be on the order of
decades.
Natural. photochemical degradation by sunlight was examined
by Batt.elle (Appendix A), and in al.l cases sediment Repone levels
remained unchanqed throuqhout. the exposure period.
Photochemical
deqrada tion will be discussed more fully in Chapter VIII.
v-8
-------
f.,~'
i
'if
;if
, i
( ,j
;;r Many destruction techniques were ex~ined in the nonconventional
.}
mitigation examinations, but in no cases were any of the processes
occurring naturally in the environment.
Laboratory data imply that
sediment covering and mixing, gradual solubilization, and dilution may
disperse the Kepone to harmless levels over time.
Kepone Biodeqradation ~ ~ Natural Environment
Practically all of the studies which have'examined the possibility
of Kepone degradation in the environment by microorganisms, have
concluded that there is little potential for biogradation of Kepone:.
Typically, these studies have examined contaminated James River
sediments in the laboratory under aerobic and anaerobic conditions
over extended periods of time.
studies by Garnas, et al., and Bourquin, et ale (Appendix C, No.
12 and 10) of the Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory
employed static water/sediment systems to assess both biological and
non-biological degradation of Kepone.
sediments with and without
Kepone contamination were taken from the. James River and used in these
systems.
The fate of Kepone was meni tared using radiolabelled
Carbon 114 material and total budget chemical analysis.
The
investigators employed a variety of experimental conditions including
oxygen concentration, nutrient additions, Kepone levels, sediment
sources, sunlight, temperature, and salinity.
Gulf Breeze studies
V-9
-------
indicate that Repone does not degrade (i.e.
complete recovery of
Kepone after extended incubation periods) either biologically or"
chemically in Gulf Breeze's laboratory systems.
The above data
suggest that degradation processes will not significantly reduce the
levels of Repone now found in the water and sediment of the. James
River.
Data submitted by AJ.lied Chemical showed essentially no decline in
soil concentration after 154 days (EPA, 1975a).
No evidence of
microbial dehalogenation of Repone could be found ,in the literature
(Appendix A) .
Work by Vind (1976) in both aerobic and anaerobic
seawater solutions over a 12-month period produced no measurable
Kepone reduction.
Dr. Rita COlwell, of the University of Maryland, has grown Kepone-
resistant bacteria in media made of Repone as the nutrient.
Kepone
resistance appears to be plasmid mediated and resistance is dependent
on exposure of the bacteria. to the Repone" and possession of an extra-
chromosomal Kepone resistance factor (Omdodf, at al., in press).
Dr. Ralph Valentine, of Atlantic Research Corporation, believes
they have a serie s of fungi which will degrade Kepon~.
One isolate
showed ~1 percent disappearance of Kepone in 22 to 31 days (Appendix
A) .
However, these experiments have been performed only in the
laboratory, and no scaling-up has been attempted.
These fungi
V-IO
-------
.f
.£
"-::r
if
/~ii'
probably cannot compete under naturalJconditions,
;?"
usefulness is restricted to controll$d conditions.
thus their
Effects 2£ Kepene ~ Estuarine Microorqanisms
Resul t.s at t.he Gulf Breez e Environment.al Research Labora'tory
(Appendix C) of t.ests wit.h laboratory cultures and natural
environmental assemblages show that Repone is toxic t.o some bacteria.
Kepone concentrations as low as 0.2 mg/l (PPm) significantly reduced
the number of cOlony-forming units for James River water samples.
However, since Kepone was not universally toxic, some laboratory
cultures and environmental isolates survived and exhibited resistance.
In toxicity studi es using anaerobically grown microorganisms, Kepone
was not as toxic as it was for aerobically grown microorganisms
(Appendix C, No.' 10) .
Kepone has also been shown to affect the biodegradation potential
of natural microorganisms uom the James Ri ver (~ppendix C) .
systems containing James River sediments, the usual rate of
In
degradation of the pesticide, methyl parathion, was reduced by
60 percent in the presence of Repone.
-
These studies show that Kepone
could be disruptive to metabolic destruction of other organic
pollutants and could alt.er metabolic processes in the James River
estuary.
V-11
-------
Kepone Bioloqical Transport
Since Kepone is concentrated in animal tissues, it is subject to
movement as the organism Moves.
Migratory fishes move into the James
River to spawn and return to the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic
Ocean.
The yoang of these species remain in the James River until
they are sufficiently grown to leave the area.
Resident species stay
in the river, but may Move extensively within certain sections of the
river during their lifetime.
Finfish Kepone levels from the James
River have varied greatly, with residue levels being dependent on
species and length of residence for migratory fishes.
Average Kepone
residues in freshwater fish varied from 0.04 to 2.4 ug/g (ppm).
Long-
term resident estuarine finfish had mean concentrations between 0.6
and 2.7 ug/g (ppm).
Short-term resident marine finfish (American shad
and menhaden) showed low Kepone residues averaging less than 0.1 ug/g
(ppm), while spot and croaker, which r.eside in the river for longer
periods, had higher residues averaging 0.81 to 0.75 ug/g (ppm),
respectively (Bender, et al.. 1977).
The best available data of the many biological transport
components is the commercial fish catch, but the applica.fj:on and
interpretation of these data are complex.
In the computation of the
fish biomass which could contain Kepone, the following assumptions
apply:
V-12
-------
1.
The limited field samples are representative of the entire
ca tch;
2.
The laboratory data are applicable to the field situation;
3.
The migratory species are resident within the James Ri. ver for
sufficiently long to accumulate Repone to equilibrium levels.
Using the biomass estimates of the Virginia Institute of Marine
science. (Bender, 1977a), Battelle Laboratories estimated the maximum
Repone in the migratory coounercial fish species of the James Ri. ver to
be approximately 125 kg (275 lb).
In early phases of the Repone
problem, fish samples along the Atlantic coast were tested for Kepone.
Levels qenerally were well below the present Action Levels or non-
detectable (FDA, 1977).
Compared to the potential of 20,000 to
~o,ooo pounds of Kepone in the James River, the annual removal of
Kepone from the James River by migratory fishes will involve small
amounts with a large dispersal of t.hese fishes along the Atlantic
coast with subsequent -dilution- of the Repone.
V-13
-------
DISTRIBUTION OF KEPONE
The Battelle Laboratories have conducted an intensive sampling
program for Kepone in the Hopewell/Bailey Bay area (Exhibit V-2).
The
objective was to determine the location and quantity of Repone
deposits which might exist in the'reqion.
More than 900 samples were
collected during this survey-.
Bailev Bav and ~ Tributary Streams
The main component of the Bailey Bay sampling program was the
collection of core samples of bottom sediment.
Cores were obtained
from all parts of the bay and analyzed for Repone content.
These
results were used to establish the present distribution of Kepone
throughout Bailey Bay, including its vertical profile.
Cores were
also collected from Bailey creek, poythress Run, Gravelly Run, Cattail
Creek, and the western side of Tar Bay.
The results of Repone analysis of sediment samples collected by
Battelle from Bailey Bay and its major tributaries are presented in
Exhibit" v-3.
. . . -
Data represent average Repone ~oncentration in
homogenized cores to a depth of 30 em (12 in).
Repone was found
throughout most of the bay deposited in a "Y" or yoke-shaped pattern.
The tail of the yoke begins in Bailey creek.
The arms extend up the
eastern and western shorelines of the Bailey Bay.
The mid-bay area
V-14
-------
City Point
Hopewell
Landfill &
Treatmen1;
Plan1;
North
r
Bailey. Bay
~~~
es.s.
'(..~"
~oi
,-
,/
"
I J
I
Life Science
Site
Allied I!'; Semi-Works
Q Plane
Highway 156
PAN Plant 0
Trenct/
Engineers
Site
. ee'i-
Co""
f
o
,
1/2
,
1 r:1ile
Exhibi1; V-2
Location of Key Features in Hopewell, Virginia
V-15
-------
(IIr ~ulilt
<.02
.05
.15
.06
.06
.26
",
~/IJlIII .26 <.05
~ (;6.14 1.76 .37
~ (If I! '"",- . .40
~
0\
<.02
.95
.95
.03
.57
\
.20 \
J "
J JI 1111
.10
.05
o~ lIot, II., 11
.44 . .
2.49 .
I!~~
~('II.II
~("~d
.;0.005
*167 119/9 Kepone found at 4 in. below surface level
F.xh1 bit V - 3
Results of Kepone Analysis in Sediment Cores (~g/8-ppm)
-------
has a markedly lower overall level of contamin~~ion.
The deposition
pattern coincides with the pa1:.h of Bailey Creek water which is tidally
influenced.
Extrapolating from these data, there is estimated to be
540 kg (1,188 lb) of Kepone in Bailey Bay (Appendix A).
Kepone concentrations in sediment cores fro~ tributaries of Bailey
Bay are illustrated in Exhib1t V-3.
The core display~nq the highest
Kepone level was from the upper poythress Run lowland which receives
- runoff from. Nitrogen Park.
No outlets exist at this lowland and hence
the 66.14 ug/g (PPm) Kepone concentration'reflects accumulation over
time from contaminated runoff as well as possible atmospheric
deposition from the Kepone production period.
Other high readings,
30.5 ug/g (ppm), (167 ug/g at 4n below surface) and 12.6 ug/g (ppm)
(43.5 l1g/g at 6n beJ.ow surface) were at the mou'th of Bailey Creek.
In
Bailey creek, Kepone levels increased from the Highway 156 crossing to
a point just upstream of the confluence of cattail creek.
Especially
high Kepone concentrations were found in the area where landfill
runoff and seeps near the ~isposal lagoon,enter ~ailey Creek.
The
same increase in Kepone witn movement downs'tream is true of Cattail
Creek itself.
V-17
-------
Vertical Dis ~ribu tion !!l sediment Cores
Kepone analyses were undertaken for vertical sections of repre-
sentative cores.
The results are shown in Exhibit V-4.
The cores
from the mouth of Bailey Creek, the western shore, and Jordan Point
display a be.l-like distribution, with the maximum concentration of
Kepone occurring at four to eight inches below the surface.
There a~e
several possibili ties for . this type of distribution.
It is possible
that the Kepone deposition at depth corresponds to the maximum
production and subsequent decline of Kepone production by Life Science
Products, but this would .have meant an extremely high sediment
deposition rate.
Another hypothesis is that Kepone could have bee~
lost from su~face layers through desorption.
Flowing water over the
bottom could have extracted the Kepone and carried it downstream.
~either sUPFvsition has been adequately proven, but the latter
corresponds well with subsequent mode~ results which showed 65 to
70 percent of Kepone movement in the James River to be the result of
solubilized Kepone.
The co:res. from the middle o~ Bailey Bay and Tar
Bay have high surface contamination levels which rapidly decline with
depth, but th'9se are also areas outside of the main f low of the
.
channel.
V-18
-------
Exhibit v-4
KEPONE DISTRIBUTION IN SEDIMENT CORES WITH DEPTH (ppm)
Hidway
Depth fL"olil Dalley CL"cek Above Batley CL"eek Bailey Creek Gravelly Run Poythrellti and Bailey Day Tar Bar
SUL"fal:C (:!.!l:l Route 10 Bddge Houth Houth Houth Gravel ly Kuns ~fL Jordan Pt.
0.81 1. 36 9.44 <0.34 0.11 0.19 0.95 1.09
2 0.59 1.66 10.55 <0.10 0.13 0.03 0.86 1. 27
3 1.]0 2.54 46.53 <0.05 <0.08 0.03 0.87 0.42
~ 4 0.78 3.88 167.0 <0.09 0.15 0.01 0.87 0.0]
~ 5 16.46 14.07 102.0 <0.09 0.92 0.01 1.25 0.02
\0
6 2.91 40.74 18.]4 <0.10 0.80 0.0] ].6J <0.01
7 65.14 42.29 5.12 <0.06 0.30 <0.01 17.80 <0.01
8 19.17 13.87 0.55 <0.06' <0.04 <0.01 0.17 .:0.02
9 0.90 4.]4 0.41 <0.03 <0.01 0.16 <0.01
10 0.45 0.86 O. J7 <0.03 <0.01 0.14 <0.02
11 <0.51 0.31
12 <0.42 0.36
1] <0.19 0.38
14 <0.10 0.14
15 <0.14
16 <0.04
-------
Organic Preference
f
',,1
;;#
/':7
. ,
"' /!
'!
;-:I
Sediments sampled by Battelle from three locations around Bailey
Bay were analyzed for Kepone concentration and there appears to be a
correlation between Kepone concentration, organic co,ntent, and
particle size.
Kepone is preferentially associated with the larger
organic particles in the sediment and this observation c.oincides with
those made by Allied Chemical (~lliams, 1977) and by the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science (Huggett, et ale 1977).
This correlation
suggests that detrital matter has an imp:)rtant role in the binding and
transport of Kepone.
. Kepone Distribution !!! ~ Hopewell ~
?roduction Area Runoff
Runoff sampling was conducted by Battelle at the Life Science
Products plant site on May .~, 1977, when 5.8 em .(2.3 in) of
precipitation fell on the City of Hopewell.
Runoff samples collected
at the Life science Products site had elevated Kepone concentrations
.
of 387 and 39~ ug/l (ppb).
Runoff samples were also collected in the area of the Allied
Chemical Semi-Works plant.
On August 7, 1977 after a rainfall of .
0.25 em (0.1 in) standing water on the site was found to contain
V-20
-------
54.1 ug/l (ppb) Kepone.
Water discharging from a nearby drainpipe
into Gravelly Run contained 3.38 ug/l (ppb) Repone.
A second detailed
sampling of overland runoff was conducted in November in the open
areas in the neighborhood of the former plant site.
Sample locations
and Repone levels are shown in Exhibit V-5.
Runoff samples showed a
sample from the Life Science Products site to contain 687 ug/l (ppb),
while other sampl es further away' ranged from 1.. 08 to ,96. ,6 ug/l (ppb),.
Overland Runoff
To estimate the effect of runoff on Kepone movement, a series of
vater samples vas taken by Battelle along creeks in the area during
low flow (May 19, 1977) and runoff conditions (May 16. September 1.
October 3. 1977).
The results of subsequent Repone analyses are
?resented in Exhibit V-6.
In all cases, high runoff conditions in the
creeks increased the total Repone concentration over those observed
during low flow with the possible exception of the mouth of Gravelly
Run, where both samples ver.~ extremely lo~.
A second set of Bailey Creek water samples was collected on
.. . . ~.. .
January 12 and 13. 1978 to delineate Repone transport in -that area.
The results of this analysis were compared with earlier data and
conditions in the creek.
Highest Repone concentrations occurred on
days when runoff was heavy.
At the mouth, the effect is most notable
during slack tide.
The January 12. 1918 flood tide sample at the
V-21
-------
( 1. G6 )
R13
(4.32)
R14
(1 . 08 )
R15
'" --.
".=:::; ..
R7
(25.20) (11.83)
R6 R5
(9.32)
R3
(- 3-'
I. .:. i
R4
Rll R12 R17 R16 R9 R8 R2 RIO Rl
.:C~~2~.7S:(:.39i /-. ,. .., ,. , "'''' .. . --, . , --' "0 .
\~O.:I \, ". _....: 1-. I - .. -, - . - " "
~
EXH I 8 I ~ IJ - 5
Runoff Sampl i~; Locsticns 2nc ~e9cne :cncer.:~=7:CnS i~
Open ~re2s ,~r~ur.d ~~e Life Sciences 3:79 (I !/29/7~)
(ug/ I - pob)
"'l-22
-------
~
i
11
,/1 ;
,'I
;1
iil
l
./
,
I
(4.32) (1.08) (.667'.)
. .
R14 R15 R7
(7.33)
R4
(25.20) (11.83)
R6 R5
(9.82)
R3
.. (1. 66)
R13
.r
RII R12 RI7
(1.50)(20.78) (3.39)
RI6 R9 R8 R2
. (96.6) (18.86)( 14.77) (14.08)
RIO
(2.68)
RI
(6.73)
EXHIBIT v-5 Runoff Sampling Locations and Ke~cne Concentrations in
Open Areas Around the Life Sciences Site (11/29/77)
(ug/I - ppb)
V-22
-------
J.....,. hhP4
(It, ,..1.'
a:
I\)
\JI
"!'.' I.,
Q~
Exhibit v-6
Effect of Runoff on Movement of Kepone in lI,opewell Area Concentrations in pg/R. (ppb)
-------
1
jif
i'fiJ
,J l
I :j'
mouth suggested t.hat wat.er from Bailet Bay did not affect Kepone
.f!
7.'
concentntions. The effect of varying ~ levels cannot be fully.
assessed.. The high pH values were all found near the mouth and
consequen't.ly, the high Kepone levels in that same area may reflect
higher solubilities under t.hese conditions.
An approximation of the t.otal quantity of Kepone transported from
streams during low flow and runoff conditions was made using these
data and data for streamflow at the point of sampling.
These data
indicate that during high flow periods, t.here is approximately 20
times the Kepone ,discharged per day as there is during dry weather
flow.
An observation which must temper this conclusion is that there
are many seeps and nonpoint sources which could add t.o the total
!Cepone burden in Bailey Bay.
It is also important that these
tributaries are tidally influenced so some Kepone may be cycled back
to Bailey Creek with incoming tides.
In general, !Cepone concentrations in runoff are highest near the
Life SCience Products plant site and decline as one moves outward.
From these values and the stream data, an estimated 64 grams (0.14 lb)
per day of !Cepone is t.ranspor1:ed to the James River system from t.he
Hopewell area during average periods of rainfall.
the total is 3 to 4 g/day (Appendix A).
During dry times,
V-24
-------
Groundwater
In May 1977, groundwater samples were collected from three private
wells and eight state ~ater Control Board (SWCB) monitoring wells.
All wells tested were shallow and penetrated only localized
groundwater sources.
Detectable levels of Repone were restricted to
three wells: the monitoring well near the Repone Pit at .the Hopewell
sanitary landfill (0.24 ug/l-ppb), 'the south monitoring well at the
Repone/sludge lagoon (0.81 uq/l-ppb), and the J.W. Quick private well
(0.08 ug/l-ppb).
Soils
The runoff data of Battelle revealed that portions of the Hopewell
:lrea still con1:ributed Kepone to 'the James River via uptake from soil
surfaces.
Data from a sampling of surface soils from around the
Hopewell area are presented in Exhibit V-7. Detectable levels of
Repone were foand at all stations including one ~tion on Eppes
Island across the James River and one across the Appomattox River.
-
Repone concentrations in soil were generally found to increase at
stations located nearest the site of the Life scienc~ Products plant
as might be expected.
Samples taken in the vicinity around the plant
had from 1.91 to 938 ug/g (ppm) Repone.
A single sample from the
northwest corner of the plant site was found to contain 1,540 ug/g
V-25
-------
. l14y 1911
. 'j/21/11
II 10/3111
o 911111
~
I\)
0\
"."'6
<1/.
.,.
" 0.48
flOt;; 8a;,
.0.11
180~a.... .
0.11
"
--" --------------
Results of Soil Analysis in Hopewell Area (~g/g-ppm)
Exhibit V-7
I j~ ~
-------
(ppm) .
This area bad been used for s~orage and did not appear to have
been cleaned with the res~ of the site.
Soil samples away from the
Life SCience Products site on the perimeter of the city averaged
0.1 ug/g (ppm) (Exhibit V-8).
Surface soil levels in Nitrogen Park were 9.19, 29.2, 30.2, 10Q
and 770 ug/g (ppm).
A vertical analysis at one sample site in
Nitrogen Park revealed the following Repone concen~ation changes with
depth:
Depth
(in .)
Repone Concentration
Uq/q (ppm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
29.2
0.76
0.35
0.31
0.097
0.060
0.038
0.091
0.23
0.80
The vertical disuibution of Repone in the soil of Nitrogen Park
suggests that Repone bas migra~ed from the upper layers and has become
concentrated at the eight to ten inch level.
No explanation has been
found for the Repone concentration at this level.
Several ~er sites were sampled at depth to ascertain if
percolation of Kepone was widespread. These samples were similar to
V-27
-------
(2.96) (4.53) (1. 91) (56.6)
526 538 539 $25
(1540)
(44.7) (33.5) (7.45) (61.0) (6.30)
537 532 533 536 531
523 524 528 530. 522 529 521 534 520 535
(8.87) (10.78) (8.67) (0.93) (10.33) (4.78) (122.0) (938.0) (30.9) (71.6)
Exhibit v-8
. - ---...-- -.--- .- -_. -_.~.'---
Soil Sampling Locations and Kepone Concentrations in Open
Areas Around the Life Science Site (2/4/78) (Ug/g-ppm)
V-28
-------
those from Nitrogen Park in that Repone concentrations dropped an
order of magnitude from the first to the second inch of surface soil.
Previous data reported by the ViIginia State Water Control Board
of cores collected while drilling a monitoring well in Nitrogen Park
had indicated Repone as low as 6.1 meters (20 ft) below the surface.
Consequently, hand-augered c~res were collected by Ba~te~le at tWQ
si te s to detenU.n e the distributi on with depth.
Repone was detectable
to a depth of 3.05 m (10 ft).
At. both locations, concentrations were
found to increase measurably at the 1.8 to 2.5 meters (6 to 8 ft)
zone, reaching a Repone concentration as high as 0.062 ug/g (ppm).
This unequal distribution in the soil column may represent differences
in sorption by various soil strata, or it may coincide with vertical
movement of Repone from the surface.
Hopewell Sewer System
Influent Repone levels ~t ~e Hopewell treatment plant were
measured by Bat.telle at 0.77 and 0.44 ug/l (ppb), while the effluent
contained 0.57 and 0.49 ug/l (ppb) Repone.
It is clear that Repone
. . . ..
was either never completely cleaned from the system or is still
entering the HOpewell sewer system and subsequently being discharged
in treatment plant effluent.
surveys of major sewer trunklines were
conducted to determine the geographical distribution of Repone inflow
sources.
Results of these wastewater and slime samples from all pump
V-29
-------
stations and manholes tested were found to have measur~ble Kepone
concentrations ranging from 0.085 to 4.88 ug/l (ppb).
Slimes r~ged
between 0.12 and 118 ug/g (ppm).
The 118 ug/g figure was detected at
the main pump station.
It is hypothesized that the Kepone present was adsorbed or
otherwise accumulated by the .slime from KePOne inflow~ d~ring the.Life
Science Products production of 1974-1975.
currently, these deposits
help maintain the levels of Kepone found in wastewater.
This may
occur when Kepone-contaminated growth breaks away from the walls and
enters the sewage as suspended solids or it may occur through
desorption of the Kepone from the slime.
Recent levels of 0.5 ug/l
(ppb) account for an average Kepone effluent discharge of 5.69 grams
per day.
Higher Kepone concentrations occur periodically as .a
function of increased precipitation.
During periods of high runoff,
daily KePOne discharges were found to be 37.6 grams.
This is over six
times the dry weather contribution.
The effluent from the Hopewell
primary treatment plant now .fl~ to the new Regional treatment plant
where Kepone may well be removed through sorption on sludge.
Consequently, the above calculated inputs of KePOne to the James River
may be reduced or eliminated.
V-30
-------
Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate Plant ~
Little has been reported about the disposal of Kepone and related
, wastes in the vicinity of Hopewell.
In the latter part of 1974,
pressure was exerted on Life Science Products to reduce the amount of
Kepone discharged from its facilities into the city sewer system.
The
state Water Control Board
-------
quarter mile, then 'turns east and joins Bailey Creek below the Biqhway
10 bridge.
There are no good estimates currently for ei 1:her the amount of
Life SCience Products wastewater discharged into the trench or the
water's concentration of Kepone.
It is known that the trench received
wastewater on a regular basi~, perhaps daily, from December 197~ into
the summer of 1975.
A sinqle homogenized core from 1976 state Water
Control Board (unpublished data) showed nearly 3 percent Kepone
(27,325 ug/g-ppm) .
Battelle sampled the PAN site on October 3, 1977 and
November 22, 1977.
These data showed Repone-contaminated soil in the
area of the trench, with highest levels found at q feet (1,863 ug/g-
ppm) .
Apparent horizontal movement in the surf ace soil occurred in
the natural drainage direction with surface samples downstream
reaching 8q.3 ug/g (ppm) Repone.
samples taken on the west face of
the quarry pit revealed very low Repone levels with no real variation
wi th depth. .
After rev1ew of data, auger samples were supplemented with deep
core drillinq of 15 meters (50. ft) and hand core sampling.
Some of
these sample locations and subsequent results are presented in Exhibit
'1-9.
A variability of nearly three orders of magnitude was found at
the sites.
Values of Repone concentration for the cores ranged from
V-32
-------
PAN 4
0.53-Surface
PAN 3
84.3 SurfaC2
PAN 2
,0. 22-Surface
PAN 9.
0.35-Surface
.-~..~......~.-..
.. ,.-.' .
- ~::-4~1-~~ ~~:~~~~:;~
... '...~. ~ .
13
0.32-51
T4
T3
483-f1y
ash com-
, po s ; te -
1-41
(6.08-5' )
Exhibit V-9
n
1863-4 I
(17.9-51 )
12
0.143-4.5'
PAN 1
1.06
0.48-5'
Auger Sampling Locacions and Results November 23. 1977
(~g/g-ppm) (Depth in feet of sample follows results.)
--.-- -. ... -----
. .-.- .-. _.- -. .-. .
V-33
'!':).. ~~ ~
PAN 5
0.36-Surfacs
PAN 7
0.2S-Surface
PAN 8
69.2-Surfacs
PAN 6
2. 46-Surface
.~
..
-"
-------
0.001 to 6.13 ug/g (ppm) with two-thirds of the reaJings below
0.050 ug/g (ppm).
only three concen~rations exceeded 1.0 ug/g (ppm).
strata fran some of the cores were also analyzed for
hexachlorocyclopentadiene (BCP).
Bexachlorocyclopentadiene residuals
were approximately comparable to those for Kepone, except for one core
where as much as 192 ug/g (ppm) BCP were found a~ 5.8 to. 6.1 m (19 to
20 ft).
Water samples were collected by Bat~el.le from several locations at
the PAN site during a rainstorm.
Results of the sampling showed the
highest level of Kepone (89.35 ug/l) originated from the disposal
trench area and flowed into the small reservoir benind an earthen dam.
All other runoff also contained Kepone levels from 0.13 to 7.04 uq/q
(ppm) .
From the data collected at the PAN site, Battelle estimated the
quantity of Kepone in the d;isposal trench. (37 m2~400 ft2) would not
exceed 100 kg (220 lb), while BCP was e~imated at 23 kg (50 lb).
Both Kepone and BCP in one core showed marked concentration increases
- ".,
between 6.1 meters (20 ft) and 10.7 meters (35 ft), suggesting
horizontal movement within that layer.
V-34
-------
Cores were also taken in the marsh and bed of Moody's Creek, which
receives runoff from the PAN site.
Results did not indicate the.
presence of any major zone of Kepone in the Moody's Creek drainage.
~ Kepone/Sludqe Laqoon
AS noted earlier, a 5,700. m3 (1.5 mi~lion gal) lago~ was
constructed to hold contaminated sludge from the Hopewell treatment
plant digesters.
The lagoon is a 33.5 meters (110 ft) by 58 meters
(190 ft) rectangular holding pond formed by earthen dikes.
It has a
maximum depth of 2.13 meters (7 ft) and is reportedly lined with a
layer of clay and two layers of gravel impregnated with asphaltic
material (Koener, et ale 1976).
The potential that this lagoon could
contribute Kepone-contaminated leachate to Bailey creek led to a
series of investigations by Battelle throughout the spring of 1977.
Initially, attention was paid to the monitoring of seeps discovered in
the area (Exhibits V-10, 11).
Additional water samples were taken on August 15, 1977 from the
lagoon, the marsh seep E, seep C, monitoring wel~ No.5 in the
... -. ... ., ...
landfill just upgradient from the lagoon and the monitor£ng well (No.
8) at the south end of the lagoon.
~hese were then subjected to a
series of chemical analyses to determine if further evidence could
link water in the lagoon to that discharged by the seeps.
V-35
-------
~
SWCB
We 11{8
.
Puddle A
Kepone Sludge
Lagoon
.
SWCB
We 11 #6
1/
I
Seep F I I
I
A - Mud Puddle in road - apparent seepage into this puddle.
S - Seep into creek out of hill side, <0.1 cfs.
C - Small seep, wet ground, no noticeable above ground flow.
D - Seep into creek from hillside, 0.1-0.2 cfs.
E - Seep or flow from marsh, upstream from sewage outflow but
could be influenced by it.
Location of Sample Sites Around Kepone Sludge
Lagoon
Exhibit V-10
V-36
-------
Exhibit V-ll
I...cul tun
A-I'uddl" 111 ROlld
~
UJ
--I
B-~c"p N"dC Crc"k ~O.I c,.
C-tl..h. raid, at B8se 0' III II
0-5c"I' 101 l\a8". 0.1-0.2 c,.
1::-5""1' III lIaf"h Area, .) '/aee
.'-5""1' 11","'811, B....k.
tas...,..
-------.
I - 5""1' I ",I 9- IS
.. - 5"...01 ".1 9-16
. - S.....,I"d 'J-28
KEPONE LEVELS IN TUE VICINI1'Y OF THE SLUDGE LAGOON
H:;y28(11~~'; C:l ~~:/l-Ppb)
5.28
Celltrale SoU Sept. 6 S"ph...h"r H..II. II
.July 8 (\lK/l-n.!!l ~!l.JL1I'B/I-Ppll) 1l!a1.!:J!J!ll (1',/(-I'I.b-- .!I!JSL!.:~'
.11. .09 - Olk.
hillh, 10\1
0.84 0.40 0.41 .01
0.20 .01
0.22 <.12 <.11
11.~0 18.)8 18.41 13. ~t .
1.88 9.H JI>I
.
11. ) 16. '19
91. ~o 211 1
1,1. ~
-------
Results of Repone analysis showed all seeps had detectable levels
of Kepone; B and E exceeded levels measured in the monitoring well on
the south corner of the lagoon.
