REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SPILLS
FROM BOTTOMS OF FLOWING WATERBODIES
BY
Charles A. Hansen
Rex Chainbelt Corporation
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
Robert G. Sanders
Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc.
Northbrook, Illinois 60062
Contract Nos. 68-03-0181 and 68-03-0182
Project Officer
Joseph P. Lafornara
Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills Branch
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Edison, New Jersey 08837
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory-Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recom-
mendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health and
welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled land are
tragic testimonies to the deterioration of our natural environment. The com-
plexity of that environment and the interplay of its components require a con-
centrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solution;
it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching for solu-
tions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new and im-
proved technology and systems to prevent, treat, and manage wastewater and
solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from municipal and community
sources, to preserve and treat public drinking water supplies, and to minimize
the adverse economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of pollution. This
publication is one of the products of that research and provides a most vital
communications link between the researcher and the user community.
This report documents the laboratory studies and field demonstrations con-
ducted to determine the feasibility of removing spilled insoluble hazardous
materials from the bottoms of flowing watercourses. As such, it serves as a
reference to state, local, and Federal agencies, the chemical and transporta-
tion industries, and others interested in the control of hazardous material
spills. THis project is a part of a continuing program of the Oil and Hazard-
ous Materials Spills Branch, MERL-Ci, to assess and mitigate the environmental
impact of pollution from hazardous materials spills.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory-Cincinnati
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the results of a study to determine the feasibility
of removing spilled insoluble hazardous materials from the bottom of flowing
watercourses. Descriptions are given of two full-scale systems developed to
suck up spilled materials and contaminated bottom mud, remove excess water
from the pumped slurry, and decontaminate the water removed so that it can be
returned to the stream. The two systems that were developed by Rex Chainbelt
and Industrial Bio-Test, respectively, were demonstrated at the Little Menom-
onee River in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the bottom of which was laden with spilled
creosote. These demonstrations indicate that spilled hazardous materials can
be,removed from the bottoms of small watercourses by suction dredging.
This work was submitted in fulfillment of contract numbers 68-03-0181 and
68-03-0182 by Rex Chainbelt Corporation and by Industrial Bio-Test, respec-
tively, under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This report covers the period July 1972 to December 1974 and the work was com-
pleted as of January 1977.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Conversion Factors x
1. Introduction 1
Purpose of Project 1
System Design Goals 1
Selection of a Test Site 4
Procurement of Contracts 6
Assignment of Dates and Segments 6
2. Conclusions 8
Bottoms Cleanup, General 8
Little Menomonee River Cleanup 8
3. Recommendations 10
Bottoms Cleanup, General 10
Little Menomonee River Cleanup 10
4. Rex Chainbelt Operations 12
Demonstration Site Description 12
Retrieval and Treatment Processes Design 13
Field Demonstration 27
5. Rex Chainbelt Results and Discussions 36
Sampling Points, Procedures, and Analytical Methods .... 36
Raw Flow Characteristics 38
Froth Flotation 40
Hydrocyclone 42
Sedimentation Tank 42
Characterization of River Water and Bottom Muds 50
6. Industrial Bio-Test Operations 61
Demonstration Site Description 61
Retrieval and Treatment Processes 61
General Process Description 62
Field Demonstration 68
Field Operations 72
7. Industrial Bio-Test Results and Discussion 75
Sampling Points, Procedures, and Analytical Methods .... 75
Discussion of Treatment Process 75
Characterization of River Water and Bottom Muds 77
8. Comparison of Two Methods and Recommendations for Phase II. . . .98
Comparison of Methods 98
Recommendations for Phase II 101
-------
FIGURES
Number page
1 Aerial photograph of demonstration site 12
2 Typical segments of demonstration stretch 14
3 River Sweeper retrieval device, Rex Chainbelt 15
4 River Sweeper suction head 16
5 Hand-held retrieval device 17
6 Four-inch suction pump in use 18
7 Block diagram of Rex Chainbelt treatment process 20
8 Photograph of EPA mobile beach cleaner 21
9 Schematic of beach cleaner vehicle 21
10 Flotation cells and skimmers in use 22
11 Portable rubber sedimentation tank 23
12 Meter panel and flow header 24
13 Mobile hazardous spills treatment trailer 24
14 Block diagram of hazardous spills vehicle flow 25
15 Mixed media and carbon columns 26
16 Schematic view of field setup 29
17 View of Rex Chainbelt treatment process from river 30
18 View of Rex Chainbelt treatment process from Bradley Road .... 30
19 Oil boom in use 31
20 Creosote discharge line, reservoir and tank 32
21 Hand-held retriever and river sweeper 34
vi
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Number Page
22 Manual removal of weeds 35
23 Raw flow and final effluent 47
24 Bar graph of hexane extractable removals 50
25 Field log - Rex Chainbelt 53
26 Schematic of Bio-Test treatment process 62
27 High-rate settling column 64
28 Dynactor diffusion system cross-sectional view 65
29 Little Menomonee River floe settling studies 71
30 Monitoring sample locations for sediment and water quality,
Little Menomonee River 78
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Raw Flow Characteristics 39
2 Froth Flotation Effluent 41
3 Sedimentation Tank Performance 43
4 Performance of Mobile Hazardous Spills Treatment Vehicle .... 45
, 5 Net Rex Chainbelt Treatment Process Effectiveness 48
6 Upstream and Downstream River Water Quality -
Rex Chainbelt System 51
7 Core Sample Descriptions (Rex Chainbelt) 54
8 Bottom Mud Hexane Extractable Concentrations - Rex Chainbelt . . 55
9 River Water Characteristics - Rex Chainbelt 59
10 Results of Bio-Test Settling Time Studies 72
11 Industrial Bio-Test/R P Industries Treatment System:
Creosote Removal Effectiveness 76
12 Industrial Bio-Test/R P Industries Treatment System:
Suspended Solids Removal Effectiveness 76
13 Weather Data, Little Menomonee River 79
14 Physical Data, Little Menomonee River 80
15 Precipitation and High and Low Air Temperatures,
Little Menomonee River 82
16 Little Menomonee River, Water Quality Data - Bio-Test Segment. . 83
17 Average of Water Quality Parameters for Industrial
Bio-Test Demonstration 95
18 Bottom Sediment Data, Initial and Final Core Sampling,
Little Menomonee River 96
VI 1 1
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
19 Bottom Sediment Data, Mid-Core Samplings,
Little Menomonee River 97
20 Average Creosote Concentrations (% by Weight) in the
Demonstration Segments 100
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS
To convert from
foot (ft)
foot2 (ft2)
degree Fahrenheit (°F)
gallon (gal)
inch (in)
inch2 (in2)
mile (mi)
pounds/inch (psi)
pounds (Ib)
yard3 (yd3)
Tp_
meter (m)
2 2
meter (m )
degree Celsius (°C)
liter (L)
meter (m )
centimeter (cm)
meter (m)
2 2
meter (m )
kilometer (km)
meter (m)
Pascals (p)
kilograms (kg)
3 3
meter (m )
Multiply by
3.048 x 10"1
9.2903 x 10"2
Tc = (TF -32)/1.8
3.7854
3.7854 x 10
2.5400
2.5400 x 10"
6.4516 x 10"
1.6093
1609.3
6894.7
0.454
0.7645
-3
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF PROJECT
In the past several years increasing concern has been focused on pollu-
tion caused by spills of hazardous materials. This concern has been evi-
denced by Section 311 of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(PL 92-500) which, among other things, charge the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) with the responsibility for identification, control, and
removal methods for spills of designated hazardous materials. No designation
list of hazardous substances has yet been promulgated as of this writing, but
when it is, three broad categories of hazardous wastes will be defined, de-
pending on physical behavior in water: floating, dissolving, and sinking.
These classifications are the most useful in designing systems to control and
remove spills.
EPA and several others have studied environmentally safe methods for re-
moving oil spills from water for several years. With minor modifications,
these methods are expected to have wide applicability in the removal of
floating spilled hazardous materials. Removal methods for spilled materials
that dissolve or sink, however, have been neglected until relatively recently.
This study seeks environmentally safe methods for solving the threefold
problem of: (1) removing spilled hazardous chemicals from the bottom of
small flowing watercourses, (2) separating the bottom mud and chemical from
the associated water, so that the amount of material to be disposed is not
overwhelming, and (3) treating the associated water so that it can be returned
to the stream without endangering downstream ecology or water uses.
To accomplish this end, several key steps were taken: (1) a suitable
set of system design goals was developed, (2) a suitable test site was se-
lected and approvals for its use were secured, (3) contracts for performance
of the work were procured, and (4) the work detailed in this report was per-
formed.
SYSTEM DESIGN GOALS
The optimum system for removing spilled hazardous materials from the
bottoms of small watercourses must have several general characteristics: It
must be small enough to maneuver and operate in remote streams or lakes where
the banks are covered with vegetation and/or rocks or rock outcropping. It
must be capable of removing the spilled material with a minimum of damage to
the natural stream bed and stream banks. Removal operations must result in
1
-------
minimum resuspension of spilled contaminant and natural inert solids into the
water column. Separation of contaminant and bottom solids (sludge) from asso-
ciated stream water must result in a logistically manageable volume of sludge
in a form suitable for ultimate disposal and in processed water that is accept-
able for discharge back to the stream. The manner in which the processed
water is returned to the stream should not erode the stream bed or banks or
resuspend inert solids. And the sludge produced must be disposed of in an
approved manner.
The first characteristic, compact size and mobility, is considered vital,
since the removal equipment may have to be deliverable within a short period
of time to stream locations that may not be accessible to the large barges
(suction dredges) or heavy earth-moving equipment (draglines) usually associ-
ated with dredging harbors or channels. Since many spills enter the water
environment through small creeks and rivers, it is important to have systems
capable of operation in these small tributaries to prevent contamination of
major watercourses that are likely to be sources of public drinking water and/
or commercial or sport fisheries. A large system that is difficult to trans-
port and requires a time-consuming deployment period would result in spread-
ing the spilled material along the bottom and moving it downstream, thus in-
creasing the area of environmental damage and the volume of contaminated bot-
tom solids that would have to be handled and disposed of. The need for prompt
action cannot be stressed too greatly, since removing, processing, and dispos-
ing of a small volume of bottom solids with a high contaminant concentration
is much less expensive than performing the same operations for a large volume
of bottom solids with a relatively low contaminant concentration.
The second characteristic, minimizing physical damage to stream bed and
banks, is considered important for two main reasons, cost effectiveness and
aesthetics. In most spill incidents, the material spilled does not penetrate
the stream bed to depths of more than 6 inches unless too long a period of
time is allowed to elapse before cleanup operations are instituted. Removal
of more of the stream bed than absolutely necessary, as occurs with large
equipment, does nothing to increase efficiency of pollutant removal. It only
increases the costs involved. The possibility also exists of altering the
ecological and hydrological balance of the area by drastically increasing the
depth of the stream channel. In addition, when large equipment is utilized,
the inevitable result is either a permanent scar on the stream banks or an
expensive re-landscaping cost. For these reasons, it is suggested that large-
scale dredging be used in small streams only during special cases where ter-
rain, flow, and other circumstances dictate it to be the only feasible method.
The third characteristic, minimizing resuspension of bottom solids, is
vital if downstream water is used for recreation, drinking water, or as a
fishery. If the bottom is riled up by removal operations, the spilled hazard-
ous material will be resuspended with the sediment and may enter the water col-
umn by dissolution and/or emulsification. Once in the water column, it can be
ingested by fish or humans downstream. Resuspension is extremely difficult to
control when large-scale equipment is employed, and this is another factor that
opts against its use except as a last resort.
From an operational standpoint, the fourth characteristic, a solids/water
separation and treatment capability, is vital to any system for removing
-------
spilled chemicals from the bottoms of watercourses of any size, large or small.
In any conceivable "bottom's" removal system, a large volume of water will, of
necessity, enter the system along with the sediment and pollutant. The essen-
tial process, from an economic and logistical point of view, is the dewatering
of the slurry to reduce its volume. Experience has shown that, on the aver-
age, a pumped slurry of mud and water will contain at most 10% solids and at
least 90% water. Because, in the case of a spill-contaminated mud, the major-
ity of the spilled material is insoluble in water, and is expected to be bound
to the solids, the removal of the associated water, and treatment of it, to an
acceptable concentration level of pollutant, will result in a corresponding
decrease in the volume of toxic sludge that will have to be disposed of. The
transportation of sludge to the disposal site and the handling of the sludge
at the spill and disposal sites will become more manageable. For instance, in
the case of a cleanup operation that requires a total volume of 500,000 gallons*
of slurry (5% solids - 95% water) to be pumped from the bottom of a stream, it
would be necessary to transport and dispose of a hundred 5000-gallon tank
trucks of waste if no dewatering were possible. If the solids concentration
can be increased to 25%, however, the amount of sludge decreases to 100,000
gallons (20 tank trucks) and disposal costs are reduced.
