EPA 910/9-77-039
AUGUST, 1977
MONITORING OF TRACE CONSTITUENTS
DURING PCB RECOVERY
DREDGING OPERATIONS
DUWAMISH WATERWAY
Joseph N. Blazevich
Arnold R. Gahler
George J. Vasconcelos
Robert H. Rieck
Stephen V. W. Pope
\
ui
O
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION X
SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS DIVISION
LABORATORY BRANCH
1200 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
-------
EPA 910/9-77-039
August, 1977
MONITORING OF TRACE CONSTITUENTS
DURING PCB RECOVERY
DREDGING OPERATIONS
DUWAMISH WATERWAY
By
Joseph N. Blazevich
Arnold R. Gahler
George J. Vasconcelos
Robert H. Rieck
Stephen V. W. Pope
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Surveillance and Analysis Division
Laboratory Branch
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by Region X, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and is approved for
publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
ABSTRACT
This report describes the monitoring program conducted after a spill
of 255 gallons of transformer fluid, Aroclor 1242, occurred in the Duwamish
River in Seattle, Washington. A detailed evaluation is presented of data
acquired prior to, during, and after recovery operations. An initial
recovery effort conducted by EPA resulted in a 30 percent removal of the
PCB. The Department of Defense, acting through the Corps of Engineers,
removed the remaining Aroclor using a Pneuma dredge. This removal operation
increased the total PCB recovered to approximately 92 percent.
The second recovery effort was conducted without significant redistri-
bution of toxic materials and bacteria associated with the dredged sediments.
No appreciable amount of PCB returned from the disposal ponds to the river
because of the design of the land disposal area and of the use of a
filtration-adsorption treatment unit. Water, which drained from the dredged
spoils in the disposal pond, contained some Mn, N-NH3, N-TKN, oil and grease,
and total coliform, but only traces of Cd, Fe, Zn and total P. Apparently
most of the pollutants and bacteria were associated with or scavenged by
particulate matter and settled in the disposal ponds. Only small concen-
trations of toxic materials, nutrients, and suspended solids were observed to
be released into the overlying river water during dredging operations.
The release of pollutants from sediments during dredging could be only
partially predicted by use of the elutriate test and evaluation of the
interstitial water. The elutriate test was valid for most metals, nutrients,
and oil and grease. However, both tests failed to preduct the amount of
PCB released.
m
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract 11i
List of Figures v
List of Tables vi
Part I. Introduction 1
Background 1
Objective 1
Scope 3
Part II. Conclusions 5
Part III. Experimental 7
Sampling 7
Sample Preparation 22
Laboratory Analysis 24
Part IV. Results and Discussion 27
Phase I. Pre-dredge Activities 27
Phase II. Dredge Monitoring Activities 50
Phase III. Post-dredge 59
References 66
Appendices
A. Outline of project scope 69
B. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry results 74
C. Monitoring study results 90
D. Results and calculations of predictive test studies 129
E. Calculations for estimation of PCB removed by analysis of 142
disposal pond spoils
F. Hydrolab results 147
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1 PCS spill location 2
2 Station numbers at Slip 1 3
3 Pre and post sediment analysis sampling stations 10
(Composite)
4 Dredge efficiency sediment sampling stations 11
5 Composite dredge spoils sampling sites for Pond 1 13
6 Dredge spoil topography pond 1 14
7 Overview of disposal ponds and treatment 18
facilities
8 Ambient water column sampling area (Slip 1) 19
9 PCB sediment concentration (Pre-cleanup), 29
Sept, 18, 1974
10 PCB sediment concentration, Sept, 25, 1976 31
11 PCB sediment concentration, Oct. 18, 1974 33
12 PCB sediment concentration, Nov. 4, 1974 35
13 PCB sediment concentration in cores, Nov. 4, 1974 36
14 PCB surface sediment concentration, June 2, 1975 39
15 PCB sediment concentration (Bottom 1/3 of cores), 41
Aug. 18, 1975
16 PCB sediment concentration (Bottom 1/3 cores), 42
Aug. 18, 1975
17 PCB sediment concentration, Jan. 16, 1976 45
18 PCB sediment concentration, Jan. 16, 1976 46
19 PCB sediment concentration (Post dredge), 61
May 4, 1976
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1 Frequency of river surveys for PCB in Duwamish 9
sediments
2 Dredge spoil pond influent sampling frequency 15
3 Dredging production report Pneuma North America 16
4 Cruise schedule for monitoring river water at 20
dredge site
5 Composite sampling scheme for monitoring river 21
water at dredge site
6 Summary of sample storage and preservation 23
7 Analytical method for monitoring activities 25
8 Analysis for PCB's in sediments taken from 30
Slip 1 (9-20-74)
9 PCB in sediments taken from Slip 1 (9-25-74) 32
10 PCB in sediment taken from Slip 1 (10-18-74) 34
11 PCB in sediment taken from Slip 1 (11-4-74) 37
12 PCB in sediments at selected stations 38
13 PCB in sediments taken from Slip 1 (6-2-75) 40
14 PCB in sediment cores (8-18-75) 43
15 PCB in Slip 1 sediments (1-16-76) 47
16 Predictive test analysis summary 48
17 Comparison of predictive test accuracy 49
18 Bacterial content of post and pre-dredge sediment 51
samples taken from six zonal areas in Slip 1
19 PCB in sediments taken during dredging operations 52
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Page
20 PCB in effluent from filter system 56
21 PCB results for miscellaneous samples 57
22 Bacterial content of influent into disposal pond 1 60
and effluent out of disposal pond 2
2-" Results of analysis of PCB's in Duwaniish River post 62
dredge survey (5-4-76)
24 Results of analysis of pond 1 dredge spoils 64
25 Dredge spoils collected from disposal pond ^1 65
approximately two months after dredge operation
VI 1
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The technical assistance and contributions of the following
individuals and organizations are gratefully acknowledged: Messrs.
Nathaniel Anthony, Roy L. Arp, Gary Burns, Phil Davis, Nick Malueg,
Francis Nelson, Leroy Loiselle and Robert Ralston and Mrs. Linda
Montgomery, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Surveillance
and Analysis Division, Seattle, Washington; Mr. Ron Hoeppel , U. S.
Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi; Messrs. Leonard Juhnke and Robert Parker, U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, Washington. Co-joint
support for this study was made available through an interagency
agreement between the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, the
U. S. Army Materials Command, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station. This interagency agreement was
administered by the Seattle District U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Viii
-------
Part I. INTRODUCTION
(A) BACKGROUND
On September 13, 1974, an electric transformer destined for
arctic service was dropped and broken on the north pier of Slip 1
of the Duwamish River, Seattle, Washington (Figure 1). As a
result, PCS transformer fluid, Aroclor 1242, was discharged onto
the pier and into the water. After becoming aware of the type
and quantity of fluid spilled, EPA acted to determine the extent
of pollution. Once determined feasible, clean up of the fluid
was attempted using several hand dredges (1).
Results from EPA Region X Laboratory's monitoring of this
clean up operation indicated only eighty of an estimated 255
gallons of PCB were recovered and the remaining fluid had begun
to spread throughout the slip and into the river channel (2).
Recognizing the seriousness of this problem, DOD and the Army
Corps of Engineers conducted a second recovery operation to
remove the remaining PCB using a Pneuma Model 600 dredge.
The Corps of Engineers piped the contaminated sediments to
a disposal site prepared on land 2,000 feet north of the slip.
All dredge spoil water was treated with Nalco #7134 flocculent,
passed through two disposal ponds and filtered through both a
particle filter containing Filterite 7?264MSO and EPA's activated
carbon treatment unit.
(B) OBJECTIVE
The primary purpose of the Region X Laboratory's involvement
in the second clean up was to assist the Army Corps of Engineers'
Seattle district by monitoring the Corps recovery of the remaining
PCB. A monitoring scheme was designed to evaluate the hydraulic
dredging of PCB polluted sediments in Slip 1 to determine the
amount of PCB removed, the extent of PCB translocation and the
amount of PCB remaining on the river bottom after dredging.
Also, an attempt was made to evaluate the usefulness of predictive
methods such as the "Standard Elutriate Test" and "Interstitial
Water Evaluation" as important procedures for determining the impact
of a dredging operation on dredge and disposal site water quality.
-------
ELLIOTT BAY
INDUSTRIAL
ERCIAL AREA
DREDGE SPOILS
DISPOSAL PONDS
GEORGETOWN
Mil
1st Ave. Bridge
P C B SPILL LOCATION
SEPT. 13, 1974 FIGURE 1
-------
Both dredge and disposal sites were monitored extensively
during the dredge operation for PCB's, metals, nutrients and
other potentially harmful materials, including microorganisms
of public health significance. Also, a pre-dredge and post-
dredge pollutant monitoring program with emphasis on predictive
testing and subsequent evaluation was carried out.
EPA Region X Laboratory's objectives for monitoring the Corps
PCB clean up operation at Slip 1 were:
(1) Map and assess the amount of PCB on the river bottom
prior to the clean-up effort.
(2) Estimate the amount of PCB removed from the river bottom
as a result of the Corps dredging operation.
(3) Estimate the extent of PCB pollution remaining on the
river bottom after dredging.
(4) Determine the extent of PCB translocation resulting from
the recovery operation.
(5) Determine amounts of deleterious materials released into
the water column at the dredge site as a result of the
clean-up operation.
(6) Predict and compare quantities of pollutants returning to
the river from dredge spoil disposal ponds.
(C) SCOPE
Phase I: Pre-Dredge Monitoring
The objectives necessitated a comprehensive monitoring program
that allowed the observer to detect environmental disturbances
directly attributable to the dredging operation. A pre-dredge
evaluation of Slip 1 sediments was made to determine PCB, trace
metals, nutrients, oil and grease, water quality, and microbiological
parameters. Determination of PCB in surface sediments was performed
to map the extent of contamination prior to the Corps dredging
operation. Data obtained from PCB and other measurements afforded
an opportunity to assess the effects of sediment disturbances
during a hydraulic dredging operation. Predictive tests, "Standard
Elutriate Test" and "Interstitial Water Evaluation", were conducted
to determine the potential release of pollutants to the water column.
A river water evaluation program was initiated by monitoring
background water at the dredge site for future reference to any
plume created by the dredging, operation. Composite samples of
-------
suspended particulate matter (SPM) and whole water were collected
at two depths, surface and eight meters, over desired time intervals
and analyzed for PCB's. Whole water composite samples were monitored
for trace metals, nutrients, oil and grease and other water quality
parameters. Collection of samples from surface and eight meters was
desirable since the Duwamish is a salt wedge estuary possessing both
fresh surface and deep salt water layers usually separated by a
strong pycnocline.
Phase II: Dredge Monitoring
Disposal pond influent and effluent were evaluated by analyzing
several whole water composites while the dredging operation was in
progress. At the same time, sediments from dredged area were analyzed
for Aroclor 1242 to determine the success of the PCB removal operation.
The effect of dredging on river water near the dredge site was estab-
lished by monitoring SPM and whole water samples.
Phase III: Post-Dredge Monitoring
A post-dredge survey of remaining Slip 1 sediments, consisting
of analysis of bulk sediments and interstitial water, was necessary
to determine if pollutants such as PCB remained on the river bottom
in substantial quantities and if translocation of Aroclor 1242
occurred during the dredging operation. Also, an attempt was made
to determine if water quality comparable to pre-dredge conditions
existed at Slip 1 after completion of dredging activities and to
establish the success of PCB removal from Slip 1.
-------
Part II. CONCLUSIONS
The recovery effort resulted in the removal of most of the spilled
Aroclor from Slip 1 without evidence of significant PCB translocation.
Two independent methods were used to calculate the amount of PCB recovered.
The first utilized an estimate of the amount of PCB contaminated dredged
materials removed from designated areas within the spill site. The second
method was based on the concentration of PCB found in the dredged materials
actually deposited in the disposal pond. Estimates of the amount of PCB
recovered using these methods are 220 and 250 gallons, respectively. The
average value of PCB removed 235 gallons, represents a 92% recovery. It
follows that approximately 20 of the 255 gallons of PCB spilled are assumed
to be on the river bottom or unaccounted for at this time. Substantially
reduced levels of PCB were detected in the impact area and only trace amounts
of the substance were found to be present in the remaining portion of the
slip. The river channel remained free of the spilled Aroclor indicating
that less than a detectable amount of the pollutant was transported out of
the spill site during the final clean-up operation.
In comparison, analysis of survey data obtained during the first
three month period after the spill indicates that some translocation
of Aroclor 1242 into the river channel occurred during the first clean-up
operation. Apparently, divers with hand held dredges disturbed the
pollutant, allowing transport of the material to occur. This situation
was further aggravated by natural dispersal forces acting on the trans-
former oil which laid unprotected on the river bottom.
Subsequent surveys during the months that followed demonstrated
that normal river sedimentation tended to cover the contaminated sediments
and that the spread of PCB occurred mainly toward the back .portion of the
slip. Also, the force of a "20 year flood" experienced in the Duwamish
Estuary during the winter of 1976 either diluted or scoured the contaminated
river channel sediments such that no detectable amount of PCB remained in
the channel. However, no significant changes attributable to the flood were
noted in sediment concentrations within the slip proper. The continual
migration of Aroclor 1242 towards the back of the slip appears to have been
influenced by docking and embarking activities of ships in the area and
other factors such as tidal action.
A slow but persistent movement of transformer fluid could have
eventually contaminated the entire slip and polluted much of the Duwamish
River if the spilled PCB was allowed to remain on the slip bottom. Successful
completion of the removal operation terminated that migration and dramatically
lessened possible serious long term effects of the spill.
-------
Levels of several pollutants in dredge spoil return water and dredge
site water remained near background during the dredging operation. Although
substantial quantities of PCB, As, Cd, Cu, Fe, Mn3 Hg, Ni, Zn, N-NHs,
N-TKN and oil and grease were detected in the dredge spoils entering the
disposal area, only Mn, N-NHs, N-TKN and oil and grease were observed in
high concentrations along with slightly elevated values of Cd, Fe, Zn
and Total P in effluent returning to the river. Apparently, most pollutants
were associated with or scavenged by particulate matter and settled, with
the aid of a flocculent, to the bottom of the disposal ponds. Comparison
of these observations with predictive tests used to estimate the amount of
a pollutant released during dredging is good. Considering the degree of
accuracy possible for this type of estimate, the "Standard Elutriate Test"
appears to be valid for most metals, nutrients and oil and grease. However,
"interstitial water evaluation" of sediments employed in this study met
with only limited success. Both tests failed to accurately predict the
amount of PCB released.
As our results indicate, a large number of bacteria of public health
significance can be removed from both sediments and interstitial waters
by a properly monitored hydraulic dredging operation. In most instances,
a significant reduction was obtained in total coliform (TC), fecal
coliform (FC), and clostridium perfringen (C. perfringens) populations
from all sampling locations surrounding the impacted area. The removal
of C_. perfringens was of particular importance because of its known patho-
genicity and close association with organic material originating from human
fecal waste. The removal of sediment bound bacteria by passage through
disposal ponds 1 and 2 was effective for the elimination of FC, fecal
streptococci (FS) and C_. perfringens but not TC and organisms enumerated
by the 20° C plate count. The reason for this disparity is still unclear,
but may relate to the lack of aggregate formation or adsorption to sediment
particulates. Nevertheless, it still appears that large portions of the
enteric bacterial population can be effectively removed from bottom sediments
and eliminated by proper land disposal. The fate or survivance of these
bacteria on land, however, is quite variable and dependent upon a multitude
of environmental and nutritional factors.
-------
Part III. EXPERIMENTAL
(A) SAMPLING
(1) Slip 1 Sediments
River bottom sediments were sampled over a two and one half
mile reach of the Duwamish River shown in Figure 1. The sampling
area extended north from the First Avenue Street Bridge to the
south portion of the West Waterway. Sample station locations
in and around Slip 1 (shown in Figure 2) included four transects
centered at station 225 (location of the spill) proceeding out to
stations 229, 230, 209, 220 and additional stations which were
used to provide more complete coverage of the area. All other
stations were taken at mid-channel with sample intervals ranging
from 250 feet within 2,000 feet of the spill site to 1,000 feet
beyond this point. Surveys of river bottom sediments were made
over a two year period (see Table 1). Surface sediment samples
were taken using a Van Veen sampler. The top five centimeter
section of the sample was carefully removed from the sampler,
placed in a pretreated 8 oz. jar, capped with a teflon-lined lid
and stored at 4° C until analysis was performed. This method was
used to detect translocation of PCB associated with movement of
fines or flocculent sediment. Core samples were also taken on at
least two occasions using a Phleger coring device in order to
define the extent of vertical migration of the pollutant.
Originally, composite samples were obtained from six areas
in Slip 1 thought to be dissimilar in chemical composition using
a Van Veen sampler and a Phleger coring device. Sample stations
used to make up the composites are shown in Figure 3. The samples
were mixed, capped, held at 4° C and taken to the laboratory for
evaluation using the Standard Elutriate Test, interstitial water
evaluation and bulk sediment analysis. Since areas three and four
were later found to be similar in chemical composition, they
were combined.
Several sets of Slip 1 sediments were analyzed during the
second removal effort to determine the degree of success of the
clean up operation. Dredged areas, thought to be free of spilled
Aroclor, were sampled using a Van Veen sampler while the removal
effort was in progress. A representative portion of each grab
sample was removed and analysis was initiated within one hour
after collection. Sampling points used to check dredging efficiency
are shown in Figure 4.