They are also much higher than the
0.05 ug/l (ppb) detected in the same seeps by state offi~ials in 1976
(SWCB, 1976a).
centrifuging did not reduce the Repone levels and,
hence, they appear to result from the dissolved form rather than
particula te Kepone or Repone .sorbed onto particles.
Pesorption tests
with contaminated soil in the area of the seep produced no more than
0.72 ug/l (ppb) after 90 days contact.
samples taken in september revealed much higher levels of
contamina tion, including 77.3 ug/l (ppb) Kepone in a new seep (F)
discovered at the base of the embankment below the lagoon and a value
of 361 ug/l (ppb) Repone from the source of seep E.
From the parameters measured, Battelle concluded that a link
exists between the two water sources: the lagoon and seep E.
In
addition to the previously ~iscussed correlation. in Repone values,
there are significantly higher concentrations of phosphate, chloride,
fluoride, conductivity, antimony, hardness, pH, and alkalinity in
." . .
these two samples than in any of the other (Exhibit V-12)~'
Indeed, of
the parameters tested, only sulfate and nitrate did not correspond.
All paramters would not be expected to reflect the same dilution
ratios since varying levels of interaction with the soil would be
expected.
Hence, phosphate, which often precipitates out in soil, may
V-38
-------
Exhibit V-12
COMPARATIVE VALUES FOR COMPONENTS FOUND IN TUE KEPONE SLUDGE
LAGOON. SEEPS. AND NEARBY WATER
~
VI
\()
1'1* 1'1"" 'I'I~ I'~ !'I'b .. ..Iero .1008/'. I'pb 1''''' "I''" 1'1'.
------ ~H.L___- ...!!!L- I'U4 Toul fL -L- !g!!!!!L Coodoe t tv It r ~~~ !!Q1.-.!! lli!~~ f!L A.!!!!!.!.!~!!1
J. I.agou.. ).15 22.5 42 1.)5 H) 1,220 51 5.) 1)6 1.9 )60
1. "."'610 Sm,,, No. t: U6 ).5 16.5 .68 t8.H 1,0811 11 'I 118 1.1 114
'I. tla 10 Secl' Nn. C 110 .16 5.11 .n <. t1 600 ~16 6.4 84 11.1> 40
4. 1.;011"1111 lIell q .51 2.11 .11 2511 <16 &.8 58 1.2 118
,
~. IJ,m.l Wt.:ll q .n ).5 .11 2411 '16 ' 1 52 1.1 84
.. .._~---- .._" --------
1I.ll.. I..uua hilUl111~. o' .101)' II.
-------
appear to be more effectively diluted than chloride which is quite
mobile.
From the above analysis, there is good probability that Kepone is
.leaking from the Kepone/sludge lagoon.
Kepone concentrations in seeps
are markedly higher than reported in 1976, and those for E exceed all
levels in the creek, sewage treatment plant outfall, and other
potential sources of Kepone.
However, it should be noted that
clandestine dumping in the area could have occurred, thus feeding
leachate without input from the lagoon.
Hopewell Landfill
Records and statements by former Lif.e science Products employees
have revealed that Kepone-contaminated residues were discharged at the
Hopewell landfill.
While some disposal locations are well known,
little bas been reported on their contents, and no single authority
has accumulated a 'composite-picture of where all. the sites were within
the landfill, when they were in use, and what they received.
Locational information has been gathered and summarized in Exhibit v-
13.
The Life Science Products plant burial pit is the site where
2,100 m3 (2,300 yd3) of rubble from dismantling the facility were
buried and marked with a permanent plaque.
The miscellaneous waste
V-40
-------
,
LAND Fl LL
BOUNDARY
LI FE S C I EN CE ~
PLANT BURIAL PIT
Mt SCELLANEOUS WASTE
D IS POSAL FROM LI FE
SCIENCE .- (1974)
LI FE SCIENCE.
BULK DI SCHARGE AREA
UNCONFI NED
CONT AM I NA TED
SEWAGE SLUDGE
DISPOSAL
LI NED
CONTAMINATED
SEWAGE SLUDGE PIT
EXHIBIT v-13
Known and Suspected Deposits of Kepone in the Hopewel I Landfi I I
V-41
-------
disposal site was utilized during 1974 for plant wastes from Life
science Products.
This included refuse and it is unknown what amounts
of Kepone, if any, were deposited there.
The Bulk Discharge Area is a
general zone thought to have received a bulk discharge of Kepone.
Testimony on file at the state Attorney General's office indicates
that in late OCtober 1974, oil entered the quencb tan~ a~ Life sc~en~e
Products.
Two spe'tic tank cleaning trucks were brought in to pump out
several loads apiece.
These were discharged at the head of an
embankment at the landfill and were allowed to run down into an
adjacent marsb.
On November 30, 1977 a series of water samples and
cores were collected by Battelle to identify significant Kepone
outflows from the landfill.
Runoff samples revealed elevated Kepone
concentrations below the bulk discharge disposal site.
Samples from
other suspected or known disposal sites have measurable Kepone levels,
but these are comparable to values detected throughout the Hopewell
area and, therefore, do not display surfac~ contamination different
from that. of nondisposal ar~as.
Of the remaining sites, only two had
runoff with Kepone in excess of 1 ug/l (ppb): one below the
miscellaneous waste disposal area, and one from the lined sewage
sludge dispos~ pit.
.
No runoff sample was taken in the ar"ea around
the unconfined sewage sludge disposal site.
Results of Kepone analysis for 30 centimeter (12 in) cores from
the landfill site are presented in Exhibit V-14.
The bulk of the
V-42
-------
(0.10)
W5
(78.62)
W4
(1.16)
W8
- C3 C2 C4 Cl
(5.41) I (£t.3~)...~o.33)
. (l 0, 160) .
. C5
(2.63)
C in ug/g (top 4 inches)
Sin ug/g
W in ug/I
EXH I BIT V - lij.
Landfi I I Sampl ing Locations and ~esults of Kepone Analyses
November 30, 1977
V-43
-------
contamination occurs in the top 10 centimeters (~. in) of soil.
One
sample, the C2 site, exceeded 1 percent Kepone (10,160 ag/g-ppm).
This site corresponds with the high runoff valaes identified and
reflects an area of major discharge.
Additional sampling was
perfoJ:Il\ed to determine the extent of contamination in the marsh area.
Concentrations of Kepone .found in the surface sediments of the
marsh samples are presented in Exhibit v- 15.
These ranged from a low
of 2.2 ag/q (ppm) to a high of 35,163 ug/g (ppm).
A pentagonal
, section approximately 1,000 mZ (0.25 acre) in area contains sediments
averaging 12,200 ug/g (ppm) or 1.2 percent Kepone in the top ~ inches.
variations in Kepone concentrations with depth occurs.
Kepone
concentrations below an average of a ~-in. depth are roughly an order
of magnitude less and quickJ.y drop to levels in the tens of parts per
million range.
Based on 1,000 mZ (0.25 acre) of sediments
(1,122 kg/m3, 70 lb/ft3 dry) contaminated to an average level of
12,200 ug/g (ppm) in the top 10 cm (~ in.), it is estimated that
1,~00 kg (3,100 lb) of Kep~ne currently l~e in the marsh.
This is
78 percent of the estimated 1,800 kg (4,000 lb) that were released
into the Bulk Discharge Area.
V-44
-------
--!
-
<:
I
.$::-
\J1
BAILEY CREEK
" SECONDARY
CHANNEL
BOUNDARY
MARSH
u
.
30.4
o
100 fEET
(APPROXIMATE»
Exhibit V-15
,
Kepone Levels in Surface Sediment of Marsh and Approximate Boundary of lIeavy Contamination
-------
James River
Field Sampling Program
sorption-desorption kinetics and the affinity of Repone for
organic particles suggested that sediments played a key role in the
movement of Repone in the James River.
Sediment transpo~ was modeled
to quantify Repone movement. and to determine the fate of Repone
residuals.
To achieve this, Batt.elle conducted a field sampling
proqram on June 25-28, 1977, which was complemented by a survey by
VIMS in August 1977.
The purpose of the sampling program was to
obtain data on the James River for input to and calibration of
Battelle's sediment and contaminant transport model (FETRA), as well
as to provide data for the further assessment of Kepone contamination
in the James River.
one of the major objectives of the program was to
observe the. long! tudinal, lateral, and vertical variations in the
measured paramete.rs and to make a qualitative judgment
on the
importance of the magnitude. .of. these vari~tions ~uring the sampling
program.
Thus, the field sampling program was confined to a
relatively short period of time and the number of transects and
. .
stations was limi ted.
The sampling program consisted of data acquisition at eleven
transects from the James River Bridge near Newport News to city Point
at Hopewell.
Three stations were located on each transect and one to
V-46
-------
three depths were sampled per station for each of three tidal
conditions (flood, slack and ebb).
The locations of these stations
are listed below and shown in Exhibit v-, 6.
James River Bridge (June sample)
Rocklanding Shoal (June sample)
Fort Eustis (August sample)
Hog Island (June sample)
West of Swann Point (June and August samp~es)
Brandon (August sample)
Windmill Point (June sample)
Herring Creek (August sample)
Jordan Point (June sample)
Bai.ley Bay (June sampJ.e)
Ci. ty Point (June sample)
The first six stations were located in the saline portion of the
river, while the remainder were located in the fresh-water portion.
Stations were located close together at Bailey Bay to give a concise
view of Kepone near the source area at Hopewell.
Sampling occurred
during a 20-year low flow period of the James River.
The sampling conducted in the field was directed to:
meteorological and hydroloq.ical informatiQn: ch~el and flow
characteristics; physical and chemical characteristics of. suspended
load and bed sediments; and water quality characteristics.
Repone
analyses were conducted on water, suspended load and bottom sediment
samples.
Meteorological and hydroloqical data included wind velocity,
direction, and wave height, including wave period and direction at
V-47
-------
C IIY PI.
Herring
Creek.
WINDMill PI.
CUiCKAHOMINY RIVER
~
~
WILLIAMSBURG
~
~
-N-
~
JAMES RIVER
KILOMETERS
~
o 5 10 15
Exhibit v-16
Tidal James River
-------
each station.
Wave height, direction, and period at each station were
estimated from visual observations.
Channel and flow characteristics
included a bathymetric profile of each transect, tidal stage
measurements, continuous current velocity/direction measurements at
the mid-channel station, and current velocity measurements at each
sampling depth at each station.
BathYmetric profiles were taken at
each cross section using continuous recording fathometers.
Continuous
current velocity/direction measurements were recorded and tidal stage
measurements were also taken.
Water quail ty parameters measured at each station and depth
included water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, -and conductivity.
Temperature measurements were taken by a readout module, and dissolved
oxygen measurements were obtained using the modified winkler titration
method.
Conduct! vi ty and pH measurements were performed on-board with
a conductivity bridge and pH meter.
Two tyPes of suspended -sediment data were obtained.
A 1-li ter
water sample was obtained from the Van Darn water sampler for each
depth for laboratory analysis of suspended sediment load.
A
continuous 76 liter (20 gal) water sample was obtained using a water
pump at each station under each flow condition at a ~epth of
1.5 meters (5 ft) above the bed.
These samples were stored in
19 liter (5 gal) containers and were decanted and centrifuged at a
later date (2 weeks).
The solids and supernatant water were analyzed
V-49
-------
in the laboratory for Kepone.
Total suspended solids were measured
uSing filtration.
Details of the'analytical procedure employed can be
found in Appendix A.
Bathymetry
The tidal James River averages about 6.3 km (q mi) w-ide in the
more saline:portion and 1.6 km (1 mi) or less in the upper freshwater
tidal portion.
The James River can be divided into the main flow
channel of 6.1 meters (20 ft) or greater depth, channel margins of 3
to 6 meters (10 to 20 ft) depth, and subtidal flats of less than
3 meters (less than 10 ft) depth.
In the lower or saline portion of
the James River, the subtidal. flats encanpass to 90 percent of the
bottom surface area.
In the upper or ncnsaline portion of the tidal
James River, the:subtidal flats seldom account for over 50 p~rcent of
the bottom surface area.
Exhibit V-17 shows two of the transects
across the James River at Bailey Bay and City Point.
Flow Characteristics
Flow characteristics in the tidal James River are primarily a
function of tidal currents, freshwater discharge and. wind-generated
currents.
During the June 25-28 sampling program, the freshwater
discharge was very low and the wind velocity seldom exceeded 5 knots.
Therefore, during this time period tidal generated currents were the
V-50
-------
- SOUTH STATION 1 STATION 2 STATION 3 NORTH
tJ BANK BANK -~...;...~'....~ :..:~
~ ~~~"!I.,
- 0 --- ~----
S:
.-J
~ 10
S:
0
.-J 20
w
m BAilEY BAY
:r:
.-. 30
D...
W
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
~ 01 STANCE (FEET)
,
Ul
......
SOUTH BANK STATION 1 STATION 2 STATION 3 NORTH BANK
tJ 0 -
----_/
~
- 10
S:
.-J
~
S: 20
0
.-J
W 30
m CITY POINT
:r:
.-.
D... 40
w
0 .
-.-
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
DI STANCE (FEET)
Exhibit V-11 Bathymetry at Bailey Bay IUld City Point
-------
principal factor of water movement.
Mit. -channel current velocities
differed only slightly from transect to ~ransect, varying to slightly
over 1 kn"t at maximum flood and ebb flow.
The largest variations
occurred in the lateral and vertical dimensions.
Generally, curren t
velocities decreased with depth and were greatest in the deep water
flow channel, decreasing towards the tid~l flats.
During the sampling
program on June 25-28, the f~ood currents were genera~ly of great~r
maqni tude and of longer duration than predicted, whereas the ebb
currents were of lesser maqni tude and of shorter duration than
predicted.
This deviation from the predicted currents is probably due
to the extremely low freshwater discharge during the sampling program.
Exhibit V-18 shows a comparison of predicted currents, continuous
current records and depth-averaged inst~ltaneous current velocity
measurements at Rocklanding Sboal.
Conductivity
The largest variation o_f conductivity. occurr~d in the longitudinal
direction, varying from a maximwn of 1,260 umhos at the James River
Bridge to a minimum of 225 umhos at City Point.
No large conductivity
gradients were observed during the sainp~ Lng program, eitner-in the
longitudinal or vertical directions.
This absence of a large gradient
in these two directions indicates the lQ~k of a turbidity maximum
(null zone area where fresh and saline waters intermix) and is due to
the very low freshwater discharge during the June 25-28 sampling
V-52
-------
2.0 -
~
U1
~
o
a
~ 1.0
~n.:
V)
b
z
~
t=
g ~ 1.0 -
--I-U
LaJ
..-
!z 2.0
~
~
:J
U
o
- PREDICTED CURRENT
o STATION 1 - SOUTU DANK
A STATION 2 - MIO-CIlANNEl
D. STATION 3 - NORTH DANK
. CONTINUOUS CURRENT RECOROEI~"
DEP TH AVERAGED
Exhibit v-18
Rocklanding Shoal
-------
program.
The average freshwater discharge of the James River at
Carterville, Virginia is 200,000 l/sec (7,000 ft3/sec).
On June 25-
28, the average discharge was 51,000 l/sec (1,800 ft3/sec) .
Exhibit
V-19 shows the average conductivi~y along the length of the James
River as a function of tidal s1:age.
pH
The greatest variations of pH in the James River water during the
June 25-28 sampling program occurred in the 'longitudinal direction,
where it. decreased in t.he upstream direction until the vicinity of
Hopewell, where the pH increased dramat.ically.
Exhibit V-20
illustrates the longitudinal changes during flood, ebb, and slack
flows.
During flood, thedept.h-averaged pH at the James River Bridge
was 7.7 and decreased ~o 7.0 at windmill Point.
slightly to 7.1 at. Jordan Point and Bailey Bay.
The pH then increased
At. City Point., the pH
increased dramatically to 8.5.
The higbest pH during the June 25-28
sampling program was observed at the Dtouth of Bailey Creek during ebb
with a measurement of 11.0.
The higb pH values found in Bailey Bay
between Jordan and Cit.y point.s probably can be attributed to the high
pH ot industrial discharges into Bailey Creek and Bailey Bay.
V-54
-------
1500
-
VI
C>
:I:
:E 1000
o
0::
U
-
:E
-
~ 500
-
>
-
I-
U
~
Q
Z
o
u
9.0
8.0
~
"S.
7.0
6.0
o
DEPTH AND CROSS-SECTION AVERAGED
A.OOD
EBB
SLACK
o
o
10
20
30
40
50
60
Distance from Mouth (Nautical Miles)
Exhibit V-19' Average Conductivity as a Function of Tidal Stage
.. - "'-"~-"'''''''''.''~'' -..
--- _._-~-_.__. .
. - - . -. -
." ------.
. ....-..... -- .., - -.
"" --..- '-""'-'.'- .. ---~.'I: .---......-..-... . .-...... .. - -.-.. -....-
DEPTIi AND CROS S -SECTt ON AVERAGED Bfl
FlOOD
James River
Bridge
~ ,--
_.~~-.- - c~om1ny
.... - - .- ---- ver
... ........
.......
--
. ..... .....",
- - - EBB
SLA.CK
I
10
I
20
30
40
50
60
Distance from Mouth (Nautical Miles)
Exhibit V-20
Longitudinal Variation of pH
V-55
-------
~,
f.
.'7'
/./ij
lif
i
Dissolved ox*qen
.1/
During the June 25- 28 sampling program, dissolved oxygen (DO)
ranged from a value of 0 mg/l (ppm) in Bailey Creek to 9.2 D¥3'/1 (ppm)
in the north side of the channel opposite Jordan Point.
Dissolved
oxygen levels remained unchanged or increased slightly in the apstream
direc1:ion from James River to west of SWam Point, wh!!re. the aver~ge.
concentrations were between 6 mq/l (ppm) and 7 mg/l (ppm) (Exhibit V-
21) .
From Swann Point to Jordan Point, dissolved oxygen levels
decreased dramatically during flood and slack waters to concentrations
between 2 mg/1 and 3 mg/l (ppm).
Dissolved oxygen levels increased to
concentrations of 4 mg/l to 6 mg/l (ppm) between Jordan Point and City
Point.
The tidal phase variations of dissolved oxygen were small in
the lower tidal James River but were large in the upper portion,
varying from 2.5 mg/l (ppm) during flood stage to 5.5 mg/l (ppm)
during ebb stage at Jordan Point.
Temperature
The water temperature during the June 25-28 sampling program
ranged from 26.8 to 32 degrees C.
water temperatures in "'"Ba.iley Creek
generally exceeded those in the James, ranging from 32 to
35.5 degrees C.
Water temperature closely followed the daily
tempera ture pattern with the lowest temperatures in the morning and
the highest in the late afternoon.
Slight vertical gradients of
V-56
-------
~
~ 6.0
-
z
~
(,:)
>-
x
~ 4.0
~
:>
~
o
en
en
Q 2.0
8.0
James R1 ver
:Bridge
DEPTH AND CROSS-SECT1 ON AVERAGED
FLOOD
- - - EBB
-- - SLACK
JR-1 JR-2 JR-3 JR-4 JR-
o I
10 20 30 40 50 60
Di.s1:ance from Mou1:h (NaU1:ical Miles)
EEbib1t V-21" Var1a1:ion of Dissolved Oxygen ~i.t:h Tidal St:a.ge
-~._- .-.- u-
--.-.---- - .-
. .-..... ---.."
. ..----- .-
V-57
-------
approximately 1 degree C were observed in the
.~t.
i1l
//
:' //
d~~er
;t?
areas.
The
shal~ow subtidal flats tended to have a greater range in water
temperatures than did the deeper areas of the river.
Suspended Sediment
The suspended sediment load of ~e tidal James River. during the
June 25-28 sampling program was quite variable in the longitudinal,
lateral, and vertical dimensions.
Suspended sediment loads were
observed to be as high as 98.6 mg/l (ppm) and as low as 11.1 O\g/l
(ppm).
Generally, as shown in Exhibit V-22, high suspended solids
levels were found in ~e lower portion of the river between Newport
News and Hog Island, and in the upper portion around Hopewell.
The
levels were generally lower in the stretch of river between Hog Island
and windmill Poin,t.
Repone
. -. . .
Longitudinal variations of Repone associated with suspended
sediment during the June 25-28 sampling program are shown in Exhibit
V-23.
Repone levels were found to generally decrease in the
downstream di:rection from the source area near Hopewel~.
The highest
Repone levels were found in Bai~y creek suspended sediment with
levels exceeding 1.0 ug/g (ppm).
The lowest Repone levels were found
at the furthest downstream sampling location at the Jame$ River Bridge
V-58
-------
~ 50
c:::7'J
.5
-
~4O
Q
c=5 30
~.
Q
~ 20
z
~
c..
~ 10
~
60
o
Bailey
/~
0... - -0- - - / ,
--~.~ / ,
"'"0- '~..... Ch1cJu~nt"Jmi "y /,
a...... "..... R1 ver .0/ / , o'
DEPTH & CROSS -SECT! ON A V;AGED' ~:::= .= - ~-- ~-~
~OOD -
- --- EBB
--- SLACK
- -
. . 't..'-- -, .
10
20 30 40 50
o I STANCE FROM MOUTH (NAUTI CAl MILES)
60
~..- '-'" '., ~.._-_.... -- '. - .--........ ---:,,-,",.- . _:".-r---' -- ---. --
~b:L't_V-22 _. Longitudinal Variation of Suspended Solids
V-59
-------
~
0\
o
200
180
:0 160
a..
o -9:-140
1-1-
Cl 2
~ :E 120
u-
~ B 100
«U1
w B 80
Zo
02
~~ 60
~U1
~4O
20
Exhibit V-23
.CROSS-SECTION AVERAGED
FLOOD
---EBB'
; --- SLACK
(0) VALUES ARE LESS THAN
.INDICATED DUE TO INSTRU-
MENT DETECTION LIMITS
Bailey
BaY1
.
It
II
, ,
--~ ,I
;>- -- -=--~-~- 1
I ~ -- 'I
/",- \ "
V \~ A
Chi Ckah0011ny ---------
River ~
o
10
I I I I
20 30 40 50
01 STANCE FROM MOUTH (NAUTICAL MILES)
I
60
Longitudinal
Variation of K~pone Attached to Suspended Sediment
-------
with leve~s less than 11 ng/g (ppb).
The largest longitudinal
decrease in concentrations occurred between Bog Island and just west
of Swann Point.
Large lateral variations in Kepone levels attached to
the suspended sediment were observed.
These latera~ variations are
shown in Exhibit V-2Q.
The largest lateral variations occurred
between Hog I~and and Jordan Point.
Exhibit V-25 shows Kepone distribution with depth of the James
River bottom sediments and by sediment size.
The bulk of the Kepone
is associated with the larger-sized sediment particles which are
greater than 62 microns.
Exhibit V-26 shows the Kepone concentrations
found by Batte~le in composite sediment samples for all their sampling
s1:a tions from Newport News to Hopewell.
.Battelle's estimates for the
amounts of Kepone found in various sections of the James River is
shown in Exhibit V-27, but should be considered on1.y an approximation.
OVer the past two years, comprehensive sediment sampling was
undertaken by the .Virqinia _sta~e Water co~t.rol Board (SWCB) and the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VD4S) to determine the amount of
Kepone in a~l areas. of the tidal James River.
The resulting Kepone
distribution Pattern compiled by the SwCB from' their data- 'i5 shown in
Exhibits V-28 to V-30.
Independent estimates of the total current
Kepone deposits in the James River sediments have been made by
Battelle (Appendix A) and by VJ:MS (Bender, 1977a).
The two estimates
compare favorably.
Battelle estimated an average of 9,600 kg
V-61
-------
200
180
:a 160
Q.
g ~140
~ ~ 120
(..)-
~ ~ 100
<)/
. (01
I I
ill W ~ 40 ~
. - 01 STANCE FROM MOUTH (NAUTICAL MILES)
60
Exhibit v-a4
Lateral Variation of Kepone Attached to Suspended
Sediment During Flood
~~
- - ..', ---~-,......,... .-..-...,-
.._.''''-'~'''-'-'' ...-~ ..~ ~.
v-62
()
-------
'"",',','.',',','''.'.
UJ 0-3 :::::::::::::::::::::::;
u .','.'.','.','.','.'.'.
~
-------
Exhibit v-26
Cross-
Section
.----
Station
James River "'ho. 1
" 2
" ... .: 3 -.
Rockland1ng Shoal., 1
" : 2
" I 3
Hog Island
"
-I
3
West of Swann Pt. - 1
" '.: 2
" : 3
I
!
Windmill Pt. : 1
" : 2
:3
"
Jordan Point
"
"
Bailey Bay
"
City Point
-. "
"
1
:2
13
I
c
'1
-3
1
2
_..3
-."-
V-64
KEPONE IN BED SEDIMENTS
Composite
Depth (in.)
Kepone
(~g/g;) (pum)
0-12
0-12
0-12
-------
Exhibit V-27
Area
<
I
0\
Ul
Mean concentration
IJg/g-ppm
Mean + one ~tandard
deviatJon ~g/g-ppm
3
Volume (ft )
assumes 1 ft depth
Mass of dry sediments 3
(]b)(assumes 70 Ih/ft )
Mean total Kepone (kg)
(lb)
Maximum total Kepone (kg)
(mean + std. devlation](lb)
Number of sample .sites
Number of poJnts with
<0.02 IIg/g Kepone
2
SamplJng density (poln.ts/mi )
OASIS FOR ESTIMATE OF KEPONE DEPOSITS IN JAMES RIVER SEDIMENTS
Bailey Bay
800 acres
0.91
3.31
7
3.5 x 10 .
1. 3 x 109
537
1,183
1,956
. 4.303
25
3
20
Jordan Point to
Turkey Island
2
3.3 011
0.07
0.21
7
9.2 x 10
9
3.48 x 10
110
243
332
730
9
3
2.7
Jamestown to
Jordon Point
44.9 0112
0.15
0.28
9
1.25 x 10
4.7 x 1010
3.204
7.050
6.000
13 . 160
66
5
1.5
Newport News to
Jamestown Island
132.7mi2
0.08
0.15
9
3.7 x 10
1.4 x 1011
5,091
11. 200
9 . 545
21 .000
66
13
0.5
lIumpton
Roads
2
60.9 mi
0.023
0.0375
9
1.7 x 10
''';'::':''''1.0'':'~81:>.. ~~.,..:
~-:"I'k~
Total
2
243.1 mi
9
6.8 x 10
6.4 x 1010 2.5 x lOll
670 9.612
1.472
1.091
2,400
39
21
0.64
Assumes 12 in. depth at mean pven though some samples were analyzed to depths less than 12 In.
~Iecl.tne wHh depth. estimate .here is conservative.
21.148
18.924
41.593
205
45
Since conccntrations
-------
Source:
Va.
State Water Control
Board (1977-1978)
SCALE
1 3/4"-1 N. MILE
KEPONE ppm
1110.0
18
~
1.0
to 9.99
m
0.1
:" {I'
.,"
. .
.
"?
~
0\
0\
APPOMA
.SEDIMENT KE~ONE CONCENTRAIJj)~
... "o.O.II~~, 'mtl ~~~ Am A',
-------
Source:
Va. State Water Control Board (1977-197~)
- '0 .
"
..
~
0\
~
---.-
..
",
KEPONE ppm ""
~" 1,.0" to 9.99
BJ 0.1 to 0.99
(E] . 0.02 to 0.09
o None Detected
..... ..
. .
.,
Ex~lblt V-29
. SEDIMENT I
-------
Source: Va. State Water Control Board (1977-1978)
.; pNone Detected'
~
;/ SCALE
. ./ 1.~r- I
Exhibit V-30 /~ , 0. 1 2 3 4 5 lo.MILES ~
SEDIMENT Ir ..
,"
.
~
0\
en
. .
.
KEPONE ppm
,
~ 1.0. to 9.99
~ 0..1 to 0..99
- 0..0.2 to 0..0.9
Co.
. ~~"
~~
S
,
C
l:
-------
(21,000 lb) and a maximum of 19,000 kg (42,000 lb), while VIMS
estimated 11,000 to 18,000 kg (25,000 to 40,000 lb). The majority of
this KeFXJne lies in the sediments of the turbidity maximum zone.
Summary of Environmental Inventories
Summarized in Exhibit V-31 are Battelle's estimates from current
data of the amount of Kepone residing in the 'James River and Hopewell
area environment. . Of approximate1y 25,000 pounds of Repone identified
in the James River and land areas excluding drummed material, less
than 2,300 kg (5,000 lb) persist in the Hopewell/Bailey Bay region.
A
majority of the Repone residuals have migrated into the James River,
and currently are ass9ciated with the underlying sediment. . The
largest remaining terrestrial Kepone deposit is the estimated 1,400 kg
(3,100 lb) in marsh sediment adjacent to the southeastern portion of
the Hopewell landfill.
V-69
-------
E:l:;i1)it V"31.
ES'!~~TZ OF !\:Zl'ONZ RES~UALS nrCI.Im~G M..~n:tI.u.
DR~ ..u 1".::..:. !.~.:. scmrcz ~ODUC'!'S ?T_~'fl' ~'""I'E3.
CI.OSYPZ (DE~E:;t 19 77)
Residi:l2: !n
!st~ted Ouanti~
k2:
lb
Sever s7st~
23 50
45-4.50 . 100-1,000
100 220
540-2,000 1.200-4,300
9,000-17,000 20,000-38,000
9 , 400 20, 700
3,700 8 , 100
1t~0 3,100
..
100 210
24,400-34,300 53,600-75,600
SurfAce soil (1 in.) *
Ke.-pou.e. sludge lagoon
Ba:Lley Ba.y sertim~ut3*
James 3.i ve.r se.d:1Jnen t:s*
Drums a. t: He pe....e..U
D~ a.t: Po rtsmcu.th
LandfiU+
Pebbled AD:mouium Mj,c:a.t:e
plant: SiC2
Rounde.d co t3.l*
* Law value re.flect:3 est::i::.a.te e:tt:=a~oLtt:ed f=om cean couc:~r:=a-
d.ous; hj,gh va.l.ue 're.fle~:s es ti:1.ates' based. on Ce4:l plus one
saud.a.rd devioa.c:.ou.