The capability to dewater must, however, include the capability to treat
the water removed from the slurry. This is necessary because, even though the
material may be relatively insoluble in water, the agitation and turbulence
produced in pumping it from the bottom will cause it to be thoroughly mixed
with the water and will probably cause dissolution or emulsification of the
chemical into the water. The concentrations in question may be low, but may
still be above acceptable limits.
Water treatment required may differ depending on the type and physical
state of the material involved. For instance, precipitation or ion exchange
may be suggested for heavy metal salts, or carbon adsorption for many organics.
No matter what the type of contaminant, it will be necessary to make certain
that the suspended solids level in the effluent is as low as possible. This
is required, not only because the aesthetic quality of water downstream would
be damaged by a plume of murky water, but also because there is a high proba-
bility that the spilled hazardous material will be associated with the sus-
pended particles, thereby increasing the danger of downstream contamination
mentioned previously.
The fifth characteristic, acceptably discharging the effluent, is also
important for reasons of aesthetics and water quality. Discharging onto the
bank might cause severe erosion and produce an attendant plume of turbidity.
The same result would be produced if the effluent was discharged directly into
the stream bed at too high a pressure. The real danger, however, would not be
the turbidity., but rather the toxicity of the spilled material associated with
it.
* English units of measurement will be used throughout this study when report-
ing dredging operations since available commercial equipment and dredging
operations are commonly described in English units. Conversion factors are
included on page x.
-------
The sixth characteristic, an environmentally safe disposal method, is
essential if the total problem of removal is to be solved. If the sludge pro-
duced from the removal process is dumped at an unapproved landfill or left on
the stream's bank, the problem will not be solved but only transferred and de-
ferred to a later date when rainfall may carry it into a stream or percolate
it into the groundwater. While it was not the purpose of this study to iden-
tify disposal methods per se, a brief investigation of the literature and con-
tacts with EPA's Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Laboratory (SHWRL) at
NERC-Cincinnati showed that the disposal method with the widest applicability
would be placing the sludge in an approved sanitary landfill. It was recom-
mended that, for the most toxic substances, the sludge should be packaged in
sturdy containers such as barrels and shipped to a site where there is little
rainfall that might accelerate the corrosion or disintegration of the con-
tainers. It is acknowledged that this is not the best conceivable method for
disposal of the sludges, but in most cases it is the only method practical at
the present time. It should be noted, however, that SHWRL and EPA's Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs are studying the problem of toxic and hazard-
ous waste disposal and recommendations for development of future methods are
due shortly.
SELECTION OF A TEST SITE
After the system design goals were defined, a search began for a site
where such a system could be demonstrated without harm to the environment.
Consideration was given to three concepts: (a) a captive site that possessed
facilities with flowing streams where actual hazardous materials could be
spilled and the entire flow contained and treated; (b) a noncaptive site where
an innocuous material, simulating a hazardous material, could be spilled; or
(c) a site that was already contaminated by a spill, or repeated spills, of
insoluble hazardous materials more dense than water.
By chance, at the same time as the search for a project site was under
way, a series of events was transpiring in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which would
have a bearing on the site selection.
On a Saturday morning in June 1971, while participating in a cleanup
project sponsored by a local environmental group to remove debris and litter
from the Menomonee River, a group of teenagers encountered a sticky, oily sub-
stance in the bottom muds of a tributary stream, the Little Menomonee River.
Thinking the material to be oil, these young environmentalists did not let it
daunt their spirits and continued to remove the dead branches, discarded
tires, and similar trash from the river's channel. After a few hours of re-
peated contact with the material on the bottom, many of the youngsters began
to experience a burning, itching sensation on their hands, arms, and legs. The
Citizens for Menomonee River Restoration (CMRR), the sponsor of the cleanup,
immediately provided first aid, but attempts to wash the substance from the
skin of the victims were unsuccessful. Several of the children suffered chem-
ical burns that required hospitalization, and one suffered systemic effects, a
kidney malfunction (later attributed to the absorption of the substance through
her skin) that necessitated her confinement in a hospital "intensive care unit"
for several days.
-------
The incident generated the expected press interest and received national
exposure in the media. Public concern was registered immediately and investi-
gations were conducted into the nature and source of this hidden public health
menace. The .material was determined to be creosote, not waste oil, and was
traced to a railroad-tie creosoting operation several miles upstream from the
burn site.
The incident and the data concerning the type and extent of pollution was
brought to the attention of EPA's Marine and Agricultural Pollution Control
Branch of its Office of Research and Monitoring in Washington, DC, who re-
ferred the problem to the Hazardous Material Spill Control Research Branch of
the Edison Water Quality Research Laboratory at Edison, New Jersey, the very
group that was seeking a site for evaluating methods to decontaminate streams
polluted by hazardous chemicals more dense than water. A request was made of
all 10 EPA Regional Offices to determine if creosote pollution, in general,
was a problem of national importance. Although most regions reported scat-
tered creosote spillage incidents, the chronic pollution of stream beds by
creosoting operations did not appear to warrant an urgent research project to
develop methods to remove the material from industrial effluents, since tech-
nology to do this was well within the state of the art. It did appear, how-
ever, that existing methods to remove creosote already on the bottom of a
stream or river often left much to be desired from an environmental standpoint.
These methods consisted of using standard large-scale dredging techniques,
such as the dragline or suction dredge, the environmentally objectionable char-
acteristics of which have been discussed previously.
With the information that there were several sites throughout the nation
that had been contaminated by creosote spillage, the search for a demonstra-
tion site was narrowed to this type of site and captive and noncaptive sites
where test spills could be made were no longer considered for the project.
Four of the creosote spill locations appeared to have the appropriate
watercourse dimensions and topography, and inquiries were made by the Hazard-
ous Material Spill Control Research Branch of the local government officials
involved to determine the availability of these respective streams for this
demonstration. These contracts narrowed consideration to only the Little
Menomonee River for reasons varying from jurisdictional disputes between some
of the localities involved to potential legal problems and the time delays
attendant in obtaining permission from the many private and corporate owners
of property adjacent to the other candidate streams. The decision to use the
Little Menomonee River as the site for the development and demonstration re-
sulted principally because it possessed the following three unique features:
1. The problem of contamination of the stream bottom already existed
and the need to spill either an actual or simulated hazardous sub-
stance at a captive or noncaptive site was alleviated, thereby re-
sulting in considerable time and cost savings since a hazardous
material or simulant did not have to be purchased, nor did a cap-
tive site have to be prepared.
2. The Little Menomonee River was a small stream representative of many
of the tributary streams that are impacted by spills of hazardous
-------
materials for which existing bottoms removal (dredging) technology
was not applicable.
3. Almost the entire length of the creosote-contaminated section of the
river was within the property of the Milwaukee County Parks Commis-
sion -- a fact that eliminated any potential jurisdictional or legal
problems involved in obtaining permission to work on or near the
river and its banks.
PROCUREMENT OF CONTRACTS
After final site approvals were obtained from EPA, the State of Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, the Milwaukee County Parks Commission, and
the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors, the next step in this project, that
of contract procurement, was initiated.
A Request for Proposals (CI-72-0073) was issued for the demonstration of
operational systems, with the required design goals, at the creosote-
contaminated Little Menomonee River in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It was the in-
tention of the RFP to select as many systems for Phase I demonstration as
could be funded with the $135,000 available. The Phase I field demonstrations
would be 10 days in duration and would consist of each contractor utilizing
his system to remove the creosote from a separate 500-foot-long segment of the
river. A sampling and analysis program for various river water parameters
such as DO, pH, TOC, TOD, turbidity, suspended solids, conductivity, ammonia,
nitrates, and phosphates, was to be conducted at various intervals upstream
of, downstream of, and within the 590-foot segment before, during, and after
the Phase I demonstration in order to determine whether the removal operations
noticeably upset the stream chemistry. In addition to the above parameters,
samples of the bottom mud were taken before, during, and after the demonstra-
tion period and were analyzed for creosote content using the method described
in Appendix A.
The Phase I removal system that best met the design goals would be
selected to perform Phase II, which would consist of the removal of creosote-
contaminated mud from the entire contaminated length (approximately 2.5 miles)
of the river.
Proposals were received and evaluated by a review panel that met at
Edison, New Jersey, and two contractors were selected: Industrial Bio-Test
Laboratories, Inc., of Northbrook, Illinois, and Rex Chainbelt, Inc., of
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
ASSIGNMENT OF DATES AND SEGMENTS
After selection of the two contractors, attention turned to the assign-
ment of performance dates and river segments. Several prerequisites were im-
posed at this point and a logical sequence followed.
The first prerequisite was that each segment be equally accessible. This
entailed the use of segments that extended either 500 feet upstream or 500
feet downstream from a road that crossed the stream.
-------
The second prerequisite was that the contractor who was assigned the up-
stream segment would perform his demonstration first. This was required in
order to prevent the possible recontamination of an already cleaned segment,
which might occur if the second contractor operated upstream of the first.
After several site visits and visual inspection of river bottom samples,
two segments were selected and assigned by a special drawing. The segment be-
ginning at the Bradley Road bridge and extending 500 feet upstream was assigned
to Rex Chainbelt, Inc., since its segment was upstream of the other segment.
Rex Chainbelt, Inc., was required to conduct its demonstration during the first
period, October 2-11, 1972.
Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc. (IBT) and their subcontractor,
R. P. Industries, Inc. (RP) of Marlboro, Massachusetts, were assigned the seg-
ment beginning at the Calumet Road bridge and extending 500 feet upstream from
that point. IBT and RP were to conduct their demonstration October 16-25,
1972, but due to heavy rains and flooding at the river site during that period,
the termination date was extended to November 5, 1972.
., The remaining sections of this report detail the activities of EPA and
the two contractors in conducting this evaluation of methods to remove spilled
hazardous materials from the bottoms of watercourses.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
BOTTOMS CLEANUP, GENERAL
1. Spilled insoluble hazardous materials that are more dense than water
can be mechanically removed from the bottoms of watercourses by suc-
tion dredging.
2. Rapid initiation of bottoms cleanup in a spill-impacted area will
minimize the area contaminated by the spill.
3. To reduce the volume of contaminated dredged-spoil that has to be
disposed of off-site, dewatering can usually be accomplished on-site
by conventional solids concentration technology.
4. Water removed in the solids-concentration process must be analyzed
before its return to the stream to assure that it is not contamin-
ated by dissolved or resuspended hazardous material.
5. If the water removed in the solids-concentration process is contam-
inated, steps must be taken to treat it before its release to the
stream.
6. Suction dredging operations on the river had no adverse effect on the
quality of the river water.
LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER CLEANUP
Both the Rexnord (Rex Chainbelt) method and the Industrial Bio-Test
Method demonstrated that creosote can be effectively removed from the Little
Menomonee Ri.ver's stream bed.
Concentrations of creosote in the Little Menomonee mud varied from unde-
tectable at some locations to over 20% by dry weight at others.
Despite the fact that the entire bottom of each segment was covered by
each contractor, significant concentrations of creosote were detected in the
stream bed after each cleanup.
Several areas of the stream's banks were found to be heavily contamin-
ated with creosote.
-------
Rex Chainbelt Project
The treatment process can be disassembled and loaded for shipping, or
unloaded and assembled in one working day.
The floating "river sweeper" developed for picking up bottom muds proved
effective. Approximately 12,000 square feet of river bottom were cleaned by
the river sweeper and hand-held retriever.
The treatment process utilizing froth flotation, sedimentation, mixed
media filtration, and carbon adsorption, removed approximately 99% of the hex-
ane extractables (creosote) and suspended solids in the flow from the retrieval
devices. This totaled 1,600 pounds of hexane extractables and 30,000 pounds of
suspended solids.
Industrial Bio-Test Project
The treatment process is lightweight and rapidly transportable in modules.
Being of modular design, however, several days are required to fully assemble
the system in field.
The treatment process utilizing flocculation in a primary settling col-
umn, creosote adsorption on powdered carbon in a "Dynactor," coagulation of
carbon in a secondary settling column, dewatering of the carbon-sludge in a
magnetic separator, and final polishing of the water in a sand filter reduced
the creosote concentration from the 200 mg/1 range in the system influent to
below the detection limit of 0.1 mg/1 in the effluent.
Flooding during the demonstration period caused creosote to be redeposited
from upstream and from the stream banks into the bed of the demonstration
segment.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
BOTTOMS CLEANUP, GENERAL
To prevent over-dredging and under-dredging of areas, an on-scene ana-
lytical capability appropriate to the spilled material should be maintained so
that a rapid determination can be made as to whether or not spilled material
is present in a cleaned segment.