-------
WATER
DEPTH
26 ft.
STATION NUMBERS AT SLIP 1
FIGURE 2
-------
Table 1. FREQUENCY OF RIVER SURVEYS FOR PCB IN DUWAMISH SEDIMENTS
Extent
Survey Number of Survey
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Full
Partial
Partial
Full
Partial
Full
Partial
Full
Partial
Full
Sept.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Feb.
June
Aug.
Jan.
Feb.
May 3
Date
18
25
18,
4,
20,
2-4
18,
16,
5
5
1
Elapsed Time From Date
of Spill Sept. 13, 1974
1974
1974
974
1974
1
,
1
1
23-25
, 4
&
975
1975
975
976
, 1976
11, 1976
5
12
35
52
159
263
338
489
527
605
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
-------
^
COMPOSITE
SAMPLING STATIONS
MICROBIOLOGICAL
SAMPLING STATIONS
PRE AND POST SEDIMENT ANALYSIS
SAMPLING STATIONS (COMPOSITE)
FIGURE 3
-------
WATER
DEPTH
26 ft.
EXTENSIVE DREDGING
SEDIMENT
SAMPLING STATIONS
DURING DREDGE
OPERATIONS
AREA DREDGED
Scale in Feet
DREDGE EFFICIENCY SEDIMENT
SAMPLING STATIONS
FIGURE4
-------
(2) Disposal Pond Sediments
The Corps constructed two large dredge spoil disposal ponds
based on the estimated amount of PCB contaminated sediments to
be removed from Slip 1. Only the first of the two ponds received
any appreciable amount of solids which was estimated to be 7,000
yd3 (L. Juhnke, Personal Communication, 1977). The pond was divided
into three areas for the purpose of sampling and sampled on June 3,
1976 after most of the water had been removed. Sampling points used
to obtain composites of disposal pond spoils are shown in Figure 5.
A vertical profile of the diagonal transect of the disposal pond is
shown in Figure 6. The first area (Al), see Figure 5, located at
the mouth of the input pipe, consisted of sand and gravel on the
surface with a gradual increase in clay-like material with increasing
depth. This material was difficult to penetrate with available
coring devices so holes up to three feet deep were dug in order to
obtain samples for a composite. The second sample area (A2), located
between the first and the water line, consisted mainly of mud which
ranged from firm to very soft as one moved out over the transect
lines. This material was easily sampled using a six foot aluminum
coring tube. The third area (A3) was under water. Composite samples
were obtained by boat using a six foot aluminum coring tube and a
hand-held Van Veen grab sampler.
Nine composite samples were obtained from the pond. Although
only one surface composite was made for area Al, three surface
and three total core composites (one pair per transect shown in
Figure 5) were taken for Area A2. Also, one surface and one total
core composite were obtained from the area AS.
(3) Influents to Disposal Ponds
Collection of composite disposal pond influents was accomplished
in the following manner. A sample taken from the influent stream
using a pretreated three liter bucket was distributed into containers
specially treated for holding metal, nutrient, oil and grease and
chlorinated hydrocarbons samples starting with that designated for
metals. A second sample was taken and distributed beginning at the
nutrient container. The process was repeated, each time advancing
the start to the next container, until the vessels were filled to
the desired volume. A sampling period of fifteen to twenty five
minutes was used to insure a representative sample of the dredging
activities for the time of sampling. The composites were sealed
and returned to the laboratory for immediate analysis.
Influent sampling dates along with areas in which the dredge
was working at time of sampling are shown in Table 2 (See Figure 3).
Originally, the influent sampling scheme included taking pairs of
samples at the start, in the middle and toward the end of the dredge
activities. Unfortunately, several dredge equipment failures made
it impossible to predict when influent sampling could be carried out.
The "Dredging Production Report" shown in Table 3 illustrates the
problem. Therefore, samplings were spaced randomly.
12
-------
FIGURE 5
INLET PIPE
0
0
D
O
\
SAMPLE POINTS
FOR EACH
COMPOSITE
SAMPLE
) C
EXIT WEIR
WATER LINE
AREA BOUNDARY
COMPOSITE DREDGE SPOILS
SAMPLING SITES FOR POND 1
-------
FIGURE 6
1ST
10-
DIAGONAL TRANSECT
ACTUAL HEIGHT AT END OF DREDGE
HEIGHT USED IN VOLUME CALCULATIONS
MEASURED HEIGHT (1-17-77)
TOP VIEW
DREDGE SPOIL TOPOGRAPHY POND 1
-------
Table 2. DREDGE SPOIL POND INFLUENT SAMPLING FREQUENCY
Date
March 16, 1976
March 19, 1976
March 22, 1976
March 22, 1976
March 23, 1976
Dredge Working in Area
5 and 6
3 and 4
3
1 and 2
1 (near spill site)
15
-------
TABLE 3. DREDGING PRODUCTION REPORT PNEUMA NORTH AMERICA
Date
Working Hours
Dredging Hours
Delays
Dredging
March 4, 1976
March 53 1976
March 6, 1976
March 8, 1976
March 9, 1976
March 10, 1976
March 11 , 1976
March 12, 1976
March 13, 1976
March 15, 1976
March 16, 1976
March 17, 1976
March 18, 1976
March 19, 1976
March 20, 1976
March 21 , 1976
March 22, 1976
March 23, 1976
March 24, 1976
March 25, 1976
March 26, 1976
March 27, 1976
March 29, 1976
March 30, 1976
9-50/60
8-15/60
10
10
10-40/60
10-30/60
10
10
10
10-30/60
10
10
10
10-30/60
5
5
10
10
10
9
9
10
10
5 (up to demobil-
ization)
4-5/60
3-5/60
4-15/60
3-24/60
0
3-12/60
5-53/60
3-12/60
2-4/60
4-23/60
0
37/60
6-23/60
0
3-6/60
5-15/60
6-42/60
3-16/60
0
7-2/60
5-11/60
6-11/60
3-56/60
Total working hours 223%
Total dredging
Total delays
hours 81-1/5 = 36%
142-1/20
actual dredging
4-10/60
6-55/60
5-45/60
7-16/60
10-30/60
6-48/60
4-7/60
6-48/60
8-26/60
5-37/60
10
9-23/60
4-17/60
5
1-54/60
4-45/60
3-18/60
6-44/60
9
1-58/60
4-49/60
3-49/60
1-4/60
Test Water
49%
31%
42%
31%
0%
32%
59%
32%
19%
43%
0%
6%
62%
0%
62%
52%
67%
32%
0%
78%
51%
61%
78%
16
-------
(4) Effluents from Dredge Disposal Ponds
Collection of disposal pond effluents and filtered waters
returning to the Duwamish River were made with respect to time
and volume. Chlorinated hydrocarbon and oil and grease samples
were composited in pretreated two gallon glass jars. Samples
used for all other parameters were collected using an ISCO model
1392 auto sampler. Effluent samples were taken only when filter
truck pumps were returning disposal pond water to the river.
Due to the lack of continuous dredging activity, water from the
first of two disposal ponds did not come over the weir until
March 12, 1976, eight days after dredging was initiated. Both
influent and effluent flow were discontinuous and erratic.
An overview of the disposal site is shown in Figure 7.
This includes placement of the filter truck, a small holding
pond located between pond 2 and the large EPA carbon filter
truck along with influent and effluent sampling points.
(5) River Water
Standard hydrographic samples were collected and analyzed
for salinity and dissolved oxygen. Temperature was noted.
Nutrient, sulfide, metal and chlorinated hydrocarbon samples
were collected by University of Washington personnel under EPA
contracts WY-6-00-0451-J and 68-01-3369. Sample collection and
handling procedures are outlined in the final report of the
contract (3).(See Figure 8 and Tables 4 and 5).
(6) Hydrography
Hydrographic parameters (conductivity and dissolved oxygen)
along with pH of pond 2 effluents were monitored continuously
using a Model 6 Hydrolab Surveyor equipped with a continuous
recorder.
(7) Microbiological
Dredge sediment samples from Slip 1 were withdrawn from each
of the six stations with the aid of a Van Veen Sampler. Once on
the deck of the boat, a small portion (100-200 g) was transferred
to a sterile 8 02. plastic container using sterile metal spoons.
All samples were immediately placed in an ice chest and transported
to the laboratory for processing within 2-3 hours.
Samples of dredge spoils (water and/or sediment mixed) were
collected during dredging from two locations: (1) the influent
pipe to disposal pond number one (outlet pipe from dredge) and
(2) the effluent pipe from disposal pond number two.
Samples of post-dredge sediments from disposal pond number
one were obtained from composites of whole core and surface grab
materials. In each case, a 100-200 g. portion of the composite
17
-------
FIGURE 7
1. INFLUENT PIPE
2. INFLUENT SAMPLE POINT
3. HOLDING POND 1
4. OVERFLOW WEIR
POND 1 EFFLUENT SAMPLE POINT
5. HOLDING POND 2
6. POND 2 EFFLUENT SAMPLE POINT
(AT PUMP INTAKE)
7. COARSE PARTICLE FILTER WITH PUMP
8. LINED HOLDING POND 3
9. EPA FILTER TRUCK
10. FILTER EFFLUENT SAMPLE POINT
11. RETURN TO RIVER
c
OVERVIEW OF DISPOSAL PONDS
AND TREATMENT FACILITIES
-------
WATER
DEPTH
26 ft.
INITIAL SPILL AREA
AMBIENT WATER COLUMN SAMPLING
AREA (SLIP 1)
FIGURE 8
-------
TABLE 4. CRUISE SCHEDULE FOR MONITORING RIVER WATER AT DREDGE SITE
Cruise No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Date
February 25, 1976
March 6, 1976
March 8, 1976
March 18, 1976
March 22, 1976
March 23, 1976
April 20, 1976
Time of
Ebb Tide
0405 - 0941
0736 - 1427
0849 - 1610
0551 1229
0859 1610
1009 - 1719
0832 - 1533
Sampling
Time Interval
0507 - 1003
0815 1453
0901 - 1517
0835 - 1343
0934 - 1631
1014 - 1733
0904 1440
20
-------
Table 5. COMPOSITE SAMPLING SCHEME FOR MONITORING RIVER WATER AT DREDGE SITE
Reference
Hr. Interval of Ebb Dredge Site Station* Station £
at Which Sub Sample
was Taken 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7
Surface (Number
of Composites
per Cruise) 1 1 1
Deep (Number of
Composites per
Cruise) 2 2 1
* Dredge site samples were taken every hour to generate two 3-hour composites
£ Located at 2.99 miles from mouth of Duwamish River.
21
-------
was placed in a sterile 8 oz. container and immediately trans-
ported to the laboratory for analysis.
(B) SAMPLE PREPARATION
Samples were received from the field and held at 4 C. Sample
preparation included separation and stabilization steps when necessary.
An outline of containers and preservatives used by sample type is
found in Table 6.
(1) River Bottom Sediments
Samples of river bottom sediments collected for the purpose
of detecting the translocation of PCB's from the Slip 1 spill
site into the Duwamish River were homogenized before analysis
was conducted. No further preparation was made.
(2) Slip 1 Sediments and Interstitial Hater
Composite samples of five areas within Slip 1 were homogenized
separately before analysis. A portion of each well mixed sediment
was set aside for bulk analysis and another portion was centrifuged
using a Sorvall RC2-B high speed refrigerated centrifuge equipped
with a GSA rotor operating at 12,500 RPM and 4° C for twenty
minutes. Stainless steel or polycarbonate centrifuge tubes were
employed for preparation of interstitial water samples for organic
chemical analyses and all other parameters, respectively. Inter-
stitial water destined for organic analyses was decanted into glass
jars, stored at 4° C and analyzed within 24 hours. The remaining
solid was also stored at 4° C in a pretreated glass jar until
analysis was performed. Interstitial water destined for other
analyses (e.g. metals, nutrients, etc.) was filtered through a
0.45 micron filter, preserved and stored at 4° C in plastic
containers. A portion of the interstitial water was left unpreserved
and immediate analysis of some parameters (e.g. N02-) was performed.
(3) Standard Elutriate Test
Portions of the same composite samples used for interstitial
water and bulk sediment analyses were used for the standard
elutriate test. The test was performed according to the procedures
outlined by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (4, 5, 6 and 7),
except centrifugates used for determination of organic parameters
were not filtered. The centrifugates or filtrates obtained from
this procedure were stabilized and/or held at 4° C until analysis
was performed.
22
-------
Table 6. SUMMARY OF SAMPLE STORAGE AND PRESERVATION
Analysis
Sampling Amount
Container Device (Total)
Storage
Preservative Condition
(A)
(B)
Water Samples
Oil & Grease Glass
PCB Glass
N-TKN Plastic
N-NH3
P-Total
N-N03
o-p Plastic
N-N02
Sulfide
Turbidity
Metals Plastic
Sediment Samples
All parameters Glass
SS* or
Glass
SS or
Glass
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
SS
2 gal.
2 gal.
1 qt.
1 qt.
1 gal.
8 oz. to
3 gallons
1 ml. H2S04
per liter
None
1 ml . cone.
H2S04 per
liter
None
25 ml . re-
di stilled
NH03 per
liter
None
4° C
4° C
4° C
4° C
RT
4° C
(C) Hydrolab on Ship to Measure Conductivity, P.O., Temperature, and pH
* SS - Stainless steel
23
-------
(4) Disposal Pond Sediments
Composite pond sediments were mixed thoroughly, subsampled
and stored at 4° C. Analysis of the composites was performed
within two weeks of sample collection.
(5) DisposaJ Porid Jnfluent and Effluent
All samples were resuspended prior to analysis. A portion
of the mixture was analyzed immediately for some parameters
(e.g. settleable solids, etc.) Other portions were centri fugecl,
decanted, filtered through a 0.45 micron filter and preserved
as described above (See "Slip 1 Sediments and Interstitial Water").
Centrifugate destined for analysis of organic parameters was not
filtered. Centrifuged influent solids were stored at 4° C in
pre-treated containers. Since little solid was obtained from
routine centrifugation of effluents, a continuous high speed
Sharpies centrifuge was used to collect effluent solids. Approx-
imately 500 liters of effluent was processed at the disposal site
over a six day period. Rate of feed of pond effluent to the
centrifuge was adjusted so that turbidity of the centrifugate
did not exceed 4 JTU. The solids were stored at 4° C until
analyses were performed.
(6) Rj ver Water
Samples of whole river water and SPM destined for PCB analysis
were stored at 4° C until analysis was performed (3). Portions of
whole water samples used for all other determinations were preserved
when necessary and stored at 4° C. Determination of some parameters
subject to rapid degradation was conducted upon receipt of samples.
(7) Microbiological
All sediment and dredge spoil materials were processed in the
same manner following recommended procedures (8, 9). Samples were
weighed to nearest gram and aseptically transferred to sterile
blender jars to which an equal amount, by weight, of 0.1% sterile
peptone dilution water was added. The mixture was then blended at
ca_. 14,000 rpm for 60-120 seconds. Within 2 minutes of the blending
period appropriate volumes (or dilutants) were transferred with
pipets to the appropriate culture media.
(C) LABORATORY ANALYSIS
(1) ChernicaJ
A variety of chemical and physical parameters were measured in
water and sediment samples. Analyses were performed according to
methods found in Table 7
24
-------
Table 7. ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR MONITORING ACTIVITIES
Parameter Sample Type References
(A) Metals (Total)
As, Cd, Cr, Cu, FW, SW 10, 11
Fe, Pb, Mn, Ni,
Zn
Sd 11, 12
Hg FW, SW, Sd 10, 11
(B) Nutrients
N-NH3, N02 , N03 , FW, SW 10
Total P, Dissolved
Ortho P
(C) Organochlorine Compounds
PCB FW, SW, Sd, Fh 13, 14
(D) Miscellaneous
TOC, COD, Turbidity, FW, SW, Sd 10
N-Kjeldahl, Total
Volatile Solids,
Total Solids
Settleable Solids FW, SW 15A
Total Sulfide FW, SW 15A
Sd 15B
Salinity SW
FW Freshwater
SW Seawater
Sd Sediment
Fh Fish
25
-------
M icrobiological
Total coliform (TC), fecal coliform (FC) and fecal strepto-
coccus (F8) determinations were performed according to Standard
Methods (9) using the 5 tube, multi-dilution MPN procedure.
Bacteriological analysis also included the anaerobic enumeration
of Cl osjridjum perfrjngjjnjs (welchii) on sul f i te-polymyxin-
sulfadiazine fSPSy^agar "All confirmatory steps employed for
C. perfringens followed those outlined in the Ba_cterj_ological
Anajytica] ~MarujaJ (16) published by the Food and Drug Administration
In addition to an anaerobic determination, a 5 day, 20° C aerobic
plate count was performed on all samples using tryptone glucose
yeast (TGY) agar
-------
Part IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
An extensive monitoring effort was initiated only days after PCB's
were accidentally spilled into the Duwamish River at Slip 1. Significant
amounts of PCB's remained in the sediment after the original clean-up
and a dredging operation was planned and conducted by the Corps of
Engineers. Since appreciable time elapsed between the initial clean-up
and final removal, extensive monitoring was required to identify movement
of the toxic material. The results of the entire monitoring program is
described best in terms of three phases: pre-dredge activities, monitoring
during dredging, and post-dredge evaluation.