+ Inc~udes i~~~~~iea de~os~cs only.
V-70
-------
VI.
BIOLOGI CAL FATE, IMPACT, AND c:u=AN-tJP. INDICES
ACUTE TOXICITY TO SALT-WATER ORGANISMS
Kepone was found by the EPA Gulf Breeze Environmental Research
Laboratory (Appendix C) to be acutely toxic to algae, oysters,
shrimps, and fishes.
It was found not to be toxic to blue crabs at
the levels tested (210 ug/l).
Nine species of estuarine organisms, of
which eight are known to exist in the James River, were investigated
for acute toxicity.
The organisms were: the unicellular algae,
Chlorococcum sp., Dnnaliella tertiolecta, Nitzchia sp., and
Thalassiosira pseudonana; the grass shrimp (Palaemonetes puqio), blue
crab (Callinectes sapidus), sbeepshead minnow (Cyprinodon varieqatus),
and spot (Leiostomus xanthurus).-
The 96-hour LCSO varied widely.
The
most sensitive species tested was spot, which had an LCSO of 6.6 ug/l
(ppb) .
The second-most sensitive species tested was the marine mysid,
Mvsidopsis bahia, which had an Le50 of 10.1 ug/l (ppb).
This species
is not found in the Chesapeake region, but other species of Mvsidopsis
and mysids inhabit northern Atlantic waters.
The oyster larvae EC50
was reported at 69.5 ug/l (ppb).
The sheepshead minnow had an LC50 of
70 uq/l (ppb), while the grass shrimp were more tolerant with an LCSO
of 120.9 ug/l (ppb).
Algal growth was reduced to 50 percent by
concentrations of 350 to 600 ug/l (ppb) (Appendix C, No.5 and 4).
VI-l
-------
In a comparison of six sediment types from around the uni ted
states, Swartz, ~!!. (1977) examined the toxicity of the settleable
phase of dredged material to marine benthic organisms.
They found
that mean survival after 10 days' exposure to Bailey Creek sediments
was significantly less than controls.
No attempt was made to
determine which toxicant(s) may have caused the mortalities.
CHRONIC TOXICITY TO SALT-WATER ORGANISMS
Kepone also was found to cause pronounced chronic toxicity,
reproductive, and teratogenic effects in life-cycle tests with
estuarine mysids.
Life-cycle toxicity tests were conducted using
survival, reproduction, and growth of mysids (Mvsidopsis bahia) as
criteria for effects of toxicity of Repone (Appendix C, No.3).
The
19-day (life-cycle) LC50 was 1.4 ug/l (ppb) at 25 to 28 degrees C and
10 to 20 ppth salinity.
The duration of the test allowed production
of several broods.
The average number of young per female at 20 days
was 15.3 in the controls, and 8.9 in 0.39 ug/l (ppb) Repone.
There
were significant differences between controls and the 0.39 ug/l (ppb)
concentration indicating that the average number of young produced per'
female had been reduced by the presence of Kepone.
In preliminary tests, growth of some mysid individuals in higher
concentrations of Kepone appeared to be less than control mysids.
To
evaluate this effect, two separate 1q-day tests were begun by exposing
VI-2
-------
2Q-hour-old juveniles to Kepone and concluded by measuring their total
body lengths.
Female mysids exposed to 0.072 ug/l (ppb) Kepone grew
.less than the control mysids. - This effect was consistent with
apparent effects on reproductive success (fewer juveniles per female).
Sublethal effects observed after prolonged exposure to Kepone
\II1ere:
(1) delay in the formation of brood pouches; (2) delay in the release
of young;
(3) fe\ll1er young produced per female, and (q) reduced growth.
In nature, the loss of mysids due to the direct toxic effects of
pollutants or the indj,rect effects on their growth or population size
could affect the food supply of many fishes (Appendix c, No.3).
The chronic effect of Kepone on sheepshead minnow growth and
survival of embryo, fry, and juveniles was investigated by Hansen, !.!
!!. (Appendix C, NO.6).
Adult minnows were held in Kepone
concentrations ranging from O.OS to 24.0 ug/l (ppb) for 29 days.
All
of the fish in the higher two concentrations (7.8 and 24 ppb) died.
Survivors of the 28-day bioassay spawned and the progeny were observed
for survival, growth, hatching and development in a 36-day exposure to
six Kepone concentrations from 0.08 to 33.0 ug/l (ppb).
A significant
portion of the embryos, produced by adults previously exposed to
Kepone (1.9 ppb) died during embryonic development even when held in
Kepone-free water.
Kepone, which was bioconcentrated by adults
(5,200 X), was passed to embryos and was very slow to depurate.
Forty-six percent of the Kepone in the eggs was still found in the fry
36 days after hatching.
Fry exposed to 0.08 ug/l (ppb) were stunted.
VI-3
-------
SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE
Symptoms of poisoning in fish during exposure were darkening of
the posterior of the body, hemorrhaging near the brain, fin rot, loss
of swimming coordination, cessation of feeding, and scoliosis.
Onset
of these symptoms was related to concentration and length of exposure.
KEPONE BIOCONCENTRATION FROM WATER
Kepone was bioooncentrated from water by algae, oysters, mysid
shrimp, grass shrimp, sheepshead minnows, and spot in all
concentrations tested, and all species showed Kepone at equilibrium
levels in tissues within 8 to 17 days after exposure to Kepone began
(Appendix C, No.9).
Bioconcentration factors for Kepone in these
species ranged from 2,300 to 13,500 in long-term (96-hour) flow-
through bioassays.
Repone bioconcentrated in oysters to approximately
10,000 times the concentrat.ion in water within 19 days.
Mysid shrimp
(Mvsidopsis bahia) bioconcentrat.ed Kepone t.o 13,000 t.imes the amount.
measured in the exposure water.
The grass shrimp (Palaemonetes ~uqio)
also has a high bioconcentration factor for Kepone, and like other
decapod crustaceans is one of the least sensitive species to acute
exposures (Appendix C, No.5).
Grass shrimp bioconcentrated Kepone to
11,000 times the concentration in water.
Sheepshead minnows
bioconcentrated Kepone 7,200 times the concentration in water, and
spot. bioconcentration factors were approximately 3,000.
Twenty-two
VI-4
-------
percent of Kepone accumulated in edible fi~lets of spot as one of the
largest quantities of Kepone in tota~ weight.
Although ~e greatest
body concentrations of Kepone on a unit basis were in the brain, liver
and g~l tissues, the relatively large mass of muscle and offal
tissues accounted for their having the high Kepone quantities
(Appendix C, No.9).
A summary chart on bioconcentration and
bioaccumulation values is shown in Exhibit VI-1.
Uptake by Mollusks Exposed to Suspended Sediment
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science completed eight Kepone-
uptake experiments with the oyster (Crassostrea virqinica) five
experiments with the clam (Ranqia cuneata) and one experiment with the
clam (Macoma balthica) which involved exposure of the animals to
Kepone-contaminated sediments in suspension.
The oysters exhibited
high Kepone concentrations in their meats when they were exposed to
mean hourly concentrations of Kepone at 0.153 ug/g (ppm) in 'the
suspended sediments (Exhibit VI-2).
The bivalves crassostrea
virqinica, Ranqia cuneata, and Macoma b~thica concentrated Kepone
from suspended sediments by factors ranging between 1,000 and 3,000
over that in the water (Appendix C, No. 18).
In another experiment, the Ranaia and the oyster were buried in a
bed of Kepone-contaminated sediments with uncontaminated river water
flowing over them.
The shellfish generally accumulated Kepone and
VI-5
-------
Exhibit VI-l
Chronic EffectB, Bioconcentration and Bioaccumulation of Kel'one
Tlsslle 8 locollcentnt Ion o IOlCtUIIIUh tton
- __~l!eL t~----- --- _.!~!!!f!._,- ----,~£~!!U_- Concentratton __f!£tor_- factot__---- ---, He r ~!'~!,.f.!.-
~1!-'l!r!!£!!H.!~! ~~'- 100 I'pb. 24 hr £C50(yrowth) c 0.35 ~pu 80.0 p,* 800 "dlsh et al..
~!I.)U~U! ,tertlolcct! J tlnse5 In 7 flay . 0.58 23.0 230 1917
~!.!!!!1!! ~I!: . 0.60 41.0 410
!1!! !!!H!uS I r.! ~~!!!!!!!!'.! . 0.60 52.0 520
61'455 shrlll1p 12.121 PPat 5.1-94.0 PpIII 698 SChlUDIe 1 and
LC50.l2OucI1 .,tl50n. 1977
~ l£!!!!!!!!!ete5 I!!!!I!!! 96 hr
~ LC50.)210uc!1 '
Olliu Crab 110-210 0.05-1.1 8.1
1 ~!!.!.hlef~!!l ~I! !..!!£~
0\
Sheepshead Pllnnolf ~.1-78.5 LC50.TOua/l 11.2-118.4 1.548
frl!!..!.!lodo!! ~rJ£!I!~!:!l hit....
Spot 1.5-15.i LC50.6.6ua!1 1.7-16.8 1.221
l!!.I!!H'!!~ !!!l!..h.!:![!:!! 'l" I,..
O,sler 0.OJ-0.39 I'Pb 0.29-3.6 PINA 9.354-9.278 Alyae ~ Oyster. 2.1 Bahner et .1..
!;[,,-~~!!H~! ~!.!:!I..!Rlc! 28 day Wilter ~ Algae '. Oyster. 0.007 1971
MY51d 0.026-0.41 0.19-6.3 5.962-13.473 8rtlle shrlalp '. IIIYS Ids. 0.53
~~H1!1!~!! boll!!!. 21 day
61:iI:.s ~hrlmp 0.023-0.40 0.09-4.57 5.127-11,425
r,!I!!.~!!~!1t!:~ f!!!I!!!. 28 day
Shul:l,shedd 0111111014 0.05 0.37 7.115
~nlr!!!OIIOI~ y!rJ£9!t"1 28 dol)'
SliOt 0.029-0.40 0.06.0.99 3.217-2,340 Mys Id " Spot. 0.85
L!1!!!H~II~ !!!nH!!!!"!!l 30 day 8rtnl! shrlllp ~ IIIYs Id '. Sllot .. 10.5
Sh"'I'shcad mllillow
!-rl~rJ!,odo!! ~ar\~!1~ldS
Adult!> 0.05-24.11 ppb LC!iO C J.) PIIII O. 25-12 PI~II 5,200 tldnsen el al.. '
26 ddY 1977
JIII/cn II es 0.00-13 I'llb LC511 .. 1i.7 ppb 0.13-22 ppm 7.200
]6 day
-------
030
II}
1-
-I
1,1
- 025
CC
1.01
1-
l'l
),
0
;:i " 020-
-,
I -.
~ _.
n.
n.
015-
o
--
1-
'f
n:
t-
" 010
hJ
t)
-,
.-
0
U
hI
:z 005
o
n.
w
:JL
(0.104)
(00')0)
. . . 0
. .
.
,Q ,
.
.
(0002) .
o .
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
TRI\ Y C
. . .
. . . (0070)
. .
'0 .
.
,
v
(0037)
:J -
--
(0023)
_0-
-
,-'
-
TRAY B (0~33)
,-'
,-'
.Y
(0.0271
y
0-. I
I
21
,
20
7
I.,
E X r 0 5 U n E PErU 0 0 ( 0 f. Y 5 )
Exhibit VI-2
l.;ean conccntrat.ion of ::c:pone in /IIC;1!:S of oystul:s f'~:':i)O:.ccl
to cont'-lfI.in~ltl:d :.;,~dir::cn~s in sllspcn~:;ion, Fir~L ~;':l-i'!:i
of (::q)(:rili~enls, 24 Fd:.-27 :.:arch 1977. FiCJun"!5 in
pan:nlhesus an! IlIl~an i:o'..:rLl' conccnlration of I:L'pnIlC in
!;L:::ii',.?III.:; ,.t)r \.//:(","1': : .::-:'-;-: (:nc!inq
-------
then gradually lost most or all of it.
oysters averaged 0.037 ug/g
(ppm) after a week of burial, but then lost Kepone to non-detectable
levels.
Ranqia followed a similar pattern to that of the oyster
(Appendix C, No. 18).
At the same time that oysters were accumulating Kepone in their
ti ssues to levels greater than that of the water, they were also re-
depositing high concentrations of the chemical in the form of fe~es
and pseudofeces.
Tbe bioconcentration factors for oyster feces ranged
from 11,000 to 55,000.
In pseudofeces, the range was between 3,000
and 20,000.
The concentration in feces was always higher than that in
pseudofeces, but the magnitude of the difference varied.
This re-
deposition of feces and pseudofeces was in the form of material less
likely to be resuspended because of its nature as an aggregate
(Appendix C, NO. 18).
Depuration from Exposed Animals
Kepone depuration was most rapid in the oysters with Kepone
reaching nondetectable levels within 7 to 20 days; other organisms
were much slower, particularly grass shrimp and fish.
Kepone
concentrations remained at 50 to 70 percent of the peak value in the
flesh for 2iJ to 28 days after initiation of depuration in these
species (Appendix C, No.9).
VI-8
-------
Field studies included collecting Repone-laden oysters from the
James River and moving them to uncontaminated areas (Bender, 1977).
These transplanted oysters were sampled over time to determine the
effects of seasonal changes on the depuration rate.
As might be
expected, the oysters depurated more slowly in the winter when
metabolic activity levels were depressed.
The biological half-life of
Repone in oys'ters in the summer is approximately one week, while in
the winter 40 days is required. before there is a measurable decline in
the residue levels.
KEPONE BIOACCUMDLATION FROM FOOD
Bahner, ~ al., and Schimmel, ~ al., (Appendix C, NO.9 and 14)
investiga ted the transfer of Repone through a series of food chain
experiments representative of various trophic (energy) levels from
plankton to fish.
Not all of the species were indigenous to the James
River ecosystem, but they did serve as models.
VI-9
-------
Three study routes were examined:
1.
Water------~----~->
Algae-------------->
Oyster
2.
Water--------------)
Oyster------------->
Blue Crab
3.
Water--------------)
Brine shrimp------> Mysid
shrimp---> Spot
In a 14-day experiment, oysters bioaccumulated Kepone to 0.21 ug/g
(ppm) when fed the single-celled alga (Chlorococcum sp.) containing an
averaqe of 34 ug/g (ppm) of Kepone.
Kepone was not detectable (less
than 0.02 ug/g) 10 days after the oyster (crassostrea virqinica)
received no contaminated food.
The quantity of Repone transferred
from 'these algae to oysters was lim.i ted, probably due to rapid
depuration of the chemical from the oysters.
Most of the Kepone was
depurated from oysters within 96 hours.
Blue crabs, fed oysters
contaminated with 0.15 or 0.25 ug/g (ppm) Repone, accumulated the
insecticide readily in their muscle and whole-body tissues in 28 days,
but after an additional 29 days in a Repone-free environment, no
depuration of the compound was evident.
Both concentrations in food
increased mortality in the crabs (Appendix C, No. 14).
Brine shrimp (Artemia salina) served as "plankton" and were preyed
upon by mysid shrimp (Mvsidopsis bahia) which in turn were fed to spot
(Leiostomus xanthurus).
Kepone concentration in spot, which consumed
mysids for 30 days, were slightly less than that of mysids, but the
uptake of Repone exceeded the fishes' depuration.
The bioaccumulation
VI -10
-------
factor from mysids to spot was estimated at greater than 0.85, while
the bioaccumulation factor for the entire food chain was greater than
10.5 (Appendix C, No.9).
KEPONE BIOAVAILAB:tLITY FROM SEDIMENT
Two benthic, burrowing species, lugworms (Arenicola cri stat a) and
fiddler crabs (y£! puqilator) , were exposed to James River estuarine
sediments containing Repone at approximately 0.25 ug/g (ppm).
Both
species had attained whole-body residues of 0.25-0.3 ug/g (ppm) within
10 days of exposure.
No lugworms remained alive after 21 days
exposure to the James River sediments.
Depuration of Repone from.
fiddler crabs placed on uncontaminated sediments was minimal after 35
days (Bahner, ~ .2!., in preparation).
COMPARATIVE ROUTES OF UPTAKE
Comparisons of Repone residues in various animals to determine the
probable modes of entry of Repone into organisms have been made
(Appendix C, No.9).
Repone accumulation can be attained via water,
sediment, or food as indicated by Exhibit VI-3.
In most cases, uptake
from water directly impacts each animal, but uptake from food and
sediment can be of great importance when effects on the entire James
River estuary are considered.
Specifically, blue crabs gain most of
their Repone by eating animal tissues, rather than uptake from water,
VI-II
-------
Exhibit VI-3
~mparison of Kepone-residues i~ eight species of estuarine
-. .
organIsms exposed to low concentration of Kepone in water, food, and
sediments in flow-through experiments (Gulf Breeze,1977)
Probab 1 e ~ode
Species of Uptake
Oys ter Wa te r
Polychaete Sediment
wo nns & food
Mys f ds
Grass
ShrimJr. Food
Fi ddler Se d1 ment
crab & Food
Blue crab Food
Sheepshead Water,
minnow food
Spot Food
- -
VI -12
-------
while benthic organisms accumulate considerable quantities of Kepone
from sediment ingestion and supply these amounts to their predators
for food-chain transfer.
Indirect Impacts on Fisheries
Stomachs of flounders from Chesapeake Bay contained an average of
twenty mysids (Stickney, ~ ~., 1974), while mysids comprised up to
14 percent of the diet of str iped bass from the York and Rappahannock
Ri verse
Mysids were conspicuously absent in the gut analyses of James
River striped bass, indicating this particular food chain has been
severely altered.
A partial food web for selected James River species
is shown in Exhibit VI-~.
However, no evidence is available to
directly link Repone as the causative agent in this situation.
The uptake and slow depuration of Kepone by blue crabs may explain
why relatively high Kepone residues are found in crabs from the. James
Ri ver, Virginia.
Bender, ~ ~., (1977) reported that average Kepone
concen't%ations in estuarine vertebrates and invertebrates ranged from
0.09 to 2.0 ug/g (ppm) in the James River.
Many, if not all of these
species, are included in the diet of the blue crab.
It is reasonable
to conclude that Repone residues will remain in the blue crab tissues
as long as detectable concentrations remain in the crab's food
(Appendix C, No. 14).
VI-13
-------
FIHflSJI
~
I
......
.po
PLANKTOJI
IIUIlJlIl'i
Alo5 his Whl te Perch
IIedUish Uhadt-!U~U!~!T!!!!J..!lewlf~l ~ ---~
---.---- -~, ~
~ I t \~ "", ,,:;;;-
!!!l Andlovy ----l.-----\ . . C"dRRel C.tiltsh
~ . ~~I~
/ s~~"'- /
~>'1 "" ~. llogehak!!:
(Ilystols In OUler ~ -- W
SYSt~1I5)
\ \ .
11/. ~:;.,,!
Vucuh,' plants
! .~kH.!!L-
!m~f!.. Larvae
~Inellds
Exhibit VI-I}
Sin:!!!!!.
Pactial Food Web for Selected JameB River Spec~eB
I I
1trt(!ed ~~H.
/
M!I~
1
@!!!££!~!!
~-_.- !!r!!~n
f
Sediments
Slit
~!r.H~
-------
The James River, which bas supported several major commercial
fisheries in the past, has witnessed the sharp decline in some of
those fisheries during the early 1970's including blue crab, striped
bass, white perch, and alewives.
While some of these declines, such
as the white perch, may represent fish kills, changes in fishing
effort, etc., these populations generally have not recovered to
previously established levels.
Kepone may be a contributary substance
which has been adversely affecting species and subsequently the food
chains of the James River, thus creating conditions which are not
condusi ve to the maintenance of viable fish and blue crab popu'lations.
KEPONE MITIGATION'~ INDICES
During 1976, ongoing studies at the Gulf Breeze Environmental
Research Laboratory, and research studies supported by them, provided
information on the organism effects of Kepone and processes which
caused crabs, oysters, and fish to concentrate Repone in their tissues
at or above FDA Action Levels, making them unsafe for human
consumption.
This required a complete study of the effects of Kepone
on representa~ve species under laboratory conditions, and a
correlation of these studies with information gathered from monitoring
and field experiments.
The results of this information were used to
develop saltwater clean-up' i.'fY1i~ for Kepane to fU-otect estuarine .biota.
It was recognized that the clean-up
values should include
consideration of production, use, chemical and physical properties,
VI-15
-------
/1;
~~
/J/,
.' Ii
't!
.;/
occw:rence, and human health mpllcations. Ei:Mever, the followin; indices con-
sider only protecticn of aquatic life and uses of aquatic life. Also, these
clean-up indices are based on the species ItCst sensitive to Kepone, so that
protection is afforded to the greatest mm1ber of species in the James River.
Fu'bJre de~tions may shew that such a cc:mprehensive level of protection
is net necessary to prevent Kepcne uptake to Action Ievels by a majority of
the species. '!he unique situation in th£! Jares River estuary is that the
Itajor s:>urce of Kepcne is recycled Kepcne f1:an the estuariDe sed:iItents. '1bi.s
required a ~;~;ed appmach with the develo};%aent of separate values for aquatic
foOO. organisns and for sediment.
..- .......
Derivation 21 Saltwater .t"'I_n-ap.'~"~~~
The estuarine fish, spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) is particularly
sensitive to Kepone; the Final Fish Acute Value ca1cu1ated from this
species is 6.6 ug Kepone/l (ppb) of water.
The Final Invertebrate
Acute Value is 0.60 ug Kepone/1 (ppb) of water.
consequent1y, the
lower of the two, 0.60 ug Kepone/l (ppb) of water, becomes the Final
Acute Value.
Chronic studi es have been conducted on sheepshead minnows
(Cvprinodon variqatus) and marine mysids.
The Final Fish Chronic
Value is <0.01 ug Kepone/l (ppb) of water; the Fina1 Invertebrate
Chronic Value is 0.008 ug Kepone/l (ppb) of water.
Therefore, the
Final Chronic Value is SO.008 ug Kepone/l (ppb) of water.
VI-l6
-------
The marine alga, Chlorococcum sp., is the most sensitive plant
species to Kepone; the Final Plant Value is <350 ug Kepone/l (ppb) of
water.
The Residue Limited Toxicant concentration (RLTC) is based on:
( 1)
a study in which blue crab survival or molting was adversely affected
after being fed a diet of oysters which contained 0.15 mg
Kepone/kg (ppm) in tissue; and (2) an average bioconcentration factor
of 7688.
This RLTC is <0.019 ug Kepone/l (ppb) of water.
As em.-.
:i.ndeK ,
the 24-bour average concentration should never exceed
0.008 ug of Kepone/l (ppb) of water.
It is important to emphasize that the data on the chronic effects
of Kepone in fish, and the feeding studies on blue crabs provide "less
than" values.
Results of laboratory tests with crabs, shrimp, fish,
and shellfish exposed only to Kepone in seawater underestimate the
residues of Kepone measured in similar animals exposed to similar
measured concentrations in the James River estuary.
Therefore, the
. .in:1ex
. is considered conservative.
Derivation 2t ~ Clean-up Index far ~
Acute exposure of blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) to Kepone in
sea water in the Gulf Breeze Laboratory (Appendix C, No.5) indicated
relatively low toxicity and low bioconcentration.
In contrast,
VI-17
-------
moni toring data from the James River estuary indicated that blae crabs
~ccumulated significant concentrations of Kepone.
Gul.f Breeze
scientists found that the major route of Kepone entry was through
contamina ted food and not via water.
Therefore" estimates of an
". ; MPY'
for contaminated food were devel.oped.
Effects of Kepone on growth and survival of blue crabs fed oysters
contamina tad with Kepone are the onl.y l.aboratory data demonstrating
adverse effects of this pesticide in food on an aquatic organism
(Appendix C, No. 14).
Concentrations of 0.15 mg Kepone/kg (ppm) of
oyster meat fed to blue crabs diminish~d survival or mOl.ting.
However" because the data did not provide Gulf Breeze with a no-effect
concentration, they applied a safety factor of 0.1 to this
concentration to provide a clean-up ;MI=IY
of 0.015 mg Kepone/kq (ppm)
of ti ssue, which should be protective of consumer speci es.
A clean-up" :index of .015 m; KepcDe/kq ij;:pn) .in food crqanisns is far
less than monitoring data revealed in animal.s from the James River
estuary.
An analysis of the monitoring data indicated that the
average concentration of Kepone in fishes and invertebrates from the
James River, which could be eaten by other organisms, ranged from 0.09
to 2.0 ~ Kepone/kg of tissue.
Gulf Breeze data on the eff ects of
Kepone in oysters fed to blue crabs support the hypothesis that
undesirable impacts on survival and mOl.ting of bl.ue crabs are
occurring in the James River.
~
VI-18
\,
.
-------
Derivation 21 Sediment Clean-up IndeX fer KePone
The
studies by VIMS, the State of Virginia, and
Battelle clearly demonstrate that most of the discharged Kepone now
resides in the sediments of the James River.
The main sink
for Kepone is in the turbidity maximum zone where suspended sediments,
are deposited.
The concentrations of Kepone are orders of magnitude
grea ter in the bed sediments than dissolved in river
water.
Gulf
Breeze, VIMS (Appendix C, No. 12 and 16), and Battelle (Appendix A)
have shown that partition equilibria for Kepone between sediment and
water are directly affected by the sediment quality.
Therefore,
mitigati'on must first address Kepone :in the sediments.
Clean-up' iM"~ fer a~plable ~trat::icDs of Kepcme in ~;~ts
have been derived by examining how Kepone partitions among water,
sediments, and benthic biota.
Experiments have shown that benthic
organisms (lugworms, Arenicola cristata, and fiddler crabs,2£!
puqilator), which injested James River sediments with 0.250 mg
Kepone/kg (ppm) of sediment, attained whole-body residues of 0.250 to
0.300 mg Kepone/kg (ppm) of tissue within 21 days.
Luqworms did not
survive exposure to these sediments after 21 days, and Kepone did not
depurate from luqworms and fiddler crabs over a period of a few weeks
in clean water (Bahner, ~ ~., in preparation).
Concentra tions as
low as 2.8 uq Kepone/l (ppb) seawater caused a reduction in the normal
soil reworking activity of the lugworm and 29.5 uq Kepone/l (ppb)
VI -19
-------
seawater was aClltely toxic within 144 hours to luqworms burrowing in
sediments (Appendix c, No. 13).
Since benthic organisms attained
Kepone concentrations similar to the amount in sediments, and the food
clean-up iD3eJt
is 0.015 mg Kepone/kg (ppm) of tissue, Kepone
concentrations in sediment should not exceed 0.015 mg Kepone/kg (ppm)
of sediment to insure that Repone concentrations are less than the
food clean-up iM-.
An alternate method of establishment of an acceptable
concentration of Kepone in sediments can be based upon the premise
that an equilibrium exists for Repone between the sediment and water
[Kp = (ug/kg sediment)/(ug/l water) ].
An examination of labora tory
Kp-values indicates numbers ranging from 2.5 to 1700 (Appendix Ai
Appendix C, No. 12 and 17).
Xf pure reference clays and sand are
ignored (Kp = 2.5-50), the range is between 100 to 1700 and is related
to the 'quality and quantity of organic material in the sedi.ment.
Using these values to derive acceptable sediment concentrations, with
the previously derived Repone water clean-up index of ! 0.008 uq
Kepone/l (ppb) of water yields a range of 0.0008 to 0.014 mg
Kepone/kg (ppm) in sediment.
(The average concentration of Repone in
James River sediments from December 1976 through July 1977 was
0.150 mg Kepone/kg (ppm) of sediment).
Xf a Repone partition between water and James River sediment of
Kp=1000 is utilized, concentrations of 0.008 mg Kepone/kg (ppm) of
VI-20
-------
sediment would result in equilibrium concentrations equal to the ~ater
cIean-up ~
clean-up index
of 0.008 ug Kepone/l (ppb) of water.
since the food
is 0.015 mg Repone/kg (ppm) of tissue, the
concentration of Repone in sediment must not exceed 0.015 mg Repone/kg
(ppm) of sediment.
wi tb the lower limit of analytical detection for
Repone in sediments usually placed at 0.02 mg Repone/kg (ppm) of
sediment, both of the derived concentrations are below analYtical
detection.
Therefore, if Repone is present in measurable quantities,
it is hazardous to aquatic life.
VI-21
-------
VII.
KEPONE.. PROBLEM PROJECTIONS
A full' assessment of the Kepone contamination problem in the
Hopewell/James River area mus~ consider the immediate and long-range
impac~s on persons and on the environment.
Previous chapters have
focused primarily on the nature of the current Kepone contamination
problem.
This chaptez describes the predicted movement of
contaminated sediments and water in the James River and the
implications of Kepone's continued presence.
KEPONE TRANSPORT PROJECTIONS
The (FETFA) computer model, discussed in chapter IV, was employed
in combination with the EXPLORE hydrodynamic code to predict the
tzansport of Kepone in the tidal James River.
The model was applied
to an 86-kilometer reach between City Point (river kilometer 123) and
Burwell Bay (river kilometer 37).
Burwell Bay, rather than the river
mouth, was designated as the lower boundary because of limitatons in
the field data and hydrodynamic code.
The percentage, if any, of
Kepone migrating past Burwell Bay which would settle out or sorb onto
bottom sediments between Buzwell Bay and the mouth of the James River
is unknown.
Therefore, projections of Kepone transport past Burwell
Bay represent an upper limit to the predicted amount of Kepone
subsequently passing into Chesapeake Bay.
VII-l
-------
Three flow discharge cases measured at City Point were simulated:
(1) a freshwater. discharge of 58.3 m3/sec (2,050 cfs); (2) a
freshwater discharge of 247 m3/sec (8,700 cfs); and (3) a freshwater
discharge of 681 m3/sec (24,000 cfs).
The freshwater input discharge
of 58.3 m3/sec at City Point correspondS to that of approximately the
10 percentile discharge (i.e., 10 percent of the time of the year the
freshwater input discharge is 58.3 m3/sec or less).