In flowing watercourses, bottoms cleanup should be initiated at the fur-
thest upstream point where heavy contamination is detection and proceed down-
stream. Redeposition of contaminant from upstream should, therefore, be
minimized.
In non-flowing watercourses, bottoms cleanup should be initiated at the
area where heaviest contamination has been detected, to minimize the spread of
the spilled material and prevent recontamination of areas already cleaned.
A safe residual concentration should be determined from, toxicological
data and other factors such as persistence in the environment, location of the
spill, and uses of the impacted waterbody.
LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER CLEANUP
The entire 2.5 miles of contaminated river bottom should be cleaned up
utilizing one of the two systems demonstrated during this project.
A maximum permissible level of creosote that can be left in the sediment
after cleanup should be established before attempting to remove the creosote
remaining in the river.
A rapid spot test should be developed for creosote in the river sediment,
so that it can be determined if an area is clean or needs further dredging.
Where high concentrations of creosote are detected in the stream's banks,
the Phase II contractor should cut away the banks to ensure that their creo-
sote concentration is below the permissible maximum.
Phase II removal operations should be initiated at Brown Deer Road, the
point furthest upstream where significant concentrations of creosote have
been detected.
10
-------
A revised Phase II Project Work Scope should be written to incorporate
the above recommendations and should be submitted to the two contractors for
rebid. The award of the Phase II contract should be made on the basis of the
lower cost.
n
-------
SECTION 4
REX CHAINBELT OPERATIONS
DEMONSTRATION SITE DESCRIPTION
The 500-foot section of the Little Menomonee River mandated as the loca-
tion for demonstration of Rex Chainbelt's system is shown in the aerial photo-
graph, Figure 1. This stretch of the river is bounded on the west by private
farmlands, on the east by Milwaukee County parkland, and on the south by
DEMONSTRATION
STRETCH
Figure 1. Aerial photograph of demonstration site.
12
-------
Bradley Road. Following the river downstream, beginning at the northern limit
of the 500-foot stretch, the river heads 10° west of due south for 75 feet.
The river then veers sharply to the west, almost paralleling Bradley Road, for
100 feet, then turns in a southwest direction for the remaining 325 feet, until
reaching Bradley Road. This 500-foot section has an east-west linear displace-
ment of 350 feet and a north-south linear displacement of 400 feet. A survey
of the river taken on September 25, 1972, showed the width of the river in this
stretch to vary from a minimum of 12 feet to a maximum of 30 feet, with a mean
width of 21.6 feet. The width measurements were taken at 25-foot intervals
along the entire 500-foot stretch. These measurements, when transferred to
working paper and planimetered, result in an estimated river bottom area of
12,040 square feet. Because of the extremely high amount of rainfall during
August and September, the river at this time was much wider than during nor-
mal months of precipitation.
Cross-section depth profiles taken at the time of the width survey showed
the river bottom to drop off very sharply within 2 feet of the shore and then
slope mildly to the middle of the river. The mean depth at the middle of the
river was 2.75 feet, with a range of 2.0 to 5.0 feet. The last 200 feet on
the downstream end of the section was shallower than the upstream 300 feet,
having a mean depth of 2.18 feet compared with 3.13 feet upstream. The maxi-
mum depth of the river occurs under a railroad trestle that crosses the river
between 325 feet and 350 feet upstream of Bradley Road. This trestle has
three concrete supporting structures, each 24 inches wide and 15 feet long,
channelling the river into three separate streams at this location. The
river reaches a width of 28 feet at this point.
The entire 500-foot stretch of the river is bounded on both shores by
very dense trees, bushes, and other natural vegetation, making it very diffi-
cult to visually locate the river from more than 50 feet away from either
shore. The terrain of both the east and west sides of the river contains
high, uncut grasses, and is very soft, with standing water of up to 3 inches
making it impossible for the ground to support any excessive weight. Figure
2 is representative of the river along the demonstration stretch. Bradley
Road, the southern or downstream limit of the 500-foot section, is a two-
lane, asphalt-surfaced road with very little vehicular traffic. A gravel
shoulder varying from 5 to 10 feet in width is located on the north side of
the road.
RETRIEVAL AND TREATMENT PROCESSES DESIGN
Successful removal of the river bottom muds and associated contaminants
as well as production of a high-quality system effluent for return to the
river required the development of three distinct unit operations. These in-
cluded: (1) the development of a retrieval device that could physically with-
draw bottom muds up to 3 feet deep at a rate high enough to be economically
feasible, (2) the design of a solids/liquid transport system that would have
the capability of conveying the bottom muds from the retrieval device to the
treatment process, and (3) the modification of existing mobile treatment
vehicles, capable of achieving a high degree of treatment efficiency on the
contaminated muds, for this specific use.
13
-------
s^^fel^^^s^-
^•-rv.;.,.. :^i:,;^:^.;^*S» -/SS
r^jrr.-jf:'. • . r -v *;-'--4-y:'^'-flr/^U4Mi;5.?tr*. 'C-* Jt^U
Figure 2. Typical segments of demonstration stretch
14
-------
Retrieval Device
The criteria used in the design of the retrieval device included the
ability to operate in all sections of the river regardless of width, suffici-
ent capacity to produce high flowrates and cover large areas quickly, and ade-
quate mobility to allow access to all areas of the river.
The retrieval vehicle ultimately designed and fabricated is pictured in
Figure 3. The device ("River Sweeper") is essentially a floating, pontoon-
supported chassis, containing a suction line (mast) that is hydraulically pow-
ered to move simultaneously in three dimensions, along with an operator's
chair and control instruments. The suction line consists of 3-inch, thin-
walled steel tubing with a 16-inch-diameter circular spun aluminum suction
head attached to the bottom end. The suction head, which is 3.5 inches deep,
has 10 water knives spaced around its inner periphery. The purpose of these
knives is to "cut" or "loosen" bottom muds that are too viscous to be vacuum-
pumped. This suction head is illustrated in Figure 4. The flow through these
knives is recycled water from the sedimentation tank used in the treatment pro-
cess. The suction line, which terminates at the top of the mast, is connected
to 3-inch flexible rubber hosing that leads to a suction pump located on shore.
(Pumps and hosing are discussed later in this section.) The suction head can
be extended 4.5 feet below the water surface, and provisions have been made to
allow greater depths to be achieved by adding extensions in deeper water. Com-
plete specifications of the "River Sweeper" are listed below.
^''
HYDRAULIC
CONTROLS
RECYCLE
HOSE
Figure 3. River Sweeper retrieval device, Rex Chainbelt,
15
-------
Structural Material:
Width:
Length:
Weight:
Buoyancy:
Cleaning Area:
Suction Line:
Recycle Line:
Power Supply:
Hydraulic Operating Pressure:
Mast Speeds:
Fore-Aft
Medial-Lateral
Vertical
Aluminum
8 feet
12 feet
900 pounds
2000 pounds
50 square feet (per setup)
3-inch thin-wall steel
(2) 1.25-inch thin-wall steel lines
Hydraulic (oil)
700-1000 psi
20 ft/min.
20 ft/min.
20 ft/min.
The River Sweeper contains four manually driven spuds, one located on
each corner of the vehicle to provide horizontal stability against river cur-
rents. These spuds are 6 feet long, with 3-inch-diameter hollow aluminum
tubes with pointed ends on the bottom. When the vehicle is located at a posi-
tion ready for cleaning, the spuds are cranked down into the river bottom.
Upon completion of cleaning the designated area, the spuds are raised and the
vehicle is moved to a new location. The vehicle can be moved in shallow water
by pushing it from place to place, and in deeper water by attaching a tow rope
to the vehicle frame.
Figure 4. River Sweeper suction head.
16
-------
Because the many irregularities of the shoreline and the many trees and
other obstructions in the river made these areas inaccessible to the River
Sweeper, it was necessary to fabricate a small, hand-held suction device for
cleaning these areas. This device is shown in Figure 5. The suction head is
9 inches in diameter and 3 inches deep. The suction head is connected to a
4-foot-long, 3-inch-diameter aluminum shaft. Three-inch hose connects the
shaft to its pump.
Solids/Liquid Transport
A pickup rate of 100 gallons per minute was chosen as the design rate
for the transport system. It was felt that this rate was needed in order to
thoroughly clean a 500-foot stretch properly in 10 days. The size of hoses
and pumps needed for rates higher than 100 gpm would be too large for use as a
portable system. Since it was not known during the design phase which 500-
foot section of the 2.5-mile stretch would be chosen for the system demonstra-
tion, the design of the solids/liquid transport system was completed assuming
that the distance between the farthest point of pickup in the river and the
treatment process could have been up to 500 feet, and that vertical lift be-
tween the river and treatment process could have been up to 20 feet. Based
upon samples of the river bottom taken along the entire 2.5-mile stretch, it
was also determined that it would be necessary to pump a fluid with up to 10%
solids by weight, and that it could be expected that many rocks, twigs, leaves,
etc. would be picked up with the river muds. The pumps chosen to be used had
to apply the suction or vacuum to the river muds, pick up these muds, and then
transport them up to 500 feet to the treatment process.
The pump chosen to work with the River Sweeper device was a HYDR-0-
MATIC, 4-inch centrifugal trash pump manufactured by the Hydr-0-Matic Pump
Company of Hayesville, Ohio. This self-priming pump, Model No. 40EP-VH4DWA,
Figure 5. Hand-held retrieval device.
17
-------
is wheel-mounted and powered by a 30-horsepower gasoline engine. The pump has
a total head of 145 feet at a 100-gpm flow, with a suction lift of 25 feet and
the ability to pass 3-inch solids. The pump chosen to work with the hand-held
pickup device was purchased from the same vendor and is a HYDR-0-MATIC, 3-
inch centrifugal trash pump Model No. 39EP-AGNDW. THis pump is wheel-mounted,
powered by a 12-horsepower gasoline engine, and has a total head of 120 feet
at 100 gpm. The pump is self-priming, has a 25-foot suction lift, and will
pass 1.75-inch solids. The 4-inch pump is shown in Figure 6.
Three-inch hose was used to connect the River Sweeper suction line and
hand-held device to pumps, and also to connect the pumps to the treatment pro-
cess. Hard-wall rubber hose was used on the entire length of the suction side
of each pump and for 50 feet on the discharge side, the remainder of the hose
being common 3-inch mill hose. All hose connections were of the quick-
disconnect type so that sections could be added, removed, or cleaned out very
quickly. A 100-gpm flow through the 3-inch-diameter hose has a velocity of
3 to 5 feet per second, which was deemed sufficient to prevent solids deposi-
tion in the lines.
Provisions were also made for using the cutting knives on the River Sweep-
er suction head if their use became necessary. A 200-gpm submersible pump and
a 200-gpm booster pump, along with appropriate hose, were available to pump
supernatant from the sedimentation tank used in the treatment process back to
the suction head.
DISCHARGE HOSE
TO TREATMENT
SUCTION HOSE FROM
RIVER SWEEPER
'*•
H3S
Figure 6. Four-inch suction pump in use.
18
-------
Treatment Process
The treatment system used to separate the contaminated river muds from
the aggregate pumped from the river bottom, dewater the mud, and to purify the
water removed before returning it to the river consisted of four separate de-
vices: (1) a froth flotation unit, (2) a hydrocyclone, (3) a sedimentation
tank, and (4) the Mobile Hazardous Spills Treatment Trailer. A block diagram
of the entire treatment process is shown in Figure 7.
Froth Flotation--
A froth flotation unit was used as the initial step in the treatment of
the raw flow to remove the free or loosely bound creosote from the river muds
before further treatment. The Mobile Beach Cleaner developed by Meloy Labora-
tories of Springfield, Virginia, under EPA Contract 14-12-809 is pictured in
Figure 8. This vehicle,initially developed for the purpose of removing oil
from beach sand following an oil spill, consists of a feed hopper for entry of
the contaminated sand, four froth flotation cells in series, a supercharger
for air, and a diesel generator. The entire unit is mounted on a 40-foot by
8-foot truck-trailer. The unit is shown schematically in Figure 9.
Since this application consisted of the treatment of an already mixed
solid/liquid flow, the feed hopper was not needed. Instead, the raw flow ema-
nating from the mill hose was piped through a butterfly throttling valve and
Venturi flow meter into the first flotation cell. Since the bottom muds were
to be ultimately hauled to a landfill, the purpose of this treatment was not
to completely remove all the creosote present, but rather to remove the free
creosote which could be detrimental to the later liquid treatment processes
and equipment. The creosote and other contaminants buoyed to the water sur-
face in the flotation cells were skimmed into an exit trough and piped to a
small storage tank. A view of the flotation cells and the rotating paddles
used for skimming are shown in Figure 10. The liquid effluent from the flota-
tion unit was pumped directly to the hydrocyclone. This pump was located on
the ground next to the flotation unit trailer. The hydrocyclone was built on
a supporting stand on the trailer and located between the flotation units and
the diesel generator.