(A) PHASE I. PRE-DREDGE ACTIVITIES
(1) Identification of Pollutant
Questions regarding the type of Aroclor spill at Slip 1
were raised when laboratory results conflicted with transformer
label information. As a consequence, gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry (GC/MS) analysis was performed on extracts of
bottom sediments saturated with the spilled fluid, recovered
sludge and a standard of Aroclor 1242. Results of GC/MS analysis
are presented in Appendix B. Figures B-l, B-2, B-3 and B-4 show
constructed gas chromatograms (RGC) of the three samples. Limited
mass chromatograms (Figures B-5, B-6, B-7 and B-8) with M+/e=256-261
show patterns indicative of Aroclor 1242 PCB isomers containing 3
chlorine atoms. Similarly, limited mass chromatograms (Figures
B-9, B-10, B-ll and B-12) using M+/e=290-300 give patterns expected
for Aroclor 1242 PCB isomers with 4 chlorine atoms. Corresponding
mass spectra for each sample type are shown in Figures B-l3, B-l4
and B-15. The spectra are identical. Analysis of the spectra
show molecular ion clusters typical of chlorinated biphenyls with
3 chlorine atoms along with strong P-70 cluster beginning at
M+/e=186. This is indicative of the loss of Cl2- Comparison of
above RGC's and spectra of sediment and sludge sample extracts with
those of Aroclor 1242 PCB standard shows Aroclor 1242 PCB to be
present in both.
Analysis by gas chromatography/electron capture (GC/EC) gave
similar results. Chromatograms of the transformer fluid, extracts
of bottom sediments, recovered sludge and of standard Aroclor 1242
were identical. The spilled fluid was identified as Aroclor 1242
by both GC/MS and GC/EC.
(2) Translocation of PCB's
An initial survey of PCB burden in sediments in and around
Slip 1 was conducted within five days after the spill occurred
on September 13, 1974. Analysis of survey results indicated two
areas of high PCB concentration, one at the impact site and another
27
-------
approximately 300 feet to the west (Table 8, Figure 9). Sub-
sequent surveys of September 25, 1974 and October 18, 1974,
conducted during initial clean up efforts, indicated some
movement of PCB's in the slip and river channel (See Tables
9 and 10, Figures 10 and 11). This was in agreement with
observations of divers, who noted movement of PCB pools on the
river bottom.
A discrepancy between initially reported low PCB levels
at the spill site and higher values of later surveys was noted.
This anomaly can be accounted for by considering the manner in
which the samples were taken. The initial survey was conducted
without knowledge of the exact point of transformer impact. As
a consequence, a fringe area fifty feet west of the spill site
was sampled but later surveys produced samples from the center of
the impact site. The result was similar sediment samples with
divergent PCB concentrations. Another survey designed to detect
translocation of PCB into the river was conducted after initial
clean up operations were completed (See Table II and Figures 12
and 13). Movement of PCB contaminated sediment was found to have
occurred. Analysis of results indicate some of the material
made its way into the river channel during the first clean up
operation.
Three surveys of PCB burden in the river bottom sediment were
made during the time period after the first clean up attempt to the
start of the second. On February 20, 1975, a limited survey of
the spill site, consisting of stations 225 and 231, was performed
to determine if PCB had in fact migrated out of the slip. Comparison
of this data with that obtained from previous surveys shows little
change in sediment PCB burden since termination of initial clean up
operations on October 31, 1974 (See Table 12). Translocation of
PCB's on the river bottom, first noted on November 4, 1974, was
studied again in 1975. Analysis of surface sediment (See Tables
13 and 14, Figures 14, 15, and 16) indicates some Aroclor 1242
movement into the river and upstream to a point just south of Slip
1 between 81 + 00 feet and 91 + 00 feet. Also, it is evident
that Aroclor 1242 had migrated towards the back of the Slip and
that observed surface values of PCB in the sediments were much
lower than previously reported. Since only the top few centimeters
of sediment were analyzed, it was possible to detect not only
the translocation of PCB but also dilution of PCB "hot spots"
by sedimentation from spring run off. Analysis of the bottom
one third portion of core samples at the spill site show elevated
PCB levels. It appears that two phenomena were occurring.
First, normal sedimentation, 15 cm/yr. at the First Avenue
Bridge (17), was covering up contaminated sediments. Second,
some force was present to account for mixing and spreading
the contaminated sediments throughout the slip. It is known from
observation that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) ship Northstar
28
-------
WATER
DEPTH
VALUES IN PARTS
PER MILLION
(2) CONTOUR LINES =
25PPM (APPROXIMATE)
(3) PCB 1242
Scale in Feet
PCB SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION
(PRE CLEANUP)
SEPT. 18, 1974
FIGURE 9
-------
Table 8. ANALYSIS FOR PCB'S IN SEDIMENTS TAKEN FROM SLIP 1 (9-20-74)
Station
Number
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
1248/54
0.192
-
0.34
0.43
0.39
0.09
-
4.25
0.11
0.15
0.35
-
-
0.40
0.28
-
-
0.27
1242
0.33
-
0.24
0.23
0.35
0.06
0.50*
1.9
0.11
0.06
0.30
-
-
0.20
0.50*
0.11
0.20*
6.3*
87*
0.12
Station
Number 1248/54 1242
221 0.30 0.20
222 0.18 0.14
223 - 5.0*
224 - 5.0*
225 - 190*
226 - 2.0*
227 - 0.80*
228 - 0.30*
229 - 0.40*
* PCB concentrations based only on Aroclor 1242
=£ Concentrations expressed in microgram/gram, wet weight (ppm)
30
-------
(I) VALUES IN PARTS
PER MILLION
P C B SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION
SEPT,
1974
FIGURE 10
-------
Table 9. PCB IN SEDIMENTS TAKEN FROM SLIP 1 (9-25-74)*
Station
Number 1248/54 1242
209 0.56 1.3
216 0.61 1.07
217 0.25 0.25
219 0.27 0.23
222 0.69 0.76
225 - 30,900
230 - 15
231 - 140
* Concentrations expressed in microgram/gram, wet weight (ppm)
32
-------
WATER
DEPTH
26 ft.
(I) VALUES IN PARTS
PER MILLION
P C B SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION
OCT. 18, 1974
FIGURE 11
-------
Table 10. PCB IN SEDIMENT TAKEN FROM SLIP 1 (10-18-74)*
Station
Number 1248/54 1242
218 - 64
219 - 2.0
222 - 3.0
223 0.8
224 - 25
225 - 2,000
231 - 50
* Concentrations expressed in microgram/gram, wet weight (ppm)
34
-------
WATER
DEPTH
(I) VALUES">m, PARTS
PER MILLIO
(2) SHADED BOUNDAR
OF HIGHEST
CONCENTRATIONS
RECORDED THIS DATE
(PCB 1242)
Scale in Feet
PCB SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION
NOV. 4, 1974
FIGURE 12
-------
I) VALUES IN
PARTS PER MILLION
(2) CORES AT 1-1.5 FT.
DEPTH
(3) VALUES FOR PCB 1242
AND 1248/54
Scale in Feet
PCB SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION IN CORES
NOV. 4, 1974
FIGURE 13
-------
Table 11. PCB IN SEDIMENT TAKEN FROM SLIP 1 (11-4-74)*
Station
Number
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
1248/54
0.25
0.32
0.23
0.28
0.19
0.36
0.35
0.36
0.28
0.49
0.29
0.41
0.52
0.37
0.28
0.40
-
0.23
0.09
0.34
0.25
_
1242
0.69
0.41
1.2
0.43
1.5
1.2
1.6
1.2
0.45
0.48
0.57
0.35
0.44
0.33
0.38
0.29
185
0.58
0.09
0.34
0.44
12
Station
Number
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236 '
218 core
219 core
222 core
223 core
225 core
230 core
231 core
1248/54
-
-
0.12
0.13
0.20
0.73
1.23
0.29
0.15
1.11
-
0.34
0.6
1.4
0.8
1.7
1.5
1.2
2.1
1242
50
1200
0.70
0.09
0.16
0.25
18
13
0.97
0.36
0.22
0.03
0.28
0.6
2.8
0.8
2.3
1.6
1.1
1.5
* Concentrations expressed in microgram/gram, wet weight (ppm)
37
-------
Table 12. PCB IN SEDIMENTS AT SELECTED STATIONS*
Time Station 225 Station 231
9-25-74
10-18-74
11-4-74
2-20-75
30,900
1 ,900
1,200
1,300
140
50
13
60
* Concentrations Aroclor 1242 expressed in micrograms/gram,
wet weight (ppm)
38
-------
WATER
DEPTH
26 ft.
(I) VALUES IN
PARTS PER MILLION
(2) SHADED BOUNDARY OF
HIGHEST CONCEN-
TRATIONS RECORDED
THIS DATE (PCB 1242)
Scale in Feet
JUN. 2, 1975
PCB SURFACE SEDIMENT
CONCENTRATION
FIGURE 14
-------
Table 13. PCB IN SEDIMENTS TAKEN FROM SLIP 1 (6-2-75)*
Station
Number 1248/54 1242
202 0.06 0.15
203 0.16 0.37
205 0.05 0.17
207 0.12 0.35
208 0.17 0.56
209 - o.07
213 0.02 0.18
215 0.11 0.24
216 0.04 0.12
217 0.06 0.22
218 0.01 0.75
219 0.05 0 19
222 0.06 0.28
223 0.14 0.61
224 - - 23
225 - - 50
226 42
227 390
228 0.07 0.46
229 0.14 0.64
230 -__ 6
231 __. 21
Recoveries 76-96%
Blanks ^0.10
-------
WATER
DEPTH
26 ft.
0.44-
0.25
(I) VALUES IN
PARTS PER MILLION
(2) VALUES FOR PCB 1242 AND/1248/
Scale in Feet
PCB SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION
AUG. ,s, 197s (BOTTOM 1/3 OF CORES) pIGURE
-------
BOTTOM
CONTOUR
30 FOOT
DEPTH
(I) VALUES IN PARTS
PER MILLION
(2) VALUES FOR PCB 1242 AND 1248/54
(3) SHADED BOUNDARY
OF HIGHEST
CONCENTRATIONS
RECORDED THIS DATE
Scale in Feet
P C B SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION
(BOTTOM ONE-THIRD CORES)
AUG. 18, 1975
-------
Table 14. PCB IN SEDIMENT CORES (8-18-75)**
Cone, in PPM
Core Depth in Inches Wet Wt.
Station Number Inside/Outside 1248/54 1242
202 7/22 <0.2 <0.2
203 9/22 <0.2 <0.2
205 7/22 0.55 1.2
206 8/16 0.9 1.8
206E 8.5/28 0.45 0.59
206W 7/16 1.3 1.7
207 8/18 1.1 1.9
207E 8/24 0.62 0.82
207W 8/20 0.85 1.2
208 9/25 0.63 1.1
208E 7/24 <:0.2 <0.2
208W 10/24 <10.2 <0.2
215 7/22 0.92 1.2
217 10/22 <0.2 <0.2
218 6/18 0.44 0.54
219 6/18 0.23 <0.2
222 9/23 0.25 0.44
223 8/19 0.52 0.63
224 7/14 0.8 1.5
225 8/18 131
226 9/19.5 0.9 0.8
231 8/18 0.12 0.04
Blank]
Blank2
Recovery] 103%
Recovery2 106%
Recoverys 102%
* Concentrations expressed in microgram/gram, wet weight (ppm)
=fc Values are for bottom one third of core sample only
43
-------
moved into and out of the slip directly over the impact area
several times during this period. It is postulated that prop-
wash from attempts to maneuver the ship and tidal action were
the responsible mixing forces. Yet another survey of sediment
PCB burden was carried out on January 16, 1976 before the
second clean up effort began. Since the winter of 1975/1976
brought a "20-year flood" with all its effects upon the Duwamish
River, it was felt that the spilled PCB's might have been spread
by flood action throughout the river channel. Comparison of
results of the January 16, 1976 survey (See Table 15, Figures
17 and 18) with previously obtained data indicate that substantial
diluting, scouring, and spreading of PCB contaminated surface
sediments did occur. The flood action either removed or diluted
Aroclor 1242 in river channel sediments between river markers
81 + 00 to 91 + 00 feet.
(3) Characterization of Sediments
Analysis of composite samples representative of Slip 1
sediments one foot deep indicated that several pollutants were
present in large quantities (See Table 16,Appendix C and D).
For example, the portion of Slip 1 sediments that was dredged
contained 2.6 tons of Mn, 3.6 tons of Zn, 6.3 tons of Total-P,
8 tons of oil and grease and 250 tons of Fe along with smaller
amounts of Hg, Cd and As. Taken altogether, the amount of
pollutants were approximately 300 of an estimated 8,000 tons
of material dredged, or 4% by weight.
(4) Predictive Test
The pre-dredqe survey on February 23, 1976 was made
to provide information regarding the suitability of Slip 1
sediments for dredge spoil disposal. The Corps of Engineers
planned to dispose of the sediments on land. This presented
an opportunity to check the validity of the Standard Elutriate
and other tests currently used by the Corps to predict the amount
of pollution released into return waters resulting from a hydraulic
pipeline dredge. Two tests, the "Standard Elutriate Test" and
"interstitial water evaluation", were studied. A comparison of
test results with observed levels of pollution in return waters
is found in Table 16. (See Appendices C and D for supporting
data and formula used to arrive at values found in Table 16).
In general, observed values of pollutants returning to the river
fall between those predicted by either test. The values obtained
using "interstitial water evaluation" are lower than observed
and those values obtained using the "Standard Elutriate Test" give
mixed results (See Table 17). 50% of the pollutants tested are
predicted correctly by the "Standard Elutriate Test" within + two
times (2X) the observed amount. Only 8% tested by the "interstitial
44
-------
WATER
DEPTH
(I) VALUES IN
PARTS PER MILLION
(2) SHADED BOUNDARY OF
HIGHEST CONCENT-
RATIONS RECORDED
THIS DATE (PCB 1242)
Scale in Feet
PCB SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION
JAN. 16, 1976
FIGURE 17
-------
X
BOTTOM
CONTOUR
30 FOOT
DEPTH
(I) VALUES IN PARTS
PER MILLION (PCB 1242)
Scale in Feet
PCB SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION
JAN. 16, 1976 FIGURE 18
-------
Table 15. PCB IN SLIP 1 SEDIMENTS (1-16-76)*
Station
Number
203
205
206
206W
207
207W
208
209
211
213
215
216
217
218
219
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
250
206 Dup.
223 Dup.
Recoveries 80.5-95%
Blanks
1248/54
0.05
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.05
0.03
0.11
0.08
0.11
0.19
_
0.15
0.08
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
0.06
-
-
0.10
0.20
<0.01
1242
0.03
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.07
<0.01
0.04
0.09
0.03
0.12
0.16
2.7
0.08
0.07
0.70
6.0
42.
1.2
3.2
0.8
1.8
0.04
18.
17.
.04
0.30
<0.01
Total PCB
0.08
0.16
0.11
0.09
0.12
0.16
0.16
0.05
0.07
0.20
0.11
0.23
0.35
2.7
0.23
0.15
0.70
6.0
42.
1.2
3.2
0.8
1.8
0.10
18.
17.
0.14
0.50
<0.01
* Concentrations expressed in microgram/gram, wet weight (ppm)
47
-------
Table 16. PREDICTIVE TEST ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Parameter
V As
Cd
Cr
V
Cu
^ Fe
^ Mn
Hg
o Ni
y zn
PCB
Oil/Grease
Total P
N-NHs
TKN
COD
Total
Possi ble
Rel ease
(grams)
73,000
17,000
240,000
440,000
230,000,000
2,400,000
1,000
150,000
3,300,000
280,000*
7,300,000
5,700,000
280,000
6,100,000
280,000,000
Predicted
Elutriate
grams
450
160
1 ,500
200
14,000
72,000
6
-------
Table 17. COMPARISON OF PREDICTIVE TEST ACCURACY
Comparison
UD
Number Parameters With
Higher Predicted
Values Than Observed
Number Parameters With
Lower Predicted Values
Than Observed
Number of Predicted
Values Same as
Observed
Observed Return Flow Values
versus
Standard Interstitial
Elutriate Water Eval-
Test uation
No. (%) No. (%)
Adjusted Observed Return Flow Values
versus
Standard Interstitial
Elutriate Water Eval-
Test uation
No. (%) No. (%)
(36%)
6 (43%)
3 (21%)
10
(15%)
(77%)
(8%)
(50%)
(43%)
(7%)
(23%)
(69%)
(8%)
Number Parameters With
Predicted Value
(A) Within +_ 2X
(observed value)
(B) Within ± 3X
(observed value)
(C) Within + 10X
(observed value)
(D) Within +_ 25X
(observed value)
Total Number of
Parameters
7
9
11
13
14
(50%)
(64%)
(79%)
(93%)
(100%)
1
3
9
9
13
(8%)
(23%)
(69%)
(69%)
(100%)
4
7
10
12
14
(29%)
(50%)
(71%)
(86%)
(100%)
3
4
8
8
13
(23%)
(31%)
(62%)
(62%)
(100%)
-------
water evaluation" meet this criteria. 64% of pollutants give
results that fall within +_ three times (+3X) the values using
the "Standard Elutriate Test" but only 23% do so for "interstitial
water evaluation". The "Standard Elutriate Test" appears to be
valid for most metals, grease and oil and nutrients. "Interstitial
water evaluation" appears to be useful only for some metals and
nutrients. Both tests failed to predict PCB release accurately.