The second
discharge of 247 m3/sec roughly corresponds to the average annual
discharge, and the third discharge of 681 m3/sec corresponds to
approximately the 90 percentile discharge.
The major results from the model are presented in Exhibits VII-1
through VII-5.
Exhibit VII-1 shows the predicted daily migration of
Kepone under the different flow regimes past Burwell Bay in the lower
James estuary.
During average flow conditions, an estimated 170 grams
per day of Kepone are transported past Burwell Bay. Model output
shows ~hat roughly 80 percent of this Kepone exists in the dissolved
state, with the other 20 percent attached to mobile sediments. During
high flow this total increases to 548 grams/day, with a slight
increase in the percentage attached to sediment.
EXhibit VII-2 displays the results of oombir.inq these daily flow esti-
mates into different runoff years.
Calculations sh:Jw that between 52 kg
(114.4 lb.) and 126 kg (277.2 lb.) of Kepone are being t:ranst:orted past
Burwell Ba:r in each year, ....'ith an average rar.ge of 71 kg (156.2 lb.) to
89 kg (195.8 lb.) per year.
VII-2
-------
EXHIBIT VII-1
Daily Kepone Transport Projections
Average Daily Kepone Transport
Condition Flow Rate Past Burwell Bay
Low Flow 2,050 cfs 38 grams/day
(58.3 m /sec)
Ayerage Flow 8,700 cfs 170 grams/day
(247 m /sec)
High Flow 24,000 cfs 548 grams/day
(681 m /sec)
EXHIBIT VII-2
Annual Kepone Transport Projections
Percentage or Days Per Year James River
Flow Averages:
Kepone Transport
Condition 2r050 cfs 8r700 cfs 24rOOO cfs Past Burwell Bay
Low Flow Year 50~ 40% 10% 52 kg/yr
Average Flow Year 10~ 80% 10' 71 kg/yr
Average Flow Year 30% 40% 30% 89 kg/yr
High Flow Year 10% 40~ 50% 126 kg/yr
VII-3
-------
Also, since Kepone is concentrated in migratory biota, it
physically moves in the water system along with the. host.
The
magnitude of the amount of Kepone transported by migratory fish was
determined.
catch-per-unit-effort information was supplied by VIMS
for summer and winter surveys.
The application of these data to
estimating the Repone transport required the following assumptions:
(1) all of the migratory fish populations that were present during the
survey leave the system, and (2) these fish are in the James River
long enough to accumulate equilibrium levels of Kepone where
depuration just cancels further uptake.
The estimates of Repone
transported annually in the major species is an average of 72 kg
(158 lb) and a maximum of 225 kg (494 lb).
Exhibits VII-3 through VII-5 show the predicted concentrations of
Repone existing in James River water between City Point and Burwell
Bay under the three flow regimes.
Values are expressed in micrograms
of Repone per liter of water (ppb) and are averaged over a full tidal
cycle.
Under average flow conditions (Exhibit
VII-4) Repone levels
in the water are seen to peak near the Jamestown area where slightly
more of the mobile Kepone is attached to suspended sediments than is
dissolved.
However, the amount of Repone transported in sediments
drops sharply down river resulting in a large majority of Repone
exiting Burwell Bay in the dissolved state.
VII-4
-------
.(1)20
r-..
---1
....
"-
<'9 . (1) 1 B .
::1.' '
'-'
6 .016 -
t--i
t--
~ . (1)1q -
~ -
Z
W
LJ . (1) 12 :..
Z -
o
u
.010
~
J1
w
z
o
(L . 008 .
laJ
~
fj . 1D06 :
~
a:
ffi . 1D0q -
>
a:
-
---1 . 002 :
a:
o
t-t
t-- 0. 001lJ
30.
--- TOTAL KEPONE
---- DISSOLVED KEPONE
- - - PAHTICULATE KEPONE
.r-"
/./ "
./""""'" .
-"'" ""- .-"",
" -"'" ------------
'- --"'"
'- --
'---
,\
./--1
./-./
"
--........ - ---
....... /' ----...
-----
...........
---- ,../
F.xhibit VII-3
'UD.
51lJ.
60.
80.
90.
120.
131lJ.
100.
110.
70.
RIVER KILOMETERS
LongitudJnal Distributions of Tidal Averaged Total. Dissolved and Particulate
Kepone Concentrations fur the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m3/sec
-------
.020
..-.
-.J
'-
~ .018 -
L...
:z :
a .016 :-
.-
t- :
a: -
a: .0111 :.
t-
Z
W
u .012 -
:z ;
o
u
.010 -
l1J
Z
o
0- . 0OJO
w
~
fj . 006
t.9
a::
a:::
w
>
(C
_I . 002 :-..
a:
o
~-t
t- 0. OJQ}rJ.I .
30.
Exhibit VII-4
TOTAL KEI'ONE
---- IHSSOLVEU KEPONE
- - - PAltTJCULA'fE KEl'ONE
j\
~
1/--- -
" / ..........~ -
~ --- --.. ---
",----~----- / --==--~------
/ / ~
\ '
/ ,/
"-- -
'\
/'
'-
-
ij(8.
51D.
61D.
80.
9Q).
100.
120.
130.
11Q}.
70.
RIVER KILOMETERS
Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averaged Total. DJssolved and I'art:lcillate
Kepone Concentrations for the Fresh-water DIscharge of 247 m3/sec
-------
.020
..
-'
"'-
(~ .016 -
-
L...J
Z .016
0
t--t
1-
a:: . OJ! I!
cr: -
t-
Z
uJ .012
(J
:z
a
L)
. on 0
hJ
:z
a
A tL .Ul1D8
=1 w
~ ~
...
I::) . .01D6
LLI --
-
(~
([:
cr: .00q
IJJ
>
a::
_J .002 -
a:
0
~
.-
--- TOTAL KEPONE
--- IH SSOLVEU KEPONE
- - - IJARTICULATI~ KEI'ONE
J" /""--
~ ---j ;~~-----~---_/~-
'-. - \-
----- J \
/
/~/
\
"---.//
'10.
61D.
70.
9U1.
120.
IIDID .
110.
60.
50.
RIVER KILOMETERS
LongttUtlJnal Distributions of Tidal Averaged Total. Dissolved and
PartJcuJate Kepone Concentrations for the Fresh-waterODlscharge of
681 m3/sec
Exhibit VII-5
130.
-------
In the following sections, the calibration and verification of the
model are presented.
Results of sensitivity analyses can be found in
Chapter VII of the Battelle report (Appendix. A) , as well as additional
model output, including predicted levels of suspended sediment in the
tidal James River and scour/deposition rates under the different flow
regimes.
Calibration of the Model
--
Calibration of a mathematical model is one of the most important
aspects of the simulation process.
Calibration is usually performed
by "tuning" a model to reproduce a known condition by ad justing some
model parameters.
As shown in Exhibit VII-6, in the present study
most of the parameters (such as Kepone distribution coefficients,
turbulent diffusion coefficient, sediment sizes, sediment fall
veloci~y, etc.) were fixed not only by adjusting them to match
computer results with field data, but
also, they were determined by
theoretical and experimental analyses
and field conditions, prior to
the model simulation.
Hence, the only parameters which can be changed
to fit simulation results to the measured data are a dispersion
coefficient and three parameters which calculate deposition and
erosion rates of sediment.
Thus, the major calibration effort was
directed to reproducing sediment distribution patterns similar to the
actual longitudinal distribution of sediment concentrations for the
VII-8
-------
Exhibit VII-6
TEST CONDITIONS FOR KEPONE SIMULATION
Fresh-water Discharge (m3/sec)
River Seci1ment Size (mm)
Cohesive sediment
Organic matter
Sand
Longitudinal Dispersion Coefficients
for all Sediment and Kepone (m2/sec)
Longitudinal Diffusion Coefficients
for all Sediment and Kepone (m2/sec)
Kepone ~ecay Rate (l/hr)
Kepone Distribution Coefficients (cm3/g)
Associated with cohesive sediment
Associated with organic matter
Associated with sand
Kepone Mass Transfer Rate (l/hr)
Initial Bed Sediment
Cohesive sediment
Organic Matter
Sand
Constituents (%)
Boundary Condicions During Ebb Tide
Sediment Concentrations at City
Point (mg/2.)
Cohesive sedi~ent
Organic matter
Sand
Kepone Concentrations at City Point
Dissolved (~g/2.) .
Particulate (~g/g) associated wich
Cohesive sediment
Orgariic Matter
Sand
Boundary Conditions During Flood Tide
Sediment Concentrations at Burwell
Bay (mg/t)
Cohesive sediment
Organic matter
Sand
Kepone Concentrations at Burwell Bay
Dissolved (~g/t)
Particulate (~g/g) associated with
Cohesive sediment
Organic ~atter
Sand
Case 1
58.3
0.030
O. 100
0.150
14
0.14
o
10,000
20,000
1,000
1
80
15
5
24
4.5
1.5
0.007
0.045
0.090
0.0045
24
4.5
1.5
0.007
0.032
0.064
0.0032
V'II-9
Case Z
247
0.030
0.100
O. 150
14
0.14
o
10,000
20,000
1,000
1
80
15
5
32
6
2
0.007
0.045
0.090
0.0045
32
6
2
0.007
0.032
0.064
0.0032
Case 3
681
0.030
0.100
0.150
14
0.14
o
10,000
20,000
1,000
1
80
15
5
52
9.8
3.2
0.007
0.045
0.090
0.0045
52
9.8
0.007
0.032
0.064
0.0032
-------
86-km study reach measured by Battelle during the June 1977, James
River sampling effort.
As a result of numerous trial runs after adjusting the parameters,
data were obtained for final calibration for the freshwater discharge
of 58.3 m3/sec as shown in Exhibit VII-7 - VII-9.
These figures show
computed longitudinal variation of total sediment concentrations (sum
of cohesive sediment, organic matter and sand being transported as
suspended and bed loads) at maximum ebb, slack tide and maximum flood,
together with measured data obtained by Battelle for the same
freshwater discharge.
Comparison of the computer results with the
measured data indicate excellent agreement.
Although it is possible
to improve the model prediction with more fine tuning, it was judged
that the model was calibrated successfully.
Verification of the Model
--
Model verification was undertaken through a comparison of model
results at a given flow rate with previously acquired field data at
similar flow rates.
verification of the sediment transport part of the model was
conducted for Case 2 (freshwater discharge of 247 m3/sec).
Model
results are shown in Exhibits VII-10 and VII-11, together with field
data.
These figures include sediment concentrations of each type of
VII-lO
-------
120.
110. -
r. 100.
.-J
"-
(-E) 90. -
L
'-)
Z B0. -
C)
........
. 70. -
Ir
0=
t- 6(J).
z -
LiJ
LJ
Z 50. -
~ C)
L)
~ t-- '10. -
z
LLI 30.
::;r: .
J-"-<
0
W 2(J).
(f) -
10. -
0.
3(1). '10. 50.
Exhibit VII-7
. --- -. -
.. - -- -.-. ---"- _."- - "- --. .
.. ----------------
.
. 1'1I~l.n nATA (nATTEI.LE)
"0.
60.
7rJJ.
BU).
130.
90.
100.
110.
120.
RIVER KILOMETERS
Longitudinal DLstrihutions of Total Sediment Concentration at the Haximum Ebb
Tide for the Fl-esh-water Discharge of 58.3 m3/sec t together. wi th Field Data
-------
120.
IUD.
..... HlJ0.-
-'
'-..
l!) 90.
:L
L-J
z 801.
0
.-...
I- 70.
a:
a:
~ 60.
z
w
u
~ z 50. -
o
u
~ q0.
t-..) 1-.
.:7 .
:l.I
.. - 30.
'-
...-1
0
W 2fJJ.
en -
10. -
OJ.
3fJJ.
Exhibit VII-8
o FIELI> nATA (UATTELLE)
.
IUD.
60.
70.
130.
50.
80.
90.
100.
110.
120.
RIVER KILOMETERS
Longitudinal Oistrll)utions of Total Sediment Concentration at the Slack Tide
for the Fresh-water IHscharge of 58. J m3/sec. together \o/ith Fie)d nata
-------
120.
110.
,........ 10(1).
.-J
'-
tE) 90.
:L
L.J
Z 80.
0
t-f
t- 70. -
cr
a:
t- 60.
Z
W
U
z 50. -
0
U
...-- ij(1). .
z
w 30.
L -
t-f
0
w 2(1).
(J)
10. -
(1).
310. ij(1). 50. 60. 7UJ. 80. 90.
~
~
ExhibitVII-9
o FIELU nATA (nATTELI.E)
.
100.
130.
110.
120.
RIVER KILOMETERS
Longitudinal Distributions of Total Sediment Concentration at the Maximum
Flood Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m3/sec. together with
Field Data
-------
120.
110. -
..... 100. -
~
"-
U) 90. -
L
'--'
z 80. -
C)
I--t
.- 70.
CC
a:
.- 60.
:z:
w
u
:z 50.
~ C)
U
.- '10. - 8
'-'
,.. Z
uJ 30.
:L -
t-t
0
IJ.J 20.
(f)
10.
0.
30.
--- TOTAL SED HIEN'l'
---- COIIESIVE SEIHHI~N'J'
- - - OI{GANTC HA'J'TElt
- . - SAND
8 FIELD nATA FOR TOTAL
SEDIMENTS (Nichols.
1972)
1\
1\
8 81 \ 1"-
1 \ 1 " /\
I \ 1 v \
I \ 1 \
I \ / \
I \ / \
I \ I \\
J \ I \
J \ / I \
I \ / \ I \ ...-,
I \ / \V \V/ \
I \I '1 \
\ I / \
\ / / \ ~
\ / \ l..---
\ / ./
\/
8
-
/~-
/
L ~........---, .A
"-/ '/'
Exhibit VII-IO
lllD.
50.
60.
90.
110.
130.
120.
70.
80.
100.
RIVER KILOMETERS
Longitudinal Distribution of Sediment Concentration of Eacl. Sediment Type
at Slack Tide for the Fresh-,-./ater Discharge of 247 m3/sec
-------
r-, 12(1).
_J
'-..
U) 110.
L:
~
:z: 1(110.-
C)
..~
t- 90.
a: -
a.:
t-
Z 80.
l1.J
U
:z 70.
CJ -
U
t- 60. -
Z
W
~ L 50.
~ -
o
t; w
(f) 110.
C) . 0
It.J 30.
t!)
a:
IT: 20.
w -
>
a:
-1 1(1). -
a:::
0 0.
~
t- 30.
Exhibit VII-ll
o
-- TOTAL SEUHIENT .
---- COHESIVE SEUUIENT
- - - OIU;ANI C NATTER
-- . -- SANO
o FIELD DATA FOR
TOTAL SlmIMENTS
(Nichols, 1972)
o
~
1\ .-
I \ I "-
I \ I '."
I \ I"
I \ I \
I \ / \\
I. \ / \
I \ / \
I \ I \
I L..- I \
" / \
I "/ --~
I A \
I \
\ I / \ \
\ / \
\/ / \ --
FIELD DATA FOR
TOTAL SEDIMENTS
(Nichols, 1966)
.
o
.
./
\
~----
"""-- /
~-
/~
~
q0.
50.
130.
80.
90.
60.
70.
10(1) .
110.
120.
RIVER KILOMETERS
Tidal Averaged Sediment Concentration of Each Sediment Type for the Fresh-
water Discharge of 247 \OJ/see
-------
sediment (cohesive sediment, organic materials or sand) and total
sediment (sum of-those sediment components).
Measured total sediment
concentrations in these figures were obtained by Nichols (1972)
in
March 1965 and March 1960.
Field data in 1966 were provided by
Nichols through personal communication.
Field data in 1965 were those
associated with a freshwater input discharge of 250 m3/sec, while 1966
data were obtained in two days during which the freshwater input
discharge changed from 257 m3/s to 144 m3/sec wi~~ the two-day average
discharge being 201 m3/sec.
(The present simulation was conduc~ed for
the discharge of 247 m3/sec).
Comparison of these field data with
computer results at slack tide and tidal average cases (Exhibits VII-
10 and VII-11) indicate excellent agreement among these values.
Since
the present model was calibrated for the discharge of 58.3 m3/sec and
the model was not readjusted for the 247 m3/sec case, this excellent
agreement with measured data for the latter case provides additional
confidence in the sediment transport part of the model.
,
Verification of the Kepone transport part of the model was
conducted by comparing computer results to measured data ob~ained by
Battelle and.VIMS for case 1 (freshwaster discharge of 58.3 m3sec).
As noted previously, Battelle's data were obtained during June 1977
and VIMS data were collected during August 1977.
Since there were no
parameters adjustable to fix the computer results to those field data,
numerical comparison cannot be made.
However, the trends of the field
data and computer results are similar.
This correlation provides an
VII-16
-------
additional basis for confidence in the verification.
Exhibits VII-12
through VII-1Q present predicted particulate Kepone concentrations
associated with each type of sediment and average particulate Kepone
(weighted average of three particulate Repone values associated wi~h
the three sediment types) per unit weight of sediment, together with
cross-sectionally averaged field data of average particulate Repone
concentrations.
'1!1ese \Ere obt:ai:m by Battelle for m:=IYiml'lm ebb, slack and
fl0:x3 t:iQes, respectively.
Exhibits VII-'5 and VII-16 present predicted tidally averaged
particulate Kepone concentrations per unit W'eight of suspended
sediment, and those per unit volume of water, respectively, together
with measured average particulate Repone concentrations obtained by
Battelle and VIMS in their James River sampling effort.
AS noted
above, Battelle's data in these figures are cross-sectionally averaged
values.
However, VIMS data are those measured in a main navigation
channel of the river.
Except for the maximum flood tide case (Exhibit
VII-14), the agreement between the computer results and the field da~a
are good.
For example, Exhibit VII-16 reveals excellent agreement
except one measured point at river kilometer 1'1.
A suggested
explanation by Battelle of the discrepancy between the predicted and
measured value at river kilometer 1'1 is as follows:
in the uppermost
part of the river, Repone distribution in suspended sediment across
the river is much less uniform, as compared to distributions in the
lower part of the James River because of the short distance from the
VII-l7
-------
.20
f"""""'
t9 .18
'-
(9
::1.
'-,
.16
:z
0
t-t
.-- . I'!
a:
a:
1-
:z .12
UJ
LJ
:z
0 .10
u
lLJ
:z .08
~ 0
0-.
W
~ ~
00 .06
w
J-
a:
-.-J . (hI!
~
u
t--4
J- .02
If
(.
,")-
/\
/
AVERAGE PARTICULATE KEPONE
---- PAHTICULATJ~ KErONJ~ \HTH
COHESIVE SEIHNENT
- - - PARTICULATE KJ~PONE WITH
ORGANIC NATTIm
- . - PARTICULATE KE1'ONE WITII
SAND
. FIELD DATA
-------
.~ID
"
~ .10
,
l~
::l
L..J
.16
z
0
t--t
t- . 1'1
a:
a::
t-
Z .12
w
u
z
0 .10 .
u
w
z .08
~ 0
tL
lJJ
..A ~
D .06
w
t-
a:
-.J .0'1
=>
u
t--t
t- .02
a:
a:
(L
0.0(1)
30.
/
.
1
/
--- AVI~RAfa~ PARTICUI.ATE KEI'ONE
---- PARTICUI,ATE KI':I'ONE WITU cUlms IVE
SEUI~IENT
. - - - PARTICUI.ATE KEI'ONE 'UTU OIU:ANTC
NATTER
\- . - PARTICUI.ATE KEPONJo: 'HTU SAN I>
. FIELD DATA FOR AVERAGE
PARTICULATE KEPONE
(BATTELLE)
"--------"\
\
/\
/
"
/
/'
~
. \
\
.
.
'\:
"
-
r
/
----------------------------------
'l0.
SUI.
Exhibit VII-13
50.
70.
60.
90.
110.
120.
HD0.
RIVER KILOMETERS
Longitudinal Distributions of Particulate Kepone Concentrations at
Slack Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m3/sec
130.
-------
.20
....
1.9 .18
"
1.9
::1.
\.-J
.16
Z
0
t-4
t- . l'j .
a:
a:
t-
Z . 12
W
u
Z
0 .10
u
w
~ z .08
a .
0.... .. :
N W
a ~
.06
w
t-
0:
_J . 0'j
::J
U
t-4
t- .02 -
a:
a:
0....
J
AVEItAGE PART£CULATE KEPONE
" ---- PARTICULATE KEPONE WITH COIiESl VE
SEI>HtENT
/ \- - - l)ARTICUL~TE KEl'ONE WITH ORGANIC
. NATTER
I. - . - PARTICULATE KE1'ONE WITH SAN!)
\.. . FIELD DATA FOR AVERAGE
PARTICULATE KEPONE f\
\
\
\
/
~ ./ .-- - J
/
'-.....
/
-
--
./
.
.
/
/
.
/
.
.
---------------------------------
lUll.
60.
90.
12(/).
1~0.
10rl1.
110.
7rl1.
611.1.
5rl1.
RIVEn KILOMETERS
Exhibit VII-ll~
LongItudinal IHstr1butions of Particulate Kepone Concentrations at Hnximum
Flood Tide for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m3/sec
-------
'"
U>
'-
19
::t.
LJ
L.LJ
:z
a
(L
LJJ
~
l1J
t-
a:
--.J
=>
U
"04
t-
~ a:
a:
(L
~ 0
ltJ
U>
a:
a:
w
>
a:
--.J
0:
o
t-t
t-
.20
/
AVERAGE PARTICULATE KEPONE
---- PARTICULATE KEPONE WITII COIII~SIVE
SED nmNT
- - - PARTfCULATE KEPONE WITU ORGANIC
"""'\ HATTEn
/ \--. - PARTICULATE KEPONE WITII SANU
. FIELD DATA FOR AVERAGE
/ PARTICULATE KEPONE (BATTELLE)
" a FJELD DATA
"-..!1I~GE~978) ~ - \.
.16 -
.16
. 1'1
.12 -
.10
.OJO
./1)6
. 0/J
.02 -
/
.0
/
8
\
-
8
,---
/
/
o
/,
./ "
./ ........
./......... .
./ -- --"':"\. 4
-_./ -------- ~~
-~~~ ,
/'""
8j/
'/
-------------------------
0.01D Ll.U......-r; ;"".::-;. -; .I.I.~ . .. . .1. .. . .. . .. I.. .. ... . .1. .. . . . . . .1. ... . .. ..1.. . . I .1. .1.. . . . . . . .1. ~. . .. .
3111.
'un.
70.
90.
100.
60.
50.
60.
110.
120.
AIVEA KILOMEfEAS
Exhibit VII-15
Tidal Averaged Particulate Kepone Concentrations for the Fresla-water
Discharge of 58.3 m3/sec
130.
-------
. !DUD
r-,
__I
;-;:; . 0W9 -
::1.
'-,
11 I . 1D1D!3 .
:z:
o
~ i . llJf/f/ .
"\ .
-~-
I.tl 11I1lJ' -
1-- .w b
(J--
--_I
--)
U .1D1lJ~ -
1--1
~
N
N
1-,,--
(C
a~ . WlD'l :-
(}
LI
lLi (/)1.01 -
l~)' -
(e
(C
!..!-' .W1II2
....
([~
if . !DID 1 -
r)
1--'
1--- 0.1/J1D1lI'
311).
Exhibit VII-16
---------._. - ~.'-_.
--. - _._- .----...---.------- ...-------- ----_.- - .-- ------- ------
TOTAl. PARTICULATE KEI'ONE
---- PARTICULATE KEPONE WITII COIIESIVE SEDIMENT
- - - PARTICULATE KEI'ONE WITII ORGANIC MATTER
- . - PARTICULATE KEPONE WITII SAND
. FfELD DATA (BATTEI.LE)
o FIELD DATA (lIUGGET. 1978)
o
\
~ I \/--"'-
I ,,-~ -,
'--- -- '-... '. .
I" ~-- I 0 '" ~~.".
"',// ..... \ "'..... ---- -" -'.
~ f.) /1 ) '.--- ''-.
-....../ ./ - \
---./ ../
..-- "" .--- -- ./ '-.
--- .-- .~--- --- ---- ---- --- -'--- .
.L1..1.lL.1..J...L.1..!. I , II I I 1.u...L.1.1 I I I , I I , I I I I .1 I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I II I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I I . I I I
'Un.
'lID.
H0.
12m.
1~1D.
90.
117.11]).
111lJ .
~(]I.
{jlll.
R [VEn ~~ [ LOME TER~)
Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averag~d Particulate Keponc Concentrations
per Unit Volume of \~ater for the 11resh-water Discharge of 58.3 rn3/sec
-------
~riginal Kepone discharge source (at Hopewell).
Hence, VIMS data
obtained in a main channel of the river kilometer 111 is expected to
be higher than a cross-sectional average there.
However, in the lower
part of the river, the measured data in the main channel may be much
closer to the cross-sec~onal average.
This trend may be reflected in
Exhibit VII-16, when the computed and measured values are ccmpared.
From the comparisons shown in Exhibit VII-12 through VII-16, it is
judged that the particulate Kepone transport part of the model has
been verified with sufficient field data.
Most of the dissolved Repone concentrations measured in the James
River reach were below the detection limit which is approximately
0.005 to 0.010 ug/l.
VIMS also reported from their August 1977 field
sampling that the dissolved Repone level in the James River is below
the detection limit.
Hence in this study, dissolved concentrations a~
the head end of the study reach was set to 0.007 ug/l, which is
approximately the highest possible value maintained in the river.
Exhibit VII-3 shows the computed tidal averaged dissolved Repone con-
centration together with particulate and total (sum of dissolved and
particulate) Repone concentrations..
This exhibit indicates that
dissolved Repone concentrations vary from approximately
0.0049 to 0.0080 ug/l.
As stated above, from the measured particulate
Repone concentration and the Rd value, expected dissolved Repone
concentration is somewhat below the detection limit but is roughly the
same order of magnitude to the detection limit.
Hence, the predicted
\~I-23
-------
'-
.~
~#
'-I
.
-J
~
d
}
level of dissolved concentration by the FETR~ code is the highest
possible value found in the study area but still below the detection
limit.
From these considerations, the dissolved Kepone transport part
of the FETRA code was also judged to be reasonably well verified with
available information on dissolved Kepone concentrations in the James
River estuary.
Simulation of Alternatives
Two important questions to be asked are:
1.
What will happen to the Kepone migration pattern and its
concentration level if a part of Kepone in the river bed is removed by
physical, chemical or biological methods?
2.
Where is the most optimal location for Kepone removal to
reduce the Kepone level in the river?
In order to answer these questions, mathematical modelling was
conducted for an additional ten cases (Cases A through J) by assuming
that for each case, Kepone in the bed at a certain part of the Tidal
James River was completely removed.
For all cases, freshwater input
discharges were assumed to be 247 m3/sec.
Computer results during the
maximum ebb tide af~er one-month simulation for these cases were ~~en
VII-24
-------
compared with the no-cleanup action case in order to assess
effectiveness of the Kepone cleanup activities.
Locations of Kepone cleanup activities were divided into four
categories: (1) upper part of the tidal James River (Cases A, B, and.
C); (2) middle part of the river (Cases D through H); (3) lower part
of the river (Case I); and (4) combination of (2) and (3)
(Case J).
Exact cleanup locations are shown in the lower parts of Exhibits VII-
17 through VII-19, together with simulation results.
Total dissolved
and particulate Kepone concentrations for Cases A through J and Case 2
(247 mJ/sec) flow rate with no sediment removal, are also shown in
Exhibits VII-17 through VII-19, respectively.
In the cases of removal of contaminated sediment from upper river
areas (Cases A through C), Case B (cleanup of Bailey Bay and the upper
half of Tar Bay) and Case C (Bailey and Tar Bays) improve the
situation by reducing the Kepone level in water by approximately 15
percent within the vicinity of the cleanup locations.
Case A (cleanup
of Bailey Bay) WJUld rem:we all Kepone £ran this s:)urce, l:ut it ~ have little
~ in the shcrt teJ:m on the total ancunt of Kep:Jne leaving Burwell Bay.
For middle river cleanup activities (Cases D through E) ,
reductions of up to 55 and 48 percent of Kepone. in water were obtained
for Cases D and E, respectively.
Case D cleanup area is an area of
34.5 km between 50.5 and 85.0 River Kilometer, and Case E is a 20-km
VII-25
-------
0.020
0.018 -
0.016 -
~
0>
:1 0.014-
z
0
.-. 0.012-
~
a:::
~
w
<..> 0.010-
z
a
u
~ w
:z
0 0.008
0...
h.J
'" ~
0\ ....J
~ 0.006 -
I-
o
.-.
0.004 -
0.002 -
o
30
Exhibit VII-r(
CLEAN UP REGIONS
+- CASrQ)+
.--. ... ...@
.-@-t.
~ .... *
-------
0.009
0.008 -
~
N
......
~
g 0.007
z
a
t- 0.006-
«
~
t-
Z
~0005
z .
a
u
l&..I
t5 0.004
a..
l&..I
~
~ 0.003 -
-.J
a
VI
VI 0.002-
o
0.001 .-
o
30
CA SE S
0@~CD
~'.
, ...
, .
" ".
,. .
o' ,. ".
..' . '.-. "
." @ -...:, .
~o ~:.-._.-._.-. '-'-.0:::'" "
o' III\. -"-"- -; ~C
." 1I\.1tY ";'::"~- ..-..~
,..",- 4 .,- ...". -- ---
..-......., ......",., ~
.,0,0_"_"- ---'-- "
'.-- "',-,-,-,-'-'-' . I
;~--, I
'~- /
-- ,
'-, ,
- -{O- iI
-"--..... E.,
---
~CASEQ).
~
D
CLEAN UP REGIONS
4-CASfQ)+
..--. ~.. @
~
.-. ~.. -CD
4 1) .
@
~
4
.
40
50
70 80
RIVER KilOMETERS
110
120
90
100
60
Exhibit VII-18
Changes in IHsHolved Kepone ConcentratJons Due to Partial Kepone Cleanup
ActivitJes
-------
~
N
00
0.11
0.10 -
0.09 -
0>
-- 0.08-
0>
::1.