Hydrocyclone--
The hydrocyclone is a commercially available model manufactured by Rex
Chainbelt Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The 1-foot-diameter hydrocyclone was
fitted with a 4-inch vortex discharge orifice and a 2-inch apex discharge ori-
fice. The pump was set at a constant rate of 300 gpm. This is the minimum
flowrate at which this particular hydrocyclone is effective in classification
of materials. In order to maintain a minimum flow of 300 gpm through the
hydrocyclone, a recycle loop was constructed, with the flow through this loop
throttled so that it could be changed with a change in the flowrate through
the flotation cells, always keeping a minimum flow of 300 gpm through the
hydrocyclone. The purpose of the hydrocyclone was to separate heavier materi-
als such as gravel, rocks, and sand from the flow going to the following sedi-
mentation tank, and thus preventing an excessive buildup of sludge, or the for-
mation of a sludge that could not be pumped from the sedimentation tank. This
discharge flow was designed to be approximately 3% of the flow through the
hydrocyclone. A header was constructed to carry this flow from the apex of
19
-------
Recycle
Raw Flow
Beach
Cleaner
Ilydrocyclone
(V)
o
Sedimentation
Tank
Top
Skimmings
Apex
Discharge
Sludge
Hazardous
Spills
Vehicle
Backwash
Discharge
to River
Figure 7. Block diagram of Rex Chainbelt treatment process
-------
Figure 8. Photograph of EPA mobile beach cleaner.
VIBRATING
SCREEN
\
BELT
FEEDER
AIR PLUS
MECHANICAL AGITATION
PRESSURIZED AIR
OIL DISCHARGE
FEED BOX
SAND/WATER
DISCHARGE
Figure 9. Schematic of beach cleaner vehicle.
21
-------
Figure 10. Flotation cells and skimmers in use.
the hydrocyclone to 12-cubic-yard dumpsters located beneath the header.
Flow to the sedimentation tank from the hydrocyclone was throttled by a
butterfly valve and measured by a Venturi meter. Under normal operating con-
ditions, this flowrate was the same as the raw flow to the flotation cells.
By keeping this flow equal to the flow coming into the flotation cells, it was
possible to keep a constant level in the flotation cells. This level is man-
dated by the depth of creosote forming on the top of the water surface neces-
sitating skimming. Flow to the sedimentation tank was carried by 3-inch rub-
ber hosing and discharged directly into the center of the tank.
equipment supplied with the Hazard-
EPA by Rex Chainbelt Inc., under
constructed out of rubber and can
by three men. The tank, shown in
Sedimentation--
The sedimentation tank was part of the
ous Spills Vehicle, which was developed for
Contract 68-01-0099. This portable tank is
be set up in the field in less than 2 hours
Figure 1.1, actually consists of two concentric tanks. The inner tank is 4.5
feet deep and 11 feet 3 inches in diameter, with 19 four-inch-diameter ori-
fices located around the periphery of the tank, 11 inches below the top. The
outer tank is 25 feet in diameter, and is also 4.5 feet high. The inner tank,
which is used as a flocculation chamber, has a volume of 3360 gallons. The
outer tank has a volume of 13,180 gallons, making the total volume of both
tanks 16,540 gallons.
The sedimentation tank was originally designed for coagulant addition and
settling on a continuous basis. However, for this specific application it was
decided to use the tank on a batch basis. It was expected that flow to the
tank would be discontinuous due to the moving of the retrieval vehicle from
one location to another, and to the short periods of down-time that would occur
22
-------
>=t'
^^^^^S^^^f^''^S^\& •*•""'•• '~«P*'--.
Figure 11. Portable rubber sedimentation tank.
if the retrieval vehicle became clogged. The flowrate to the treatment system
was also expected to fluctuate, depending upon whether both or just one of the
retrieval devices were being operated. Coagulant addition was accomplished by
running a 4-inch hose line from the outer portion of the sedimentation tank up
to the suction end of the 350-gpm backwash pump on the Hazardous Spills
Vehicle. The discharge end of this pump was connected by hose to a flow head-
er shown in Figure 12. Coagulant was added at this location by means of a
BIF Model 1271-23-9121 chemical feed pump and the flowrate measured. A
small in-line cyclone mixer was used for coagulant dispersion. The flow from
this header was connected by hose to an opening on the bottom of the inner
sedimentation tank. By this means the flow continued in a closed loop until
all the coagulant had been added. After this was completed, the liquid was
allowed to settle before further treatment.
Mobile Hazardous Spills Treatment Trailer--
The Mobile Hazardous Spills Treatment Trailer was designed as a rapidly
deployable system to respond to and treat spills of organic and inorganic
water-soluble substances. This vehicle, developed for EPA under Contract
68-01-0099, is shown in Figure 13. The portable sedimentation tank, described
previously, is stored on the trailer deck during transport and set up in the
proximity of the vehicle at the site of the spill. The major components of
this vehicle include the capability for addition of chemicals for coagulation
and pH adjustment, followed by mixed media filtration and carbon adsorption.
A block diagram showing the process flow is shown in Figure 14.
The mixed media filtration process consists of three pressure filtration
columns, operated in parallel. The columns, flakeglass-1ined steel pressure
vessels, are each 42 inches in diameter and 80 inches high, and contai'n 18
inches of common red flint sand having an effective size of 0.5 mm and a
23
-------
METER
PANEL
FLOW
HEADER
Figure 12. Meter panel and flow header.
Figure 13. Mobile hazardous spills treatment trailer.
24
-------
PUMP
FLOW
MEASUREMENT
COAGULANT
ADDITION
PH
ADJUSTMENT
IN-LINE
MIXING
ro
CARBON
ADSORPTION
MIXED
MEDIA
FILTRATION
PUMP
SEDIMENTATION
Figure 14. Block diagram of hazardous spills vehicle flow.
-------
uniformity coefficient of 1.5 beneath 24 inches of anthracite (Anthrafilt No.
1-1/2) with a standard size of 0.85 and 0.95 mm. The total surface area of
the three columns is 28.8 square feet.
Carbon adsorption is accomplished in three columns that can be operated
either in parallel or in series. These columns, 83 inches in diameter by 105
inches high, are also flakeglass-1ined steel pressure vessels. For use on
this project, only one carbon column was filled with carbon and used. The
column was filled with 6000 pounds of 18 x 40-mesh Witco Grade 718 activated
carbon. The wetted volume of carbon was estimated to be 230 cubic feet. A
closeup view of the mixed media and carbon columns is shown in Figure 15.
Three portable rubber pillow tanks are also part of this vehicle. These
tanks are 12 feet by 12 feet and have a volume of 3000 gallons. The purpose
of these tanks is to store sludge from the sedimentation tank and to hold a
supply of backwash water for the mixed media and carbon columns. The system
is designed to be backwashed with the wash water going back to the sedimenta-
tion tanks, where the solids are settled out and handled with the normal
sludge. In the application on the Little Menomonee River, two of the pillow
tanks were used, one to store carbon column effluent for backwash, the other
to store the creosote removed during froth flotation. The sludge from the
sedimentation tank was pumped directly from the tank to a commercial liquid
hauler who deposited the sludge in a landfill approved by the Wisconsin De-
partment of Natural Resources.
Figure 15. Mixed media and carbon columns,
26
-------
FIELD DEMONSTRATION
Preparation
A very limited amount of time was available for testing the various unit
operations of the system before actual operation at the project site. Since
fabrication of the River Sweeper retrieval device and the mobile hazardous
spills treatment trailer was not completed until the week before the system
was to be used on the Little Menomonee, it was not possible to test this equip-
ment completely before actual use. However, a hydraulic test was run on the
froth flotation unit at the Rex Chainbelt facility in the following manner.
The rubber sedimentation tank was set up and filled with city tap water for
use as a water source for the froth flotation unit. In order to simulate
actual field conditions, the 4-inch centrifugal pump and hydrocyclone were
also used. Water was pumped by the 4-inch pump into the flotation cells and
then through the hydrocyclone and back to the sedimentation tank, forming a
closed loop, thereby testing all the piping and flow meters along with the
output of the generators on both the froth flotation unit and on the hazard-
ous spills vehicle. (The generator on the hazardous spills vehicle was used
as the electrical supply source for the hydrocyclone pump.) After completing
this test, all the equipment was packed on two flatbed trucks and the froth
flotation vehicle and hazardous spills vehicle were readied for shipment to
the Little Menomonee River on Monday morning, October 2, as directed by EPA
personnel.
Plan of Operation
The plan of operation called for using the first of the 10 days allowed
for the process demonstration as the time for unloading and erecting all equip-
ment at the project site. The following 8 days were to be used for river
cleanup with the tenth or last day to be used for disassembly and packing of
the equipment for removal from the site.
The plan for river cleanup and treatment process operation divided the
work day into two identical segments. The first (morning) segment would con-
sist of operating the retrieval equipment, flotation unit, and hydrocyclone,
until the sedimentation tank was full. It was estimated that this would take
at least 4 hours, since the retrieval vehicles would actually be picking up
bottom muds only half of the time while being operated. The remainder of the
time would be spent in moving the vehicles and equipment and in system main-
tenance. Once the tank was full, coagulant addition would begin, followed by
settling and then processing through the hazardous spills vehicle. While
this operation was occurring, the personnel associated with the operation of
the retrieval devices and froth flotation vehicle would take their lunch
break, and then move the pumps and hoses to the location of the second (after-
noon) segment of pickup operations. The afternoon would be the same as the
morning, except that instead of taking a lunch period, the operating person-
nel on the retrieval devices and froth flotation vehicle would retire for the
day. Those persons associated with operating the hazardous spills vehicle
would remain for the evening until the liquid in the sedimentation tank had
been processed.
27
-------
No minimum or maximum number of feet were set as a guideline to be accom-
plished in one day. This would have been impossible, since this was the first
time this system was used and no one could predict any feasible rate of pro-
gress. Instead, it was decided to work as long as daylight hours permitted,
or until the sedimentation tank was full in the afternoon. It was assumed
that the latter would be the governing factor.
In keeping with the system design goals of disturbing the surrounding
environment as little as possible, much care was taken in choosing the loca-
tion for the treatment equipment. Originally it was thought that all equip-
ment would be located on the parkland along the east shore of the river. How-
ever, this was not possible since the soft, wet ground in this area would be
torn up by the two large treatment vehicles. As a result, it was decided to
locate the vehicles on the shoulder of Bradley Road with the sedimentation
tank, pillow tanks, and skimmings tank placed on the parkland itself. (Per-
mits for use of the shoulder were received from the City of Milwaukee and the
site was approved by the City Traffic Engineer's Office.) Figure 16 shows a
schematic diagram of the final plan for equipment location.
Choice of Coagulant
Samples of bottom muds taken on August 30 in the designated 500-foot
stretch were used for determination of an effective coagulant in the sedimen-
tation process. The river muds were diluted 1 to 15, approximating the con-
centration that would be seen in the sedimentation tank. The samples were
allowed to settle for 1.5 hours, simulating the settling period in the sedi-
mentation tank before coagulant addition. Following this, the supernatant
was drawn off and tested with various chemicals and polymers at different con-
centrations. The effectiveness of the coagulant was based upon visual clarity
and rapidity of floe formation.
The coagulant that formed the best floe and most enhanced the settling
rate was ferric chloride (FeCls). It: was found that this coagulant was effec-
tive with concentrations of up to 150 mg/liter. It was also felt that the
concentrations of FeCl3 needed would be advantageous over other coagulants
since the smaller liquid volume of coagulant needed would be easily transport-
able and stored. It was also noted that a cationic polyelectrolyte, Calgon
105C, improved the floe formation when added in concentrations of 0.5 mg/liter
with the FeCl3- However, it was felt that the degree of clarity achieved by
addition of this polyelectrolyte was not needed because of the high degree of
treatment following this step. It was planned to use FeCl3 at a concentration
of 50 mg/liter initially, and increase the concentration if warranted in the
field.