Interstitial water evaluation predictive capabilities generally
increase when effects due to river water used in the dredging
operation are considered (See Table 16).
(5) Microbiological Enumeration
Table 18 lists the bacteriological results from the six
stations located in the Slip 1 study area. Samples collected
before dredging (pre-dredge) and approximately nine weeks later
(post-dredge) showed a significant removal in all bacterial
groups, particularly C_. perfringens. The only area not to show
a decrease in C_. perfringens was area 1 (Figure 3), which happens
to be the location of the PCB spill and closest to the main
channel of the Duwamish Waterway. Considering this area was
dredged to a greater depth (10 feet) than the surrounding
areas, backwater currents may have re-deposited sediments from
the main channel during the three month interim between the pre
and post dredge visits. Samples collected from the main channel
18 months earlier (August 1974) had shown a high background level
of C_. perfringens ranging from 60-35,000 organisms/g.
Besides C_. perfringens, there was a significant reduction
in FC densitites which often indicate the presence of fecal
waste material. Since it is known that most enteric bacteria
as well as viruses eventually end up in bottom sediments after
they are discharged into either fresh or marine waters, determination
of public health hazards should include a concern for their presence
and removal from bottom sediments.
(B) PHASE II. DREDGE MONITORING ACTIVITIES
(1) Estimation of PCB Removal by Analysis of Slip 1 Sediments
Approximately 86-98% of the spilled Aroclor was removed
from Slip 1. Several samples of dredged area sediments were
analyzed for PCB contamination while the dredging operation was
in progress. Most areas proved to be relatively free of the
contaminant after one pass of the dredge (Table 19, Figure 4),
but the area near the impact site was redredged several times
to achieve maximum removal of the Aroclor. The result of this
continual redredging was the formation of a hole approximately
50
-------
TABLE 18. BACTERIAL CONTENT OF POST AND PRE-DREDGE SEDIMENT SAMPLES
TAKEN FROM SIX ZONAL AREAS IN SLIP ONE
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
PRE-DREDGE
Date
2/23/76
2/23/76
2/23/76
2/23/76
2/23/76
2/23/76
Total
Coliforms
/TOO g.
350,000
54,000
9,000
35,000
4,900
54,000
Fecal
Coliforms
/TOO g.
7,900
7,900
1,300
790
4,900
13,000
Fecal
Strep-
tococci
/1 00 g.
350,000
170,000
46,000
170,000 .
92,000
350,000
20° C
Plate
Count/g
1,600,000
1,800,000
1,100,000
1,000,000
1 ,800,000
3,200,000
Clostridium
Perfringens/g
6,000
5,500
10,000
11,000
15,000
8,200
POST-DREDGE
5/3/76
5/3/76
5/3/76
5/3/76
5/3/76
5/3/76
2,400
18
20
4,600
4,600
35,000
2,400
18
18
2,400
490
1,700
2,800
1,400
130
54,000
11,000
92,000
140,000
210,000
7,600
620,000
360,000
360,000
17,000
400
93
2,700
790
4,000
51
-------
Table 19. PCB IN SEDIMENTS TAKEN DURING DREDGING OPERATIONS*
Date Description 1248/54 1242 Total PCB
3-10-76 Station 231 (30 ft. from 1.6 2.5 4.1
pier off riverside
ladder)
3-10-76 30ft. north of Station 0.8 3.3 4.1
231
3-10-76 30 ft. south of Station 1.8 2.3 4.1
231
3-15-76 20ft. northeast of 2.7 1.2 2.9
Station 226
3-15-76 100 ft. south of Station 1.4 0.9 2.3
225
3-15-76 Station 224 1.1 1.1 2.2
3-22-76 70 ft. southwest of 0.4 <0.1 0.4
northeast corner of
Slip 1
3-22-76 30 ft. west of Station 1.8 1.1 2.9
227
3-22-76 Station 225 off pier - 2,400 2,400
side ladder (north side
of Slip 1 entrance)
3-23-76 Composite of four grabs - 112 112
taken (1) at Station 225
(2) 25 ft. east of 225
(3) 25 ft. west of 225
and (4) 25 ft. south of
225
3-26-76 25 ft. south of Station 225 - 184 184
3-26-76 Composite of three grabs - 16 16
taken (1) at Station 225
(2) 25 ft. east of 225 and
(3) 25 ft. west of 225
3-27-76 30 ft. south and 30. ft. - 13 13
west of Station 225
52
-------
TABLE 19 (Continued)
3-27-76 30 ft. south of Station - 43 43
225
3-27-76 30 ft. south and 30 ft. - 41 41
east of Station 225
3-29-76 30 ft. south of Station - 17 17
225
3-29-76 30 ft. south and 30 ft. 0.5 0.3 0.8
east of Station 225
* Results expressed in microgram/gram, wet weight (ppm)
53
-------
area if
This
the levels
process.
60' X 30' X 10' deep. The concentration of PCB in sediment varied
over a wide range. It can be shown that approximately 100 gallons
of Aroclor 1242 were removed with the sediment in this
one assumes the average PCB concentration was 760 ppm.
concentration (760 ppm) is reasonable if one considers
of PCB contamination encountered during the redredging
Most of the impact area sediment was removed before March 23, 1976
during one day of dredging. The remaining material was removed
using a dredge operating at one third capacity over a two day period.
The ratio of volumes of sediment dredged during these time periods
may be calculated by comparing the number of days of dredging
activity for each time period adjusted to account for differences
in dredge capacity during the same time periods (See Equation A).
Therefore, (1.0 day) (1.0):(2.0 day) (0.33) becomes 60% sediment
volume: 40% sediment volume for the two time periods.
Eqn. A. (Days)(cap.):(Days)(Cap. )
Values of PCB between 112 to 2400 ppm were encountered at
the impact area during removal of the first 60% of the sediment
and between 0.8 and 43 ppm for the remainder. If an average
value of 1,256 ppm of PCB is used for the first 60% of the volume
of sediment removed from the area and 22 ppm for the remaining
40%, then one arrives at the overall average of approximately
760 ppm PCB in the sediment. Since the sediment density was 85
lbs/ft.3, it follows that approximately 100 gallons of PCB were
removed with the sediment (See Equation B).
Eqn. B. Amount of PCB recovered from impacted area
760 X IP"6 1b. PCB 85 Ib. sed. 10X30X60 ft.3 1 gal. PCB
Ib. sed.
- 101 gallons
ft.3 sed.
11.5 Ib. PCB
An estimate of the amount of PCB removed from the remaining
area of the slip was made by difference. In an internal memo to
F. Nelson, Chief of EPA Technical Support Branch, J. N. Blazevich
calculated the amount of PCB in Slip 1 (minus that in the impact
area) to be approximately 40 gallons on November 4, 1974 (2).
Assuming all 40 gallons were removed from the remaining portion of
the slip, the amount of PCB recovered by the second cleanup operation
would be 140 gallons. When added to the 80 gallons removed during
the first clean-up effort (1), the total amount of PCB recovered
becomes approximately 220 gallons.
54
-------
(2) Disposal Pond Influent
Disposal pond influents were collected and analyzed
for several pollutants (See Appendix C, Sections II, V and
VI for results). Analysis of tha data will be made in detail
by Mr. Ron Hoeppel of the Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station at Vicksburg, Mississippi.
(3) Disposal Pond Effluent
Unfiltered disposal pond effluents were monitored during
the dredging operation. Estimates of quantities of various
pollutants returning to the river based on the number of
gallons of return water and the concentration of pollutant
present in representative composite samples are found in Table
16. (See Appendix C, Section II and Appendix D, Table D-7).
See Part IVA, Phase I (4) for discussion. Filtered disposal
pond effluents were monitored to determine the amount of PCB
returning to the river (See Table 20). Less than 11 grams of
PCB were found in the effluent.
(4) Water Column at the Dredge Site^
Analysis of water collected at the dredge site was performed
Comparison of background and dredge site monitoring station data
indicate little, if any, increase in pollutants in the water
column at Slip 1 during the dredging activities, except for a
transient PCB pulse that was observed in samples collected almost
exclusively in the dredge vehicle prop wash while work in the
area of highest PCB concentrations was in progress. The results
are reported in Appendix C, Section IV.
(5) Miscellaneous Results
Several other samples of water and sediment were analyzed
during the course of the dredging operation (See Table 21).
These analyses were performed to help determine the impact of
the dredging project on the environment.
Water samples from several points within the disposal
treatment process were analyzed for PCB's in order to determine
if the facility was working as designed. Some points (i.e.
effluent from Pond 1) were monitored regularly for metals,
nutrients and PCB's (See Appendix C, Section II).
Samples of sediment and solids from influent and effluent
were used to determine the amount of easily reduced metals,
etc., present in each. These data are found in Appendix C,
Section V.
55
-------
Table 20. PCB IN EFFLUENT FROM FILTER SYS I EM*
Date of
Sampling
3-13-76
3-14-76
3-14-76
3-15-76
3-16-76
3-16-76
3-17-76
3-17-76
3-17-76
3-18-76
3-18-76
3-18-76
3-20-76
3-20-76
3-21-76
3-21-76
3-22-76
3-23-76
3-24-76
3-25-76
3-26-76
3-27-76
3-28-76
3-29-76
3-30-76
3-31-76
4-1-76
4-2-76
4-3-76
4-4-76
4-6-76
4-7-76
Total
Gallons
Pumped $
100,000
45,000
48,000
65,000
115,000
108,000
120,000
48,000
25,000
46,000
3 carbon column
in parallel
169,000
66,000
230,000
300,000
216,000
543,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
432,000
828,000
624,000
408,000
696,000
504,000
678,000
810,000
378,000
432,000
504,000
9,834,000
1248/54
.
-
0.3
0.7
cO.05
^0.05
cO. 1
CO.l
0.06
0.05
0.07
< 0.05
CO. 08
CO. 05
CO. 05
< 0.05
<0.05
<- 0. 1
0.33
0.25
0.35
0.16
1.1
0.07
0.03
0.08
0.03
<0.16
0.22
C.0.01
0.1
1242
^0.5
C2.4
^0.01
Lost
0.04
CO.05
CO. 05
CO.l
< 0 . 1
-------
Table 21. PCB RESULTS FOR MISCELLANEOUS SAMPLES*
Date Description 1248/54 1242 Total PCB
3-12-76 Effluent from pond 1 to <0.05 2.1 2.1
pond 2
3-16-76 Effluent from carbon
-------
TABLE 21 (Continued)
4-7-76 Composite pond 3 (before
Corps filter)
4-7-76 Solids from high speed
centrifugation of pond 2
effluent
0.16
NA
0.19
NA
0.35
NA
* Results expressed in microgram/1iter, except where noted
* Results expressed in microgram/gram, wet weight (ppm)
NA Mot Available
58
-------
(6) Microbiological Enumeration
The results of bacteriological monitoring during the actual
dredging operation are shown on Table 22. With the exception
of TC's, all bacterial indices were reduced by passage through
disposal ponds 1 and 2. Many microorganisms found in sediments
are bound to solids or occur as aggregates adsorbed to solids and
simply settle out in slow moving or static water systems. The
survival and movement of microorganisms adsorbed to solids are
quite variable and influenced by such environmental conditions
as pH, temperature, antagonisms, nutrient availability, etc.
Furthermore, sporeforms such as C_. perfringens and certain
cocci such as FS survive better in sediment environments than
either TC or FC and consequently may be more associated with
dredge materials. This combination of factors may have been
responsible for the great reduction in the FS and C^. perfringens
population as opposed to the corresponding TC and FC populations.
(C) PHASE III. POST-DREDGE
Post-dredge monitoring activities, including analysis of river
bottom sediments, disposal pond sludges and stratified dredge site
water column samples, were conducted in order to assess the
effectiveness of the recovery effort and the environmental effects
of the project.
(1) Slip 1 Sediments
A post-dredge survey of Slip 1 and river channel sediments
was made on May 4, 1976. Evaluation of survey results indicates
that a large portion of the slip is free of Aroclor 1242 (See
Table 23, Figure 19). Only the area in the impact site shows
elevated Aroclor 1242 levels in the sediment. When compared to
the higher levels observed during the second clean up effort
(2400 ppm) (See Table 19), one notes a 50 fold reduction of the
pollutant. The impact area was sampled twice using two different
sampling methods. The first method required use of the top 5 cm
of sediment to determine the extent of translocation and dilution
of PCB contaminated sediment. The second method required
compositing of several grab samples in order to formulate a more
accurate description of the PCB burden in the impact area. Of
course, localized effects are minimized using the latter method.
Analyses of other pollutants in sediments and interstitial
water were performed. The results are tabulated in Appendix C,
Section III.
59
-------
TABLE 22. BACTERIAL CONTENT OF INFLUENT INTO DISPOSAL POND 1 AND
EFFLUENT OUT OF DISPOSAL POND 2.
Clos-
Location
01
o
Date
Influent to
Pond No. 1
Effluent
from Pond
No. 2
3/16/77
3/22/76
3/23/76
3/30/76
4/5/76
3/16/77
3/22/76
3/23/76
3/23/76
3/30/76
Dredge
Area
5 & 6
3
1
1
1
5 & 6
3
1
1
1
Total
Col i forms/
100 ml.
220
790
14,000
220
49
920
2,800
7,900
1,400
68
Fecal
Coliforms/
100 ml.
220
40
490
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
Fecal
Strep-
tococci
/100 ml.
2,400
330
2,400
170
18
18
18
18
18
18
20U C
Plate
Count
/ml .
44,000
7,900
35,000
4,000
19,000
14,000
22,000
3,000
9,100
19,000
tridium
per-
fringens
/ml.
3,000
690
370
88
2
10
1
7
2
2
-------
WATER
DEPTH
26 ft.
(I) VALUES IN
PARTS PER MILLION
P C B SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION
(POST DREDGE)
MAY 4, 1976
FIGURE 19
-------
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF PCB'S
(5-4-76)*
Table 23
IN DUMAMISH RIVER POST DREDGE SURVEY
Station
Number
211
212
213
214
202
203
204
206
207
208
209
218
219
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
232
233
250
Composite of area
in and around 225
Blanks
1248/54
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.4
-
0.5
-
0.4
1.4
1.5
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.2
<0.6
-
<0.01
1242
0.
0.
0.
0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
CO.
<0.
.05
.03
.09
15
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
3.2
<0.01
0.4
8
2.3
140
0.4
0.
0.
0.
1
0.
0.
<0.
50
,3
1
.4
.0
,1
,1
.6
<0.01
Total PCB
0.
0.
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.3
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
3.7
0.3
0.8
2.8
140
0.8
1
1
0.9
1.6
0.4
0.3
.7
.5
50
<0.01
Results expressed in microgram/gram, wet weight (ppm)
62
-------
(2) Estimation of PCB Removal by Analysis of Disposal Pond Sediments
An attempt was made to determine the amount of PCB trapped
in the first disposal pond. Analysis of nine composite samples
consisting of 166 separate grab samples and a land survey of
the spoils were used to estimate the amount of PCB removed from
Slip 1 (See Figures 5 & 6). Since the BIA ship, the Northstar,
was berthed near the impact area during the first half of the
operation, only a portion of the highly contaminated sediments
were initially dredged. The dredge was returned to the impact
site after working in a less polluted area only after the
Northstar was moved. Surface and total core samples were
composited in an attempt to detect stratification of highly
polluted sediments due to the order in which sediments were
dredged. Evaluation of survey results indicated that even
though some stratification exists the spoils may be considered
well mixed (Table 24, Figure 5). Therefore, averages of PCB
values from two areas in Pond 1, area 1 (146 ppm) and areas
2 and 3 (33 ppm), were used along with estimated total yardage
(area 1 = 5280 yd3 and area (2 + 3) = 1880 yd3) to calculate
the amount of PCB (170 gallons) in the disposal pond sediments
(See Appendix E, Figure E-l). When added to the 80 gallons
removed during the first clean up, the total amount of PCB
recovered becomes 250 gallons or a 98% recovery.
(3) Water Column at the Dredge Site
Evaluation of water column data (See Appendix C, Section 4)
indicates no measurable amount of pollutants were introduced
into the water column at the dredge site by the dredge operation.
(4) Microbiological Enumeration
The dredge spoils sampled from the first disposal pond are
shown in Table 25. Except for the SW corner, all five bacterial
indices appear well dispersed throughout the entire area of the
pond. Since the SW corner was the location of the outlet pipe
from the dredge, it is not surprising to find higher numbers
of most parameters at this location.
FC populations in the pond were low while the FS and 20° C
plate counts were quite high. This disparity in numbers could be
attributed to the relative survivability of each in dry sediments
lacking a complete water cover. Surprisingly, only the S.E.
transect and S.W. corner contained high residual levels of C_.
perfringens. The adaptability of this sporeforming organism to
harsh environments is well documented (18) as is it's association
with organic material originating from treated human sewage waste.
This organism is perhaps the most widely spread pathogenic bacterium
in the Puget Sound and directly relates to the amount of pollution
present (19).