Z
a
t- 0.07-
c:(
ex:
t-
z
L.U
u 0.06-
z
a
u
L.U
z 0.05 -
a
a..
L.U
~
~ 0.04 -
:s
::J
u
r:= 0.03 -
ex:
c:(
a..
0.02 --
0.01 .-
o
30
.-cASEQ)..
.--
-------
reach between 56.0 and 78.0 River Kilometer.
Cleanup efforts in Cases
G and H also dem~nstrate some reduction (up to approximate 13 per-
cent), however, Case F does not show any improvement.
For these five
simulation cases there was significant reduction of Kepone levels in
water near Burwell Bay.
For the case of lower river cleanup activity (Case I), there is no
measurable reduction in the Kepone concentration.
Consequently,
computer results of Case J (combination of Cases G and I) are the same
as those of Case G.
Among these ten cases, Cases D and E reveal significant localized
reduction on both dissolved and particulate Kepone concentrations.
Although Case D (up to 55 percent reduction of Kepone concentration)
is slightly better than Case E (up to 48 percent reduction) ,
comparison of cleanup area sizes for these two cases (34.5 and 22.0 km
reaches for Cases D and E, respectively) leads to the conclusion that
Case E is more efficient to reduce the Kepone concentration in the
river per unit area of cleanup activities.
\~I-29
-------
SUMMARY OF IMPLICATIONS OF KEPONE'S CONTINUED PRESENCE
Hopewell
Certain land areas around the City of Hopewell have contamination
from Kepone remaining since closure of Kepone production operations in
1975.
These sectors are Nitrogen park, the Life Science Products
site, Station Street neighborhood, Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate plant
site, Hopewell sewer system, Hopewell landfill, and the Kepone/sludge
lagoon.
Ambient air monitoring in the Hopewell area has shown Kepone to be
at a nondetectable level.
However, the Kepone on surface sQils may be
available to the population from windblown particulates and by direct
contact.
It is estimated that from 2 to 30 grams of Kepone per day will
continue to migrate into the James River in runoff from the general
Hopewell area.
This incremental increase of residuals to the river
system has an insignificant environmental impact relative to the
amount of Kepone currently in the river.
VII-3:0
-------
James River
The James River represents a much more diffuse source of Kepone
than the terrestrial area of Hopewell.
There is general Kepone
contamination along much of the length from Hopewell to Newport News,
with elevated levels in certain sectors.
In particular, these are at
Bailey Bay and the middl.e reach of the tidal James known as the
"turbidi ty maximum".
The turbidity maximum, or null zone, is the area
where saltwater wedge interfaces with freshwater.
In the James River
it generally occurs from 10 to 50 km above Burwell Bay, depending upon
runoff conditions.
since James River benthic and aquatic species can bioconcentrate
Kepone many thousands of times above the ambient water levels, fish,
shellfish, and other organisms will be affected by Kepone even with
residual concentrations at very low levels.
These organisms will
accumulate and bioconcentrate Kepone as long as it is available from
sediments, suspended sediments, water, or food, As a consequence, the
no-action alternative implies that James River fishery products will
have excessive Kepone levels for years.
Bald eagles, osprey, and
other James River birds of prey will continue to be exposed to Kepone
from the contaminated fish they eat.
VII-3,l
-------
Human contact with Kepone in the James River will probably remain
minimal as long as closure orders by the State of Virginia are in
effect and obeyed..
Chesapeake Bav
Evidence to 'date indicates that the no-action alternative under
normal conditions would not threaten the viability of the Chesapeake
Bay fishing industry.
This is supported by historical trends, current
sampling data, and transport projections indicating low levels of
Kepone contamination entering the Bay.
As early as 1967, oysters taken from the James River contained
Kepone residuals.
Also in that year, sediment samples were
contaminated above detectable levels more than 30 miles downriver from
Hopewell (Nichols & Trotman, VIMS, 1977).
Battelle's simulation results indicate that under average flow
conditions despite the large amount of Kepone residing in the James
River - only 170 grams/day are transported past Burwell Bay of which
80 percent is in the dissolved state and 20 percent is attached to
mobile sediments.
This amount would be expected to reach the Bay.
Sediment samples collected from twelve stations in the lower
Chesapeake Bay in september 1977 contained no detectable levels of
VII - 32
-------
Kepone above 0.01 ug/g (ppm)
(Nichols & Trotman, VIMS, 1977).
Analysis of fish tissues reveals Repone in some of the Bay's species,
although not exceeding the FDA Action Levels.
Based on these facts the question must be addressed as to why
Kepone discharges from 1966 to mid-1975 have not resulted "in
significant Chesapeake Bay contamination as well.
The tremendous dilution and dispersion capacity of the Chesapeake
Bay probably accounts for the minimal impact of the small amount of
Kepone entering the Bay.
In addition the majority of Kepone residuals
released from the Hopewell area have probably remained in the James
River system due to two natural forces; first, the propensity of
Kepone to adhere to sediment rather than remain dissolved in water;
and second, the natural sediment trap effect of the null zone or
turbidity maximum in estuarine systems.
The impact of the null zone in retaining Repone in the James River
has been well demonstrated, VIMS (Appendix C).
"Most Kepone
concentrations are located in and above the null zone and they persist
with time, both over the short term (eight months of sampling) and
over the long term as demonstrated from the distribution at depth with
cores. 11 (Nichols & Trotman, VIMS, , 977, p. 18).
Re sul ts from
extensive James River sediment sampling by ~~e Virginia State Water
Control Board exhibit a similar pattern of distribution (Chigges,
VII-33
-------
!
.:/1
i
f
.17
1977), and the transport model projections from Battelle substantiate
the conclusion of long-term persistence in the null zone (Appendix A).
Although the effectiveness of the null zone decreases under extreme
flow conditions, the floods of 1969 and 1972 show no evidence of
having contributed significant Kepone contamination to the Chesapeake.
Bay.
Rather than net.scoUr, the flooding associated with hurricane
Agnes (one of the largest in recorded history) resulted in an increase
in the depth of bottom sediment in the tidal James River (Nichols,
1972) .
However, the situation of the Chesapeake Bay could change, if
the FDA Action Levels were made more stringent or a large east coast
storm resuspended and transported the Repone from the turbidi~y
maximum zone.
Although under normal conditions Kepone contamination does not appear
to threaten the Chesapeake Bay, utilizing existing data to project
long-term trends is always subject to some degree of error.
Therefore, continuous monitoring will be required to ensure that
should any unsuspected movement of Kepone occur, it will be detected
and mitigation efforts implemented before creating a problem in the
Chesapeake Bay.
In addition to monitoring, the potential of a large
east coast storm transporting Kepone into the Chesapeake Bay should be
assessed.
VII-34
-------
C- a', /- ..r- r-: / ,.--'~ - /-:/ 'J) )
1./ /LJ.' /. /./~ .,..;;!."7 ..>/, ...) ,.,..--. - L,.. i"/ //~ / ,. ,;",)
y pt:V....-,:;,..-' /' ",.",. ~ ---' {? ~ "," \ -- L r "
/ '1 .,,/ ...,/~' .' /-,/ ..4" :.-- /.",/
I.. . -.. ' ~. ..,.::., r' .., // .!Iii' J' -.,--
n". ( " .,>'). ,.., ~ i "';-1 r--!:' ',".; , ".~ ,.' /,t"'1 "-:'.-" " /, , '1,-/ <-(" I
./ ' , ;:.- ../ / /. ,!. ~/.~I' '7 : -) I' ,-':' .' .. .
", -.,.' / . '-I......;r} ';;'''..1' .,-/../ .,., ;' ':"''''. ~ .A ".. ~P;',,""'1,...v"r ,'/.- , ., ..." .\ .. ~..-::Y )
" ~. . - .,....
-------
on the characteristics of the contaminant to be bound. the stresses to
which the fixed mass may be exposed (e.g. pressure. thermal changes.
etc), the environmental consequences of its application, the state of
development, and potential costs.
The initial evaluations described
here concentrate on the agent's ability to isolate the contaminant and
to maintain its physical integrity.
Each fixation agent evaluated was subjected to two types of
standardized tests: (1) a short-term elutriate test; and (2) a longer-
term leach test.
All fixation work was performed on a "standard"
sediment prepared from a homogenized Bailey Bay sediment sample.
The
Kepone concentration in the test samples was measured at 1.17 ug/g
(ppm).
Only commercially available fixation agents were employed and
~n effort to include all companies currently marketing fixation
processes was made.
Many of the agents employed are proprietary in
nature and, therefore, their compositions are not described.
Silicate Base Fixation Aqents
Data obtained on all samples for both elutriate and leach tests
are presented in Exhibit VIII-1.
The first samples are from fixation
tests performed by ontario Liquid Waste Disposal Ltd.
Their process
involved the addition of an acidic agent followed by an amending agent
with dosing controlled through observation of pH levels.
All samples
VIII-2
-------
j
"il
..1/
:f';
,
.)
.>
,
,/
r7
..'/
,.
Exhibit VIII-l
Kepone Concentrations tn Elutriate and Leachate Solutions
(1Jg/1-ppb)
'-sIU
TI. In Mou... .f
'118t1ort TYOI E1u~lt. -L. ~ ..l!- ~ ~ ~ ~ ,016 ~"CMU
Sf11cttt s.a..
OnUrio ~I..td 011_1 110. 2 0.07 O.aI O.OM 0.186 0.524 0.30 0.21 0.17
OnUr1o ~1..ld 01_1 110. 1 0.05 0.05 0.111 0.157 0.101 0.21 0.51 O.ZI
OnUrio Lh..td 01l_1"'1cal. Lt- &.10 &.00& 1.55 1.75 3.51 1.19 1.59 I.Ze %.10
- CoI- 110. 2 1.52 1.00& 0." 1.01 1.81 1.7' %.09 1.9 1.10
--- CoI-- 110. 1 1.21 1.J4 2." 0.10 I.JO 1.18 0.78 1.11 1..0
-.:aft CoI-- 118. & l.tI I.U 1.88 I.JI 1.42 1.04 1.02 1." %.ZO
~ CoI- 110. 5 1.11 0.19 0.54 1.00 1.18 1.21 1.&1 %.59 I."
Cll88f1a CT -77 -ZA O.IZ 1.10 1.JO %.21 z.n 1.58 1.58 ".9 1.77 1.95
Cll88ft. I" 0.012 1.52 Z.'" 1.42 1.14 z.la 1.42 I.H Z.&Z 1.50
T~It. Inc. 101 0.078 0.095 0.018 0.059 0.15 <0.Z1 0.J1 0.77 0.77
T~It. [nc. 102 0.055 0.088 0.0112 0.088 0.1& 0.11 0.&9 2.84 0.'1
r~lt. Inc. 2111 O.aI' 0.Z1 0.%& 0.%1 0.16 0.091 0.1& 0.81 0.51
TJIt. Inc. 101 a. Cl37 0.J5 0.11 0.071 0.CI55 0.071 0.18 1.10 Z.01
TJIt. Inc. 10Z 0.055 0.1% 0.18 0.14 0.079 0.091 l.at 0.11 0."
T_I 110"11"". 410 1.%' 0.15 0.'1 54.8 0.&1 0.51 1.J2 Z.%& O.sa
T_1 IIold'"". .. o.%e 0.0Ct 0.088 0.018 0.17 O.W 0.11 0.15 a.Z&
a-ntc "14
PoP "-8 £110., .....,
-------
showed leachate Repone concentrations in excess of those for untreated
sedimen t.
The second set of samples was prepared by Manchek-Colorado, Inc.
They employ an oxidizing agent, a fixative agent, and an amendment
using temperature changes for process control.
Leachate from these
four ~amples generally contained ten times the concentration of Kepone
than did leachate from the untreated sediment.
Two mixtures of the Chem Technics patented fixative called
nChemfix" were evaluated.
These samples, labeled I-4 and CT-77-2A,
never had a leachate within an order of magnitude of the blank
leachate.
It is assumed that Repone was dissolved and was released
from the sediment because of the high pH occurring during the mixing
and curing steps of fixation.
During the leach tests, the free Repone
readily migrated to the leachate water.
Five samples were obtained from TJR, Inc., the u.s. representative
of Takenaka.
Each is a variation of a basic silicate-based fixation
agent developed by Takenaka of Japan.
Three of the formulations
displayed higher leachate concentrations than standard sediments much
like the other silicate-based fixation agents examined.
Two of the
formulations produced leachate Repone levels roughly equivalent or
slightly lower than those from standard sediments for specific
VIII-A
-------
sampling times, but all cumulative leachate levels exceeded Kepone
~ncentrations for the sediment leachate levels.-
However, the operational application of fixation techniques to
dredge spoil is considerably advanced in Japan over the United States.
Accordingly, the Kepone project team has continued to work closely
with Takenaka on improvements of their methods as applied to Repone.
Representatives from TJR indicate that they are currently
improving their fixation agents so that their process is amendable for
treatment of Repone contaminated wastes.
One approach involves the
addition of an appropriate fixative agent to their silicate base which
would isolate the Repone molecules and offset the high pH influence
that the base would have on the solubilization of Repone.
Results of
~e latest fixation efforts on Bailey Bay sediment samples showed
leachate Kepone concentrations of only 0.08 ug/l (ppb), and Takenaka
.
believes that they can reach a level of 0.01 ug/l (ppb) to 0.03 ug/l
(ppb) .
The Takenaka technology offers advantage over most fixation
processes in that fixation can be perfor.med in-place.
Most processes
necessitate removal, treatment and then replacement of the fixed
material, thus adding considerably to the costs of the process.
In
addition, the TJK technology has had widespread operational use in
Japan under a range of conditions.
Large scale projects have been
ongoing for several years in contaminated harbors and rivers in Japan,
and involve fixation of contaminated industrial s~udge, contaminated
dredge spoil, and in situ fixation operations on contaminated bottom
...ediments.
Details of the process and applications are covered in
Appendix B.
VIII-5
-------
Two samples of silicate-based agents were obtained from Tunnel
30ldings Ltd., Inc., of the United Kingdom.
Both displayed leachate
Kepone levels in excess of those produced by the sediments alone.
In general, most silicate-based agents rely on high pH conditions
to set the stabilized material.
Kepone is solubilized under these
conditions and if the fixation additive does not isolate the Kepone,
it will occur in leachate at equivalent or higher levels than is found
with natural sediments.
oraanic Base Fixation Aqents
por Rok and Por Rok Epoxy Sealant are both grout materials
manufactured by Hallemete Division, Sterling Drug Company.
por Rok is
a gypsum base material and, consequently, will not retain structural
integrity when immersed in water.
It decomposed during the elutriate
evaluations.
When comparing the leach results with those of the
natural sediment, there was generally ten times the Kepone leached
from the fixed sediment than from the blank.
The por Rok Epoxy
sealant is a synthetic epoxy material which is mixed with a coarse
aggregate material and is used as a grout or surface sealant.
It
produced Kepone leachate concentrations, an order of magnitude lower
than those of standard sediments.
This stabilization agent shows
promise as a means of reducing Kepone releases from spoils.
However,
widespread use of this material may be limited by production
V!II-6
-------
limitations.
Furthermore, breakage of the surface sealant would
;xpose the contaminated material to washing and leaching, if the
material is used solely for surface treatment.
Dowell M179 is a soil sealant material.
It is primarily comprised
of a polyacrylamide polymer which resists water percolation.
Its
action is dependent upon formation of a film-like coating.
The
crushing employed in the elutriate test, therefore, compromised the
integrity of the agent.
In order to maintain uniformity in testing
procedures, the batch test was retained.
The poor response to the
elutriate test reflected the breaking of the surface film and
subsequent leaching from exposed surfaces.
Short-term leaching on the
other hand (1 to 4 hours) yielded Kepone levels similar to those from
"1ntreated sediments.
After 24 hours of exposure the M179 leachate had
a concentration of 0.018 ug/l (ppb), or approximately 1/10th of the
concentration found in the blank.
subsequent leachate samples
revealed a similar pattern.
consequently, the Dowell agent appears
well suited for its intended use as a surface seal and percolation
control agent.
However, long-term immersion and physical stress could
lead to rupture of the film and release of the contaminants.
VI!I-7
-------
Sulfur Base Fixation Agents
Two sulfur based approaches were evaluated.
The "sulfur sludge"
combination involves the mixing of spoils with molten elemental
sulfur.
The two are rapidly mixed upon contact and allowed to set.
The Sulfaset is a proprietary agent distributed by Randustrial Corp.,
and appears to include both sulfur and cement in the formulation.
As
is evident from Exhibit VIII-l, the molten sulfur or "sulfur sludge"
approach offered one order of magnitude reduction while the Sulfaset
was less effective.
However, the practicality of molten sulfur for a
large scale application to Kepone contaminants would require further
evaluation and the environmental consequences are as yet unknown.
The
Sulfaset produced leachate"intermediate between pure silicate based
agents and molten sulfur.
The Sulfaset sustained a high pH in
leachate which is capable of solubilizing Kepone as was the case with
the silicate agents.
Asphalt Base Fixation Agents
A preliminary evaluation of asphalt binders was made, but these
could not be easily mixed with wet sediments unless heated.
The
mixing problems wi~~ asphalt binders would constitute excessive costs
and equipment requirements for the volumes of sediments involved.
-------
A discussion of costs and merits of these fixation agents is
included in the appraisal section of this Chapter.
ELUTRIATE/SLURRY TREATMENT
If dredging of the type discussed in Chapter
IX were employed to
restore the James River System, there may be a need for the capability
to treat elutriate, leachate, and/or the entire dredge spoil slurry to
prevent subsequent escape and movement of contamination.
The
applicability of various elutriate treatment approaches depends on the
physical-chemical properties of the Kepone, as well as the na~ure of
the liquid stream and/or dredge spoil slurry to be treated.
Photochemical Deqradation
The simplest option classified as physical-chemical destruction is
photodegradation with sunlight.
No data were found on the effect of
electromagnetic radiation on Kepone degradation.
A set of sample
exposure tests, designed to investigate the photolysis of Kepone in
sediments exposed to sunlight, confirmed the persistency of Kepone in
soils and sediments, and cast dourt on the efficacy of photochemical
degradation using incident sunlight.
-------
-
-it
;7~
,~ J
. i
/
~ne Photosensitization
In the presence of ultraviolet light and an aliphatic amine,
Kepone levels showed marked reductions.
Of the solutions tested,
ethylenediamine demonstrated a marked trend toward degradation.
A
solution of ethylenediamine sprayed on dry sediments. containing
0.95 ug/g (ppm) Repone was allowed to stand in the direct sun in an
open beaker.
After 10 days,. the sediment was found to contain only
0.21 ug/g (ppm) of Repone.
This constitutes 78 percent dest-~ction.
Due to the reliance on photolytic action, this approach is limited
to action at or very near the surface of the sediment.
It, therefore,
may have little use on the large volumes of contaminated spoils
associated with any dredging activity.
Continual tilling could
circumvent some of these difficulties foreseen, but land area
requirements would still be massive.
On the other hand, if costs
permit and action were warranted, the approach may be quite
appropriate for use in the Hopewell area where soil has been
contaminated by atmospheric deposition of windblown particulates
containing Repone.
However, before any application of this technique
is attempted, further research would be required to determine the
impact or possible toxicity of decomposition by-products.
VIII-l0
-------
~hlorine Dioxide
Chlorine dioxide, a known powerful oxidizing agent capable of
reacting with many organic compounds, was tested on Kepone.
Results
showed a nonspecific oxidizing action which was too limited to warrant
further study at this time.
Ozonation
Ozone, like chlor1ne dioxide, is noted for its ability to oxidize
materials and ozone itself leaves no noxious residues.
Ozone, by
itself, provided no reduction in Kepone residues.
However, research
on combined ozonation and ultra-violet irradiation by westgate
Research corporation exhibited better than 80 percent Kepone removal
from the effluent of Hopewell's primary treatment plant when samples
were subjected to exposure periods of one hour.
It is concluded that the westgate process is effective in reducing
Kepone levels in aqueous media and could be an effective means of
treatment for elutriate, wastewater, and contaminated natural waters.
Ultraviolet irradiation processes are limited in that degradation can
occur only at exposed surfaces receiving direct irradiation.
However,
Westgate's continued research on Repone in turbid samples provided
additional promising results.
Sediment slurry samples taken from
Moody's Creek, a tributary of Bailey creek which drains the Pebbled
VIII-ll
-------
Ammonium Nitrate (PAN) site, were subjected to UV-ozone treatment.
As
shown in Exhibit VIII-2, there was a significant loss of Kepone,
63.8 percent, in the sed~ent during the first 30 minutes of reaction
time.
It is believed that Kepone is being destroyed in the water
phase, and that the partition coefficient permits continuous release
of Kepone from the sediment to the water.
This could explain the
relatively constant values obtained in the supernatant analyses.
The
sediment, about 20 percent by volume, 'was held in suspension in the
"Ultrox" reactor by the ozone spargings (Westgate, 1978).
This
ability to handle high solid content slurries also holds promise for
the direct treatment of dredged slurries.
Use of this process on Kepone should be limited until the extent
of Kepone degradation is determined and the toxicity of the by-
products is assessed.
It appears that degradation occurs by the
removal of chlorines from the Kepone molecule forming monohydrokepone.
From these very preliminary but encouraging results, it is
est~ated that an optimum large-scale portable treatment system could
treat 20 to 50 percent solids slurry for 10 to 20 cents per cubic
yard, not including equipment amortization.
To further define
approximate operating parameters and costs for various slurry
concentrations further testing is needed.
A concurrent chemical
analysis should be performed to determine the degree of Kepone
-------
Kepone Analyses of Westgate Sediment Samples (Cone. in ug/kg) from Moody's Creek
EXIIIDIT VIII-2
Sample
.toody's Creek--
Feed
Effluent--30 min
;:t
H
H
.
I-'
\.J.I
Effluent--60 min
Effluent--90 min
Effluent--120 min
Supernate Only
Monohydro-
kepone Repone
Mixed Samples
2nd Extraction 3rd Extraction
4th Extraction
Honohydro-
kepone Kepone
1st Extraction
Monohydro-
kepone Kepone
Monohydro-
kepone Kepone
Monohydro-
kepone Kepone
0.12 2.29 3.89 95.69 0.17 31. 03
0.52 1.62 1.95 38.61 1.04 26.51
0.59 1.82 1.27 26.44 0.78 21. 34
1.44 1.81 1.24 25. 7J 0.44 21. 01
1.00 1.73 1.20 22.29 0.38 13.35
1.54
51.44 1.04 45.69
11.00 4.07
7.54 2.60
5.68 1. 78
2.93 0.60
"""'"~'"";~~;;,,;,,,~,.t~""J
0.08
Summation of Mixed Sample , Repone Destroyed
Monohydrokepone Repone
Moody's Creek--Feed 7.36 226.14 0.0
Effluent--30 min 3.51 81. 81 63.8
Effluent--60 min 2.64 59.74 73.6
Effluent--90 min 3.12 56.01 75.2
Effluent--120 min 2.66 40.90 81.9
-------
iegradation needed to negate its toxicity.
This would be an important
factor in defining treatment costs. '
Cost projections for large treatment plants, developed by Westgate
Research, indicate a capital cost of $125,000 to $140,000 per MGD
capaci~y and operation and maintenance costs, including amortization,
of $0.11 to $0.12 per 1,000 gallons treated.
If a small capacity elutriate treatment plant were constructed,
unit costs would increase considerably.
For a 3 MGD plant, the
capital costs are $1,300,000 ($433,000 per MGD treated) and the
operating costs are $0.23 per 1,000 gallons, including $0.13 per
1,000 gal amortization, and $0.05 per 1,000 gal maintenance.
Radiation
Oxidation can be achieved through direct bombardment with
radiation.
Given a sufficient dose, virtually all organic materials
can be carbonized.
The specific action results from excitation of
molecular bonds to a point where the bonds break.
As a physical
destruction methology, no toxic residues are produced when
carbonization is carried to completion.
While effective removal can be obtained, (54.7 and 144 megarads of
gamma radiation provided 87 percent and 97 percent -removal,
-------
"espectively), laxge doses are required, and gas chromatographs
revealed the presence of a large peak representing degradation
products.
The latter appear to be partia~ly dechlorinated Kepone, but
positive identification has not yet been made.
As an initial apprais~, it appears that degradation efficiencies
are a function of radiation penetration.
If ~e optimal penetration
distance can be determined, the degradation efficiency can improve.
At the present time, there are insufficient data available to pursue
radiation as an immediate treatment process.
Further evaluation of
penetration distances and dose levels may result in an effective unit
operation for Repone amelioration.
Related work has been performed by the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology using electron beam radiation.* While this work largely
focused on disinfection of municifal sludges, some analytical work was
performed to determine the effects of the electron beam bombardment on
toxic constituents.
High-pressure liquid chromatography revealed that
3, 4, 2' PCB, monochloro PCB, and Monuron at saturation levels in
water are tot~ly destroyed when irradiated at dose levels as low as
10 Kilorads.
PCB in a solution with 0.5 percent soap was virtually
eliminated by a dose of 400 Kilorads.
This suggests that positive
results may also be obtained with more highly chlorinated organics
*Trump, J.G., "Disinfection of Municipal Sludge by High Energy
~lectionsn, NSF-RANN grant AEN 74-13016A01.
VIII -1.5 - --
-------
'uch as Kepone.
However, no investigations on Kepone degradation with
an electron beam source have been conducted. to date.
Consequently, no
appraisal of effectiveness on Kepone can be made at this time.
Catalytic Reduction
A suggested means of destroying chlorinated hydrocarbons is the
use of catalysts to facilitate reduction of the chlorine functional
groups to free ionic chloride in solution, thereby leaving behind a
bare organic skeleton less toxic and more amenable to biochemical
attack.
Investigation of an approach used by Envirogenics involving a
copper-iron catalyst in a reductive column with sand as the working
substrate, provided negative findings.
Consequently, the approach was
dbandoned from further consideration.
Carbon Adsorption
During the decontamination efforts in early 1976, the EPA mobile
spill treatment unit was brought to Hopewell to help decontaminate
washwaters and liquid wastes.
At that time, it was noted that carbon
adsorption was effective in removing Kepone from solution.
Because of
this work, no specific laboratory studies were conducted on activated
carbon applications to elutriate waters.
However, adsorption
isotherms produced during evaluation of sorbents for in situ appli-
cation confirm the efficacy of this approach.
Therefore, this option
,~~~ ~c
-------
;.s considered viable if elutriate treatment facilities are
constructed.
several of the engineering options for Bailey Bay developed by the
corps of Engineers propose the use of a treatment facility to remove
Kepone from contaminated runoff, if determined necessary.
The size of
such a. facility would depend on the size of the holding reservoir and
the desired drawdown time.
Field studies have revealed that the bulk of all Kepone in Bailey
Creek is associated with particulate matter.
Consequently, sufficient
treatment may be achieved by construction of coagulation facilities to
remove solids with no subsequent carbon adsorption.
If this approach
~s taken, costs are reduced substantially.
Cost comparisons on a 50-
MGD standard activated carbon plant show that capital costs and
operation and maintenance costs (O&M) for an activated carbon facility
are $50.4 million and $262,924 per year, respectively, while costs on
a coagulation plant are $10.1 million and $551,650 per year,
respectively.
The Calgon Corporation has developed a filtration/adsorption
wastewater treatment system which shows promise in treating dredge
slurry water containing Kepone.
In their conceptual design, the
dredged slurry would be pumped from the dredge to an impoundment basin
where the spoils would settle from the water.
This basin should be
-------
lesigned to provide adequate settling to remove suspended materials to
a concentration of less than 25 mg/l.
From the impoundment basin the
water would flow to a gravity slow sand filter.
The filter would be
constructed in a lined earthen basin and would contain about 5 feet of
filter sand over 4 feet of gravel.
A plastic pipe underdrain would be
provided to collect the filtered water and direct it to the adsorption
basin.
Uniform distribution over the filter would be achieved by
flooding the bed with a minimum of 4 feet of untreated water.
A
surface loading of 0.5 to 1.0 gallons per minute (gpm) per square foot
should be maintained.
From the sand filter the water would flow by gravity to an
adsorption basin and be directed upflow through a bed containing 4
feet of gravel under 3 feet of 8x40 mesh Filtrasorb activated carbon.
A perforated plastic pipe distribution system will insure uniform
application of the filtered water to the adsorption bed.
This bed
will also be operated in a flooded condition to prevent the
possibility'of channeling.
From the flooded section of the bed, the
treated water will overflow to a spill way from which it will be
returned to. the river.
The adsorption bed should operate at a surface
loading rate of 1 to 2 gpm per square foot of surface.
As suspended solids accumulate on the slow sand filter,
periodically the top several inches of sand will need to be removed
VIII-18
-------
".nd replaced..
This procedure will prevent excessive pressure drops
which would cause the basin to overflow..
At the 2 gpm per square foot of loading on the activated carbon
bed, about 10 minutes of contact time will be provided.
As sumi ng an
average weight loading of 1 percent on the carbon and a concentration
of Kepone of 100 ppb in the dredged water, a total of about 1 million
gallons could be treated by each square foot of carbon bed..
This
would provide a bed life in excess of three hundred days.
This
represents only a gross estimate and testing should be initiated to
confirm loadings and concentrations to be used for design.
At the conclusion of the dredging, the entire sand and carbon beds
~ould be incapsulated and backfilled to _prevent future leachate
contamination.
Exhibit VIII-3 provides the design criteria on which the capital
cost of $3.06 million was estimated.
It is noted that the estimate
does not include costs for pumping or piping as required to deliver or
dispose of the water. Additionally, no costs were included for the
impoundment basin required ahead of the treatment system (Calgon,
1978) .
VIII-19
-------
Exhibit VIII-3.