Field Development
On Monday, October 2, all equipment was shipped to the site, unloaded, and
deployed. A commercial cartage firm was hired to supply a tractor for hauling
the beach cleaner and mobile hazardous spills treatment trailer to and from
the project site and a hydraulic crane truck was rented for unloading the
heavy equipment, including the pumps, piping, retrieval devices, hydraulic
power package, and hoses. Because of the sloping shoulder of the road, lumber
28
-------
fNi
UD
Sedimentation
Tank
Backwash
Water
Skimmings
-O ,-V_X p
i 11nnn [
I Hazardous Durnpsters Flotation
Discharge Spills Unit
Vehicle
Retriever
Pump
Figure 16. Schematic view of field setup.
-------
platforms were placed under the wheels to level the treatment vehicles. A
view from the river looking up to the treatment process is seen in Figure 17.
The white lines in the foreground are the hoses leading from the river to the
froth flotation vehicle in the left of the picture. A view of the treatment
vehicles taken from Bradley Road is seen in Figure 18.
Figure 17. View of Rex Chainbelt treatment process from river.
Figure 18. View of Rex Chainbelt treatment process from Bradley Road.
30
-------
The River Sweeper was launched at the 500-foot mark upstream and all pumps,
hoses, and piping were connected. An absorbent boom for containing the oil and
creosote dislodged from the bottom muds and buoyed to the surface during pickup
operations was constructed at the Bradley Road bridge. The boom, Model 12D,
manufactured by Colloid Chemical Company of Brockton, Massachusetts, is 12
inches in diameter, and is filled with an inert oil absorbent material. Straw
was placed in front of the boom to help contain and absorb the floating oil and
creosote. The boom is pictured in Figure 19. By the end of the day, the entire
system was deployed and ready for operation the following morning.
System Operation
Actual pickup and treatment operations began on Tuesday, October 3. The
majority of the day was spent in system shakedown and in developing a knowledge
of equipment operating characteristics and capabilities, but 20 linear feet of
river were cleaned during the day. A total of 16,000 gallons was pumped from
the River Sweeper to the treatment process. However, due to the operator ac-
quainting himself with the operation of the retrieval vehicle, this flow con-
tained mostly river water with little bottom mud. The beach cleaner operation
was.trouble-free, with the operator of this vehicle being able to quickly devel-
level in the cells by controlling the
the throttle valves. A small backyard
contain the top skimmings from the froth
op the technique of holding a constant
raw flow and hydrocyclone discharge by
wading pool was used as a reservoir to
flotation units. When filled, its contents were pumped to the pillow tank
located directly behind it. The top skimmings discharge line from the flota-
tion units, the small wading pool, and the pillow tank can be seen in Figure 20.
The skimmings from the flotation discharge flowed by gravity.
:./i!^fisS*'«.?*^SMr/;-:VVii1' '
Figure 19. Oil boom in use.
31
-------
The Hazardous Spills Vehicle was used during this evening for the first
time and operated successfully, treating 15,000 gallons of liquid from the
sedimentation tank. Complete details of the treatment process operation and
effectiveness are discussed in the next section. The effluent from the carbon
columns discharged by gravity through a 4-inch hose terminating in the river
under the Bradley Road bridge.
On Wednesday, October 4, the second day of cleanup operations, 40 linear
feet of river were cleaned. A great deal of time was lost due to problems in
starting the 4-inch River Sweeper pump in the morning. Once the pump was
started, both the River Sweeper and hand-held retriever were used. With both
of these units operating simultaneously, pickup rates of up to 200 gpm were
achieved. After cleaning 20 feet, the sedimentation tank was full and pickup
operations were suspended and treatment started.
In the afternoon, after treatment was completed, pickup operations re-
sumed and another 20 linear feet were cleaned and the treatment system oper-
ated. Progress was impaired by clogging of the suction lines on both pickup
devices. The lines were cleaned out by reversing the suction and discharge
hoses o.i the pump and using river water as a source of backflush water. Al-
though this method worked, it was very time-consuming. As a result, valves
for both pumps were purchased and installed that evening. These valves al-
lowed for backflush to be accomplished much quicker and easier. During the
day it was also found that the muds picked up were mostly of a silty nature
and contained little sand or gravel. Thus, the apex discharge from the hydro-
cyclone was very dilute and contained little particulate matter, and the apex
Reservo1r
Pillow
Tank
Figure 20. Creosote discharge line, reservoir and tank.
32
-------
discharge was closed and all flow diverted either to hydrocyclone recycle or
to the sedimentation tank.
On Thursday, October 5, operations began running on a smoother, more con-
tinuous schedule. The system was run on a two-segment basis, with 25 linear
feet cleaned in the morning and 25 in the afternoon. The treatment process
was run twice, once following the morning pickup operations and then follow-
ing the afternoon pickup operation. Because of the improvement of the River
Sweeper operator's ability in handling this device, the ratio of water picked
up to mud picked up greatly decreased. For the entire 50 feet cleaned during
the day, only 16,800 gallons were pumped to treatment from both pickup de-
vices. This compared to 15,000 gallons being pumped the first day by the
River Sweeper alone, in cleaning only 20 feet. On Friday, October 6, the
morning was spent pumping sludge out of the sedimentation tank to liquid
haulers. A total of 5000 gallons of sludge was removed from the sedimentation
tank. Following the removal of the sludge, the mixed media filters were back-
washed for 10 minutes, using 2000 gallons of previously treated water that had
been stored in the pillow tanks. Pickup operations resumed in the afternoon
with 30 linear feet being cleaned. Operations were suspended for the day
after the mast housing the suction line was torn off of its supporting struc-
ture when the suction hose leading to the pump became entangled in the frame-
work of the River Sweeper while the operator was moving the mast.
Coagulant addition was completed in the evening. However, since it was
known that pickup operations would be delayed the following morning, until the
mast was repaired, the treatment system was not run until then. It was felt
that the additional overnight settling time would be advantageous.
Pickup operations on Saturday, October 7, began upon completion of re-
pairs to the mast and the termination of the treatment process. Saturday was
broken up into two segments, as had become the pattern. A total of 60 feet
were cleaned, 30 feet during each segment. Following the morning treatment
operations, the sand filters were once again backwashed. Because no work was
to be done on Sunday, treatment of the water in the sedimentation tank from
the afternoon operations was terminated after coagulant addition. This
allowed a settling time of 36 hours before treatment would again begin on
Monday morning.
Operation resumed on Monday, October 9. This was the seventh of ten work-
ing days, and the sixth of eight cleanup days. The River Sweeper had now
crossed under the railroad trestle. However, because of the irregularity of
the shorelines, and the large amount of area inaccessible to the River Sweeper,
the hand-held device was used a great deal in this area. The large amount of
work that had to be done by the hand-held device caused its progress rate to
fall behind that of the River Sweeper. A photograph shown in Figure 21, taken
on Monday morning looking downstream, shows the hand-held device being util-
ized in the foreground, and the River Sweeper in the background, 100 feet
downstream.
Two thousand gallons of sludge were pumped out of the sedimentation tank
following completion of the treatment process, and then pickup operations re-
sumed. Fifty linear feet were cleaned in the morning and 30 feet in the after-
noon. Settling was allowed to occur overnight once again.
33
-------
Figure 21. Hand-held retriever and river sweeper.
By Tuesday, October 10, system operation was becoming routine, following
the two-segment-per-day schedule. During the morning, 45 feet were cleaned,
with an additional 65 feet cleaned in the afternoon. Wednesday was the ninth
working day and the eighth, or last, day of River Sweeper operation. Sixty
feet were cleaned in the morning, followed by treatment and the removal of
2100 gallons of sludge. The last 50 feet of the 500-foot demonstration stretch
were cleaned in the afternoon, thus terminating River Sweeper operations for
the project. The coagulated water in the sedimentation tank from the after-
noon's noon's operation was allowed to settle overnight. Since the last 50
feet of the river contained much plant life known as Heteranthera dubia
(pickerel weeds) which not only clogged the River Sweeper suction line but
also contained much creosote adhering to its surface, it was raked up by
workers in the river. Figure 22 shows the material being gathered into a
boat preceding the River Sweeper.
On Thursday, October 12, the tenth and last working day, 2 hours were
spent using the hand-held device to clean the shoreline near Bradley Road.
Following this, the treatment system was operated and then 4600 gallons of
sludge were removed, leaving the sedimentation tank empty, the remainder of
the day was spent in disassembling and packing the system for transport back
to Rex. The following morning the treatment vehicles and a flatbed truck
containing the remaining equipment were picked up by the cartage company. On
Friday afternoon, October 13, the project site for demonstration of the river
cleanup system was once again vacant parkland. Over 125,000 gallons of muds
had been removed from the bottom of the river and processed, with 17,200 gal-
lons removed as sludge and the remainder returned to the river in a quality
better than that of the river water itself.
34
-------
Figure 22. Manual removal of weeds.
Manpower Requirements
Operation of the demonstration project required the services of seven full-
time people at the project site, five associated with the pickup operation and
two with the operation of the treatment process. At the river itself, one man
operated the River Sweeper and one man operated the hand-held device. Two men
were stationed at the pumps, one for the River Sweeper pump and one for the
hand-held retriever pump. The main function of these men was to keep the
pumps running in coordination with the retrieval devices, to change the neces-
sary valve settings for backflush purposes, and to assist in the moving of the
River Sweeper to new locations. One man was also present with a walkie-talkie
to coordinate pumping operations with the operator of the froth flotation unit
at the treatment site. One of the most time-consuming and burdensome tasks for
the retrieval crew was the removal of debris from the river. This primarily
consisted of logs and dead tree limbs. In addition, many of the trees had dead
branches hanging over the river which had to be removed to make the river
passable.
At the treatment system one man operated the froth flotation unit while
the second man prepared the Hazardous Spills Vehicle for operation, determined
and prepared coagulant dosages, and transferred the top skimmings from the wad-
ing pool to the pillow tank. When the Hazardous Spills Vehicle was run in_the
evening, these two men were required to remain at the site for this operation.
35
-------
SECTION 5
REX CHAINBELT RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
SAMPLING POINTS, PROCEDURES, AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
Samples were taken during the entire time of operation of the pickup and
treatment processes. Sample locations and analyses performed were chosen with
the intent of characterizing the raw flow to the treatment process, the fate
of contaminants during the various treatment steps, and the quality of the
water ultimately returned to the Little Menomonee River. In addition, samples
were taken of river water upstream and downstream of the demonstration stretch
to determine the effect of operations on the river water. The sample locations
and analyses performed are listed below.
Raw Flow to Treatment
Total Solids
Suspended Solids
Hexane Extractables
Settled Volume
Effluent from Froth Flotation
Total Solids
Suspended Solids
Hexane Extractables
Settled Volume
Skimmings from Froth Flotation
Total Solids
Suspended Solids
Hexane Extractables
Sedimentation Tank After Coagulation and Settling
Total Solids
Suspended Solids
Hexane Extractables
Total Organic Carbon
Iron
36
-------
Effluent from Mixed Media Filtration
Total Solids
Suspended Solids
Hexane Extractables
Total Organic Carbon
Iron
Effluent from Carbon Columns
Total Solids
Suspended Solids
Hexane Extractables
Total Organic Carbon
Iron
Upstream and Downstream River Samples
Total Solids
Suspended Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Hexane Extractables
Total Oxygen Demand
Analytical Methods
All applicable analyses were done according to Standard Methods. (Stan-
dard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th ed., American
Public Health Association, Washington, DC, 1971.) Since there is no specific
analytical technique for defining creosote, a modification of the method_for
quantifying grease was suggested by the EPA. This method is a modification of
209A, Soxhlet Extraction Method, found in standard methods for grease determin-
ation (loc. cit.). The modification consisted of reducing the normal extrac-
tion cycle from 80 times down to 20 times. The initial samples from operation
were run according to the modified 20-cycle procedure and according to the
standard procedure. Results from the modified method were not reproducible and
it was evident from the color of residue remaining in the thimble that a large
amount of extractable material was still remaining. Comparison of results from
both methods showed that up to 80% of the extractable material was still remain-
ing after the modified cycle period. This matter was immediately brought to
the attention of the EPA Project Officer. Upon mutual agreement, it was de-
cided that the standard method of anlaysis using the longer extraction cycle
time would be used. Therefore, all creosote measurements are reported as hex-
ane extractables, determined by the standard procedure.
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) was analyzed in accordance with standard meth-
ods (Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th ed.,
American Public Health Association, Washington, DC, 1971). The instrument used
for this measurement was a Dow-Beckman Carbonaceous Analyzer Model 915, dual
channel. The only analyses not performed by Rex Chainbelt laboratories were
the Total Oxygen Demand (TOD) tests. These were performed by Aqua-Chem Inc. of
Waukesha, Wisconsin. The instrument used was an Ionics Inc. Model 225 Total
Oxygen Demand Analyzer. The only sample preparation needed for both TOC and
37
-------
TOD analyses was rapid blending in a Waring blender that broke large particu-
lates into smaller particles which would not clog the syringe used for sample
injection. Iron concentrations were determined using atomic absorption spec-
trometry according to standard methods (loc. cit.). Samples for iron analysis
were taken at various loations in the Hazardous Spills Vehicle treatment pro-
cess. This was done because of the relatively high concentrations of FeCl3
being used in the sedimentation tank. By tracing the iron it was possible to
determine if coagulant additions were excessively high, and also to determine
the effectiveness of the Hazardous Spills Vehicle in removing iron.