63
-------
Table 24. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF POND 1 DREDGE SPOILS*
Sample Number
23400
23401
23402
23403
23404
23405
23406
23407
23408
Description
Whole core - southeast transect
Surface - southeast transect
Whole core middle transect
Surface - middle transect
Whole core - west transect
Surface - west transect
Whole core - northeast section
Surface northeast section
Surface - southwest corner
Aroclor 1242
158
178
165
50
140
185
35
31
150
* Expressed in microgram/gram, wet weight (ppm)
64
-------
TABLE 25. DREDGE SPOILS COLLECTED FROM DISPOSAL POND #1 APPROXIMATELY
TWO MONTHS AFTER DREDGE OPERATION
cr>
en
Location
S.E. Transect
Middle Transect
West Transect
N.E. Section
N.E. Section
S.W. Corner
Type of Sample
Hold Core
Hold Core
Hold Core
Hold Core
Surface Grab
Surface Grab
Total
Col i forms
/lOOg
270
7,900
490
78
230
79,000
Fecal
Col i forms
/lOOg
18
20
20
18
20
18
Fecal
Strep-
tococci
/lOOg
4,600
2,100
1,700
790
1,300
1,400
20° C
Plate
Count/g
3,800,000
2,200,000
1 ,600,000
210,000
11,000,000
15,000,000
Clos-
tridium
per-
fringens/g
2,200
10
10
10
11
4,000
-------
REFERENCES
(1) Region X On-Scene Coordinator Report. PCB, Duwamish Waterway,
Seattle, WA, September 13-October 31, 1974.
(2) Blazevich, J. N., memo to F. Nelson, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region X. February 10, 1975.
(3) Pavlou, S. et. al. University of Washington Special Report No. 66.
PCB Monitoring in the Duwamish River, A Study of Their Release
Induced by the Dredging Activities in Slip 1. July 1976.
(4) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ocean Dumping Final Criteria,
Federal Register 38_ (94), 12872-12877, 1973.
(5) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ocean Dumping Final Criteria,
Federal Register 38 (198), 28610-28621, 1973.
(6) Keeley, J. W. and R. M. Engler. Discussion of Regulatory Criteria
for Ocean Disposal of Dredged Materials Elutriate Test Rationale
and Implementation Guidelines. U. S. Army Waterways Experiment
Station Misc. Paper D-74-14, 13 p., 1974.
(7) Elutriate Test Implementation Guidelines, Ocean Dumping Criteria for
Dredged Material. ER 1130-2-408, Jan. 17, 1974. Department of the
Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C. 20314.
(8) Recommended Procedures for the Bacteriological Examination of Sea
Water and Shellfish. 4th Ed., American Public Health Association,
American Public Health Association, New York, N.Y., 1970.
(9) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 14th
Ed., American Public Health Association, 1015 Eighteenth St., N.W.,
Washington, D.C., 1975.
(10) Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA Office of
Technology Transfer, Washington, D.C. 20460. 1974.
(11) Analytical Methods for Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry, Perkin-
Elmer, Norwalk, Connecticut 06856. 1976.
(12) Krishnamurty, K. V., E. Shpirt, and M. M. Reddy, Atomic Absorption
Newsletter, J5_, (3), 68, 1976.
(13) Analysis of Pesticide Residues in Human and Environmental Samples.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. J. F. Thompson, Editor.
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 1974.
(14) Determination of Pesticide and PCB in Sediments, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region X Laboratory, 1975.
66
-------
(15) Green, E. J. and D. Schnitker. Marine Chemistry, 2, 111, 1974.
(16) Bacteriological Analytical Manual. U. S. Food and Drug Administration,
Washington, D.C., 1972.
(17) Sound Survey Photo Maps of Duwamish River. U. S. Army Engineers
Seattle District, File No. E-12-2.1-70 and E12-2.1-71, U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 1973, 1974.
(18) Bonde, 6. J. Pollution of a Marine Environment. J. Water Pollution
Cont. Fed. 39, 45-63, 1967.
(19) Matches, Jack R., John Listen and Donald Curran. Clostridium
perfringens in the Environment. Appl. Microbiol. 28, 655-660,
1974.
67
-------
Appendix A
-------
Appendix A
Scope: The monitoring program was carried out in three phases. Phase I
included monitoring activities before dredging, Phase II during dredging
and Phase III after dredging.
I. Phase I: Predredge Analysis
A. Sediment evaluation was performed before dredging to determine
the extent of pollution in Slip 1.
1 - Slip } Sediments
(a) PCBs in 29 grab samples and 6 composite samples
(b) Metals: Hg, Cd, Pb, Zn, Fe, Mn, Cr, As and Cu in 6
composite samples
(c) Oil and grease and COD in 6 composite samples
(d) Sulfide ion and volatile solids, in 6 composite samples
(e) Nutrients: P, NH3, and TKN in 6 composite samples
(f) Microbiology: TC, FC, FS and Clostridium perfringens
(anaerobe)
2. Interstitial Water
(a) PCBs in 6 composite samples
(b) Metals: Hg, Cd, Zn, Fe, Mn, Cr, Ni, As and Cu in 6
composite samples
(c) Nutrients: P, NH3, N03, TKN and TOC in 6 composite
samples
(d) pH and conductivity in 6 composite samples
3. Elutriate Test Water with Slip 1 Sediments
(a) PCBs in 6 composite samples
(b) Metals: Hg, Cd, Zn, Fe, Mn, As, Cr, Ni and Cu in
6 composite samples
(c) Oil and grease in 6 composite samples
(d) Nutrients: P, NH3, N03, TKN and TOC in 6 composite
samples
69
-------
4. On Site Monitoring of Interfacial Water Quality at Time
of Sediment Collection
(a) Hydrolab: pH, DO, conductivity, and temperature at
each station in or near Slip 1
Water Evaluation
1. Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM)
(a)' PCBs were determined in six composite samples collected
during the large ebb of the semi-diurnal tide. One set
of samples, consisting of a surface and two eight meter
deep composites, was acquired over the three hour period
just prior to slack water. Another set was obtained in
a similar manner during the three hour period immediately
after the flood crest.
2.
3.
Whole Water
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
On
PCBs were determined in six composite samples collected
at depth and time intervals described in IBla.
Metals: Water samples were composited according to the
scheme outlined in IBla for determination of Hg, Cd,
Zn, Fe, Mn, As, Cr
Nutrients: P, NH3,
six composites coll
Oil and grease and
on six samples coll
interval described
Site Determinations
and Cu.
N03, TKN and TOC were determined in
ected in a manner similar to IBla.
sulfide determinations were performed
ected at the center of each sampling
in IBla.
(a) Hydrolab: DO, pH, conductivity and temperature were
monitored continuously during sample collection.
II. Phase II: Analysis During Dredging Operation
A. Sediment Evaluation
1. Sediments
(a) PCBs were determined in sediment samples taken from
dredged areas in order to estimate the relative success
of the dredging operation.
B. Water Evaluation: Disposal Pond Influent and Effluent
1. Whole Water
(a) PCBs were determined in several samples of disposal pond
effluent composited daily according to time and volume.
70
-------
(b) Metals: Hg, Cd, Zn, Fe, Mn, As and Cu were determined
in samples composited automatically using an ISCO
sampler.
(c) Nutrients: P, NHs, NOs, TKN, and TOC were determined
in composite samples collected in a manner similar
to that used in IIBlb.
(d) Oil and grease and suspended solids were determined in
composite samples collected according to the method used
in IIBla.
(e) Microbiology: TC, FC, FS and C. perfringens (anaerobe).
2. On Site Monitoring
(a) Hydrolab: The pH, conductivity, DO and temperature of
disposal pond effluent were monitored continuously during
the dredging operation.
C. Water Evaluation: River Water at the Dredge Site
1. Suspended Particulate Matter
(a) PCBs were determined according to IBla.
2. Whole Water
(a) PCBs were analyzed according to IB2a.
(b) Metals as per IB2b.
(c) Nutrients as per IB2c.
(d) Oil and Grease, Sulfide, TKN and TOC according to IB2d.
3. On Site Determinations
(a) Hydrolab as per IB3a.
III. Phase III. Post Dredge Evaluation
A. Sediment Evaluation: Slip 1
Evaluation of Slip 1 sediments was performed after termination
of dredging in order to determine the efficiency of the dredging
operation and the extent of pollutant translocation.
1. River Bottom Sediments:
Determination of PCBs, metals, etc. was made according to
IA1.
2. Interstitial Water: PCB metals, etc. were determined
according to IA2.
71
-------
B. Sediment Evaluation: Disposal Ponds
1. Disposal Pond 1
(a) Determination of PCBs in disposal Pond 1 sediments was
made in order to estimate the amount of PCB in that pond
(b) Microbiology; TC, FC, FS and C. perfringens
2. Disposal Pond 2: Since Pond 2 received less than one percent
of the total dredge spoil sediment, no evaluation of its
sediments was attempted.
C. Water Evaluation: River Water at Dredge Site
1. Suspended Particulate Matter
(a) PCBs were determined according to IBla
2. Whole Water
(a) All parameters were determined as in IB2.
3. On Site Determinations
(a) Hydrolab as per IB3a.
72
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
FIGURE B-l
Figures B-2, B-3 and B-4 Combined
RECONSTRUCTED GAS CHROMATOGRAMS
PCS 1242 STO
SED- TflKEN FTT POINT OF PCB SPILL - SLIP 1 -
- SLIP 1 - ON 9-13-74
10 23 38 10 SO 60 70
SPECTRUh NIM3EB
80 90 130 110 120
74
-------
FIGURE B-2
RECONSTRUCTED GAS CHROMATOGRAM
310330 SLUDGE PROM PCB SPILL - SLIP 1 - ON 3-13-71
0 10 20 30 10 SO 80 70 80 30 100 110 120
SPECTRUM NUGER
75
-------
FIGURE B-3
RECONSTRUCTED GAS CHROMATOGRAM
1S22S SED- TfKEN flT POINT OF PCB SPILL - SLIP 1 -
0
Tfffln^^WWfVj
10 20 aa
SPECTHLH NLf«ER
S0 68 70 80 90 180 110 120
76
-------
FIGURE B-4
RECONSTRUCTED GAS CHROMATOGRAM
PCS 1212 STD
8_
8_
O
T
T
T
10 20 30 10 SO
SPECTRUM NUhBER
60 70 90 30 100 110 120
77
-------
Figure B-5
Figures B-6, B-7 and B-8 Combined
RECONSTRUCTED GAS CHROMATOGRAMS
MASS RANGE: 256-261
PCB 1212 STO
1S22S SED. TflKEN FTC POINT OF PCB SPILL - SLIP 1 -
310830 SLUDGE FRdh PCB SPILL - SLIP 1 - ON 9-13-71
10 20 30 10 SO 60 70 90 98 100 110 120
SPECTRUM NUTTER
78
-------
FIGURE B-6
RECONSTRUCTED GAS CHROMAT06RAM
MASS RANGE: 256-261
318330 SUO3E FfCM PCB SP1UL - SLIP 1 - ON 9-13-71
8_
"I"
0
10
J V*
""I "
20
"l""1"
30
*. m A. JMM
10
«*
"T"'1"
SO
^ta^
"I""1"
60
"I""1"
70
80
30
"I""1"
100
..,....,.. ..1
110 120
79
-------
FIGURE B-7
RECONSTRUCTED GAS CHROMATOGRAM
MASS RANGE: 256-261
1S22S SED- TFKEN FIT POINT OF PCB SPILL - SLIP 1 -
§L
o
S3.
0 10 20 30 10 SO 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
SPECTRUM NLICBR
80
-------
FIGURE B-8
RECONSTRUCTED GAS CHROMATOGRAM
MASS RANGE: 256-261
PCB 1212 STD
g
0
10 20 30 10 SO
SPECTRM NUMBER
70 80 30 180 110 120
81
-------
FIGURE B-9
Figures B-10, B-ll and B-12 Combined
RECONSTRUCTED GAS CHROMATOGRAMS
MASS RANGE: 290-300
PCB 1212 STO
1S22S SED- TflKEN FT POINT OF PCB SPILL - SLIP 1 -
318930 SLUDGE FROM PCB SfllLL - SLIP 1 - ON H-13-71
102038*35060708030
SPECTRUM NUMBER
100 110 120
82
-------
FIGURE B-10
RECONSTRUCTED GAS CHROMATOGRAM
MASS RANGE: 290-300
310330 SLUDGE FROM PCB SPILL - SLIP 1 - ON 9-13-71
o
<£-
!§_
I«
fc.
I
Q
T
I
10 20 30
SPECTPU1 NUMBER
F I '
10 SO
60 70 80 30 100 110 120
83
-------
FIGURE B-ll
RECONSTRUCTED GAS CHROMATOGRAM
MASS RANGE: 290-300
1S22S SED- TflKEN fTT POINT OF PCB SPILL - SLIP 1 -
8.
S3
10 20 30 10 SO 60 70
SPECTRU1 NUMBER
80 90 100 110 120
84
-------
FIGURE B-12
RECONSTRUCTED GAS CHROMATOGRAM
MASS RANGE: 290-300
PCS 1212 STD
S3
CM.
T
T
10 20 30
SPECTRUM
10 SO 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
85
-------
FIGURE 8-13
SPECTRLM MJflER 10 - 31
g 310330
8.
s.
S_
S?
R_
2_
0_
30 10
M/ E
3-.IDS
|
50
3 FFEM ^
.
||| |
a TO
IB 3'lU-
llf
- 3.1P 1 - ON 3-13-71
ll I! i
l.lllll ,lll,l ,l!ll. II II, .,:!
I ,
90 90 100 110 120 130 11O ISO
O
160 170 190 ISO 260 210 220 230 Z1O 250
||
af
E
fe
_U)UJ
'"I" I '"I I I I I I I I |"'i|i"i| | | |ini|iiii|
283270280230300310323330316350363370390330100110
-------
SPECTRM NLTBER
00
g 1SZZ53:
8.
8.
P-
8.
Q
CM-
0
I .|....,.".|
3B 10
MX E
D. TfKEN fTT POINT DF PCS
I,
,1 1
ll 1
!, . ill. III.
SO 60 70 80 30
S'ILL
|l ll
100
- SLIP 1 -
ll llllllll l|lll ill
I I
110 120 130 110 ISO
0
II |,| |
11, hi
160 170 180 130 ZOO 210 220 230 210 2SO
1
1,
260 270 230 230 300 310 320 3303^0350360370380390 100
t-
fe
1
»10
-------
00
00
FIGURE B-15
SPECTflLM NJ-BER IB - 31
PCB 1212 STD
XED
Q_
LJD
Lj
ai
6
30 18 S0 SB 78 88 30 100 118 120 130 110 ISO 160 178 188 138 298 218 228 238 218 2S8 268 270 288 238 380 313 328 330 318 3S0 368 370 380 330 1O8 110
M^ E
-------
Appendix C
-------
Section I
Section II
Section III
Section IV
Section V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Predredge analysis of sediments at Slip 1
Analysis of influent to pond 1 and effluents from
holding ponds 1 and 2
Post-dredge analysis of sediments at Slip 1
Water analysis at dredge and background sites
Exchange analysis and exchange capacity of sediments
and solids
Section VI Miscellaneous materials
90
-------
Section I
Results
of
Predredge Analysis
of
Slip 1
Sediments
91
-------
TABLE C-l. COMPOSITION OF SEDIMENTS IN SLIP 1 BEFORE DREDGING
Composite Samples from Designated Areas
Parameter
PCB ug/g
As ug/g
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Zn
P ug/g
N-TKN
N-NHs
COD ug/g
Grease/Oil
Sulfide
Solids %
Solids-Volatile %
En volts
Density g/ml
1
72
8
0.5
21
39
25,100
44
250
0.1
110
590
630
14
28,200
715
42
42.5
8.9
+0.084
1.36
2
8
7
1.4
37
42
21 ,800
235
250
0.1
310
530
690
17
28,400
737
42
44.1
9.3
+0.022
1.32
3 & 4
2
8
5.0
20
59
21,000
84
220
0.1
1,000
520
460
15
28,700
1,120
86
40.7
10.4
-0.059
1.36
5
< 1
5
2.8
22
52
24,500
67
240
0.1
610
540
580
23
20,900
700
99
47.7
7.5
+0.006
1.36
6
1
6
0.6
15
32
18,300
44
180
< 0.1
120
510
480
69
26,200
361
53
46.5
7.1
+0.015
1.36
Units expressed on wet weight basis
92
-------
Table C-2
COMPOSITION OF ELUTRIATE WATER FROM PREDREDGED SEDIMENT SAMPLES FROM SLIP 1
Parameter
PCB ug/1
As ug/1
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
P-Total (a) mg/1
(b)
N-TKN
N-NH3
N-NOs + N02
Grease/Oil mg/1
TOC
Dredge Site
Water
<0.010
2.1
8.
16
7.2
1,300
80
0.4
<10
20.
_
0.098
0.17
0.04
0.41
< 1
3.
Compos i
1
158
16.2
4.
45
6.0
560
2,880
0.1
< 10
12.
0.19
0.11
4.5
3.3
1.4
1.9
17.
te Sample
2
29
12.2
8.
43
7.2
300
1,320
0.1
<"|0
4.
0.80
0.39
5.8
3.8
0.20
7.6
24.
from Designated Areas
3 + 4 5 6
30
15.9
4.
43
3.6
240
224
0.2
<10
<2
0.81
0.52
4.8
2.6
0.30
13
42
13
6.9
4.
47
18.0
260
1,920 3
0.6
<10
8.
0.24
0.19
3.0
2.2
0.29
3.0
15.
8
11.7
4.