Design cri t.eria for a 50 MGD Temporary
Filtration/Adsorption Wast.ewat.er Treat.ment. Sys~em for
Trea1:.ment. of Kepone Con~aminat.ed Dredging Slurry Water
Flow
25 to 50 mgd
Sand Fil t.er Loadj.ng
Area of Sand Pil t.er
carbon Bed Loading
Area of Carbon Bed
Superficial Con~a~
Time -
0.5 t.o 1 gpm/sf
40,000 sf
1 t.o 2 <]pm/sf
20,000 sf
10 t.o 20 minut.es
CAPITAL ESTIMATE
Si t.e Preparation
Excavation
Liner
Underdrains
Gravel
Sand
Carbon
To~al Capit.al
25,000
- 150,000
- 315,000
& Spill Way- 320,000
.- 350,000
- 300,000
- 900,000
2.360.000
300,000
400,000
S 3,060,000
Engineering
Contj.ngency
._~.-- -- ---- -----
V!II-20
-------
IN SITU PROCESSES
1n ~ processes as a category are the newest of the approaches
to removal/mitigation of in-place toxic materials.
As such, some are
less fully developed than other approaches.
Several of the more
promising new options were selected for testing in the laboratory.
Since biological approaches appear to offer. little with respect to the
removal of Kepone from the James River system, Battelle's work focused
on two types of approaches: use of sorbents and use of polymer films.
In addition to these approaches, the Japanese Takenaka fixation
process previously described under "DREDGE .SPOIL FIXATION" might be
used for !!l ~ mitigation of contaminants.
However, indications are
that the top few centimeters at the sediment/water interface may be
lifficult to fix.
Consequently, such an application for Kepone, with
the present state of knowledge, is far less desirable than removal of
the contaminated sediments and fixation in carefully contained dredge
spoil sites.
Sorbents
Natural sorbents (such as activated carbon) and synthetic sorbents
(such as the macroreticular resins) have been shown to be effective in
concentrating organics similar to Repone.
In application, sorbents
act much as natural sediments do in maintaining levels of Kepone much
higher than those in adjacent waters.
Sorbents capable of lower
iTTTT_?1
-------
partition values (concentration in water/concentration in substrate)
than those exhibited in natural sediments will reduce the levels of
dissolved Kepone in the water if introduced to the system.
A three-
phase equilibrium is established with the highest concentrations of
Kepone on the new material, a lower concentration on the sediment, and
the lowest concentration in the water.
Based on initial screening results presented in Exhibit VIII-A,
sorbents ES863, XAD-4, XAD-2, and Filtrasorb 300 were selected for
further study.
The three proprietary products are macroreticular
synthetic sorbents produced commercially.
The Filtrasorb 300 is a
commercial activated carbon.
In addition to these, a specialty carbon
product formed around iron particles became available in tL~e .for
subsequent evaluations.
Allied Chemical had also performed work on
anthracite coal.
Based on Allied Chemical's promising initial results with coal,
batch adsorption tests were initiated in the Battelle laboratory on a
variety of coals.
Results indicated that coals tested had less
affinity for Kepone than Bailey Bay sediments.
Consequently, these
could not offer any mitigation promise to the Bailey Bay sediments.
However, Bailey Bay sediments are high in organic content and testing
on more representative James River sediments should be done before
final determinations are made on the applicability of coal.
VTTT_??
-------
Exhtb1.t VlII...4
IUfer.tiveness of Sorbents in AccmDulatinu
Kepona from Bailey Bay Sediments
Koponu Coucentration in Sedinumts. Ilg/ g-PI)m
Hux:llJluua Percent of ~Ia x t mutO
Haximum 't'heore t tcal 1'heoretica1 Removal
Sorben~- 2 wk 4 wk 8 wk 12 wk Removal % RelUova1J Achieved. %
XAD-2(a) 0.80 0.53 1.19 65 60 100 I-
XAD-4(a) 1.18 1.06 0.99 32 61 1,8
863(b) 0.89 0.12 1.21 54 12 15
FU:l'RASOn8 (c) 1.21 1.06 1.00 1.33 32 61 48
Hngnet1.c Carbon 1. 56 1.23 1.24 1.04 (d) 21
Blunk 1.56 1. 56 1.16
. Magnetic 863 0.11 0.82 31 25 1001-
"""",.~"<~ ~:',~~;;",;,.,
8lunk 0.92 1.18
(a) Produet of Uolull und lIaua
(b) Product of IHamond Shamt:'ock
(c) Product of Calgon
(d) Analysis of the Gpent ctlrbon
revealeJ 1.01 ~g/g Kepone
-------
Although sorbents applied to sediments in ~ are capatle of
reducing the availability of a material to the water column, they do
not destroy or remove the contaminant.
Removal can be achieved,
however, if media are made to be retrievable.
Laboratory work at
Battelle indicates that this is possible through the inclusion of
magnetite or iron particles in the sorbent matrix which will render
the media particles susceptible to magnetic fields.
However, the
practical application is unevaluated.
The magnetic sorbents would
have to be mixed into the river sediments and then recovered.
strong
magnetic fields may be required and dispersion of contaminants
avoided.
It was noted previously that activated carbon had been
duccessfully applied to remove Kepone from solution.
The same is true
for any of the sorbents found to be effective for in ~ evaluations
such as XAD-2 and ES863.
Consequently, sorbents, if developed for
operational application, should be considered as candidates for both
elutriate and in situ application.
In !n situ use, activated carbon
might be considered for application directly to the river without
retrieval.
This would be done in the same manner as an application of
coal, but activated carbon offers a higher degree of adsorption.
However, availability of the resultant contaminated carbon to the
biota has not been evaluated.
VIII-24
-------
The engineering feasibility and operational utility of the sorbent
methods investigated by Battelle have not been evaluated.
Accordingly, cost estimates are speculative.
However, for comparison
purposes, application costs excluding capital costs have been
estimated.
In situ Application of Retrievable Media:
Dose Rate - 1.2 lb resins/ft3 sediment
Number of Applications - 2 (potential removal of 90~ in highly
contaminated sediments, greater in others)
Resin Loss Rate - 25% of resin
Cost of Resin - S120/ft3
Unit Resin Loss Costs - SO.51/ft3 sediment
Application and Retrieval Cost - SO.10/ft3 sediment
Regeneration Costs - SO.25/f~3 sediment
Disposal of Kepone Residuals - SO.05/ft3 sediment
Total Unit Cost - SO.90/ft3 sediment
In situ Application of Coal:
Dose Rate - 1.2 lb/ft3 sediment (this will reduce Repone levels
in water up to 80%)
Cost of Coal - S20/ton
Unit Cost of Coal Applied - SO.012/ft3 sediment
Unit Cost of Application - $O.02/f~3 sediment
Total Unit Cost - SO.032/ft3 sediment
In situ Application of Activated Carbon:
Dose Rate - 1 lb/ft3 sediment
-------
cost of Carbon - SO.50/lb
Unit Cost of Carbon Applied - SO.50/ft3 sediment
Unit Cos~ of Application - SO.02/ft3 sediment
Total Unit Cost - SO.52/ft3 sediment
Polymer Films
Battelle conducted an evaluation of the utility of polymer films
to seal Kepone-contaminated sediments in Bailey Bay.
However, such
films at best would keep the sediments from continually supplying
dissolved Kepone to the water column until natural sedimentation might
seal in the Kepone deposits.
Furthermore, with the need to perforate
the sheeting for gas release, the film's sealing integrity is lost and
~n upward flux of water through the sediments could continually bring
Kepone contamination from beneath the film.
Thus, the value of
applying a polymer film to local areas such as Bailey Bay is
questionable.
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
In exploring nonconventional removal approaches, biological
treatment options were explored in the literature and in limited
laboratory studies.
Uptake and bioconcentration were investigated for
their potential of ex~acting Kepone from the environment.
A summary
of the possible biologic approaches that might be further studied for
application to the Kepone contamination is given in Exhibit VIII-5.
VIII-26
-------
OfoQnhlI
Htgner pluts e.9.
(....C8r II)'6C1ntll)
FIlllq1
S.curh
Algu
All of .~~ 4bove
PosSibilities of
Exhibit VIII- 5
Biological Amelioration
of Kepone
1ft Situ
S.csi....,~
'~aUl"
(1) Leaf WrlK8S Illy
Ice-late CeIlO/l8
Iboe.,.r. tilts is
"4It . pract1al
IIt8mathe
(1) Roo ts "4It knOIon to
ICCIIIIIlaC8 sian I.,.
=-unas. 1Iot
'"sible (Roots
"4IfIII811y 'I'M
,1C11t1 ng)
(2) Not knOIon to -ub-
oHu~
(2) Not "- to mea-
bo It Z8 CeIlO/l8
(1) haus. of low
K800ne COllC8fttra-
t1an In ....tIP tile
UM of posstble
lerootc fllll91
witi CII de
-------
Kepone attached to plant roots might be isolated, harvested and
destroyed by incineration with the plant or organism.
However,
Battelle's studies conducted on barley showed no uptake of Kepone by
this plant.
Other rooted plants might concentrate Kepone in a form
which subsequently could. be harvested and the Kepone destroyed.
However, most Kepone resides in deeper river sed~ents where many
rooted plants will not grow, this method is of limited value.
Algal bioconcentration has been demonstrated (Appendix C, No.4).
However, algal uptake and harvesting is also not a useful mechanism
for removing Kepone, because uptake would be from the water and not
from the sediments where the bulk of the Kepone resides.
Studies with other chlorinated hydrocarbons have shown that they
are taken up by plants and that uptake increases with water
solubility.
However, as indicated, studies to date imply that plant
uptake and bioconcentration are not effective mechanisms for
mitigating Kepone in the environment.
Biodegradation is the most desirable approach to eliminating
Kepone.
Due to the persistence of Kepone and its stability as a
VIII-28
-------
compound, biodegradation efforts to date have not shown much promise.
EPA Gulf Breeze scientists have demonstrated that Kepone does not
degrade (Appendix C, No. 12).
Fungal species have been shown to be
capable of Kepone degradation by Atlantic Research Corporation, but
the fungi would not compete well with natural biota.
This
application, if practical, would be restricted to a controlled
environment such as a Kepone treatment facility.
In general, no biological approaches show sufficient promise for
in situ amelioration and only fungal systems have shown promise for
application to Kepone waste treatment.
APPRAI SAL
In general, most non-conventional alternatives were found to be
ineffective or inappropriate for use in Bailey Bay and the James
River.
The more potentially promising candidates are mentioned in
Exhibit VIII-6 and the more readily viable options are discussed
below.
Molten sulfur may be a good alternative for stabilizing dredged
spoils.
However, it is recognized that there could be severe
environmental impacts associated with this dredged spoil fixation
VI!I-29
-------
Approach
Spoil Fixation
<:
.....
.....
.....
I
W
C)
Elutriate Treat-
mont
EXIIIBIT VIII-6
Hare Promising ~onconventional Treatment Alternatives InvestiCjated
Alternative
Silicate
Dases
organic Dases
Results
Il1gh pll solubllizes Kepone
Yields IO-fold reduction
in Kepone levels
Resist leachingJ poor
response to elutriate test
Sulfur Bases' Yields 10-fold reduction
in Kepone leachate levels
Diological
Degradation
Promising strains of fungi
and mold
Costs
Estima~ed $10-
-15/yd
$12.53/ft) fixed
Not determined
)
$1. 30/ft fixed
Not determined
COllullen I: 5
I'.'nlllnll~ I." dal"; II,., ,:;II"IIK':'" 1'11111,
!n1'(P1~1ka ("PI'ln 111..11' 1''' .,,,.:::: (':III 1.1'
fI",Ulf'I' ,,~I'II"" 1'0" I\"I~'I~' :II~I a,','
still making modlflcationa. Only
operational large scale in-place
fixation technology presontly
available.
Por Hok Epoxy sealant may be pro-
duction Um! tod; rCHH,lts sHyhtly
more consistent, reqnires grenter
than or equal to SOt solids.
Dowell H 179 - F.ffcctive for
percolation control.
Holten 8ulfur-effp.f~tive but 50rlo115
environmental i"~octR could result.
flulrur 10 l'eodlJy oVlIlJah\c, 11;.18 glood
effectiveness and ~eqllire9 greator
than or equal to SOt Goli~s.
Not sufficiently IJf!veloped
-------
<:
.......
.......
.......
I
W
.....
Approach
Alternative
Amine photo-
sensitization
UV and Ozone
Gamma radia-
tion
Electron Beam
Radiation
Adsorption
BXIIIBIT VIII-6, CONTINUED
Results
Degradation occurs at
exposed surfaces
Good decomposition
Dechlorinates, by-produot8
unidentified
Can Infer from PCB work
only
Carbon and synthetic resin8
Temporary filtration/
carbon adsorption sY8tem
Costs
$.805/lb for
ethylenediamine
plu8 $500/acre
application cost.
yield treatment
at f4,000/acre in
treating top 1 inch
of 80il
$UJ,OOO/HGD
treated on small
plant- (capital
cost) ($.23/1,000
Gal treated-
(0 , M costs/yr)
(For 50 MGD plant,
capital costs are
$7.9 million and
o "M costs are
2.2 mUlion-9'r)
$.10-.20/yd (pre-
liminary)
Hot determined
,Not Determined
$50.4 mUlion-
capital
$262,924 0 , M/yr
Based on a 50 HGD
plant
6
$J.06xlO for 50
MGD system (capi-
tal cost)
Comments
Inappropriate on dredge
spoils, but potential for
use on surface soils.
Ultrox (Heetgate)-effectlve for
.olutions. Doesn't include clari-
fication if needed.
Based on 20-50' 801ids slurries and
doe8 not include equipment amortization.
Requires further testing.
Requires direct testing.
Bffeotive, does not destroy
~.pone just concentrates and
holds it.
Ca1gon system does not include costs
for piping or pumping as required to
deliver or dispose of waters, or
the cost of the settling impound-
ment. Final disposal would include
incapsulation and backfilling over
the entire sand and carbon beds
to prevent future leachate contami-
nation.
-------
Approach
In Sllu Processes
<:
......
......
......
I
W
N
Alternative
Coagulation
Retrievable Sor-
bents
Coal
Polymer FI1Als
Activated Carbon
£XIIIBIT YIII-6 COHTIllUEO
Results
Reuoves particulate
Kepone
Sped flc sorbents
capable of relloval
Initial data suggests
no advantages
1~ldlny action only
needed pedoratlon
a~y rcnder Ineffective
Intenlledlate between
coal and retrievable
surbents
Cos ts
UO.I 1OL!lIon-
capHatlS51.6S0
O&M/yr; Based
on a 50 HGO plant
S.90/rt2
S.OJ2/H2
S.044/ft2
S.52/n2
COIIIUI.!II t s
EHective for bulk reduction
lJoes not dcstroy KCJlone
Effective but requh'es Incineration
and re!)Cn!!r.lt1on IlrllductiOIi of lIIedla
not current Iy COlIIII!!rC la lIy
available
requ I res f u,' ther study
Effectlvencss .Iucstloned due to ventln!)
reqllirelllcilh. Ajljllicab Ie IIlIly ~o
embaYlllents.
Effectlve--wlll retard availability
bll t no t n.'I.lOve Kellone.
In all In sllu jll'Ocessell.envlrOlullenlal
Impacts require serious consideration
-------
process because elemental sulfur, while stal::lle in water', readily
changes to soluble and potentially toxic forms when mixed with
reducing as well as oxidizing sediments.
Molecular compounds of
concern include carbon disulfide, hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide,
and these should be handled carefully.
Accordingly, the molten sulfur
technique will require additional investigation and evaluation.
Epoxy grout fixation looked promising, but extremely high costs of
$12.50 per cubic foot and limited availability eliminated this option
from consideration.
The Japanese fixation process is a proven large scale. operational
in-place fixation technology.
This fixation process generally costs
$10 to $15 a cubic yard, and eliminates removal costs.
However, any
in-place fixation technique would have major ~pacts on the benthic
communities.
Based on the study investigations, the UV-ozone process and the
temporary filtration/carbon adsorbtion scheme are deemed best suited
for elutriate treatment.
Coagulation processes will remove only
Kepone associated with particulate matter.
Both coagulation and
activated carbon must be associated with regeneration processes and
Kepone destruction or isolation processes since these processes
accumulate the Kepone but do not destroy it like UV-ozone treatment.
VIII-33
-------
However, before UV-ozone treatment is utilized, further investigations
are needed to determine the extent of Kepone degradation occurring and
the relative toxicity of the degradation by-products.
From the studies on turbid samples, the UV-ozone treatment process
may provide a means of removing Kepone contamination from sediment, if
the sediments are put in slurries of 20 percent to 50 percent solids.
These slurry concentrations are the amounts attainable when the Oozer
pump is used for dredging.
This is discussed further in Chapter IX.
NO major environmental impacts are anticipated with the
application of the UV-ozone treatment process other than those
associated with construction of the facilities and the increased
demand for power.
However, as indicated, by-products and/or
deleterious residues have not been studied.
Of the !£ ~ approaches considered, all show some degree of
effectiveness.
The potential of using
coal is still not resolved.
Based on laboratory comparisons, activated carbon is more appropriate
than coal as an in situ additive.
--
Any in situ use of activated carbon
or coal, if it proves to be operationally effective, would be limited
in application to areas contaminated at less than 1 ug/g (ppm).
In
areas where Kepone concentrations were greater than or equal to 1 ug/g
(ppm), retrievable media or fixation techniques should be given
further consideration.
The latter exception is made to reflect the
VIII-34
-------
fact that at high Kepone concentrations in sed~ents, the potential
reduction in Kepone availability with coal or activated carbon would
still allow unacceptable levels of Kepone in the water.
For these
areas, retrievable media and fixation, if effective, would be costly.
Environmental impacts associated with in situ treatment are not
well understood, but in situ treatment will pose many physical,
biological and chemical impacts and implications.
There are several aspects of in situ treatment which need further
--
analyses.
The most important of these is the effect that the
hydrodynamics of the James River and its features will have on the
stability, integrity, and behavior of emplaced materials.
These
aspects will affect the method and location of treatment application.
VIII-35
-------
IX.
CONVENTIONAL MITIGATION MErHODS
~COPE and APPROACH
Under its support agreement for the project, the Norfolk District
Corps of Engineers: (1) evaluated all potential dredging technology on
the world market as well as methods to control resuspensions and
concomitant secondary pollution; (2) investigated conventional meanS
for checking Kepone inflows from the H0t:eweU area into the James
Ri ver; and (3) made preliminary estimat es for removing Kepone from the
lower James River via dredging including examination of potential
dredge spoil sites.
Plans for checking Kepone flows from the Hopewell
area involved development and evaluation of 18 engineering
alternatives for capturing, stabilizing or removing Kepone in Bailey
Bay, Bailey Creek and Gravelly Run.
In coordination with the U.s.
ish and Wildlife service, a qualitative assessment was also made of
the environmental impacts which would be associated with a
construction or dredging project in the Hopewell area.
This chapter
summarizes the findings of the Corps of Engineers in accomplishment of
the above tasks together with findings of the joint EPA/COE on-site
survey of Japanese technology.
More detailed information can be found
in Appendix B.
IX-l
-------
POTENTIAL DREDGING TECHNOLOGY
Dredges in use today can be generally divided into three
categories: mechanical, hydraulic, and ~neumatice
Mechanical dredges
normally lift the dredged material above the waterline by means of
buckets or scoops of various designs and deposit it in a barge or
similar conveyance for transport and disposal.
Hydraulic dredges
generally move bottom material via a centrifugal pump and pipeline
directly toward a disposal area.
Pneumatic dredges transport removed
bottom material by compressed air.
Mechanical dredges can remove
bottom material at near inplace density.
Hydraulic and pneumatic
dredges need dilution water to form the dredged material slurry.
Pneumatic dredges need considerably less water than hydraulic dredges.
In the Onited States today there are basically two categories of
dredges: the scoop or bucket action tYI=e and the hydraulic suction
type.
Often considerable turbidity is created at the dredge site
during operation of these types of dredges.
Bucket action or scoop
dredges used in the u.s. include the drag line, the dipper, the grab
bucket or clamshell, and the endless chain dredge.
The hydra ulic
suction dredge can be fitted with various mechanisms at the suction
pipe inlet which facilitate sediment removal.
These mechanisms
include rotary cutters or cutterheads, ,auger-type cutterheads, or
high-pressure water jets.
Mud shields or dustpans are used on some
hydraulic dredges in conjunction with the water jets to reduce
. IX-2
-------
..~
:/1
."
,
I
~~condary suspension at the suction inlet.
J
However, these dredges
/.'
collect only 10 to 30 percent solids, cause considerable sediment
agitation when mechanical cutterheads are used, and induce secondary
pollution at the receiving site due to high water content in the
dredged material.
Consequently, without the use of sediment control
measures such as silt curtains, turbidity barriers or "diapers",
conventional dredges may pose a serious threat for aggravating an
existing, but possibly dormant, in-place pollution problem.
Some
types of hydraulic dredges in the u.s. include the cutterhead, the
plain suction, the dustpan, the hopper, the sidecaster, and the Mud
Cat.
The Mud Cat dredge is comparable to the cutterhead, except that
in lieu of a rotating cutter there is an auger-type horizontal
cutterhead.
This dislodges the material, and the auger moves it
toward the suction pipe.
A mud shield surrounds the auger and thereby
tiniInizes mixing of the disturbed bottom sediments with the
surrounding water.
Dredging technology in some foreign countries surpasses that of
the U. S.
This is the case in Japan, where serious problems with in-
place toxic substances prompted the development of dredges which are
designed to remove contaminants rather than to simply excavate river
channels.
A significant advancement in dredging technology for
removing contaminants was the improveme.nt of a pneumatic dredge.
The
pneumatic or "Pneuma" dredge, originally developed in Italy, uses
hydrostatic head pressure and compressed air to remove contaminated
IX-3
-------
sediments.
By applying a vacuum to a pneumatic dredge, the Japanese
'ere able to utilize the dredge in shallow water, thereby elimi~ating
the constraint of needing high hydrost~tic head pressure.
is called the Oozer dredge.
This dredge
Specific advantages for using pneumatic dredge systems especially
for contaminant removal include:
1.
Continuous and uniform flow;
2.
Practically no wear, since there are no mechanisms in
contact with the abrasive mixture except for the self-
. acting spherical rubber valves;
3.
Removes up to 60 to 80 percent solids by volume, thus
reducing costs and hazards in contaminated dredge spoil
disposal;
4.
Particularly suited for dredging polluted material,
since it causes little disturbance while dredging and,
therefore, limits secondary pollution; and
5.
Can be readily dismantled for transport over highways.
The following are examples of the pneumatic-type dredges: Pneuma
(Italy), pressair sand-Pump (Germany), and the OOzer (Japan).
A pneumatic pump is not effective ~n area~ involving considerable
debris.
Since there is no mechanical cutterhead, large debris would
tend to clog the intake.
However, depending on the type of debris and
n~
-------
sediments, the mechanical cutterhead can also have equal or more
'erious difficulties.
In addition to the Oozer dredge previously described, the Japanese
have also advanced other aspects of dredging technology through the
development of a ftClean Up" hydraulic dredge, an antiturbidity system
for hopper dredges and the watertight grab bucket.
IHC Holland has designed a series of small dredging units which
operate under wet or marshy site conditions.
They include three
dredging techniques--clamshell grab dredging, backhoe dredging, and
cutter suction dredging.
SITE EVALUATION OF JAPANESE TECHNOLOGY
In the review of foreign technology, it was evident that the
Japanese were the most advanced in handling in-place toxic substances.
A seven-member team consisting of three EPA members and four COE
members visited Japan in March, 1978 with the specific purpose of
evaluating what potential the Japanese technology offered for
mitigating the Kepone problem in the James River.
Based on
preliminary findings, it was decided to give particular 'emphasis to
the spoil fixation techniques developed by Takenaka Komuten Co., Ltd.
and the Oozer dredges developed by Toyo Construction Co., Ltd.
IX-S
-------
The Takenaka fixation techniques encompass three utilitarian
pproaches; (1) spoil removal, fixation and then redistribution on
land; (2) in situ fixation of surface or near-surface spoil deposits
or layers down to 3.5 meters; and (3) fixation of spoil or sediment
,
layers at depths of about 40 meters.
Increased spoil site life, improved secondary uses of inactive
spoil sites, foundation stabilization, and fixation of in-place
pollutants is possible with these processes.
To date, the fixation
processes have been used effectively on sludge contaminated by
mercury, copper, zinc, cadmium, lead, chromium, and PCB's.
Laboratory
tests have shown the processes to be effective on arsenic as well.
Recent reported tests showed Kepone leachate of only 0.08 ug/l (ppb)
from. treated Bailey Bay sediment samples and Takenaka believes they.
~an reach a level of 0.01 ug/l (ppb) to 0.03 ug/l (ppb).
Visua~ inspection of large and sma~~ Oozer dredges, owned by Toyo
Construction Company, and operating at Yokkaichi Port and the Shibaura
Canal, showed no evidence of secondary po~lution.
At the Shibaura
Cana~, the sma~~ Oozer was dredging oily bottom sediments with no
visible secondary pollution.
However, passing boats generated
considerable turbidity and resuspension of sediments.
Operation of
the large Oozer "Taian Maru" was observed at Yokkaichi Port.
The
moni toring closed circuit TV camera mounted on the head of the large
Oozer dredge showed little sediment resuspension, and minimal effect
on pelagic marine life.
IX-6
-------
At Yokkaichi Port, the investigating team was also able to observe
he "Clean Up No.3" dredge operated by the Toa Harbor Works Co., Ltd.
Comparisons between the Oozer and "Clean Up" dredges were facilitated
by the use of both types of dredges at Yokkaichi Port.
Both dredges
were selected based on their capabilities for dredging high
concentrations of solids while causing minimal turbidity.
The Clean
Up dredge was not operating at the time of the survey and a crew
member was working on the cutterhead.
Discussions indicated that ~~e
aClean up No.3" has had considerab~e operational difficulties and
that modifications to eliminate the operational difficulties
significantly reduced the functional capability of the dredge.
Earlier comparisons of the Oozer and the Clean Up dredge appeared in
the report on Tokyo Takahama Canal Sludge Dredging Project, 1975.
~his report notes that the turbidities immediately above the suction
inlets of the "Oozer No.1" dredge and the "Clean Up No.5" dredge
were compared with the following results:
Turbidities Immediately Above the Suction Inlets
Oozer No.1
Avg. (ppm)
10.55
Max. (ppm)
16.0
Min. (ppm)
8.0
Dredge
Clean Up No.5
16.34
17.7
15.4
IX-7
-------
It is recognized that even the above comparisons do not reflect
rigorously controlled conditions and it would be advantageous to
simultaneously and thoroughly test the Japanese Oozer's operating,
production and secondary pollution abatement efficiencies against all
other dredges.
Unfortunately, a survey of the l.i terature and
discussions indicate that conclusive complete one-to-one comparisons
have not been made.
Furthermore, it is highly doubtful that a large
scale comparison under suf£icient ranges of conditions will be
accomplished in the forseeable future.
Certainly a direct operational
comparison of world-wide dredging in the James River is less than
probable.
Accordingly, it is incumbent on the Kepone project to make
recommendations on the most promising dredging scheme applicable to
'he Repone contamination problem in the James River.
On the basis of the available data, observations and discussions,
it was concluded that the Oozer pump dredge would be the most
practical for the Repone contaminated sediment conditions existing in
the James River.
At a minimum, testing of the small Oozer dredge in
the James River would provide operating parameters for evaluating
potential competing systems.
Additionally, the Toyo Oozer has been
used effectively with Takenaka's fixation techniques.
By pumping
slurries with high solids content, the Oozer provides a promising
operational combination with the fixation processes.
IX-8
-------
DREDGE-TYPE APPROACHES FOR EArLEY CREEK, GRAVELLY RUN, AND BAILEY BAY
The following section addresses only the engineering aspects of
dredging these locations.
The issue of the desirability of dredging
and other mitigation approaches is discussed in the section describing
the appraisal of the Bailey Bay, Bailey Creek and Gravelly Run
al terna ti ves.
The substantially-sized trees in the flood plain of Bailey Creek
would require removal
of trees, stumps and major roots with a
dragline.
Under these conditions, a short-based dragline is practical
for excavation of the material in Bailey Creek.
Due to the
inaccuracies of the dragline operation, the minimum depth of
excavation '-IOuld have to be about three feet.
The Japanese wat~rtight
rab bucket would be ineffective, since debris would be caught in the
jaws, rendering its design ineffective.
The rBC amphidredge equipped
with a grab bucket might be a less environmentally damaging option in
Bailey creek, since it could crawl along the wetlands, thereby
reducing clearing and grubbing requirements.
Gravelly Run would
present more removal complications than Bailey creek, because numerous
bridges and other crossways are within the area to be excavated
upstream to the five-foot m.s.l. crossing.
The shallowness and quiescent nature of Bailey Bay suggests use of
the Mud Cat dredge in conjunction with silt curtains as practical for
1X-9
-------
dredging there.
However, if the Ooz er dredge can be transported to
~he u.s. and placed in operation on a shallow water barge, it is
advantageous to use the Oozer for dredging the Bay, since the OOzer
minimizes resuspension and removes high percentages of solids.
The
high solids content of the spoil would reduce elutriate treatment
costs and requirements and, also, reduce the potential for secondary
pollution from the disposal site.
ELUTRIATE AND RUNOFF TREATMENT AND CREDGE SroIL STABILIZATION
In considering dredging activity for removing of Kepone-con-
taminated material, it was important to address the method of
conveyance, the type of disposal area, the treatment of the elutriate,
and the stabili zation of the dredged material.
Also, these components
~ere considered as an integrated system and not as separate
components.
With the presence of continuing Repone inflows from the
Hopewell area, a determination concerning what treatment, if any, was
necessary for the water1::orne Kepone being carried to the James River.
Elutriate Treatment
Elutriate treatment and spoil stabilization should be applied if
Kepone return to the system from disposal areas causes the ambient
Repone levels in the sediment and water of the James River to rise
above ~~e 0.015 ug/g (ppm) and the 0.008 ug/l (ppb) levels recommended
IX-IO
-------
by the Gulf Breeze Laboratory.
Full engineering studies would be
~ecessary to determine, conclusively, whether the safe levels would be
exceeded as a result of dredging mitigation activity.
For the purpose
of comparison.. cost estimates were based cn an "assumed" need for
mitigation, fixation and elutriate treatment and a theoretical slurry
composition.