Samples of the raw flow to treatment were taken from the influent chamber
to the first froth flotation cell. Samples of effluent from flotation were
taken at both locations at 15-minute intervals during operation, and composited.
One composite sample was produced each day. The sample of skimmings from froth
flotation was composited throughout the day, prior to transferring the skim-
mings from the wading pool to the pillow tank. The samples of sedimentation
tank effluent, mixed media filtration effluent, and carbon column effluent were
taken manually at 5-minute intervals during operation of the Hazardous Spills
Vehicle. One composite sample was taken from each location. Sampling ports
were built into the piping of the Hazardous Spills Vehicle. On most days the
Hazardous Spills Vehicle was used twice, as discussed earlier. Samples from
the two separate operations were composited as one sample, representing the
total results from that day. The upstream and downstream samples of river
water were grab samples taken at the 500-foot mark upstream, and 50 feet down-
stream of the Bradley Road bridge. These were taken at the close of each work-
ing day. All samples were picked up the following morning and taken directly
to the laboratories of Rex Chainbelt or Aqua-Chem for analyses.
RAW FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
The quality characteristics of the raw flow to the froth flotation vehicle
are given in Table 1. Included are the gallons of flow to the unit, the concen-
trations of hexane extractables, total solids, and suspended solids, along with
the settled volume of sludge after 1 hour. There was much variance in the con-
centration of hexane extractables. However, it can be seen that in general,
high concentrations of suspended solids correlate with high creosote concentra-
tions.
The total solids concentration in the raw flow varied between 1.08 and
5.31 percent by weight. The weighted mean concentration of total solids was
3.49%, less than that originally expected. The settled volume varied between
6% and 27% of the raw flow, with a weighted mean of 15.1%. The low concentra-
tions of hexane extractables and solids on the first two days of operation can
be attributed to the retrieval operator's inexperience with the pickup device
as discussed earlier in this report. The low concentrations on the last day
are a result of the fact that only the hand-held device was being used._ This
device was used to clean the river/shore interface and took in a very high
ratio of water to bottom muds. Comparison of the hexane extractable concentra-
tions on the remaining days with the concentrations in samples of bottom muds
taken just before the project started (discussed later) shows some correlation.
The higher concentrations found on day 4 appear to be due to the fact that the
area being cleaned at this time had bottom muds with hexane extractable concen-
trations of up to 20% on a dry basis. On day 5 the concentration falls, as a
38
-------
TABLE 1. RAW FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
U)
MD
Hexane
Date
10/3
10/4
10/5
10/6
10/7
10/9
10/10
10/11
10/12
Day
Tue (2)
Wed (3)
Thu (4)
Fri (5)
Sat (6)
Mon (7)
Tue (8)
Wed (9)
Thu (10)
Flow in
Gallons
16,000
24,000
16,800
12,000
9,000
14,650
16,085
10,693
6,125
Extractables
mg/1
a
585
1,373
453
5,625
4,003
1,583
1,141
367
Ibs
a
117.1
192.4
45.3
422.2
489.1
212.4
101.8
18.7
Total Solids
mg/1
a
17,904
52,100
19,450
46,620
51 ,290
53,082
18,029
10,808
Tbs
a
3,583
7,299
1,947
3,499
6,267
7,121
1,608
552
Suspended
Soli
mg/1
a
17,800
46,070
17,434
42,660
51,066
50,675
17,100
10,042
ids
Ibs
a
3,562
6,455
1,745
3,202
6,239
6,798
1,525
513
Settled
Volume,
gal/1000 gal
a
70
270
90
182
210
183
60
-
Total
Weighted Mean
125.3531
1599.0
31 ,876l
30,039'
1,753C
34,948C
32,936C
151'
a - No sample taken.
b - Actual flow is slightly higher with addition of top skimmings volume not included.
c - Plus some amount on 10/3.
d - Does not include 10/3.
-------
result of crossing under the railroad trestle. In this area the river bottom
was covered with large rocks, probably laid during trestle construction, with
very little bottom mud being exposed. On day 6 the concentrations increase
and then decrease daily through day 9. This follows the pattern of bottom muds
also decreasing from a concentration of 0.82%. in the area cleaned on day 6 to
0.28% in the area cleaned on day 9. However, it should be noted that a defin-
ite correlation is difficult, since variations in the operator's use of the
suction line and the intermittent use of the hand-held device are two variables
that may be more important than the bottom mud characteristics.
FROTH FLOTATION
Operation of the froth flotation unit proved to be very effective in the
removal of a large amount of the hexane extractables present. Table 2 contains
the effluent quality characteristics from this unit and also the pounds and per-
cent of hexane extractables removed in this process. Over 1200 pounds of hex-
ane extractables were removed in the froth flotation unit itself during the 8
days that complete samples were taken. This equals a removal of 76.5% of the
total creosote that entered the unit. It should be noted there (as it is in
Table 1) that the flow to treatment is actually slightly higher than reported
because the volume of top skimmings is not included. Flow measurements were
made of the effluent from the flotation unit but not of the raw flow to the
unit or of the flow of top skimmings. Since the concentration of top skimmings
was determined, it should have been possible to determine this flow and thus
the raw flow by a mass balance. However, attempts at this yielded volumes of
top skimmings in excess of the approximate amount known to be pumped from the
pillow tank. This implies that the levels of hexane extractables in the top
skimmings was probably greater than those reported. This can be attributed to
the difficulty in gathering a representative sample of the skimmings. The
problem probably stems from the fact that in the wading pool, from which the
samples were taken, much of the material adhered to the sides of the tank or
settled to the bottom and was not completely resuspended during sampling. The
only reflection this has on the data, since effluent quality is known, is that
the amount and thus the percentage creosote removed during the entire treatment
process and the froth flotation process may be slightly higher than reported.
The four froth flotation cells comprising the flotation unit were manu-
factured by the Denver Equipment Company and each had a volume of 40 cubic feet
for a total volume of 160 cubic feet. The total detection time of the raw flow
in flotation varied between 12 minutes at a flow of 100 gpm down to 6 minutes
at 200 gpm. The best froth (thickest) was found to be produced with the air
supply wide open. This air flowrate is 550 cfm with a static pressure of 17.6
ounces per square inch with ratings selected to motor nameplate horsepower just
equalling brake horsepower. The reported concentrations of top skimmings from
the froth flotation unit are listed below. The concentrations are in mg/1 of
hexane extractables.
Date Skimmings
10/3
10/4 575 mg/1
10/5 14,370 mg/1
10/6 21,910 mg/1
40
-------
TABLE 2. FROTH FLOTATION EFFLUENT
Date
10/3
10/4
10/5
10/6
10/7
10/9
10/10
10/11
10/12
Total
Tue (2)
Wed (3)
Thu (4)
Fri (5)
Sat (6)
Mon (7)
Tue (8)
Wed (9)
Thu (10)
Flow in
Gallons
16,000
24,000
16,800
12,000
9,000
14,650
16,085
10,693
6,125
125,353
Weighted Mean
Hexane
Extractables
mg/1
64
335
416
190
882
712
250
354
261
368
Ibs
8.5
67.1
58.3
19.0
66.2
87.0
33.5
31.6
13.3
384.5
Pounds
Removed
-
50.0
134.1
26.3
356.0
402.1
178.9
70.2
5.4
l,223.0a
Percent
Removal
-
42.7
69.7
58.1
84.3
82.2
84.2
68.9
28.9
76. 5b
Total
mg/1
4,888
16,866
61,103
18,622
43,460
53,250
37,274
18,417
15,716
30,290C
Solids
Ibs
652
3,375
8,561
1 ,863
3,262
6,506
5,000
1,642
803
31,664
Suspended
Solids
mg/1
-
15,300
58,690
16,633
42,534
52,760
31,600
17,685
14,769
31,973b
Ibs
-
3,062
8,223
1,664
3,178
6,446
4,238
1,577
755
29,143a
a - Plus some amount on 10/3 not measured.
b - Does not include 10/3.
c - Note total solids mean less than suspended because of lack of suspended solids data on 10/3.
-------
Date Skimmings
10/7 23,180 mg/1
10/9 71,840 mg/1
10/10 8,130 mg/1
10/11 11,620 mg/1
10/12 2,094 mg/1
HYDROCYCLONE
Since it was found that the hydrocyclone was not needed for classification,
the flowrate in the recycle loop was not critical. The only valve that had to
be throttled was on the discharge line from the hydrocyclone to the sedimenta-
tion tank. This value was opened in proportion to the raw flow to the flota-
tion unit, keeping the level in this unit constant. The only function of the
hydrocyclone then was to supply the pumping capacity needed to transfer flow
from the flotation unit to the sedimentation tank.
SEDIMENTATION TANK
The quality of the influent to the sedimentation tank is the same as that
shown in Table 2 for flotation effluent. Performance of the sedimentation tank
is summarized in Table 3. A total of 125,353 gallons were transferred to the
sedimentation tank from the froth flotation unit for treatment. As shown in
Table 3, coagulant dosages and settling times are specific for either the morn-
ing or afternoon segment. The longer settling times, 12 and 36 hours, represent
overnight settling. These volumes were in fact treated the following morning,
but reported as part of the previous day's data. Coagulant dosages were in-
creased as time progressed because the buildup of sludge, occurring between re-
moval, would cause a decrease in clear supernatant volume without the additional
FeCl3- The effect of the overnight or extended settling period is not reflected
in the quality of the effluent from the tank, but rather in the quantity, be-
cause supernatant would only be pumped from the sedimentation tank until sludge
began to appear. Thus, the efficiency of suspended solids removal was maintained
at around 99%. The extended settling, however, did allow the sludge blanket on
the bottom of the tank to compress and thus permit a much larger volume of
supernatant to be removed when treatment began.
The sedimentation tank was effective in removing 94.9%, or 365.1 pounds of
the hexane extractables in the flotation effluent. The effluent from the sedi-
mentation tank, totalling 113,443 gallons, contained a mean concentration of
20.5 mg/1 of hexane extractables. This means that after froth flotation and
sedimentation, a total of 98.8% of the hexane extractables had been removed.
In addition, 98.9% of the suspended solids, or 28,841 pounds of material, were
removed during sedimentation. The effluent had a mean concentration of 331 mg/1
of suspended solids. The sludge was pumped out of the sedimentation tank to a
commercial liquid hauler when the volume of sludge built up enough to hinder
supernatant quality. Listed below is a schedule of sludge removal dates and
corresponding volume.
42
-------
TABLE 3. SEDIMENTATION TANK PERFORMANCE
Date Day
10/3 Tues (2)
10/4 Wed (3)
10/5 Thu (4)
10/6 Fri (5)
10/7 Sat (6)
10/9 Mon (7)
10/10 Tue (8)
10/11 Wed (9)
10/12 Thu (10)
Total
Weighted Mean
pm
am
pm
am
pm
pm
am
pm
am
pm
am
pm
am
pm
am
Gallons
16,000
13,000
11,000
9,300
7,500
12,000
4,500
4,500
10,500
4,150
9,900
6,185
4,993
5,700
6,125
125,353a
Fed 3
mg/1
40
40
50
70
77
51
150
150
115
120
130
130
140
200
150
Settlinc
Time
(hrs)
1.0
0.33
1.0
1.0
0.75
12
0.5
36
0.5
12
0.5
0.5
0.5
12
0.5
j Hexane Extractab
In
Out
mg/1
64
335
416
190
882
712
250
354
261
368
56
33
20
4
11
4
3
19
7
20.5
Ibs
Removed
1.5
61.1
56.2
18.7
65.0
86.6
33.2
29.9
12.9
365.1
les
%
Rem.
18.8
90.9
96.3
98.5
98.3
95.4
99.1
94.7
96.9
94.9
Suspended Sol ids
In
mg/1
_
15,300
58,690
16,633
42,534
52,760
31 ,600
17,685 1
14,769
31 ,973d
Out
110
104
630
78
220
160
184
,590
142
331
Ibs
Rem.
_
3,043
8,156
1,658
3,155
6,430
4,218
1,437
744
28,841C
%
Rem.