47
9.0
540
,360
0.1
<10
4.
0.12
0.07
5.0
3.0
0.31
1.2
15.
PH
(a) Sample centrifuged but not filtered
(b) Sample centrifuged and filtered thru 0.45 u membrane
93
-------
Table C-3
COMPOSITION OF INTERSTITIAL WATER FROM PREDREDGED SEDIMENT SAMPLES FROM SLIP
Parameter
PCB ug/1
As ug/1
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
P-Total (a) mg/1
(b)
N-TKN
N-NHs
N-N03 + N02
N-N02
Grease/Oil mg/1
TOC
PH
Dredge Site
Water
<0.010
2.1
8.
16
7.2
1,300
80
0.4
<10
20.
0.098
0.17
0.04
0.41
-
-
3.
7.45
Composite Sample from Designated Areas
1 2 3 + 4 5 6
1,700
21.2
6.
15
6.0
4,000
1,640
0.4
<10
38.
3.32
1.8
12.
9.0
0.23
0.16
_
46.
6.9
143
32.3
4.
34
7.2
410
1,920
0.1
<10
10.
4.50
1.76
17.
11.
0.22
0.16
79.
7.8
147
21.5
4.
43
4.8
200
220
0.3
-------
Section II
Results
of
Analysis
of
Influent to Pond 1 and
Effluents from Holding Ponds 1 and 2
95
-------
TABLE C-4. ANALYSIS OF INFLUENT TO POND 1
Date of Sampling
16 March 1976 (076 Julian)
Influent
Parameter Wet Wt.
PCB
Na
K
Ca
Mg
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
P-0
P-Total
N-TKN
N-NHs
N-N03
N-N02
Alkalinity
Chloride
COD
TOC
Grease/Oil 795 mg/Kg
Sulfate
Sulfide 71 mg/Kg
Solids-Settleable 300 ml/1
Solids-Total 125,600 mg/1
Solids 10.5 %
Centrifuged
Water
37 ug/1
84 ug/1
^2
-
72
250
100
0.2
20
6
0.39 mg/1
0.43
8.2
7.8
0.29
0.075
367 mg/1
15,800
-
11
41.5
2,000
^-0.02
_
-
Influent
Solids
Wet wt.
7.2
6.9
1.8
13.8
14.5
11
4.6
_
87
24,770
270
0.2
39
1,030
_
800
480
55,000
3,324
845
B2.fi
ug/g
mg/g
ug/g
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
1
96
-------
TABLE C-5. ANALYSIS OF INFLUENT TO POND 1
Date of Sampling
19 March 1976 (079 Julian)
Parameter
PCB
Na
K
Ca
Mg
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
P-0
P-Total
N-TKN
N-NH3
N-NOs
N-N02
Alkalinity
Chloride
COD
TOC
Grease/Oil
Sulfate
Sulfide
Solids-Settleable
Sol ids -Total
Solids
Influent Centrifuged
Wet wt. Water
4.1 ug/1
117 ug/1
<2
-
48
240
78
^0.2
<10
6
0.40 mg/1
0.49
16
16
0.31
0.024
552 mg/1
16,000
19
183 mg/Kg 48
1,800
99 mg/Kg 0.08
300 ml/1
64,800 mg/1
3.2 %
Influent
Solids
Wet wt
7.7
6.2
1.5
14.1
18.3
9
3.5
-
73
24,200
121
0.5
49
480
_
792
1,230
59,100
4,110
48.4
ug/g
mg/g
ug/g
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
97
-------
TABLE C-6. ANALYSIS OF INFLUENT TO POND 1
Date of Sampling
22 March 1976 (0830)
082.3
Influent Centrifuged Influent
Parameter
PCB
Na
K
Ca
Mg
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
P-0
P-Total
N-TKN
N-NHs
N-NOa
N-N02
Alkalinity
Chloride
COD
TOC
Grease/Oil
Sulfate
Sulfide
Solids-Settleable
Solids-Total
Solids
Wet Wt. Water
10.6 ug/1
19 ug/1
<2
_
46
250
260
<0.2
30
8
0.45 mg/1
0.44
4.8
3.4
0.3
0.04
197 mg/1
16,200
6
147 mg/Kg 2.8
2,100
27 mg/Kg <0.02
220 ml/1
95,800 mg/1
3.8 %
Solids
Wet wt.
52.1
5.3
1.8
7.8
8.7
10
2.3
_
62
26,100
274
0.3
29
365
721
333
48,400
2,780
52. 9°/
ug/g
mg/g
ug/g
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
98
-------
TABLE C-7. ANALYSIS OF INFLUENT TO POND 1
Date of Sampling
22 March 1976 (1400)
082.5
Parameter
PCB
Na
K
Ca
Mg
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
P-0
P-Total
N-TKN
N-NHs
N-N03
N-N02
Alkalinity
Chloride
COD
TOC
Grease/Oil
Sulfate
Sulfide
Solids-Settleable
Solids-Total
Solids
Influent Centrifuged
Wet wt. Water
54 ug/1
88 ug/1
<2
-
44
270
208
<0.2
20
^2
3.1 mg/1
3.1
27
14
0.1
0.03
466 mg/1
16,300
14
1,497 mg/Kg 12
1 ,950
45 mg/Kg 0.02
800 ml /I
152,500 mg/1
12.4 %
Influent
Solids
Wet wt
51
6.
-
5.
7.
8
2.
-
63
22,200
230
0.
22
274
727
463
55,940
4,149
56.
ug/g
5 mg/g
8
0
ug/g
6
4
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
8
-------
TABLE C-8. ANALYSIS OF INFLUENT TO POND 1
Date of Sampling
23 March 1976 (083 Julian)
Influent
Parameter Wet wt.
PCB
Na
K
Ca
Mg
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
P-0
P-Total
N-TKN
N-NHa
N-NOs
N-N02
Alkalinity
Chloride
COD
TOC
Grease/Oil 288 mg/Kg
Sulfate
Sulfide 28 mg/Kg
Solids-Settleable 140 ml/1
Solids-Total 54,990 mg/1
Solids 3.5 %
Centrifuged
Water
13 ug/1
14 ug/1
<2
_
52
360
340
<0.2
20
16
0.31 mg/1
0.34
3.8
3.6
0.14
0.03
158 mg/1
16,200
6
2
1,930
<0.02
Influent
Solids
Wet wt.
150
5.8
_
6.1
6.1
7.9
2.4
_
74
26,700
255
0.3
23
319
736
413
52,246
1,669
57.0
ug/g
mg/g
ug/g
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
%
100
-------
TABLE C-9. ANALYSIS OF EFFLUENTS FROM POND 1
Parameter
PCB
Turbidity
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Zn
P-0
P-Total
N-TKN
N-NH3
N-N03
N-N02
Alkalinity
Chloride
TOC
Grease/Oil
Sulfate
Effluent
4-3
094.5
ug/1 1.2
NTU 11
ug/1 16
<2
28
56
460
166
0.2
16
mg/1
0.35
-
-
-
-
mg/1
-
-
3
-
Centrifuged
Effluent
4-3
094.5
0.48
-
16
< 2
26
52
200
162
0.2
14
0.30
0.30
4.2
4.1
0.36
0.024
177
15,700
6
6
2,130
Effluent
4-4
095.5
6
21
8
< 2
24
54
540
184
0.2
24
_
0.39
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
-
Centrifuged
Effluent
4-4
095.5
0.39
-
14
< 2
24
60
200
176
0.2
16
0.30
0.31
4.1
4.2
0.34
0.023
179
15,700
6
5
2,150
Sulfide
Solids-Settleable ml/1 <0.01
Solids-NF, % .01
Solids, Total mg/1 29,800
0.6
29,570
<0.02
101
-------
TABLE C-10. ANALYSIS OF EFFLUENTS FROM POND 1
Parameter
PCB (ppb) ug/1
Turbidity NTU
As ug/1
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Zn
P-0 mg/1
P-Total
N-TKN
N-NH3
N-N03
N-N02
Alkalinity mg/1
Chloride
TOC
Grease/Oil
Sulfate
r* . . i -c _ j _
Effluent
4-6
097.5
16
36
5.5
5
56
120
4,900
660
1.1
273
.
1.1
_
_
_
-
_
_
256
Centrifuged
Effluent
4-6
097.5
1.9
-
6.0
<3
25
58
175
430
0.3
48
0.27
0.28
7.2
7.1
0.33
0.022
193
15,500
12
4
1,900
Sulfide
Solids-Settleable ml/1 1.2
Solids-NF, % 0.03
Solids, Total mg/1 33,948
102
-------
TABLE C-ll. ANALYSIS OF EFFLUENTS FROM POND 2
Parameter
PCB ug/1
Turbidity NTU
As ug/1
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
P-0 mg/1
P-Total
N-TKN
N-NH3
N-NOo
N-N02
Alkalinity mg/1
Chloride
TOC
Grease/Oil
Sulfate
Sulfide
Solids-Settleable ml/1
Solids-NF, %
Solids-Total mg/1
Effluent
3-16
076.5
<0.08
48
9
8
_
36
4,800
1,520
0.1
10
252
_
0.19
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.4
-
<0.02
0.4
<0.01
20,330
Centrifuged
Effluent
3-16
076.5
< 0.08
-
3
4
_
34
740
1 .,400
0.1
10
228
< 0.01
0.01
7.5
7.2
0.36
0.02
206
8,800
16
4.1
1,200
<0.02
-
-
-
Effluent
3-19
079.5
1.1
26
5
6
_
48
1,800
1,320
< 0.2
<10
480
-
0.15
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.4
-
<0.02
0.2
<0.01
23,090
Centrifuged
Effluent
3-19
079.5
0.25
-
3
4
-
36
200
1,280
< 0.2
00
216
0.02
0.03
7.8
7.4
0.34
0.02
209
10,600
14
3.6
1,500
< 0.02
-
-
-
103
-------
TABLE C-12. ANALYSIS OF EFFLUENTS FROM POND 2
Parameter
PCB ug/1
Turbidity NTU
As ug/1
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
P-0 mg/1
P-Total
N-TKN
N-NH3
N-N03
N-N02
Alkalinity mg/1
Chloride
TOC
Grease/Oil
Sulfate
Sulfide
Solids-Settleable ml/1
Solids-NF, %
Solids-Total mg/1
Effluent
3-22
082.4
v 0.05
17
12
8
_
36
1,560
1,120
< 0.2
30
400
_
0.17
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.9
_
0.02
< 0.1
< 0.01
22,850
Centrifuged
Effluent
3-22
082.4
< 0.05
-
21
4
_
32
140
1,060
< 0.2
30
148
0.06
0.06
8.2
7.6
0.32
0.035
220
11,800
12
3.5
1,500
<0.02
_
-
Effluent
3-22
082.7
< 0.1
18
13
8
_
42
1,300
900
< 0.2
20
224
0.21
_
_
_
-
_
_
3.6
< 0.02
< 0.1
< 0.01
25,720
Centrifuged
Effluent
3-22
082.7
< 0.08
-
11
< 2
28
180
840
< 0.2
20
100
0.1
0.11
8.2
7.7
0.34
0.02
237
12,400
11
4.0
1 ,700
< 0.02
-
104
-------
TABLE C-13. ANALYSIS OF EFFLUENTS FROM POND 2
Parameter
PCB
Turbidity
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
P-0
P-Total
N-TKN
ug/1
NTU
ug/1
mg/1
N-NOs
N-N02
Alkalinity
Chloride
TOC
Grease/Oil
Sulfate
Sulfide
Solids-Settle-
able
Solids-NF, %
Solids-Total
mg/1
ml/1
Effluent
3-23
083.4
<0.6
27
19
4
48
,140
840
< 0.2
20
174
0.25
8.2
2.6
< 0.02
0.1
Centrifuged
Effluent
3-23
083.4
< 1.2
16
<2
48
280
750
< 0.
20
52
0.
0.
8.
7.
0.
15
15
0
7
35
0.019
249
13,100
11
3.2
1,650
< 0.02
Effluent
4-1
092.5
2.8
54
4
2
24
60
3,600
740
0.2
152
0.21
0.01
mg/1 25,990
1.0
0.01
27,680
Centrifuged
Effluent
4-1
092.5
0.19
2
<2
24
52
200
760
< 0.2
70
0.03
0.04
6.5
6.8
0.44
0.023
188
9
1,930
105
-------
TABLE C-14. ANALYSIS OF EFFLUENTS FROM POND 2
Parameter
PCB ug/1
Turbidity NTU
As ug/1
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Zn
P-0 mg/1
P-Total
N-TKN
N-NH3
N-N03
N-N02
Alkalinity mg/1
Chloride
TOC
Grease/Oil
Sulfate
Sulfide
Solids-Settleable ml/1
Solids-NF, %
Solids, Total mg/1
Effluent
4-3
094.5
0.52
96
6
<2
28
70
14,000
1,120
0.2
-
0.43
_
-
-
_
_
-
1.8
0.01
24,500
Centrifuged
Effluent
4-3
094.5
0.29
-
0.5
< 2
20
46
180
104
0.2
-
<0.01
0.01
6.5
5.4
0.29
0.02
154
12,700
7
,_
1,680
CO. 02
_
_
-
Effluent
4-4
095.5
0.45
68
13
< 2
29
65
8,400
640
0.3
214
_
0.41
_
_
_
-
_
_
_
1 .4
0.01
27,560
Centrifuged
Effluent
4-4
095.5
0.22
-
0.5
<2
24
53
170
630
0.2
55
0.02
0.03
5.2
5.1
0.31
0.023
172
14,300
7
1 ,830
<0.02
-
106
-------
TABLE C-15. ANALYSIS OF EFFLUENT FROM POND 2
Parameter
PCB ug/1
Turbidity NTU
As ug/1
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Zn
P-0 mg/1
P-Total
N-TKN
N-NHs
N-N03
N-N02
Alkalinity mg/1
Chloride
TOC
Grease/Oil
Sulfate
Sulfide
Solids-Settle- ml/1
able
Solids-NF, %
Solids, Total mg/1
Effluent
4-5
096.5
-
36
8.
<2
25
65
4,000
730
0.2
134
_
0.26
5.2
-
_
0.1
-
-
_
-
-
-
0.1
_
28,060
Centrifuged
Effluent
4-5
096.5
-
-
1.
<2
24
42
140
600
0.3
44
0.03
0.04
5.8
5.3
0.30
0.023
175
14,400
6
-
2,000
<0.02
-
-
-
Effluent
4-6
097.5
0.80
18
3.
<4
36
58
1,890
680
0.4
105
_
0.21
5.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
122
-
-
0.2
0.01
30,410
Centrifuged
Effluent
4-6
097.5
0.47
-
0.5
3
33
50
200
640
0.3
60
0.05
0.06
5.5
5.4
0.25
0.028
184
14,600
9
13
1,850
-
-
-
-
107
-------
Section III
Post-Dredge
Analysis
of Sediments
at Slip 1
108
-------
TABLE C-16. COMPOSITION OF POST DREDGE SEDIMENT SAMPLES
Composite Sample from Designated Areas
Parameter
PCB
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Zn
P-Total
N-TKN
N-NH3
Grease/Oil
PH
Sulfide
% Solids
% Volatile
COD
Eh volts
ug/g
ug/gm
ug/g
ug/g
mg/Kg
ug/g
Solids
1
50
8
1.
27
52
21,300
61
186
0.
1,390
580
-
25
2,445
7.
170
45.
8.
40,100
0.
2
10
7.3
0 3.0
-
56
16,350
109
173
2 0.5
3,270
550
820
320
4,060
5 9.1
470
4 39.5
2 10.8
45,100
026 -0.008
3
3
6.9
3.2
18
48
12,700
84
156
0.3
458
460
630
20
2,255
9.4
310
25.9
14.7
33,200
-0.166
4
2
8
9
20
82
21,200
274
215
0
2,550
540
600
15
2,035
8
190
37
10
37,500
-0
5
2
.6 9.3
.9 3.0
-
58
19,770 21
107
217
.2 0.2
650
550
660
85
1,525 1
.9 7.9
170
.9 48
.9 8.5
36,000 39
.088 0.007
6
3
6
0.8
23
44
,200
60
196
0.2
126
530
810
30
,720
7.3
180
46.1
8.9
,500
0.033
109
-------
TABLE C-17
COMPOSITION OF INTERSTITIAL WATER FROM SEDIMENT SAMPLES AFTER DREDGING
Composite Sample from Designated Areas
Parameter
PCB
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Zn
P-Total
Filter
Unfiltered
Filtered/He
N-TKN
N-NHs
N-N03
N-N02
TOC
Grease/Oil
PH
Conductivity
1
ug/1 260
ug/1 28
<4
32
56
10,200
2,040
ug/1 0.6
4
(mg/1)
3.0
0.96
4.3
18
12
0.10
0.200
(mg/1) 35
74
7.5
39,300 39
_ \
2
590
104
4
-
50
840
162
0.5
8
4.7
4.9
3.7
79
32
0.07
0.014
58
157
8.6
,050
3
220
180
<4
24
44
680
54
0.6
<4
0.75
0.77
0.80
76
34
0.10
0.040
29
305
9.1
33,300 37
4
75
26
C4
28
52
760 1
156 1
0.6
<4
2.1
2.0
2.0
39
12
0.12
0.120
96
278
8.2
,900 35
5
80
48
<4
_
56
,020
,520
0.3
<:4
3.5
4.8
3.6
40
12
0.25
0.150
72
87
7.7
,800
6
140
22
<4
32
56
1,860
2,280
0.8
4
0.38
0.81
0.93
35
16
0.27
0.310
50
31
7.9
34,300
no
-------
Section IV
Water
Analysis
at
Dredge
and
Background
Sites
in
-------
TABLE C-18. WATER ANALYSIS AT DREDGE AND BACKGROUND SITES
Predredge - Cruise 1
25 Feb. 1976 - Julian date 058
Dredge Site
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
P-Ortho
P-Total
N-TKN
N-NHs
N-N03
N-NOz
Grease/Oil
TOC
Sulfide
ug/1
mg/1
mg/1
Fresh
Water
0.020
3.6
<1
^2
12.