As di scussed in Chapter VIII, both the tJV-()zone treatment system,
proposed by Westgate Research corporation, and the temporary
filtration/carbon adsorption wastewater treatment system proposed by
Calgon Corporation are recommended for further evaluation for
elutriate treatmen~.
The UV-ozone option seems to destroy Kepone... but
the degradation products and their relative toxicity still need to be
determined.
The use of the temporary filtration/carbon adsorption
~ption may still pose disposal problems if future leachate
contamina tion is to be prevented.
At this time, costs for UV-ozone
treatment average $433,000 per Mgd for small plant capital costs and
about $.23/1,000 gallons for operations and maintenance costs.
On a comparative basis for a 50 mgd plant, it would cost over five
times more to treat elutriate with conventional activated carbon
systems than with UV-ozone, but less than half of what crv-ozone costs
with the temporary filtration/carbon aqsorptiQn system.
Estimates on
the temporary filtration/carbon adsorption system exclude pumping and
piping costs as required to deliver or dispcse of the water from the
IX-ll
-------
carbon unit, any impoundment measures needed, and any leachate
contamination preventive measures.
Further, preliminary findings indicate that a large-scale UV-ozone
portable treatment system would treat 20 to 50 percent solids slurry
for 10 to 20 cents per cubic yard, not including equipment
amortization (westgate, 1978).
Hence, the additional costs for using
the UV-ozone system may not be significant if the settling impoundment
needed for the temporary filtration/adsorbtion scheme incorporates
significant additional costs or if high s~oil fixation costs can be
eliminated by treating Repone contaminated dredge spoil in the slurry
form.
Incineration of dredged spoil was discounted because the lack of
.omb~stible material in the spoil would make fuel costs alone
prohibitive.
Dredqe spoil Stabilization
Eased on laboratory studies, two of the dredge spoil stabilization
processes discussed in Chapter VIII offer ~otential to date, molten
sulfur and epoxy grout.
Molten sulfur stabilization yielded tenfold
reductions in Repone leaching, but the .methodQlogy has not been
proven, and environmental impacts could be severe in light of the
sulfur by-products.
Fixation costs for molten sulfur are estimated at
n-~
-------
J
-)"
iii
$1.30 per cubic foot.
i
. .j
However, the Japanese process deve~oped by
I;;
Taxenaka does not pose. the cost and environmental problems that using
molten sulfur would.Results to date, discussed in Chapter VIII, are
extremely encouraging concerning the Takenaka fixation process.
Efforts to "fix" Repone are currently underway to further refine their
process for this application.
Typical fixation cost estimates are $10
to $15 per cubic yard.
However, these costs may be larger when the
fixation agent for Repone is further refined.
por Rok Epoxy sealant provided similar results to the molten
sulfur, but at a cost of $12.53 per cubic fcot
for fixation.
High
costs, limited aVailability, and questions of maintaining sealant
'integrity made this option unattractive.
Since elutriate and stabilization costs are high, the Oozer dredge
has added advantages.
It wo~d significantly reduce the volume of
elutriate and water content in the s~oils, and thus reduce treatment
costs.
The Oozer is capable of attaining 60 to 80 percent solids in
its slurry or spoil.
Assuming a low value for the Oozer dredge of
50 percent solids concentration and ancther 0.5 factor for
interstitial water in the spoils, the theoretical volume of water to
be removed and treated from the dredged spclls is 1.5 times the volume
of s~oil dredged.
For the purposes of ,preliminary cost
determinations, molten sulfur was used for estimating stabilization or
fixation costs and UV-ozone was used to estimate elutriate treatment
IX-13
-------
costs.
Cse of molten sulfur and UV-ozone t:rocesses for determining
treatment costs does not indicate a preference for either treatment
scheme at this point.
ALTERNATIVES FOR BAILEY EAY, BAILEY CREER, AND GRAVELLY RUN
The Corps of Engineers evaluated alternatives for checking Repone
input to the James River from Bailey Bay, Eailey Creek and Gravelly
Run.
The alternatives were limited to structural solutions such as
dredging; various types of levee, dam and wall construction; channel
improvement or modification; covering or sealing; and other
combinations of structural solutions.
~he analysis included an
investigation and evaluation of the engineering feasibility,
implications, and costs for removing the Repone-contaminated sediments
:rom Eailey Bay and Bailey Creek areas.
Based on model simulations
and biological implications, implementation of these alternatives may
be considered viable only if cleanup of the James River were
contempla ted.
Ho~ver, two of the alternatives offer potential
utility and benefits as dredge spoil sites for currently contemplated
maintenance dredging.
The Corps alternatives for Bailey Bay, Bailey
creek and Gravelly Run are indicated in Exhibit IX-1.
Treatment of
elutriate from the spoil disposal sites and fixation costs are
included in Exhibit IX-1 primarily for ,those Qptions which merited
further evaluation and which would be associated with treatment.
IX-14
-------
£XIt.BIT IX-I
Proposed Alternathes for Conventional Hltlgatlon Iteasures
to the KellOne Contamination In Bailey Cre~~,
Dalley Bay and Gravelly Run
AlternAtive l'rol1osed Areas Cos is Excluding (Iutrlate Treatment. Fixation Jota. [op,uentsl
HIiPiber Action Requ I red Cae res) J rea tOlen t Cosh CDS is Cos is lIecooluenda t Ions
Dalll and poss Ible treatolent 12 $1.3 1111 lion . . I not recOIIlllcnded
clant at mouth 01 Gravell)'
IlIn; trea t flows up to and
Including the 100 year
flood level
2 1I.lIn mouth ot G."avelly Run 59 $1.6.lIlton . . no t reCODlnended
>I exclude spillway and divert
I flow to Dalley Creek for
t-' treatment
Vl
] Seal Contalnlnated flood ]0 covered $1.5 mil It on t t . not recOIIlucnded
plain areas of Gravelly 19.6 cleared
IIlIn; elcvate stream channel,
rill rap creek bed, construct
control structure at .lOuth
4 Melocale exlsttng channel In t t . . Increased costs
I.ravell)' Run Into a concrete no bcneflts over
channcl or closed conduit i those 01 alter-
cover contaminated flood ] -not recolQ-
ria In with] tt. minimum mended
Impervious cover
----------_4_-
. Excluding capital costs or logistics costs for portable unit.
tU\ Hot 1I1'l1llca"le.
t Eliminated ""0111 consideration, no further detenulnattons made.
-------
.,.,,,,,,...,;~ ~..2:~"i"',;~
UIIIIH IX-I. CONTINUED
AHenlaUve I)roposed Areu Costs Excluding [Iutrlate Treatment. FhaUon Iota I COlilnen ts I
Uumber Adlon Requlred(ac re~ Trea l.IIIent Cos ts Cosls Cos ts Recolllucnda t Ions
S Uredge new channel adJacent . . . . . Increased costs.i
to eKlsting channel of no benefits over
Gravelly Runi seal side a Herna U ve )-
slopes 01 new one and not reco.luendcd
cover contaminated flood
Ilia In. I'lace flow control
~ structure at moulh
1 6 Dredge alt contamlnaled )0 $1.0 11111 Ion t Illcludes cosls
1-' . .
0\ o~lerlal In Gravelly Run 20 cI ea red for developing
and Illace spoil In disposal disposal sltes-
site 14 In halley Bay not recoulnended
1 OilDI and possible treatment I .060 $9.2..lIlIon N" N" . not reconlnendcd
plant at n~uth of Bailey as proposed,
[reck i treat flows up to and sillce treatment
Including lhe 100 year flood (I f lIopcwe II's
level runoff Is nol
necessary
o Seal contaminated flood plain 464 covered $20.8 million "" 'IA $20.8 consider
of Oa lIey Creek wllh :) ft. 410 cleared wll-
nlllllilluiu layer of native cohesive lion
nlalerla' i flow structure down-
s Lreanl Lo prevent seepage
9 lIelocate existing' channel In . . N" "" . Increased
Bailey Creek Into cOllcrete C05 ts i 110
cOlldli1t i cover and seal COII- benefits over
tamlnated flood plaill-) ft. a It. 8 i IIOt
OI'lIlnnllll of hillervious cover recnllillended
.--..- .--------.----
. heillding capltill costs 01' logistics costs for portable unit.
NA Not Alii) IlcaM e.
1 £Ilmlnated frolll cOllshh:ratlon, no further delenolnatlons ilia de.
-------
AI tenlat Ive
NllUiber
PrOllOsed
Action
UIIIBIT IX-I, CONJltIIlED
Areas Costs hcltldlny (Iutrlate Treatment. flutlon lohl Coaillell t S I
Requlred~~~ Treatment Costs Cas ts Costs Recoliinenda t I (1115
. . II" NA t I ncreased cas ts.
no benefl ts over
those of alt. ).
00 t recOlllu!!ndcd
51) $16 11111 Ion $18~OOO 109 1111- $ I05~2 Illcludes costs for
435 d eared 11011 million developln!) dlsllosal
sites i lIot recOIn-
Plelilled
. 405-grav It)' t 22.1 .111 Ion-grail It)' itA itA $ 22.1 mill. costs do not
428-pressure 34.8 mllllon-pressllre (gravity) reflect dowlI-
$ 34.8 PII1I. strealll treatJnent
(p,"essure) /leeds, grav I ty pre-
ferred over pressure
due to cos ts .
oot recoulnended
10
II
~
,
t-'
-4
IZ
Dredye lIew channcl tn Dalley
Creek adjacent to ex Is tI /I!)
chanllel; seal side slopes of
new one and cover contaminated
flooll plain. Place flow con-
trol structure at mouth.
IlI'edge a II contamlna ted
lIIatedal In Bailey Creelt and
Illace 5(1011 tn ~Isposal site
14 In Oa lIey Day
Itl!duce flows and treatment
needs via IllIpoundlll!) and
diversion of upstrealD flows"
up to 100 year flow level In
Dalley Creek, above old
sewaye h"eatulent plant; dlver-
slun via overland pressure
cOlldu I t to Chal'pe 11 Creek or
!lravlty conduit to the Janles
River. Thh alternative
would Le coniblned with anulher
to solve the !Cepone problem In
Iiolluted strealll portion below
old tre.ltmellt plant.
-.---.-.---------
. Excluding capital costs or loylstlcs costs 'or porlable unit.
IIA Not "1'1' l!cab1 e
. £Jlmlnated frum COliS Ide ration, 00 further determinations ilia de.
-------
AHe.'nalive
NunlLcr
)]
~
I
.....
(0
14
15
Proposed
Acllon
Dredge all contanllnated ..atertal
from all of Dalley Boy. The
top 15 Inches would be dredged.
Dalley Creek would be Impounded
alld the spol I placed behtnd the
dam
Construct a 1.,250 ft. levee
across Dalley Day from 1 mile
cast of City Point to Jordan
I'olnt and treat enllre dis-
charge frolo,Gravelly Run.
Dalley Creek and Bailey Bay
Construct dall near moulh of
Dalley Creek. dredge all of
Oatley Oay. ~place spoil behind
Dalley Creek dam. construct
dalll at nlOuth of Gnvelly Run
alld divert discharge to
Dalley Creek. treatment
faclilly at mouth of Dalley
Crcek to treat all effluent
f"olll the disposal area.
.----- --.-------------
UIIIBIT IX-I. CONTINUED
Areas Cosls (kcludlng
Requlred(aC;rei) freatlnent
$ 6.5 BlI" 1011
(lutrlate Treatment.
Cos t.s
filiation
Cos ts
Total
Costs
t
COlllnentsl
Reconl..cnda t Ions
HA
$ 6.8 111111011
NA
I ,161
belli nd
dam
$ 26.911111101\
t
. Excludln!J Cilllilal costs or loyhtlcs costs for portable unit.
tlA lIol Al111llcable.
. [lllIIllIatcll froOl consideration, no further deternllnatlons made.
iM
t
.
$ 6.8
Bill lion
t
.
Since Oal ley
Oa1 site was
selected for
d Isposa I. dred-
ging all 0' the
bay was not
necessary. not
recoul..ended
Consider-costs
lIay rise If elu-
trtale and fixa-
tion decllled
nccessary for
any spol' placed
bchlnd levee.
If eliminate
Gravelly Run
segment. all.
15 give same
benefits as alt.
1. therefore alt.
15 no t recoll'lnemlcd
-------
AI Lernatlve
1I1I1I.ler
UIIIDIT IX-I. CONTINUED
"roJlosed
Ac LIon
Areas Costs Excluding
Requlred~C'~ Treatment
Elutrlate TreatDlent8 fixation
Costs Costs
16
UA
11
~
I
"D
18
Construct levee 'rOIl I mile
easL of City Point across
Ualley Day Lo Jordan Point.
use confined area for main-
tenance dredging of James
River; treaL effluent fr~D
dls,losal Area
(onstruct levee from Jordan
"oilit to east side of Bailey
(reek; use confllled area for
disposal; dredge remAinder
of Dalley Day. Dalley Creek
8nd Gravelly Rlln, proposed
5110 I I s ILe t s- nUlttler 14.
jud!led to be the best.
(ovcr all contalliinated
areas of DAiley BAY.
Da II ey Creek ,"d Grave lIy
Run with Imperv lous
IIlallket; allow natural
drAlnagc patterns to
dcve 101)
-_w...-- -'--'--'-----
30-Gravelly
513-Dal1ey
Creek
20-c1eaned
GrAvelly
435-c1 eaned
Ba II ey Creek
+
Total
Cos Ls
+
.
(OIlllIeli ts I
Recollillemlat Ions
t
$ 20.6 ..111 ton
t
$ ,I19ml111on
$ 9 5 1111- $123.8
'Ion million
.
t
.
!fA 'lot AJlpllcclb'e
8 hcllllUII!J capital costs or 10gb tics costs for portable unit.
I Ellnllnalcd fr~n consideration. no further deLenn.natlons II14d8
t
Alt. 14 could
provide sallie
fUlictlon as a It
16. therefore,
no t recOIIIDCllded
Alt. 11 without
Gravelly RUII
sallie as a It. II
but 1.1 Ligates
lCe,lone In Dalley
Bay aho-
Cons Ider
no known
..eLhods to fill
neil wi thout
d. klllg; eros 1011
problClBs and
sealing dlffl-
cui ties. Lhere-
fure not reCOlQ-
Blended
-------
In all alternatives for dredging in Bailey Bay, it was assumed
~~at sediments with Repone concentrations greater than 0.1 ug/g (ppm)
would be removed.
This was based on the ambient levels in the James
River outside the Bailey Bay study area.
However, subsequent evidence
(A~~endix C) indicates that fish and other organisms in the lower
James, where sediment concentrations are orders of magnitude lower,
accumulate Repone concentrations above the FDA Action Levels.
Bence,
actual removal or mitigation efforts may have to be aimed at
concentrations less than 0.1 ug/g (~pm), necessitating higher costs
than anticipated.
As noted in Chapter VI, it is recommended that
Kepone concentrations in sediments should be reduced below a limit of
0.015 ug/g (ppm).
Appraisal !2£ Bailev ~ Bailev Creek ~ Gravellv ~ Alternatives
Time constraints on the project dictated that the development of
the 18 alternatives be undertaken simultaneously with sampling studies
of Repone concentrations in the area.
Accordingly, the assessment of
the alternatives reflects engineering and cost considerations, as well
as the later derived data on the im~ortance of the alternative in
mitigation of critical Repone contamination.
After investigating Repone concent~ations,in Gravelly Run, Bailey
Creek and Bailey Bay, it was determined that the concentrations in
Gravelly Run were low, and therefore, Gravelly Run would not be
IX-20
-------
considered for mitigation measures at this time, thereby eliminating
~lternatives 1 through 6 from further consideration.
Assuming a low flow condition in the James River of 21.2 cubic
meters per second measured at Richmond, a Bailey Creek flow of
0.57 cubic meters per second, and a high Kepone concentration of
0.3 ug/l (ppb) discharging from Bailey Creek, the Kepone concentration
contributed by runoff from the Hopewell area after dilution in the
James River, would only be on the order of 0.003 to O.OOq ug/l (ppb)
or 3 to ~ ng/l (ppt).
This dilution determination does not account
for the dilution water being added to the James Ri~er below Richmond
by other rivers such as the Appomattox.
Based on these assumptions,
the resultant soluble concentration, under these low flow conditions,
is below the 0.008 ug/l WPb) "safe" limit recommended by Gulf Breeze.
~herefore, runoff from the Hopewell area will not require treatment
and alternative 7 was eliminated from further consideration.
Alternative 8 involving sealing Bailey Creek flood plain would
cost $20.8 million.
Alternatives 9 and 10 have increased costs over
alternative 8, but offer no additional benefits.
Therefore,
alternatives 9 and 10 were eliminated from consideration and
alternative 8 was retained for further consideration.
Alternative 11 would require fixation costs.
Using, for example,
molten sulfur, the fixation cost would be $89 ~~llion.
Elutriate
IX-21
-------
treatment costs utilizing UV-ozone, as an example, would be
'0.18 million excluding clarification costs, capital costs or logistic
costs for a portable unit.
Elutriate cost estimates may be high,
since use of a dragline does not generate as much elutriate water as
estimated.
However, costs will. be incurred by the necessity to
control turbidity from the dragline operations.
Later considerations
of alternative 17 showed that it offered more benefits.
Thus,
alternative 11 was eliminated from further consideration.
Alternative 12 does not propose treatment of contaminated areas,
but offers flow-reduction schemes aimed at reducing subsequent
treatment requirements and costs downstream.
Since alternative 7, as
a result of not needing to treat Hopewell runoff, is eliminated from
~onsideration and Repone sediments can be captured by alternative 8 at
a cheaper cost,-alternative 12 was also eliminated from further
consideration.
A number of confined upland and overboard disposal 'sites had been
considered for disposal of dredged material from Bailey Bay.
After
evaluating all sites, the Corps of Engineers determined that selection
of the optimum overboard contained disposal site was the most feasible
disposal approach. . Specifically, a site in Bailey Bay, site 14,
(Appendix B) was the most reasonable area since the cont~~ated
material would remain in the same relative environment.
Selection of
site 14 would reduce the amount of dredging required in Bai~ey Bay by
IX-22
-------
-
.;
OJ
approximately 500,000 cubic yards and would minimize t~~ required
pumping distance.
Since the Bai~ey Bay site was .selected for
disposal, it was not necessary to dredge the entire Bay.
eliminated ~ter.native 13 from further consideration.
This
Alternative 1~, consisting of a levee across Bailey Bay, could be
used for maintenance dredging of the Jame s Ri. ver.
Since it was
proposed that no treatment of runoff from the Bailey Creek and
Gravel~y Run watersheds was necessary, alternative 1~ has one of the
lowest capital costs of any alternative pro~osed by the Corps.
If the
James River were dredged specifically to remove the Kepone-
contaminated sediments, then elutriate treatment and spoi~ fixation
would probakly be required and would add significant costs to this
option.
Thus, alternative 14 was retained for further consideration.
By eliminating the need for the alternatives concerning Grav~ly
Run and utilizing the Bailey Bay disposal area, alternative 15 has the
same benefits as had alternative 7 and also was eliminated from
further consideration.
Alternative 1~ can provide tbe same function as alternative 16.
Therefore, alternative 16 is eliminated from further consideration.
A~ternative 17 consists of a levee from Jordan Point to the east
side of Bailey Creek.
Without addressing Gravelly Run, it would
IX-23
-------
provide the same and more benefits than alternative 11.
Fixation
costs uSing molten sulfur would cost about $95 million and elutriate
'costs using UV-ozone treatment would be $.19 million, excluding
clarification costs, capital costs or logistic costs if a portable
unit was used.
Thus, alternative 17 was retained for further
consideration.
Alternative 18 presented major engineering problems in that there
are no known methods to fill the area with im~ervious material unless
the area is diked to control sedimentation.
Furthermore, there would
be a severe problem with. erosion and see~age along the outer edges of
the fill area.
Thus, alternative 18 did not receive further
cons ideration.
Based on the above evaluation, alternatives 8, 14, and 17 were the
only options recommended for final consideration in Bailey Bay.
alternative 8 only addresses Bailey Creek, it has low priority.
Since
However, alternatives 14 and 17 involve mitigation on Bailey Bay and
Bailey creek.
Alternative 8, as indicated, would have a final cost of
$20.8 million since there is no treatment associated with it.
Biological study implications indicate that actions taken for
mitigation in the James may ce relatively ineffective in the short
term, if they do not address the entire river.
Consequently, the
total costs in alternative 17, $123.8 ~illicn, are excessive if
IX-24
-------
efforts are limited only to Bailey Bay and Eailey Creek.
If action is
taken on the entire James River, alternative 17 may te desired over
alternative 1q for aesthetic reasons.
Alternative 1Q, with a final cost of $6.8 million, poses the least
costly option of the three recommended for consideration.
If
elutriate and fixation treatment are required for dredge spoils placed
behind the levee, then costs will rise.
As previously indicated,
unless action is taken to remove Re~one frcm the James River entirely,
localized concerted efforts would be relatively ineffective in the
short term.
However, the costs for alternative 1q are such that it
bears further consideration.
When dredging the James River for
navigational purposes resumes, especially in the zones of heavy Repone
contamination, such as the turbidity maximum zone, consideration
hould be given for contaminated spoil placement in an acceptable
disposal area designed to minimize Repone reentry to the system.
Using the Bailey Bay alternative 14 as a spoil disposal site should be
considered because the added spoil would cover and contain much of the
more highly contaminated sediments in Eailey Bay.
Use of protective
diking could serve to isolate the contaminated sediments and prevent
their re-entry to the river.
The spoil area could be designed to
minimize the flow impacts of the entering Bailey Creek and Gravelly
R~.
Thus, alternative 14 is desirabl~, independent of any action
proposed for the James River.
. IX-25
-------
JAMES RIVER ALTERNATIVES
.r
..J/
/1/
l' 7
l" ,j
;(
//
t
"
The Cor~sof Engineers has completed preliminary estimates for
removing Repone-contaminated sediments from the James River.
Parameters used in the estimates are:
1.
Excavation be limited to the James River from Hopewell to the
James River Bridge; no dredging was considered in tributaries
on the James.
2.
Excavation depth be limited to 15 inches.
3.
Disposal be limited to
adj acent sites.
4.
Sand for disposal area construction is assumed to be within
an economical pumping distance of each site.
It was assumed that the Oozer dredge is available to dredge a
5.
depth of 15 inches.*
ApFroximately 25 percent excess material will be removed due
6.
to over-dredging.
7.
The Oozer pipeline will pump material 5,000 feet.
Exhibits IX-2 and IX-3 show the dis~osal areas proposed for
confinement of Repone-contaminated spoil.
Preference was given to
sites contiguous to the shore and care was taken to select locations
that would ha ve minimal impact on adjacent drainage ~atterns. Some
filling of interior 10'"' areas was anti~ipated., Design levels were
*The Oozer dredge was considered here based on the considerations
discussed previously in this Chapter.
IX-26
-------
~
1
:~
~
..
. ,
r"; ........ ," ".
I r . 'f
4 1\ (
J ..J.,.~..
I \t, "', ' . I
" I \
." ~, .,'
.. _~.~"I" ;' J /
/" . . '
----. ' . ..' "n
'''. !-~'~I?t~.. . I',UIIUHU
~~'\'.A,~ ,,' .
I ',,' '~~'...
,I" "'''''I~I ~
. 'I,,!,
'.""'1 \~
..... ,
10(10..0.. "A'
.- .. -'-...
A-
, :
f :
.'
"'''""
"", '\".
,
,~.
...
'~
"
'.
~
\ .
.--""'''.-'''~'''''''''~
,.~).
'.,
"
""~.... " ,
"4..
\
.
"
'...,., .
. ""''''
~.:~.
",..
~;
'.
, ,
..
'.,.
.,
.1"'~" .~ ''0':.
'r..... ..
AMfS HIV(II VA
~£PO"E S I..~':t .....
""tAI .
.1 S"USA&.. '."'''1 I,' ............
a .,.~...&..
..-... ,... ,... --
(11'"011 ,.
, '0
. sf"
I
..
"
5GALf .N
"
.~----~
MILES
.
I
"",
.
,,'
'.,
-
-
-------
~
I
I\)
())
, -'
r-.'
., .
...
I . J" \ '( .
t f .',p..'~"
I \L..., "', ~ 'I
'. .L«
........ I} .. ;
. , .
N~~';OM;~'I
~ '-1:(../
. (C~1.~;'..--'
I ........
.....
ON MAr
ao("" -..
-.. - ~.
, :
!" :
.
')
fti
~
~
~
SCALE IN LlllE 5
o
fI
~
.a ..
£s lIavER VA
JAM
. ONE STUD'"
Kf I' 010 '...IIJ
II. A' ..
au 5I'..,>AI " , (..GUI''''
."'.141' ~.....I"
......,..... ... :8'.
'tIIii1ll bljij
-
-------
based on 10o-year flood level and dictated an elevation of 10 feet
:Wove sea level datum.
Areas not utilized to capacity will be used
for future maintenance dredgings.
The dredging areas are coded in
order to correlate the disposal sites and the dredging area.
Exhibit IX-4 indicates the total costs, dredged quantities, and
acreage requirements for mitigating Ke~one in the James River.
These
costs do not reflect any elutriate or stabilization costs which might
be necessary to prevent recontamination of the James River.
It should
be noted that the elevation in Area 1 reflects deposition of material
removed from Gravelly Run and Bailey Creek.
The selection of Area 1
could supercede the area selected in alternative 14 for Bailey Bay,
Bailey Creek and Gravelly Run if total mitigation is proposed for the
Jame s River.
It is estimated that it would take cne Oozer dredge 120 years to
complete the dredging task.
Twenty-five Oozer dredges aided ty
45 booster pumps could complete the job in about 5 years.
With
judicious logistics the amount of equipment could be reduced.
Logistics for the equipment needed to dredge the James River is
estimated to be $7 million, alone.
All estimates provided by the
Corps of Engineers contain a 20 percent contingency rate, an
engineering and design rate of 12 percent and an administrative cost
of 8 percent.
Eased on dredging alone, cost per cubic yard amounts to
IX-29
-------
EX/IiBIf IX- 4
Suumary for Conventional Removal of Kepone Contaminated Sediments In the James RI.ver
Dredged Quanttty tn Cubtc Yards Dredging Costs
Disposa I Eh:vatton of 251 at $4.30/cu yd Disposal SHe
Areas Acres Slurry mse 15M depth Excess Inc1uded ~5. depth PreDaratt~
--
444 10.4 7,440,000 9,300,000 $31,992,OOO $ 3,550,000
2 560 10.3 B,610,ooO 10,762,500 37 ,023 ,000 4,480,000
3 248 7.1 2,790,OOO 3,487,500 11,997,000 7,610,000
4 411 8.9 6,740,000 8,425,000 28,982,000 11,990,000
5 276 8.4 5,050,000 6,312,500 21,715,000 11,850,000
6 767 6.7 10,440,000 13,050,000 44,892,000 9,200,000
7 736 5.4 12,830,000 16,037,500 55,169,000 15,110,000
~ 8 987 7.4 18,440,000 23,050,000 79,292,000 15,340,000
I 9 533 9.3 11,300,000 14,125,000 48,590,000 13,950,000
w
o
10 812 7.5 14,260,000 17,825,000 61,318,000 11,620,000
11 1512 10.4 37,780,000 47,225,000 162,454,000 17 ,380,000
12 1635 9.2 28,460,000 35,575,000 122,378,000 20,200,000
13 125 8.4 12,780,000 15,975,000 54,954,000 10,840,000
TOTALS 9766 176,920,000 221,150,000 $ 760,756,000 $153,120,000
ROUNDEO (177 ,000,000) (221,000,000)
$ 761,976,000* $220,490,000 *
ROUIIDEO (762,000,000) (220,500,000)
Total Cost for Dredging and DhlJOsal
Including Conttngenctes Englneertng and Design Studies and Admlntstratlve Costs
Tot41 Project Costs
$ 982.5 x 106
lotal I1red!)ln!) Cost
$ 762 x 106
t
t
Total Dtsposal Cost
$ 220.5 x 106
$1 billion
Rounded
(Total removal and disposal costs amount to $5.55/cubtc yard.)
-.------
. lotal cost Includes contlngenctes, engineering and destgn studies and administrative costs.
-------
$q.30.
When disposal costs are included, the total project costs are
estimated to be $5.55 per cubic yard.
~he disposal sites would be
Craney Island-type enclosures, sealed in the same manner as the sites
considered in the Bailey Bay alternatives.
Extrapolating the costs
for the preparation of site 1q in Bailey Bay, estimates of site
preparation for each disposal area are determined in Exhibit IX-q.
The total dredging cost would be about $760 million and the total
disposal cost would be $220,500,000, excluding elutriate treatment or
spoil fixation costs.
The results of this preliminary analysis present the magnitude of
removing 177 million cubic yards of contaminated material from the
James River at a cost of 5982,500,000, or close to $1 billion.
Dredging
Disposal
5762,000,000
220,500,000
Total project cost
5982,500,000
If elutriate treatment and spoil fixation costs are considered,
the total cost of the project ranges frcm $1 to 7.2 billion depending
on the treatment chosen.
Elutriate treatment costs for UV-ozcne were
figured using a portable UV-ozone unit .and a treatment rate of
$0.23/1,000 gallons, excluding logistics or capital costs or possible
water clarification costs.
A summary of a complete treatment cost
IX-3l
-------
estimate for treating the James River sediments with intra-basin
~isposal is presented in Exhibit IX-5.
Battelle, in separate efforts, determined costs and some
environmental consequences for other 1n ~ mitigation proposals.
These are also included in Exhibit IX-5.
MITIGATION OF ELEVATED CONTAMINATION AREAS
Certain areas of the James River contain more Repone than others
as a result of dispersion and other hydrologic parameters.
Bailey Bay
and 1ar Bay contain significant amounts as a result of their proximity
to the discharge source of Hopewell.
Due to the characteristics of
the turbidity maximum significant amounts of Repone also lie in the
,ediments of the turbidity maximum zcne.