_
99.3
98.9
99.5
99.5
99.7
99.4
91.0
99.1
98. 9d
a - 17,200 gallons of this total were removed as sludge with the balance going on to treatment in the
Hazardous Spills Vehicle.
b - Calculated by multiplying concentration in times flow in minus concentration out times flow out. The
flow out equals flow in minus that removed as sludge.
c - Plus amount on 10/3 not measured.
d - Not including 10/3.
-------
Date Gallons Removed
10/3 0
10/4 0
10/5 5000
10/6 0
10/7 2000
10/9 0
10/10 3500
10/11 2100
10/12 4600
In addition, approximately 2000 gallons of top skimmings were pumped from
the pillow tank to disposal. A total of 17,200 gallons of sludge were re-
moved from the bottom of the sedimentation tank. Calculation yields an aver-
age solids concentration of 201,000 mg/1 in the sludge.
Hazardous Spills Vehicles
, .Operation of the Hazardous Spills Vehicle followed completion of settling
in the sedimentation tank. The quality of the influent to the vehicle is shown
in Table 3 for sedimentation tank effluent. Flowrates to mixed media filtra-
tion and then to carbon adsorption were varied between 125 and 200 gpm (the
unit has a maximum hydraulic capacity of 200 gpm) with a 150-gpm rate maintained
the majority of the time. This rate yields a loading rate of 5.21 gallons per
minute per square foot on the mixed media filters and 3.9 gallons per minute
per square foot on the one carbon column used with a carbon contact time of
11.6 minutes. During the 9 days of operation the carbon columns never required
backwashing. The mixed media filters were backwashed twice, the first time dur-
ing the evening of October 5, and the second time during the morning of October
7. Both times the backwash rate was 150 gpm for a period of 4 to 5 minutes on
each filter.
Performance of the mixed media filters and carbon column is summarized in
Table 4. The prime objective of the mixed media filters is prevention of blind-
ing of the carbon by the particulate material. In so doing, the filters were
also effective in removing a large portion of the hexane extractables and the
iron which was added as a flocculant. Although TOC removals approached 65%,
with an average concentration of less than 15 mg/1 in the effluent, this was
less than originally anticipated. However, removal of suspended solids and
hexane extractables in the Hazardous Spills Vehicle averaged 89.9 and 99.2,
respectively. A grab sample of raw flow and final effluent is shown in Figure
23. Thus, the performance of the Hazardous Spills Vehicle was considered most
satisfactory, with notably high removal efficiencies of hexane extractables by
the filters and also of suspended solids by both steps. The high removals of
hexane extractables in the mixed media filters can be attributed to the fact
that almost all of the hexane extractables which were not adsorbed on particu-
late were removed in the froth flotation. The mean concentration of hexane
extractables in the effluent returning to the river was 2.3 mg/1 and that of
the suspended solids was less than 2.4 mg/1; both of these are lower than the
same parameters of the river water itself.
44
-------
TABLE 4. PERFORMANCE OF MOBILE HAZARDOUS SPILLS TREATMENT VEHICLE
Hexane Extractables
Date Day
10/3 Tue (2)
10/4 Wed (3)
10/5 Thu (4)
10/6 Fri (5)
10/7 Sat (6)
10/9 Mon (7)
10/10 Tue (8)
10/11 Wed (9)
10/12 Thu (10)
Total
Weighted Mean
pm
am
pm
am
pm
pm
am
pm
am
pm
am
pm
am
pm
am
Gallons
15,000
12,000
10,000
6,432
6,353
8,669
4,272
8,317
6,362
5,754
6,002
6,726
3,844
6,734
6,978
113,443
Flow
Rate
gpm
200
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
125
150
150
Sed.
Tank
Effl.
mg/1
56
33
20
4
11
4
3
19
7
20.5
Mixed
Media
Effl.
mg/1
12
14
11
4
8
3
2
5
5
8.1
Carbon
Col.
Effl .
mg/1
3
2
1
1
5
1
1
4
2
2.3
°/
10
Rem.
94.6
93.9
95.0
75.0
54.5
75.0
66.7
78.9
71.4
89.0
Total Organic Carbon
Sed.
Tank
Effl.
mg/1
40
35
65
42
44
32
28
81
15
42.5
Mixed
Media
Effl.
mg/1
38
34
35
35
36
45
33
29
19
34.6
Carbon
Col.
Effl.
mg/1
4
13
17
20
23
20
15
13
14
14.9
%
Rem.
90.0
62.9
73.8
52.4
47.7
37.5
46.4
84.0
6.7
64.8
(continued)
-------
TABLE 4 (continued)
Date
10/3
10/4
10/5
10/6
10/7
10/9
10/10
10/11
10/12
Total
Day
Tue (2)
Wed (3)
Thu (4)
Fri (5)
Sat (6)
Mon (7)
Tue (8)
Wed (9)
Thu (10)
pm
am
pm
am
pm
am
am
pm
am
pm
am
pm
am
pm
am
Gallons
15,000
12,000
10,000
6,432
6,353
8,669
4,272
8,317
6,362
5,754
6,002
6,726
3,855
6,734
6,978
113,443
Flow
Rate
gpm
200
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
125
150
150
Weighted Mean
Sed.
Tank
Effl.
mg/1
889
998
1753
1140
1293
1299
1376
2744
1294
1368
Total
Mixed
Media
Effl.
mg/1
858
977
1121
1080
1077
1401
1376
1520
1199
1151
Solids
Carbon
Col.
Effl.
mg/1
490
792
908
1013
1027
1145
1204
1215
1322
964
Suspended Solids
%
Rem.
44.8
20.6
48.2
11.1
20.5
11.8
12.5
55.7
-
29.4
Sed.
Tank
Effl.
mg/1
110
104
630
78
220
160
184
1590
142
331
Mixed
Media
Effl.
mq/1
58
112
115
26
36
199
199
297
57
123
Carbon
Col.
Effl . %
mg/1 Rem.
2 98.1
<1 >99.0
1 99.8
<1 >98.7
<1 >99.5
4 97.5
7 96.1
1 99.9
5 96.4
<2.4 >99.2
-------
;'-/',•••'•"•, Pv-AlJy " '-?'''"•'if"
tet' • "T-'• •' Wf'n^S-'- ' 'v'"»:''' f" ••'
''••»•-. -• •" r"i"» ."h-^j. A ^^iLk MI
fc^1' •^;^^-gf: ••'•,-;;['••.'.' --•.'V.-.-. ^".w. •w*?;-.^:.!;-^-
**m.->
Figure 23. Raw flow and final effluent.
Summary of Process Effectiveness
A summary of the net process effectiveness is shown in Table 5. A total
of 113,433 gallons were treated and discharged by the sedimentation tank and
Hazardous Spills Vehicle. The figure includes 4000 gallons of water that had
been previously treated, stored, and used for the two backwashing operations,
making the actual total 4000 less, or 109,443 gallons. Adding to this the
17,200 gallons removed as sludge increases the total to 126,643 gallons. This
agrees within approximately 15% with the measured raw flow of 125,353 gallons.
The entire process removed a total of 1597 pounds of hexane extractables, or
99.8% of that removed from the river. Over 30,000 pounds of suspended solids,
or greater than 99.9% of those extracted from the river, were also removed.
The hexane extractables were reduced from 1753 mg/1 in the raw flow to 2.3 mg/1
in the effluent, with the suspended solids decreasing from 32,936 mg/1 in the
raw flow to less than 2.4 mg/1 in the effluent. A bar graph showing the
pounds and percentage of the hexane extractables removed in each unit operation
is shown in Figure 24.
One of the objectives in the project was that the effluent from treatment
would be returned to the river with concentrations of suspended solids and hex-
ane extractables less than that of the river water itself. It was also impor-
tant that the pickup and treatment operations did not cause a degrading of the
quality of the river. Table 6 shows the daily quality of the river water up-
stream and downstream, and the quality of effluent discharge from the treatment
process. As mentioned before, on all days the effluent quality was of equal
or better quality than that of either the upstream or downstream river water.
Comparison of the upstream and downstream river water quality there revealed
no apparent effect of operations on river water quality. There were daily var-
iations as to whether the upstream or downstream river water was of better
47
-------
TABLE 5. NET REX CHAINBELT TREATMENT PROCESS EFFECTIVENESS
co
Hexane Extractables
Volume,
Date
10/3
10/4
10/5
10/6
10/7
10/9
10/10
10/11
10/12
Total
Day
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
Infl
16,
24,
16,
12,
9,
14,
16,
10,
6,
125,
uent
000
000
800
000
000
650
085
693
025
353
Gal Ions
Effluent
15,000
22,000
12,785
866a
12,589
12,116
12,728
10,578
6,978
113,443C
Infl
mg/1
-
585
1373
453
5625
4003
1583
1141
367
uent
Ibs
-
117.1
192.4
45.3
422.2
489.1
212.4
101.8
18.7
1599. Ob
Effluent
mg/1
3
2
1
1
5
1
1
4
2
Ibs
0.38
0.37
0.11
0.08
0.54
0.10
0.11
0.37
0.12
2.18
Ibs
Rem.
-
116.7
192.3
45.2
421.7
489.0
212.3
101.4
18.6
1596.8
Rem.
-
99.6
99.9
99.7
99.8
99.9
99.9
99.6
99.4
Weighted Mean
a - Does not include 10/3.
b - Plus amount on 10/3 not measured.
c - 17,200 gallons removed as sludge.
1753
2.3
99.8C
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5 (continued)
-p.
10
Suspended Soli
Date
10/3
10/4
10/5
10/6
10/7
10/9
10/10
10/11
10/12
Total
Weighted
Day
Tue (2)
Wed (3)
Thu (4)
Fri (5)
Sat (6)
Mon (7)
Tue (8)
Wed (9)
Thu (10)
Mean
Volume,
Influent
16,000
24,000
16,800
12,000
9,000
14,650
16,085
10,693
6,125
125,353
Gal Ions
Effluent
15,000
22,000
12,785
866a
12,589
12,116
12,728
10,578
6,978
113,443°
Influent
mg/1
.
17,800
46,070
17,434
42,660
51 ,066
50,675
17,100
10,042
32,936a
Ibs
_
3,562
6,455
1,745
3,202
6,239
6,798
1,525
513
30,039b
Effl
mg/1
2
<1
1
<1
<1
4
7
1
5
<2.4
uent
Ibs
0.25
<0.18
0.11
<0.08
<0.11
0.40
0.76
0.09
0.29
<2.27
ds
Rem.
_
>3,562
6,455
>1,745
>3,202
6,239
6,797
1,525
513
>30,037
Rem.
_
>99.9
99.9
>99.9
>99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
>99.9
a - Does not include 10/3.
b - Plus amount on 10/3 not measured.
c - 17,200 gallons removed as sludge.
-------
Froth
Sed.
Carbon
Raw Flotation Tank Column
Flow Effluent Effluent Effluent
1600-
-1200-
CD
3
1 1
o
03
i_
4-3
X
m 800 -
CD
c
03
X
01 •
-T*
"•^
o
(/I
1 400 i
3
O
o.
0
^
^
X'
/
/,
/
/
s ,
/
'/
' /
\
(/}•
J~5
r-
CTl
CTl
1^"5
r—
in
i-O
f^-
it
^-.
T3
>
O
OJ
f>^
I
UD
CO
ro
^5
CO
co'
cn
II
^
>
CJ
cn
^ /
Ul
.a
in
o
CM
o
CO
.
cn
cn
u
r—
fO
>
0
E
-------
TABLE 6. UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM RIVER WATER QUALITY - REX CHAINBELT SYSTEM
Hexane Extractables
Upstream
Date mg/1
10/3
10/4
10/5
10/6
10/7
10/9
10/10
10/11
10/12
-
13
11
-
3
2
4
8
-
Downstream Effluent
mg/1 mg/1
3
10 2
1 1
1
7 5
<1 1
11 1
12 4
2
Suspended Solids
Upstream
mg/1
-
22
18
-
11
108
30
43
_
Downstream Effluent
mg/1 mg/1
2
24 <1
25 1
<1
37 <1
35 4
84 7
94 1
5
Total
Upstream
mg/1
-
42
42
-
45
47
38
32
_
Organic Carbons
Downstream
mg/1
-
42
42
-
47
42
37
32
_
Effluent
mg/1
4
13
17
20
23
20
15
13
_
-------
each of the sampling points the following sequence of events took place:
1. River width and depth were measured and recorded.
2. Dissolved oxygen, temperature, and conductivity were measured, begin
ning 3 inches from the bottom and proceeding upward at 1-foot inter-
vals to the surface.
3. Water samples were drawn beginning 3 inches from the bottom and pro-
ceeding upward at 1-foot intervals to the surface.
4. A benthic sample was collected using a dredge and a 30-mesh wash
bucket.
5. A 12-inch bottom core was taken and the visible profile of this core
recorded.