5.
620
52
0.1
11
0.08
0.15
0.42
0.30
0.49
0.009
0.4
5.
<0.02
Salt
Water
0.014
1.1
12
<2
48
4.
300
48
<0.1
<3
0.08
0.08
0.13
0.03
0.41
0.009
0.1
4.
<--0.02
Background
Fresh
Water
RM-2.99
0.022
4.4
3
<2
7
2.
700
48
0.1
20
0.08
0.15
0.51
0.41
0.50
0.008
0.3
4.
<0.02
Salt
Water
0.013
0.8
9
4
41
4.
300
48
0.3
2
0.08
0.08
0.84
0.04
0.41
0.009
0.2
2.
^.0.02
Fresh
Water
RM-5.47
0.020
3.3
-------
TABLE C-19. WATER ANALYSIS AT DREDGE AND BACKGROUND SITES
Dredge - Cruise 2
6 Mar. 1976 - Julian Date 066
Dredge Site
Parameter
PCB
Turbidity
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
P-Ortho
P-Total
N-TKN
N-NH3
N-N03
N-N02
Grease/Oil
TOC
Sulfide
ug/1
NTU
Fresh
Water
0.027
2.4
Salt
Water
0.018
1.3
Background
ug/1
mg/1
mg/1
<2
10
4.
460
64
0.
12
0.04
0.11
0.45
0.44
0.51
0.008
0.2
3.
:0.02
38
6.
310
56
0.
0.05
0.09
0.04
0.04
0.39
0.010
2.
:0.02
Fresh
Water
RM-2.99
0.022
2.7
Salt
Water
RM-5.47
0.014
1.4
1.
7
2.
520
72
0.
10
0.04
0.11
0.49
0.48
0.51
0.008
0.2
3.
1
37
5.
480
72
0.3
0.04
0.09
0.04
0.04
0.36
0.011
0.1
3.
.0.02
113
-------
TABLE C-20. WATER ANALYSIS AT DREDGE AND BACKGROUND SITES
Dredge - Cruise 3
8 March 1976 - Julian Date 068
Background
Parameter
PCB
Turbidity
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
P-Ortho
P-Total
N-TKN
N-NH3
N-NOs
N-N02
Grease/Oil
TOC
Sulfide
ug/1
NTU
ug/1
mg/1
mg/1
Fresh
Water
0.026
2.3
1.
<2
10
5.
415
73
0.1
<10
10
0.08
0.16
0.39
0.35
0.52
0.009
3.
<0.02
Salt
Water
0.040
1.3
1.
<2
36
8.
360
61
0.2
0.08
0.09
0.04
0.03
0.41
0.010
CO.l
2.
<0.02
Fresh
Water
RM-2.99
0.011
3.1
2.
<2
3
3.
460
84
0.2
< 10
10
0.09
0.17
0.52
0.46
0.52
0.009
<0.3
3.
<0.02
Salt
Water
RM-5.47
0.024
2.0
1.
<2
33
6.
420
62
0.2
<10
< 2
0.07
0.09
0.14
0.05
0.40
0.010
0.1
2.
<0.02
114
-------
TABLE C-21. WATER ANALYSIS AT DREDGE AND BACKGROUND SITES
Dredge - Cruise 4
18 March 1976 Julian Date 078
Parameter
PCB
Turbidity
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
P-Ortho
P-Total
N-TKN
N-NH3
N-N03
N-N02
Grease/Oil
TOC
Sulfide
ug/1
NTU
ug/1
mg/l
mg/1
Fresh
Water
0.036
2.0
9
19
410
67
0.
14
0.09
0.15
0.40
0.40
0.47
0.009
0.1
5
0.02
Salt
Water
0.034
1 .0
30
46
390
68
0.2
0.08
0.09
0.06
0.04
0.40
0.009
Fresh
Water
RM-2.99
0.021
2.2
Salt
Water
RM-5.47
0.007
1.6
4
.0.02
2
<2
10
16
450
62
0.2
-------
TABLE C-22. WATER ANALYSIS AT DREDGE AND BACKGROUND SITES
Dredge - Cruise 5
22 March 1976 - Julian Date 082
Dredge Site
Parameter
PCB
Turbidity
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
P-Ortho
P-Total
N-TKN
N-NHs
ug/1
mg/1
N-N02
Grease/Oil
TOC
mg/1
Fresh
Water
0.021
1.8
2
<2
9
11
430
53
0.4
^~\ n
< 1 U
9
0.09
0.15
0.34
0.26
0.40
0.008
0.4
4
Salt
Water
0.021
1.1
2
^ 2
31
40
380
65
0.2
< 2
0.06
0.12
0.22
0.12
0.39
0.008
0.2
3
Background
Fresh
Water
RM-2.99
0.014
1.3
Salt
Water
RM-5.47
0.013
0.6
8
12
440
62
0.
-clO
22
0.08
0.17
0.43
0.37
0.39
0.009
0.
4
1
36
44
320
64
0.
= 10
6
0.06
0.10
0.07
0.03
0.39
0.006
0.1
3
116
-------
TABLE C-23. WATER ANALYSIS AT DREDGE AND BACKGROUND SITES
Dredge - Cruise 6
23 March 1976 - Julian Date 083
Dredge Site
Parameter
PCB
Turbidity
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
P-Ortho
P-Total
N-TKN
N-NH3
N-N03
N-N02
Grease/Oil
TOC
ug/1
ug/l
mg/l
mg/1
Fresh
Water
0.140
1.6
3
<2
9
16
460
54
-. 0.2
12
0.09
0.16
0.44
0.35
0.40
0.010
0.3
4
Salt
Water
0.460
3.2
5
< 2
31
36
490
56
0.2
7
0.06
0.10
0.09
0.04
0.39
0.007
0.3
4
Background
Fresh
Water
RM-2.99
0.016
2.0
3
x: 2 <
8
12
Salt
Water
RM-5.47
0.010
0.7
3
2
34
36
540 400
54
<' 0.2
<~\Q <
26
0.08
0.15
0.40
0.34
0.40
0.010
0.1 <:
5
54
0.2
10
6
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.04
0.39
0.007
0.1
3
117
-------
TABLE C-24. WATER ANALYSIS AT DREDGE AND BACKGROUND SITES
Post Dredge - Cruise 7
20 April 1976 - Julian Date 111
Dredge Site
Parameter
PCB
Turbidity
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
P-Ortho
P-Total
N-TKN
N-NOs
N-N02
Grease/Oil
TOC
ug/1
mg/1
mg/1
Fresh
Water
0.009
2.3
^
6
17
330
47
0.4
_
19
0.09
0.15
0.38
0.36
0.33
0.008
0.3
4
Salt
Water
0.006
1.8
1
<2
28
54
310
36
0.6
35
4
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.04
0.34
0.010
0.2
3
Background
Fresh
Water
RM-2.99
0.009
2.8
<1
<2
6
14
Salt
Water
RM-5.47
0.007
2.1
2
<2
28
60
400 360
52
0.6
30
16
0.09
0.16
0.48
0.38
0.33
0.007
0.2
4
36
1.0
_
6
0.06
0.09
0.10
0.04
0.34
-
x O.l
3"
118
-------
Section V
Exchange Analysis
and Exchange
Capacity of Sediments
and Solids
119
-------
TABLE C-25. EXCHANGE CAPACITY OF SEDIMENTS AND SOLIDS
ro
o
Parameter
Sediment from Slip 1 Site
Solids from Influent
Solids from Pond #2 Effluent
Cation Exchange Capacity
Wet wt . , ug/g
Dry wt., ug/g
Meq/100 g ( dry wt . )
Exchangeable Ammonium
Wet, mg NH^-N/Kg
Dry, mg NH^-N/Kg
105-40
16310
70.9
30.4
47
8410
16090
70.0
5
10
9290
20230
88.0
56
122
-------
TABLE C-26. SEDIMENT-EXCHANGE ANALYSIS
SEDIMENT FROM SLIP 1 SITE
Parameter
Concn.
ug/g
K wet
dry
Ca wet
dry
Ha wet
dry
Mg wet
dry
Fe wet
dry
Ni wet
dry
Mn wet
dry
Cu wet
dry
Cr wet
dry
Cd wet
dry
Zn wet
dry
As wet
dry
Hg wet
dry
Pb wet
dry
Sediment NH^OAc HOAc Extract HONH2 Ex- l^Cb + HNO'3 H202+HN03
Extract of of MH^OAc tract of Digest NH^- Digest HN03
Sediment Extracted HOAc Ex- OAc + HNC>3 Extract of
Sediment tracted Extract of HONH2 Sed.
Sediment HONHp Sed.
2311
13300
20600
10390
178150"
10300
15960
24000
37150
22
34
303
470
51
78~
-
-
< 0.9
<1.4
147
227
7.3
11.3
0.19
0.29
67
103
1004
1550
1180
1500
4067
5300"
2000
2500
8.6
13.4
0.5
18
2F
0.2
0.3
0.06
0.10
<0.01
<0.02
0.4
0.7
0.10
0.15
~
0.4
0.7
119
205
3970
222
JSO
500
TBTJ
3500
5000
2.4
4.1
50
8£
0.2
0.3
0.8
1.4
<0.04
<0.07
13
23
<0.08
<0 . 14
1.0
1.7
52
94
960
1700
27
43"
100
130
840
1500
0.8
1.5
11
20
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
< 0.04
<0.07
8.3
15
< 0.08
<0.14
~
1.3
2.3
152
275
3910
7100
283
510
4200
7500
5100
9200
8.7
71
123"
28
51
_9.8_
18"
0.4
0.78
48
0.43
0.78
~
23
42
159
28T
3710
293
530
2800
5100
5400
"9800
9.9
69
125
40
72
9.6
17
0.7
1.32
51
105"
2.5
4.5
30
55
HF+HN03 HF + HN03
Digest Digest of
of NHOAc HNC>3
+ HN03 Extract
4934
6900
8810
16000
11010
20000
6200
11000
18900
34000
31
~%~
187
333
26
48
23
42
< 0.2"
< 0.40
55
99
3-96
7.1
33
5780
10400
10960
9300
17000
6200
11000
10000
18000
32
219
39&
27
49
24
43
< 0.17
< 0.30
68
123
2.66
~
37
-------
TABLE C-27.
SEDIMENT-EXCHANGE ANALYSIS
SOLIDS FROM INFLUENT
ro
PO
Parameter
Concn.
ug/g
}f
Ca
Na
Mg
Fe
Mi
.Yii
Gu
Cr
Cd
Zn
As
TCT
- -o
Pb
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
viet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
viet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
Sediment NH^OAc Ex-
tract of
Sediment
1874
3530"
9660
18470
12000
21390
9900
1^40
25100
48030
29
55
209
400
78
150
-
-
2.9
5.5
319
509
7.9
15.1
0.35
0.6₯
109
20~8~
819
1570
1440
2800
4720
9000
1900
3500
253
483
0.
1.
6
12
0.
0.
<0.
-------
TABLE C-28. SEDIMENT-EXCHANGE ANALYSIS
SOLIDS FROM POND 2 EFFLUENT
Parameter
Cone .
ug/g
K
Ca
Na
Mg
Fe
Ni
coMn
Cu
Cr
Cd
Zn
As
Hg
Pb
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
Sediment
1308
2850
7580
16520
13270
25470
8900
19400
37400
81600
35
77
203
440
79
171
-
-
6.2
13.4
500
1090
19
41
0.47
1.02
164
356
NH40AC
Extract
of
Sediment
396
362
1220
2700
3474
7500
1500
3300
1.5
3.3
2.8
5
11
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.02
0.05
4.0
4.0
7.1
0.35
0.77
HOAc Extract HONH2 Ex-
of NH^OAc tract of
Extracted HOAc Ex-
Sediment tracted
Sediment
53
96
1510
2700
165
300
1100
2000
3700
6500
8.5
15
50
91
14
26
1.4
2.5
3.1
5.5
324
585
<0.08
-------
TABLE C-29
LOSS OF METALS FROM A DE-IONIZED WATER RINSE OF SEDIMENTS AFTER
AMMONIUM ACETATE AND ACID EXTRACTIONS
Parameter
Cone.
ug/gm
K
Ca
Na
Mg
Fe
Ni
Mn
Cu
Cr
Cd
Zn
As
Pb
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
wet
dry
Sediment Sediment
from Slip 1 from Slip
After NH^OAc 1 After
Extraction HOAc Extn
0
0
75
117
502
780
70
103
0
0
<0
<0
0
0
0
0
< 0
< 0
< 0
< 0
0
0
0
0
<0
-------
Section VI
Miscellaneous Materials
125
-------
TABLE C-30
Sample Collection
Scheme
Influents and Effluents
Date
Julian Gregorian
Influent
Effluent
Pond 1 Pond 2
Area of
Dredge Activity
76.4
76.5
79.4
79.5
82.3
82.4
82.5
82.7
83.3
83.4
92.5
93 to 98
3-16
3-16
3-19
3-19
3-22
3-22
3-22
3-22
3-23
3-23
4-1
4-2 to 4-7
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5, 6
3
3.
1, 2
1 (at spill
Solids from high
site )
speed
94.5
95.5
96.5
97.5
centrifugation of 500 1
effluent
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
126
-------
TABLE C-31. SEDIMENT EXCHANGE FLOW DIAGRAM
SAMPLE
I
Centrifuge and separate
> Interstitial water (discard)
V
RESIDUE
I
(1) NH^OAc
(2) Centrifuge and separate
NH^OAc EXTRACT
(Analyze)
HOAc EXTRACT tr
(Analyze)
HONH2 EXTRACT
(Analyze)
RESIDUE
I
(l) Wash with deionized water
(2) Centrifuge and separate
DEIONIZED WATER WASH (Analyze)
RESIDUE
(1) HOAc
(2) Centrifuge and separate
V
RESIDUE
I
(l) Wash with deionized water
(2) Centrifuge and separate
!
RESIDUE
> DEIONIZED WATER WASH (Analyze)
(1) HONH2
(2) Centrifuge and separate
RESIDUE
(1) H202 + HNOo digest
(2) NH^OAc + HN03
(3) Centrifuge and separate
NH^OAc + HN03
EXTRACT 4r
(Analyze)
V
RESIDUE
HF + fuming HN03
digest
^
DIGESTED SAMPLE
(Analyze)
!l) H202 + HN03 digest
;2) HN03
[3] Centrifuge and separate
HN03
> EXTRACT
(Analyze)
\/
RESIDUE
HF + fuming HN03
digest
4?
DIGESTED SAMPLE
(Analyze)
127
-------
Appendix D
-------
APPENDIX D
Using "Predredge Analysis of Sediment at Slip 1" data, found in
Appendix C, Section I, and formulae "A", "B", and "C" shown below,
it is possible to predict the amount of pollutant released from 0.2 1.
of sediment via the "Standard Elutriate Test" and "interstitial water
monitoring". Also, an estimate of the amount of a pollutant in 0.2 1.
of sediment considered for dredging may be made in a similar manner.
(A) Shake Test
Amount of Pollutant
Released per 0.2 1.
Sediment
(B) Interstitial Water
Amount of Pollutant
Released per 0.2 1.
Sediment
(C) Sediment
Amount of Pollutant
in 0.2 1. sediment
= (Cone, poll.) ((1 l.)-(0.2 1. X % sol. by Vol))
= (Cone, poll.) (0.2 1.) (100-% sol. by vol.)
= (Cone, poll.) (0.2 1.) (Density sed.)
% solids by volume = volume solid (after centrifugation)
Volume sediment (before centrifugation)
where:
Volume solid (after centrifugation) = difference between
volume sediment (before centrifugation) and volume of water
obtained from centrifugation of sediment at 9,000 RPM for 20
minutes.
The results of these calculations are found in Tables D-l through
D-5. In order to estimate the total pollutant burden for the dredge
sediment or predict the amount of pollutant to be released via the
"Standard Elutriate Test" or by "interstitial water monitoring", it is
necessary to know the volume of sediments to be dredged. The volumes
may be calculated by estimating the area to be dredged within each of
six sample areas of Slip 1 (see Figure D-l) and using an estimated dredge
depth of one foot. The total dredge volume is found by summing the
volumes calculated for each area (see equation D).
129
-------
(D) vTotal = VT + V2 + V3 + V4 + V5 + V6
vTotal = (3'30° + 2'200 + 1'100 + 30° + l
vTotal 10'000 yd-3
The amount of a pollutant to be released during dredging of each
area may be predicted using the above volumes along with the amount of
pollutant released via each predictive test (see Tables D-l through
D-5) and equation "E". It follows that the total amount of pollutant
predicted to be released for the whole dredge operation is given by the
sum of amounts predicted to be released from each area.