It was previously indicated that partial cleanup of the James
River might have little effect in the short term range in mitigating
Kepone impacts.
It could, however, reduce the amount of closure time
in the long range perspective.
Also, it is imperative that a strategy
be developed for the protection of Chesapeake Bay.
As indicated by
the modelling effort, no significant impacts are predicted for the
Chesapeake Bay, but the predictions can change as a result of
increased data inputs and more sampling data.
IX-32
-------
~
I
LV
'.JJ
EXHIBIT IX-5
Treatment Cost Estimates For Alternatives On The James River
Without Dredging
Dredging With Oozer Dredge (COE).
Molten Sulfur Stabilization
TJK Fixation with Removal
Elutriate Treatment - UV-ozone
Elutriate- Treatment - temporary
filtration/carbon adsorbtion
UV-ozone for Sediments
scheme
N/R 9
$ 6.2 x 109
$ 1.8-2.6 x 10 6
$ 12.4 x 10
$ 40.3 x 10~
$26.6-53.1 x 10
In Situ (Battelle).
-- Application of Retrievable Sorbents
Application of Coal
Application of Activated Carbon
$
$
$
9
6.2 x 10 8
2.2 x 109
3.6 x 10
N/R - Not required.
With Dredging
$
$
$
$
1.0
7.2
2.8-3.6
1.01
9
x 109
x.109
x 109
x 10
9
x 109
x 10
*The areas used by the COE for determining dredging alternative costs were
slightly different than those used by Battelle in determining non-conventional
alternative costs. The relative ranking of alternatives due to cost
determinations remains unchanged even with this areAl difference.
$ 1.04
$1.03-1.05
N/R
N/R
N/R
-------
In an effort to determine where cleanup activities should begin if
he Chesapeake Bay were threatened or if some mitigation efforts were
undertaken in the James River, the Battelle model was u.sed to answer
the following questions about mitigation:
1.
What will happen to the Kepone migration pattern and its
concentration level if a part of the Kepone in the river bed
is removed by physical, chemical or biological methods?
2.
Where is the optimal location for Kepone removal to reduce
the Kepone level in the River?
Computer simulations were performed on various reaches of the
-iver.
It was assumed that for each case, Kepone in the bed at a
certain part of the tidal James River was completely removed.
This
was accomplished by changing boundary conditions to assume no bed
Kepone in the restored reach.
For all cases, fresh-water input
discharges were assumed to be 247 cubic meters per second.
Computer
results during the maximum ebb tide after l-month simulation for these
cases were then compared with the no clean-up case, in order to assess
the effectiveness of the Kepone cleanup activities.
The resultant
predictions are in terms of percent reductions of Kepone levels in the
associated water columns.
IX-34
-------
.J
.. 7
: i
l
!i
Among the cases;~xamined, middle river mitigation efforts are
)redicted to be the most beneficial.
Based on model simulations,
cleanup of the 34.5 KIn reach between Hog Island (KIn 50.5) and Brandon
Point (Km 85.0) would remove 55 percent of the Kepone from the
associated water column.
Cleanup activities in a smaller segment of
this reach, the 22 Km segment between Black Point on Jamestown Island
(KIn 56) and Claremont (Km 78), would reduce Kepone levels in the
associated water column by 48 percent alone.
The entire 34.5 KIn reach
is in the zone of the turbidity maximum.
The model simul~tion also
indicated that cleanup of Tar Bay and Bailey Bay would reduce ambient
Kepone levels in the associated water column by approximately
15 percent within the vicinity of the bays, but cleanup of Bailey Bay
and Tar Bay would have little effect on the total amount of Kepone
'.eaving Burwell Bay.
Thus, even though the physical removal of Kepone contaminated
sediments in "hot spot" segments of the James River will reduce
significantly the Kepone concentrations, the net effect will only be
evident in the long term.
The dynamics of the river such as tidal
fluctuations, bottom scour and salt wedge migration, lessen the
immediate impact of hot spot cleanup.
Estimated treatment costs for cleaning up the 34.5 Km reach, the
22 Km reach and Bailey Bay and Tar Bay are presented in Exhibit IX-6.
Preliminary estimates are based on dredging volumes determined in
IX-35
-------
EXHIBIT IX-6
Preliminary Estimates for Mitigation Of Kepone In Areas Of Elevated Concentrations
Numbered
Involved
Disposal Sites
Cubic Yards Dredged
Dredging Cost And Disp05~1
Costs Based On $5.55/yd
Fixation*
Molten Sulfur at $35/yd3
TJK -w1th R3ffiOVal at
~ $lO-15/yd
~ Elutriate Treatment*
P\ UV-Ozone
Temporary Filtration
with Carbon Adsorption
Assume A 50 MGD Plant
Per Spoil Site
UV-Ozone For Sediroents*
at $0.10-0. 20/yd 3
In Situ
-- Application of Retrie~able
Sorbents at $0.90/ft $ .
Application of Coal at
$0.03/ft3
Application of Activated
Carbon at $0.52/ft3
*Without dredging costs added.
Bailey Bay
to Tar Bay
1,2
16,050,000
$
89.1 million
$ 561.75 million
$161-241 million
$
1.12 million
$
6.12 million
$2.4-4.8 million
390 million
$
1~0 million
$
225 million
Black Point
to Claremont
6,7,8
41,710,000
$
231.5 million
$
1.46 billion
$ 417-626 million
$
2.91 million
$
9.18 million
$6.3-12.5 million
Hog Island to
Brandon Point
5,6,7,8,9
58,060,000
$
322.2 million
$ 2.03 billion
$ 581-871 million
$
4.06 million
$
15.3 million
$8.7-17.4 million
$ 1.01 billion $ 1.41 billion
$ 33.8 million $ 47.0 million
$ 586 million $ . 815 million
-------
Exhibit IX-4.
The treatment schemes are only used for estimates and-
pilot efforts should be done to determine the viability of any scheme
before it is used for the purpose of mitigation.
Pilot testing would
also permit further refinements of these estimates.
Appraisal ~ James River Alternatives
It is evident that mitigation efforts on the entire James would
involve enormous costs both environmental and economic.
For example,
any in situ fixation, dredging or sorbent application would have large
scale impacts on the benthic life of the River.
Before any final
action recommendations are made, comprehensive engineering,
environmental, economic and social studies, including field
demonstrations, should be undertaken to determine the extent of
associated impacts.
From the project findings and observations, the Oozer dredge
appears well suited for removing the Kepone contaminated sediments
with the least amount of hazard and mechanical difficulties.
The most
effective means of treating elutriate appear to be the UV-ozone
treatment developed by Westgate Research Corporation and the temporary
filtration/adsorption system developed by Calgon Corporation.
A
direct comparison between the two processes is not possible without
further field testing since each process has its benefits and
disbenefits.
Fixation processes which showed the most promise for
IX-37
-------
Kepone reduction in Battelle's laboratory tests were molten sulfur and
epoxy grout.
However, cost and availability limitations and potential
environmental impact make these options less than desirable.
Fixation
efforts by the Japanese process are extremely encouraqing and require
close examination.
If the fixation process can be further refined, it
would be a more attractive option from an economic and environmental
cost standpoint.
Further, the Japanese process is the only in-place
fixation technology that is currently available on the market today
for large scale applications.
Based on laboratory experiments, activated carbon application
appears to be a promising in situ mitigation process.
However, if
future data demonstrate the effectiveness of coal, its application
should be considered over activated carbon in all areas except those
contaminated at greater than or equal to 1 ug/g (ppm) Kepone, where
retrievable media or fixation techniques should be considered.
The
latter exception reflects the fact that at high sediment Kepone
concentrations, coal or activated carbon would still allow
unacceptable levels of Kepone in water.
Although a substantial reduction in Kepone concentrations could be
achieved by dredging in the turbidity maximum, the model simulations
predict that the reduction of Kepone availability would' only be
evident over the long term, while having little impact on the
immediate Kepone problem.
A more effective full-scale clean up
IX-38
-------
stra.teqy would involve clean up at the points of inflow, such as
Bailey Bay, and proceeding down the river.
Bailey Bay would also
provide an advantageous location for pilot mitigation efforts from a
logistical standpoint.
Due to the significant Kepone contamination of the reach between
River Kilometers 50.5 and 85.0, consideration should be given to
isolating any dredge spoil removed from this area when navigational
dredging is resumed.
To facilitate handling, treatment and isolation,
consideration should also be given to using the Oozer dredge since it
can deliver a slurry of 60 percent to 80 percent solids with little
secondary pollution and resuspension.
One further consideration would be the placement of contaminated
dredge spoil, taken during navigational dredging from Hog Island to
Brandon ~oint, into a spoil site in Bailey Bay and Tar Bay.
This
practice would help reduce the Kepone impacts from the contamination
in the bays while at the same time remove some Kepone from the heavier
contaminated river reaches.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE CONVENTIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR BAILEY
CREEK, GRAVELLY RUN, AND BAILEY BAY
An environmental assessment was prepared by the Corps with
cooperation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the 18
IX-39
-------
..l
~i/I
.;11
I..:
, ,
, "
':;1
:i?
,,'
alternatives on Bailey .Creek, Bailey Bay, and Gravelly Run.
An
environmental assessment covering the entire James River mitigation
effort would be extensive and requires more thorough analysis beyond
the scope of this project.
Exhibit IX-7 summarizes the environmental
impacts associated with the initial alternatives for Bailey Bay,
Bailey Creek and Gravelly Run.
In view of the disadvantages
associated with alternative 18, it was eliminated from consideration
in the matrix. CUmulative impacts f'rom construction of any
combinations of the alternatives do not appear to be any greater than
the summation of the individual impacts generated by component
alternatives.
However, the sequence of component action may reduce
the construction impacts.
For example, dredging Bailey Bay last in
any plan would presumably remove the contaminated sediments released
during implementation of any measures in Bailey Creek and Gravelly
Run.
Dredging Bailey Bay first would allow recontamination of the
"cleanerll Bay substrate with materials suspended by construction
activities in the Creek and Run.
IX- 40"
-------
EXHIBIT 1X-7
SUMMARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MATRIX: KEPONE FEAS ID I L ITY STUDY
Tyo. 01 oo..lbl. "p.et
Archulollcd Upland lorro.. or
AltarMU.. no. hI.rodcal letuadoa wood'" anel rollut.at Ah Var.r I<:olollc" ""po.aa
.oel lleaer IpUoa IIodal lAnd ..ao (Dato o.ed...) Vet land. lon- 8ulcuhunl 8Obl11uUoo .uaUn liIuolut a,.u... or.aa
I GnveU, lIooa 10- dlo- IIokno- 'Ioodad dur- Hloor Oaa dta leduc ad b, Hlaor Inhanc:ael Tiel.. Unla
lua D.. ...p.ct'" ruptlon ar "p.ct 101 btlh 18pac:t ar.o lo.t, eI.. ancl alfact It, treat- lIooellnl 1aput 4...
CooUn.otai r..noU to Aho opl11- t r.at.ant d..rl01 .ut all.I...teel, to r"atha~
Cao "urlna 1:1.1(....1.) vo, aroo vork. coo.truc- vorh, C"'r.cter I, ...U
1100..1011 10 Ud. Uon aael"oo- 01 .18. 08O..Ot 01
101llni tatlon cla.nleel, ..tartal
truck acca.. durlna Inp..t to
.toppd cooatrue:- JaDea loat
tloo
1 Ora.aU, lIooa lion. lIooa Ia.. ao 1 "h>or Low ..dua IIot ro- Hloor 110 cha...a 8..... I... 00 1
luo 0.. ...pacteel ... pact'" a.pacta" "put voo..a 10et duc.d b..t durlna la WQ I plu.
../01 her- .t d.. .IU cootrollad coo- ."'''oa- .delltlonal
~ .100 to ead .pl1l..., lor otber .Uuctloo t.Uoa rUnDl1 to
1.l1a, Cr .a" III..r- tro.t.oot d..rtol "lie, Cr
J,.. .Ioa routo coo.truc-
..... tloa
) Cov.r 1100. "'0. Ar... Vetb..... KJoOr 110 10.. d... &"'I..ot lu.p""'''' 1"'..cUoo Lo.o 01 lod"eoto-
OuvaU, ...pticto.. ...pactall co".rad, lI..tro,ad, "poct to coo- "achlol puUcu~ 01 leech- "et I...elal Uoo, 1.0..
lua 8JlC.".- ro..lbl. .u..ctloo .nd -vo- btao 101 fro. Cle.o up- 01 boblt.t,
bOUOD tlon to r.....U" or opor.- ..DI. COD- Ir08 botto., ....d lodd
ao4 coo- .tl1l ..... 14 tJoo troU."1 .orth All ec: t... .redo" lapoct 'uo
. UlIC r po..lbl. rua 1..0011 oot -vlna b, ator.- '" to truck
apl1lv~, .IIuta4 operaUo. ..otar davelop haul
runoU
4 aad' POt coo814ar.4
6 Dredle 110... lIooa 80.a Vatt.....a lottoa Lo.. 'ua 80.a "'nor 1'1nbl,l1t, ....".1 8U.
Orav.U, ..peet.d ..pacted I.pact .t 4..tro," ..-.. to po...bl. ..p.ct Iro. 01 .000a uo.pocl-
auo to d"po..1 cao ba per....- . r eel a'" Ir- hoe "1841'011 ..ub ltael
4"pooal .r.. ao4 r.bullt .otl, ..tart.1 dredl'n'l a'l"'p- Uula ao4
ar88' treat.oar In place co"er'" ".ul Llttla ..nt I polluUo. ."..p.
Treat plant dt. b, foad hoa odor, Iro.
."I...nt d"poa" tr..t04 80.. ""po..1
ar.. dlopo... h,4rocar- 81'..
allluont boo
0."0100.
J 8a II., Crl lion. Ilona 'o...bl. Tld.. lon- Oaa .u. Deer.aao" Te.porar, I.prova- Vet Ia..d. HtDO~
Da. at ..l'aete4 ..peet'" I.poct Influanca 81'ea .pll1..a, to a'luetlc "p.ct fr ..ot a..d I.pau d...
aoutb fro. blochdl dacreaa.d ao4 .nv Iro....ont, conn~uc- ovel' ..r.".a to e..11
.ncI d.. elt. Chanctor traet.ent Unknovo to rlo.. pra..ot 40,udedo ..ouot 01
tr..t 01 ...t- plant dta uplaod Ncbloer, atatel Po..t"'a ..ud..
runoll lao4. 10at en" froM.nt 'od..ctlo.. r.p"e.-
chan,edl 01 In- 8Ilmt..
T18.a .., puta ro
be 1811.,
Uooded la,
-------
EXIII8IT IX-]
( con tt nued)
"pact Ionov 01
AtUrnatlv. 110. 'olluteot leolo.lul '''1'0..1
an4 4eael'I 100 lodd VaUand. 801111I..tlo a ate.. .re.a
8 Co".r 1100. Ho con- 1'0...101. ".dand. IoU08 110 I...act nocrooaed 'u.pon484 loductloo ro..lb.. '.d"oota~
..110' Cr ..p.cted 'Uct .Iu. d..uo,"" .rea aotlclp.ted Dr .topp04 put ICII- 0' l..c"- 10ll,-ter. tloo.t
lie" to v!Ch co"oreel 8_0 ro- docr....cI 'lf con.Uuc- h creek lat.. Ir 10' .od reducUon du.Lo..
S' ....1. current ca.. b. babUIutloo &ton or bed.lunoU aartb becl 10.' 0' poHu- 0' babhat:
and coo- plan. ..ca"atad .., 100 op.r.t Ion aot ..." '0' lotroduc- cant. 10 .0cl.1
.uuct latu. pa.dbh aUocto' o,uaU- Uoa 0' '0,10"" lIIpacta due
.1'111..., .'nor pa11utaata '00' ch"., to Uuck
"pace at co J..... Lo.. 0' haul
cooatrue:- luno" vethnd
ctoa pee not habh.t
"'act."
9 .nd 10 Dot coa"".ro"
11 Ore",o Phpo." ConUIe:t B'u. lo.t ".,la04. Iono. Lo.. 4u. Turbt"U, 040' Turb...It, Wothnd. Truck haul
~ ..11., Cr ar.. .., .., .rt.. 11 P18..ot 4eatro,." a'.. to 418....4 ..Uh 1'0..1".., 4ep.odla. 40.uo,.41 1o ....,
to ha". 10 e:ho'ce 4.cre...d ..Urld .nachecl 1I,4ro- on 4.....,. '0..1..1. .14. 0'
, .tepo.at '.pact! 0' bon- "'ul roa4 poHlitont. carbon u.e' ,.ch..- aaU.,
,.. aree. On4,- ar.. 1'0...101. _...Ion. Uoo 0' ..,
t-J tn.t In. .urln. h08 lOll ..18",
8IUII.ot .dnor 4ro".ln,. ..4"8Ot. 'oHutont
"p.cu Linl. c,cllo.
'roo atopp"
""1'0.81
.re.
11 D.. avacu.- 'o.a 0' . knova ".d.04 lion. Lo.. .t LitU. Shon-Una 8ed "on- '0.. '.,uheel
..110' Cr ,ton 0' pool area .u.. 8"". 10.ti 4.. "t. eUect .Uact. to Uon a'hct on lor 4..
upetre.. U proclu404 41.turb" abo"o Abo". eacept 4ur'nl 4udn, ..otI004. cooetrllc-
0' It. .Iructur.. hoo brld.. tl.d to conetJlle~ e:o"uruc- oU.or..le. Cion
156 40""01'- .., bo 10Uu.nc. r.4uc. ClOD CIon I .... Unh ..tod.&.
hld,o, ..nt .ttore4 10uer e:hoo.. cI..a.o lo.a
PI"ert 10, cre.k 4urln. .hort-
runoU porl04lc ar08l0n opentlo.. ter.oUocta
td Ja... lnund.- ..c.pt II co-er~
Ihu at Upa to '101. d.. ana
a.l1e, ao, .tona
...tor
12" Oho18lo.. S..o .a S..o .. 80.. .. S.... .. S... a. S... I.... .. S... .. 68.. .. 0lvert04 S... ..
to Ch..pp.U 12 but U abo"a 0100". .bo". .4dUao..d .bo". ."0". abo". ...tel' .bo".
Cr (-". .1..0 a.e: el'l 10.. dona .., ba".
1"'0 .100' .tu4, 0' It. 646 ..".ct
n..".' on plpe- '.0.". .., plpeUa. on
Chappell line b. n...ded rout. Chapp. II
Cr) '.0.". a180 Cuek
uot.uh."
-------
EXHIBIT IX- 7
(continued)
Ah.~n.t h. M.
al\.I J,.IIU 'ptlo"
U Dred..
aU 01
8.11.,
.., ...d
P-P 'nto
. dh,..d
area
~
I
,r;..
w
14 Dike
'.11.,
Creek
.nd
tre.t
r..noll
Iro. the
l..do.e4
ar..
IS D.. ..l1e,
Cr, d~e4..
...~. ...4
.... Cr ..
. dl.pu..'
.~..I D..
Crav.1I ~
aun ...d
4"'.~t to
."1., Crl
T...t
dllu.nt
loct"
Arch.olo.lul
..a.torled
(DeC. ".ed..)
"P' 9~1~1.
Upl-
,atu.,lo. wood.' aBl
10tt08 a.r1cullulal
..net .a.
".Ihnd,
'0..11>1.
"h....
Ir-
4h,...1
a~.a
lIo""ovn
.h..
4hturbed
Uttl.
"'act
Up to I
..t., 01
1- 1"0-
"uctlvit,
boU-
,.....,,'',
Clu...,
.r.a re-
_In.
Uttle
bpact
Hloor
bpact
,o...bl. Llul. "1001 Cut oil Cut oil Littl.
.,hud I....c t I.pact '1"0. hoa .U.ce
I.p.ct. ..cept tidal tI"..
"ona lollu.nu, .nd n.h
d.ke HeJOl ...4 b.o-
eon.truc- 10n.- tbo.
Uoo t.... .1.r.t100
cOllldol" bp.et
8.. Ilt.~o.tl.,.. 2, I, .04 1)
16 locl..d.4 In .It.l"88tl.,. 14
11 COllatruct
leve. I..
..11., Ba,
.10"8 e..t
.1.,)(.
8.. Alt.ro.tl.,.. 6, II, .04 11
t-P.cc
reUutaaC
8OUlh.UIIII
Ic.lo.led
''''..'
.onow or
...,....
.r...
Air
Iud hI
11.&81
1".1111'
"1..I.ta... Uttl. I.p.ct. a.ot"08 0"1'0..1
b, 4184a- '.p.ct hoa 4..tro,ed, .r.. 00
101 ..thod h- turb'clltra '0Ilut.4 ....t .14.
.114 coo- IIr.4,..., Uttl. ..tart.. ", ..."
trol op.uUon., I.p.ce Ir l"_ov.41 Uul.
eu...r..1 10.. b- .1'011..8& 'ollut.ot I.pact II
"'nor p.ce It due to c,cUo, poUut.nt.
I.pact 1.... treete.ot I....ned .t.UI1..4
o.,.r co...truc-
pre.eot tloo
coo41tlon
Luchlo, "IDOl l.pounde4 C,eU.., Dh,.a..
...01 runoll I.,.ce ..ater -, 01 pollu- 01 J....
to J.... durio, b.c.... &8..tell Ih...
.her conatlue- .utrophlc ....84 ch...o.1
8101'1'.01 b, Uoa .r.. ..4'..nt.
trut.ent ...u ..00- ../tre.rr
r'ou.1 e...t "'11
l'Iu.tl.. h.... lItel.
.,.tea add.4
'elu4.4 "p.ce
-------
REFERENCES
Bahner, L.H., R.A. Rigby and L.F. Faas, in preparation. Bioavailability
of Kepone from sediments to several estuarine species, EPA Gulf
Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory.
Battelle, 1978. The feasibility of mitigating Kepone contamination in
the James River Basin. Final report for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., April 1978.
Bender, M.E., 1977. Kepone presentation for January 26, 1977, EPA public
hearing. Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
Bender, M.E., 1977a. Letter of October 18, 1977, to Gary Gardner, EPA
Region III, Philadelphia, PA.
Bender, M.E., J.E. Douglas, Jr., and R.G. Krutchoff, 1977. Supplemental
presentation relating to the establishment of action levels for
Kepone in seafood. U.S. EPA Document Control Number OPP 210006,
February 22, 1977'. '
Bender, :1.E., R.J. Huggett and W.J. Hargis, Jr., 1977a. Kepone Residues
in Chesapeake Bay Biota in Proceedings of the Kepone II Seminar
at Easton, MD., September 19-21, 1977.
Bourquin, A.W., L.A. Kiefer, N.H. Berner, S. Crow and D.G. Ahearn, 1975.
Inhibition of estuarine microorganisms by polychlorinated biphenyls.
Dev. Ind. Microbiol. 16:256-261.
Calgon, 1978. Letter of February 24, 1978 from Calgon Corporation to
J.A. Kohler of U.S. EPA.
Cannon, S.B., J.M. Veazey, R.S. Jackson, V.W. Burse, C. Hayes, W.E. Straub,
P.J. Landrigan, and J.A. Liddle, in press. Epidemic Kepone poisoning
in chemical workers. Am. Jour. Epid.
CEQ, 1976. Environmental ,Quality - 1976: The Seventh Annual Report of
the Council on Environmental Quality, September 1976.
Chigges, J.A., 1977. Memorandum of J.A. Chigges of Virginia State Water
Control Board, July 6, 1977.
Cohn, W.J., J.J. Boylan, R.V. Blanke, M.W. Fariss, J.R. Howell, and
P.S. Guzelian, 1978. Treatment of Chlordecone (Kepone) toxicity
with Cholestyramine. New England Jour. of Medicine, Vol. 298
No. 5:243-248, February 2, 1978.
-------
2
EPA, 1974. Criteria for dredge spoil disposal. U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Region IX, San Francisco, CA.
EPA, 1975. Preliminary report on Kepone levels found in environmental
samples from the Hopewell, Virginia area. Health Eff.ects Research
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, December 16, 1975.
EPA, 1975a. Kepone. Unpublished report of Office of Pesticide Programs,
Criteria and Evaluation Division, 24 pages.
EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group, 1976. Analysis of Kepone. Report to
E. Johnson, Deputy Assistant Acministrator for Pesticide Programs,
July 27, 1976.
FDA, 1977. Compliance program evaluation - FY-77: Kepone and Mirex
contamination. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Federal Register, 1976.
Vol. 41, F.R. No. 118, Page 24624, June 17, 1976.
Federal Register, 1977. Vol. 42, F.R. No. 144, Page 38205, July 27,1977.
Ferguson, W.S., 1975. .Letter of September 12, 1975, to R.S. Wassersug,
Enforcement Division, U.S. EPA Region III, Philadelphia, PA.
Flood & Associates, Inc., 1976. Study of biodegradation of Kepone in a
Hopewell, Virginia sludge lagoon. Contract report to the Virginia
.Health Department, Richmond, VA, December 20, 1976.
Gulf Breeze, 1977. Executive summary of laboratory results: Kepone
toxicity, accumulation and transfer in estuarine organisms. U.S.
EPA Environmental R~search Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, FL, November 1977.
Gulf Breeze, 1978. Biological fate and impact: criteria for protecting
estuarine biota. U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf
Breeze, FL, January 1978.
Koener, R.M., A.E. Lord, and W.M. McCabe, 1976. Acoustic emission moni-
toring to determine earth dam stability and its use at a Kepone
storage site in Hopewell, VA. Letter report to John Brugger, U.S. EPA.
Mount, 0.1. and C.E. Stephan, 1967. A method for establishing acceptable
toxicant limits for fish-malathion and the butoxyethanol ester of
2,4-0. Trans. Amer. Fish Soc. 96(2):185-193.
-------
3
NAS/NAE, 1973. National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of Engin-
eering Water Quality Criteria 1972: A Report of the Committee on
Water Quality Criteria, Washington, D.C. 1972.
NASA, 1977. Remote sensing observations of industrial plumes at Hopewell,
Virginia, by C.H. Whitlock and T.A. Talay. Kepone Seminar II, Easton,
MD, September 19-21, 1977.
National Cancer Institute, 1976.
grade chlordecone (Kepone).
March 12, 1976.
Carcinogenesis bioassay of technical
National Institutes of Health report,
Nichols, M.M., 1972. Sediments in the James River estuary, Virginia.
Geol. Soc. Amer. Mem. 133:169-212. .
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1978. Proceedings of a workshop on
evaluation of models used for the environmental assessment of
radionuclide releases, September 6-9, 1977, Gatlinburg, TN.
Onishi, Y., P.A. Johanson, R.G. Baca and E.L. Hilty, 1976. Studies of
Columbia River water quality. Development of mathematical models
for sediment and radionuclide transport analysis. Report of Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories (BNWL-B-452).
Onishi, Y., 1977a. Finite element models for sediment and contaminent
transport in surface waters: Transport of sediments and radio-
.nuclides in the Clinch River. Report of Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratories (BNWL-2227).
Onishi, Y., 1977b. Mathematical simulation of sediment and radionuclide
transport in the Columbia River. Report of the Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratories (BNWL-2228).
Onishi, Y., and R.M. Ecker, 1977c. Mathematical simulation of transport
of Kepone and Kepone-laden sediments in the James River estuary.
Kepone II Seminar, Easton, MD, September 19-21, 1977.
Onishi, Y., P.A. Johanson, R.G. Baca and E.L. Hilty, 1976. Studies of
Columbia River water quality-Development of mathematical models for
sediment and radionuclide transport analys-s. Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratories, Richland, \.IA. Report B-452.
Oswald, E.O. 1976. Letter to Dr. R.J. Huggett, Virginia Institute of
Marine Science from Dr. E.O. Oswald, U.S. EPA Research Triangle
Park, April 27, 1976.
-------
4
Pound, P.W., 1976. How to dispose of toxic substances and industrial
wastes. Noyes Data Corp., Park Ridge, N.J., pp. 55-133.
SAPCB, 1977. Virginia Air. Published by the Virginia State Air Pollu-
tion Control Board, Vol. 7(1).
Senate Hearings, 1976. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Agricultural
Research and general legislation of the Committee on Agriculture and
Forestry, United States Senate, January 22-27, 1976.
Sterrett, F.S. and C.A. Boss, 1977.
19(2):30-36, March 1977.
Careless Kepone.
In:
Environment
Stickney, R.R., G.L. Taylor, and R.W. Heard, III, 1974. Food habits of
Georgia estuarine fishes. In: Four species of flounders (Pleuro-
nectiformes: Bothidae). U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service
Bull. 72:515-525.
Swartz, R.C., W.A. DeBen, and F.A. Cole, 1977. A bioassay for the
toxicity of sediment to the marine macrobenthos. Presented at the
Third U.S.jJapan experts meeting on management of bottom sediments
containing toxic substances, Easton, MO, November 15-17, 1977.
SWCB, 1973. Bluefish, menhaden and spot fish sampling data on file at
the Virginia State Water Control Board, June 1973.
swca, 1976. Kepone Data Bulletin No. 14. Virginia State Water Control
Board, March 24, 1976.
SWCB, 1976a. Kepone Data Bulletin No. 18.
Board, March 30, 1976.
University of Virginia, 1975. Estimates of the populations of Virginia
counties and cities: July 1, 1974 to July 1, 1975. Tayloe Murphy
Institute.
Virginia State Water Control
Vind, H.P., 1976. The role of microorganisms in the transport of chlor-
inated insecticides. In: Proceedings of the third international
biodeterioration symposium, J.M. Sharpley and A.M. Kaplan, Eds.
Applied Science Publishers, Ltd., London, Eng. 3:793-797.
Westgate, 1978. Letter of May 4, 1978 from Westgate Research Corporation
to J.A. Kohler of U.S. EPA.
Whitman, a.F., 1977. Legal analysis of the Kepone case. Presented at
the Estuarine Research Federation, Mt. Pocono, PA, October 2-5, 1977.
Williams, R.J., 1977. Kepone bound to James River sediment.
Report 77-1. Allied Chemical, Project 0946.
Informal
------- |