(E)
Amount of pollutant
predicted to be 3
released or total (Amount of Poll.) (3.79 1) (202 gal) (Vol. in yd. )
pollutant burden of 0.2 1. sed. gal yd.^
dredge sediments
The pollutant burden of the dredged sediments for each area and the area
taken as a whole is calculated in a similar manner. Results of calculations
for pollutant sediment burden and amounts predicted to be released for each
predictive test by area are found in Tables D-6, D-7 and D-8.
The amount of each pollutant returning to the river from pond 2 may
be estimated using measured pumped volumes of pond 2 water (see Table D-9)
and pond 2 effluent data found in Appendix C, Section II. The amount of
pollutant present in dredge return water due to river water dredged with
Slip 1 sediments was established using pumped volumes of pond 2 water (see
Table D-9) and the average pollutant concentration found in the saline
river water background site during the dredge (see Appendix C, Section IV).
Totals of each pollutant in Tables D-6, D-7 and D-8, along with estimated
amounts of each pollutant returning to the river with pond 2 water (both
corrected for contribution of each pollutant present in the river water
and uncorrected) are summarized in Table 16 found in the body of the text.
130
-------
Table D-l. RESULTS OF PREDREDGE ANALYSIS SLIP 1 COMPOSITE #1
Metals
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
Elutriate
Test ug/1
16.2
4.0
45
6.0
560
2,880
0.1
OO
12.
Amt. Rel.
200 ml . sed
in uq/0.2 1
14.1
3.5
39.2
5.2
488
2,508
0.09
<8.7
10.4
. Int. H20
. uq/1
21.2
6.0
15
6.0
4,000
1,640
0.4
OO
38.
Amt. Rel.
200 ml . sed.
in ug/0.2 1 .
1.5
0.4
1.1
0.42
283
116
0.03
<0.71
2.7
Sed.
wet wt.
ug/g
7.8
0.51
21
39.0
25,100
44
250
0.1
15
110
Total in q/0.2 1
2.12 X 10~3
1.39 X 10-4
5.71 X 10'3
1.06 X 10"2
6.8
1.2 X 10"2
6.8 X 10"2
2.7 X 10~5
4.1 X 10~3
3.0 X 10"2
PCB
Oil /Grease
Total P
N-NH^
TKN
COD
158
1.9 X 10+3
0.11 X 10+3U
3.3 X 10+3
4.5 X 103
360
138
1.7 X 10+3
0.10 X 10+3U
2.9 X 10+3
3.9 X 103
313
1,700
_
3.320 X 10+3U
1.8F
9. X 10+3
12 X 103
490
120
_
.2350 X 10+
.13F
.64 X 10+3
0.85 X 103
34.7
72
715
^ 590
14
630
28,200
2.0 X 10"2
1.9 X 10"1
1.6 X 10"1
3.8 X 10"3
1.7 X 10"1
7.67
U - unfiltered Density =1.36 g/ml.
F - filtered % Solids by volume = 64.62%
131
-------
Table D-2. RESULTS OF PREDREDGE ANALYSIS SLIP 1 COMPOSITE #2
Amt. Rel.
Elutriate 200 ml . sed.
Metals Test uq/1 in uq/0.2 1.
As 12.2 10.7
Cd 8.0 7.0
Cr 43 38
Cu 7.2 6.3
Fe 300 264
Pb
Mn 1,320 1,162
Hg 0.1 0.09
Ni <10 <8.8
Zn 20 18
Amt. Rel.
Int. H20 200 ml . sed.
uq/1 in uq/0.2 1 .
32.3
4.0
34
7.2
410
1,920
0.1
<10
00
2
0
2
33
154
0
-------
Table D-3. RESULTS OF PREDREDGE ANALYSIS SLIP 1 COMPOSITE #3 & 4
Metals
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
Elutriate
Test ug/1
15.9
4.0
43
3.6
240
224
0.2
-------
Table D-4. RESULTS OF PREDREDGE ANALYSIS SLIP 1 COMPOSITE #5
Metals
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
Elutriate
Test ug/1
6.9
4.0
47
18
260
1,920
0.6
<10
8.0
Amt. Rel .
200 ml . sed.
in ug/0.2 1 .
6
3
42
1
230
1,700
0
(8
7
.1
.5
.6
.5
.9
.1
Int.
ug/1
20
6
44
9
8,400
5,280
1
<10
74
Amt. Rel.
H20 200 ml . sed.
in ug/0.2 1 .
.4 1
.0 0
3
.6 0
716
450
.0 0
<0
6
.74
.5
.8
.82
24
.09
.9
.31
Sed. wet
wt. ug/g
5.3
2.83
22
51.7
,500
67
240
0.1
10
610
Total
in
g/0.2 1.
1
7
6
1
1
6
2
2
1
.44
.70
.0 X
.40
6.
.8 X
.52
.7 X
.7 X
.65
X 1
o-3
X 10~4
10
X 1
66
10
-3
o-2
-2
x io"2
10
10
X 1
-5
-3
o-1
PCB
Oil /Grease
Total P
N-NHs
TKN
COD
13
3.0 X 103
.24U
.19 X 103F
2.2 X 103
3.0 X 103
270
12
2.7 X 1
0
0.17 X
1.9X1
2.7 X 1
239
o3
.21U
103F
O3
O3
85
3
0.26
5.5
12 X
430
7
.94U 0
X 103F 0.
X 103 0.
103 1.
36
.2
.336U
02 X lO^F
47 X 103
02 X 103
.7 20
0.82
700
540
23
580
,900
2
1
1
6
1
.23
.9 X
.5 X
.3 X
.6 X
5.
X 1
10
10
10
10
68
o-4
-1
-1
-3
-1
U = unfiltered
F = filtered
Density = 1.36 g/ml.
% Solids = 57.38
134
-------
Table D-5. RESULTS OF PREDREDGE ANALYSIS SLIP 1 COMPOSITE #6
Metals
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
Elutriate
Test ug/1
11.7
4
47
9.0
540
3,360
0.1
<10
4.
Amt. Rel.
200 ml sed.
in uq/0.2 1 .
10.5
3.6
42
8.0
483
3,003
0.09
<8.9
3.6
Int. H20
ug/1
26.5
4
48
9.0
40,000
9,760
0.1
oo
10.
Amt. Rel.
200 ml. sed.
in ug/0.2 1 .
2.48
0.37
4.5
0.8
3,750 18
906
0.009
<0.9
0.9
Sed. wet
wt. ug/g
6.4
0.57
15
31.5
,300
440
183
<0.1
<10
120
Total in
q/0.2 1.
1.74 X 10"3
1.55 X 10'4
4.1 X 10"3
8.57 X 10"3
4.98
1.20 X 10"1
4.98 X 10"
2.7 X 10"5
<2.7 X 10"3
3.3 X 10"
PCB
Oil/Grease
Total P
N-NHs
TKN
COD
8
1.2 X 103
12U
.065 X 103F
3.0 X 103
5.0 X 103
C250
7.1
1.1 X 103
.11U
0.058 X 10T
2.7 X 103
4.5 X 10
<223
51
_,
1.36U
.20F
8.2 X 103
12 X 103
340
4.8
m
0.127U ~
0.02 X 10T
.77 X 103
1.1 X 103
31.8 26
1.0
361
510
69
480
,200,
2.72 X 10"4
9.8 X 10"2
1.4 X 10'1
1.9 X 10"2
1.3 X 10"1
7.13
U = unfiltered
F = filtered
Density = 1.36 g/ml.
% Solids = 53.13%
135
-------
Table D-6. AMOUNT OF POLLUTANT PRESENT IN DREDGE SEDIMENTS*
Area
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
PCB
Oil &
Grease
Total P
N-NHs
TKN
COD
1
26,700
1,750
72,000
134,000
86,000,000
151,000
860,000
340
52,000
380,000
252,000
2,394,000
2,016,000
48,000
2,142,000
97,000,000
2
16,000
3,000
83,000
93,000
49,000,000
522,000
545,000
220
34,000
690,000
17,000
1,684,000
1,180,000
38,000
1,520,000
65,000,000
3 & 4
11,000
7,200
29,000
86,000
31 ,000,000
123,000
3-26,000
145
32,000
1,242,000
3,400
1 ,600,000
750,000
22,000
700,000
42,000,000
5
6,600
3,500
28,000
64,000
31,000,000
83,000
300,000
125
12,000
760,000
1,000
874,000
690,000
29,000
740,000
26,000,000
6
12,600
1,100
30,000
62,000
36,000,000
870,000
362,000
200
20,000
240,000
2,000
712,000
1 ,020,000
138,000
950,000
52,000,000
Total
72,900
16,550
242,000
439,000
233,000,000
1,749,000
2,393,000
1 ,030
150,000
3,312,000
275,400
7,264,000
5,656,000
275,000
6,052,000
282,000,000
Results expressed in grams
136
-------
Table D-7. PREDICTED RELEASE BY ELUTRIATE TEST*
Area
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
PCB
Oil/Grease
Total P
N-NHs
TKN
COD
1
178
44
494
66
6,150
5,050
31,600
1.1
no
131
1,740
21,420
U 2,500
F 1,260
37,000
49,000
3,940
2
90
59
320
53
2,220
2,960
9,800
0.8
75
152
220
56,400
U 5,900
F 2,900
28,800
43,000
2,670
3 & 4
77
19
210
17
1,160
2,165
1,080
1.0
48
10
145
64,300
U 3,900
F 2,500
12,300
23,000
1,265
5
28
16
195
7
1,060
1,795
7,820
2.3
41
33
55
12,400
U 970
F 780
8,740
12,400
1,100
6
76
26
305
58
3,510
1,690
21,800
0.7
65
26
52
8,000
U 800
F 420
19,600
32,700
1,620
Total
449
164
1,524
201
14,100
13,660
72,100
5.9
no
309
2,212
162,520
14,070
7,860
106,440
160,100
8,975
* Results expressed in grams
U = unfiltered
F - filtered
137
-------
Table D-8. PREDICTED RELEASE BY INTERSTITIAL WATER MONITORING*
Area
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Ni
Zn
PCB
Oil /Grease
Total P
N-NH3
TKN
COD
1
19
5
14
5.3
3,570
360
1,460
0.4
9
34
1,510
U2,960
Fl,640
8,060
10,700
440
2
22
2.5
23
4.9
280
190
1,300
0.1
7
7
97
-
U3,030
Fl,200
7,500
12,000
260
3 & 4
11
2.1
23
2.5
100
140
120
.2
5
1
78
-
Ul,500
F720
3,270
8,600
140
5
8
2.3
17
3.8
3,300
170
2,100
.4
4
29
33
_
Ul,550
F90
2,160
4,690
170
6
18
2.7
33
5.8
27,300
250
6,600
0.1
7
7
35
_
U920
F145
5,600
8,000
230
Total
78
14.6
no
22.3
34,550
1,110
11,580
1.2
9
70
1,753
_
9,960
3,795
26,590
43,990
1,240
* Results expressed in grams
U (Jnfiltered
F Filtered
138
-------
Table D-9. FLOW VOLUMES OUT OF POND 2 VS DATE
Sample
12503
12611
12617
13626
13636
14604
15610
15616
15620
15625
Date
3-16-75
3-19-76
3-22-76
3-22-76
3-23-76
4-1-76
4-3-76
4-4-76
4-5-76
4-6-76
Gallons
481,000
239,000
981 ,000
543,000
4,788,000
1,488,000
378,000
936,000
Total 9,834,000
139
-------
(I) DISTANCES IN
FEET
SPECIFIED DREDGING
BOUNDARY
ACTUAL DREDGING
BOUNDARY
Scale in Feet
100 200 300
OVERVIEW OF COMPOSITE SAMPLING
AREAS AT SLIP 1
FIGURE D-l
-------
Appendix E
-------
APPENDIX E
The amount of PCB in pond 1 may be estimated using survey data
supplied by the Corps of Engineers Seattle District and results of
PCB analysis of composite pond 1 samples taken by EPA personnel.
Results of EPA analysis are found in Table 22.
An estimate of the total volume of dredge spoils in pond 1 may
be made in the following manner. Pond 1 was divided into three areas
(AI, A2, and A3) shown in Figure E-l. The volume of spoils for each
area of pond 1 was calculated using survey results found in Figure 6.
The total volume (Vj) was obtained by summing the volumes of each area
Vy = Vi + V2 + V3
Vi = Via (top) V]b (bottom)
Vl =
Vl = 2 (110 ft.)2 (7.5 ft.) + 2 (110 ft.)2 (5 ft.)
1 3 (4)4
Vi = 47,500 + 95,000 = 142,500 ft.3
V1 = 5,280 yd.
V2 = h wlh
V2 = (0.5) (65 ft.) (120 ft.) (4 ft.)
V2 = 15,600 ft.3
V2 = 580 yd.3
V3 = wlh
V3 = (65 ft.) (180 ft.) (3 ft.)
V3 = 35,100 ft.3
V3 - 1,300 yd.3
o 3
VT - (5,280 + 580 + 1,300) yd. = 7,160 yd.
142
-------
The total volume of spoils calculated for pond 1 appears to be
less than that removed from Slip 1 (see Appendix D). The difference
(10,000 yds.3 - 7,200 yds.3 = 2,800 yds.3) is significant. Since the
volume of spoils of pond 1 calculated in this appendix is based on a
land survey, it is assumed to be accurate. It is possible that either
the estimated area dredged in Slip 1 (see Appendix D) or the average
depth of dredge could be in error and therefore give rise to the
calculated difference. But it is known that an attempt was made to
dredge only the top portion of the sediments in Slip 1. Of course,
this represents the lighter more flocculent fraction of the sediment
which may be expected to compact readily upon dewatering. Indeed,
this was the case. Analysis of land survey results just after dredging
but before dewatering indicate a greater volume of spoils in pond 1.
Using this post dredge survey data (See Figure 6), the actual volume of
spoils in pond 1 at the end of the dredge operation is estimated to be
9,400 yd.3.
Vl = 2 (110 ft.)2 (8 ft.) + 2 (110 ft.)2 (7 ft.)
1 3~~{l1 4
V] = 50,685 ft.3 + 133,050 ft.3 = 183,735 ft.3
V1 = 6,805 yd.3
V2 = (0.5) (65 ft.) (120 ft.) (6 ft.) = 23,400 ft.3
V2 = 870 yd.3
V3 = (65 ft.) (180 ft.) (4 ft.) = 46,800 ft.3
V3 = 1,730 yd.3
Vj = Vi + V2 + Vs
VT = (6,805 + 870 + 1,730) yds.
VT = 9,400 yd.3
This is in agreement with the estimated volume of sediment found in
Appendix D.
Therefore, it appears that approximately 10,000 yds. of material
was dredged from Slip 1 and placed in pond 1. After dewatering and
standing for several months, the spoil volume decreased to approximately
7,200 yds.3 (a 28% reduction in volume). The total PCB burden of pond 1
143
-------
was calculated using the results of the land survey taken after the
spoils were allowed to stand and dewater.
The total PCB burden (PCB total) can be expressed as a function
of PCB concentration and pond 1 volume in the following manner. The
amount of PCB in the individual areas is calculated using the PCB con-
centrations for each area and volumes of each area. The total PCB
burden is then obtained by summing the amounts of PCB calculated for
each area.
PCB Total = (PCB)] V-| + (PCB)2 V2 + (PCB)a Va
(PCB)i Vi =('145 X 10-6 ib. PCB\ 1 gallon PCBV90 Ib. sed.\[142,500 ft.3.'
1 ' v Ib. sed. A n.5 ib. PCB.A ft.-* sed. /
(PCB)i V] = 160 gallons
(PCB)? V? + (PCBh Vq = f30 X IP"6 Ib. PCBW 1 gal. PCB y/90 Ib sed.\C50.700
v it v2 \r ,3 vj I lb_ sed> j( 11>5 lb PCBK ft.j sed.)
(PCB)2 V2 + (PCB)3 Vs = 10 gallons
(PCB) Total = 160 + 10 = 170 gallons
The total amount of PCB found in pond 1 by this method is estimated to be
170 gallons.
144
-------
FIGURE E-1
INLET PIPE
EXIT WEIR
BOUNDARY LINES
WATER LINE
AREAS OF HOLDING POND USED
TO CALCULATE VOLUME OF DREDGE SPOILS
-------
Appendix F
-------
Appendix F
HydroLab Results
Water quality parameters temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO),
pH and conductivity of Pond 2 effluent were monitored continuously
during the dredge operation. Daily averages of each are plotted versus
Julian date in Figures F-l and F-2. Temperature, DO, pH and conductivity
are expressed in °C, ppm, standard pH units and micromhos respectively.
Even though the instrument was calibrated daily, occasional instrument
problems necessitated deletion of some data.
147
-------
FIGURE F-1
50 -
40 -
o
o
o
30 -
O
X
O
Of.
u
20 -
10 -
O
HARD DATA
EXTRAPOLATION
MARCH 15
MARCH 25
APRIL 4
CONDUCTIVITY-EFFLUENT POND 2
-------
FIGURE F-2
g |
HARD DATA
- EXTRAPOLATION
D TEMPERATURE, DEGREES CENTIGRADE
0 DISSOLVED OXYGEN, PARTS PER MILLION
O pH, pH UNITS
1
MARCH 25
MARCH 15
T
APRIL 4
TEMPERATURE, DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND pH - EFFLUENT POND 2
------- |