The equipment used in the sampling consisted of a Phleger coring device,
an Eckmann dredge which proved suitable for the clay bottom, a Kemmerer acrylic
plastic water sampler, and a wading hook for plant collections. A field log
was maintained for the data collected on site. A sample of the format used in
this log is shown in Figure 25. The river water samples were later analyzed
for pH, turbidity, suspended solids, TOC, ammonia nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen,
total phosphate, and TOD. The bottom mud samples were analyzed for hexane ex-
tractable concentrations. The before samples were taken on September 25 and
26, and the after samples on October 17 and 18.
Bottom Mud Characterization and Change
In general, the bottom mud of the Little Menomonee can be classified as
clay with mixture of sand and gravel appearing at the railroad trestle and at
Bradley Road. Large rocks, some larger than 4 inches in diameter, were found
near the trestle and scattered within 150 feet upstream of Bradley Road. At
the trestle location, gravel and debris were observed throughout the entire 12
inches of the core sample. In the samples taken during the before survey, the
hexane extractables appeared to be concentrated in the upper 6 inches of the
sample. However, at the 400- and 300-foot locations this material was found
throughout the entire 12 inches of core sample. It is possible that these
concentrations could exist much deeper than the top foot. Table 7 contains a
visual description of the core samples taken at each cross-section before and
after the cleanup operations.
Analytical determination of the hexane extractable concentration in each
core sample was performed by first drying a portion of the sample before con-
tinuing the standard procedure. The hexane extractable concentration was then
recorded as a percent of the dry solids based upon weight. Knowing the total
solids concentration in the core sample (based upon weight) made it possible
to report hexane extractable concentrations as pounds per hundred pounds of
core sample. These values are reported in Table 8. The values of each sample
in a cross-section were averaged, and these values were than averaged for the
six cross-sections.
52
-------
Date
Collected by
Location No.
Depth
Site
Site
•width
Bottom to
Sample Depth/Inch*!
3
15
27
39
51
63
Hoc torn Type General:
Core Samples
Site
Site
DO
Cond.
Temp. DO
Site
Cond.
Temp
DO
Cond.
Temp
Site
_Sita
Figure 25. Field Log - Rex Chainbelt
53
-------
TABLE 7. CORE SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS (REX CHAINBELT]
Location
Before
After
400 feet
upstream
500 feet
400 feet
300 feet
200 feet
100 feet
0 feet
200 feet
downstream
3" of clay and creosote
9" of clay
3" of clay, gravel, organic
debris
3" of clay and creosote
6" of clay
12" of organic debris, gravel
and creosote
3" of clay and organic
debris
9" of clay, creosote and
organic debris
4" of clay and creosote
8" of clay
4" of clay, creosote and
organic debris
8" of clay, gravel and rock
12" of gravel and sand,
trace of creosote on east
bank
3" of sand and organic
debris
4" of creosote and organic
debris
5" of clay
4" of clay and creosote
8" of clay
Thin creosote film
11.5" of clay
3" of clay and creosote
9" of clay
4" of clay, creosote, and
organic debris
8" of clay and gravel
3" of organic debris and
creosote film
9" of clay
1" of creosote and organic
debris
11" of clay, gravel and rock
1" of clay and creosote
11" of gravel and sand
2" of sand and creosote
4" of creosote and organic
debris
6" of clay
a - Defined analytically as hexane extractables.
54
-------
TABLE 8. BOTTOM MUD HEXANE EXTRACTABLE CONCENTRATIONS - REX CHAINBELT
en
01
Sample Location
(Ft from West Bank)
400 ft upstream
2
7
12
Mean
500 ft
2
7
12
Mean
400 ft
2
7
12
Mean
300 ft
2
7
12
17
22
Mean
Total
Solids
%
38.8
40.2
40.6
43.2
48.2
66.6
48.3
50.2
65.7
59.1
52.1
58.8
59.5
62.3
Hexane
Extractables
%
3.52
1.70
1.22
3.92
0.96
0.52
11.8
20.0
0.50
0.75
0.79
0.82
0.42
0.45
Before
Lbs of Hexane
Extractables
Per 100 Ibs of
Core Sample
1.37
0.68
0.50
0.85
1.69
0.47
0.35
0.84
5.70
10.04
0.33
5.36
0.44
0.41
0.48
0.25
0.18
0.37
Total
Solids
%
47.9
46.3
53.8
50.1
46.1
57.4
47.1
54.2
55.5
50.1
57.2
49.6
57.6
Hexane
Extractables
%
1.39
1.00
0.73
2.68
1 .00
0.29
4.77
0.96
0.35
1.55
2.04
1.27
1.37
After
Lbs of Hexane
Extractables
Per 100 Ibs of
Core Sample
0.67
0.46
0.39
0.51
1.34
0.46
0.17
0.66
2.25
0.52
0.19
0.99
0.78
1.17
0.63
0.72
0.83
(continued)
-------
TABLE 8 (continued)
cn
Sample Location
(Ft from West Bank)
200
100
0 ft
200
ft
2
7
12
Mean
ft
2
7
12
Mean
2
7
12
17
Mean
ft downstream
2
7
12
Mean
Total
Solids
%
60.3
64.0
62.6
68.3
78.7
65.4
84.3
83.8
56.4
80.9
71.2
77.1
63.2
Hexane
Extractables
%
0.31
0.35
0.32
0.15
0.60
0.33
0.28
0.013
0.66
0.47
1.14
0.33
0.095
Before
Lbs of Hexane
Extractables
Per 100 Ibs of
Core Sample
0.19
0.22
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.47
0.22
0.26
0.24
0.01
0.37
0.38
0.25
0.81
0.25
0.06
0.37
Total
Solids
%
58.5
64.0
57.4
63.8
56.4
70.2
72.9
69.5
87.5
74.9
72.0
78.0
68.2
Hexane
Extractables
%
0.57
0.22
0.22
0.17
0.89
0.32
0.30
0.077
0.10
0.10
0.07
0.09
0.74
After
Lbs of Hexane
Extractables
Per 100 Ibs of
Core Sample
0.33
0.14
0.13
0.20
0.11
0.50
0.22
0.27
0.22
0.05
0.08
0.07
0.10
0.05
0.07
0.50
0.21
-------
Inspection of Table 8 shows that the creosote concentrations decreased at
both the upstream and downstream locations, which were not part of the cleanup
operation. The upstream concentration decreased by 40%, and the downstream
concentration by over 43%. These data point out severe problems in sampling
methodology and/or technique. Changes in the hexane extractable concentrations
of the untouched upstream and downstream sample locations indicate that two
definite variables are affecting the sampling procedure, the continual suspen-
sion and deposition of materials in the test stretch, and the inability to
sample at exactly the same location twice. Since the demonstration stretch is
an unenclosed 500-foot stretch of the river, there is a continual deposit of
materials from upstream into the demonstration stretch, and a continual scour-
ing of materials from the stretch to downstream. It must be realized that
since the river flow is constantly changing, the river/shore interface also
changes. Samples were made relative to this shoreline, thus making it improb-
able that the exact same locations were sampled each time.
A sampling method that included perhaps 50 grab samples throughout each
100-foot interval, and composited these samples into one same per 100 feet
would probably have given a better representation of the bottom mud quality.
In 'addition, it is difficult to use a percent removal basis, or similar means,
for determination of relative process efficiency. This is because the muds
analyzed in the "after survey" were not of identical composition as those ana-
lyzed in the "before survey," since the better muds were removed during clean-
up operations.
Change in the bottom mud characteristics can be seen in Table 7. The
average depth of the clay, or compacted layer, increases by nearly 2 inches
between the before and after surveys. At all eight cross-sections there was a
change in either the depth or composition of the top layer of sediment.
Two cross-sections, the 400- and 300-foot locations, showed significant
changes in hexane extractable concentrations. In both cases the probable ex-
planation is evidenced by a definite change in the composition of the core
samples. The samples taken at the 400-foot location in the "before" survey
indicated a relatively uniform distribution of hexane extractables throughout
the 12-inch core. The core consisted of mostly organic debris and gravel. The
core samples from the "after" survey show a tremendous decrease in hexane ex-
tractable content, with the sample consisting primarily of compacted clay.
This indicates the top sediment had been removed during cleanup operations and
the compacted layer had been reached. Traces of hexane extractables in this
sample strongly indicate that the contaminants lie more than a foot below the
mud surface. Core samples taken at the 300-foot location in the "before" sur-
vey indicated a relatively uniform distribution of hexane extractables. The
core samples from the "after" survey are not only similar in composition, but
have a higher concentration of hexane extractables. This indeed suggests that
the contaminated layer is much deeper than 12 inches.
The average hexane extractable concentration in the six cross-sections
within the demonstration segment dropped from 1.21 Ibs to 0.51 Ibs per 100 Ibs
of core sample. This is a net decrease of 58%. However, with the preceding
discussion of sampling variability, any further conjecture on the significance
of this figure is unwarranted. Conclusions drawn from the results of the
57
-------
"before" and "after" bottom mud surveys included:
1. Hexane extractable material is present at depths of 12 inches and
more in some locations.
2. Sediment transport within the river system does occur, and causes
a high degree of variability in bottom mud hexane extractable
concentrations.
3. The bottom muds sampled in the "after" survey had a hexane extract-
able concentration 58% lower than those in the "before" survey.
However, sampling methodology does not permit valid comparisons
based on a percent reduction basis.
River Water Characterization and Change
The samples of river water collected were analyzed and the individual re-
sults for each sample were averaged for each of the quality characteristics at
the eight cross-sections. These mean values were used to represent the sec-
tiqn. Table 9 contains the mean values from the "before" and "after" surveys
for each section. Also included are the mean values from each of the charac-
teristic columns for before and after, excluding the 400-foot upstream and
200-foot downstream samples. The change in pH and ammonia, nitrate, and
total phosphate concentrations between the before and after survey is very
small. The large drop in temperature from 15.6°C to 4.7°C, and the attendant
large increase in dissolved oxygen concentration from 3.7 mg/1 to 8.7 mg/1 are
notable.
Although it would be expected that the dissolved oxygen concentration
would increase at a lower temperature, it is interesting that the percent of
dissolved oxygen saturation increased from 37% to 65%. In addition, the total
organic carbon and total oxygen demand concentrations decreased. However, be-
cause the demonstration stretch is not enclosed it is not valid to attribute
any decrease in organic loading to the demonstration project. An increase in
suspended solids concentration and conductivity were also seen. From the re-
sults of the "before" and "after" river water surveys, it can be concluded
that there was little change in water quality, with the exception of the in-
creased dissolved oxygen concentration, during the period surrounding and
including the demonstration project.
Vegetation Profile
The vegetation profile of the river was restricted to within the natural
water boundaries. It was observed, however, that the shoreline vegetation
appeared to be in the pre-climax phase as characterized by ash and hawthorne.
The restrictive tree canopies found within the 200- to 400-foot limits of the
demonstration stretch affected the aquatic vegetation by limiting light pene-
tration. The most commonly occurring water plants were found to be:
Anacharis canadensis (water weed)
Heteranthera dubia (mud plantain)
Limna minor_ (minor duckweed)
58
-------
TABLE 9. RIVER WATER CHARACTERISTICS - REX CHAINBELT
Location
400 ft
Upstream
500 ft
400 ft
300 ft
200 ft
100 ft
0 ft
Bradley Rd
200 ft
Downstream
Mean*
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
Temp.
°C
15.5
4.5
15.5
4.5
15.5
4.5
15.7
4.5
16.0
5.0
15.8
5.0
15.0
4.8
15.5
4.5
15.6
4.7
Diss.
Oxy.
mg/1
4.4
8.6
4.1
8.3
4.1
8.6
4.7
8.5
3.2
8.4
3.1
8.6
3.3
8.8
3.3
9.0
3.7
8.6
TOD
mg/1
56
51
61
60
60
58
60
50
76
54
74
53
82
48
71
53
68.8
53.8
Cond.
ymhos
cm
690
1150
675
1000
686
1100
675
1133
900
1166
895
1137
955
1116
975
1100
798
1109
Turb.
JTUs
59
25
62
75
55
39
54
21
19
43
21
61
36
29
28
72
41.2
44.7
Susp.
Solids
mg/1
91
46
76
135
78
142
80
38
28
159
39
261
108
103
123
289
68.2
139.7
TOC
mg/1
27
25
30
27
31
26
31
27
54
32
50
40
50
26
47
33
41
29.7
-N
mg/1
0.31
0.32
0.35
0.40
0.28
0.42
0.31
0.40
0.48
0.36
0.46
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.45
0.39
0.38
0.41
N03
-N
mg/1
1.75
2.80
1.77
2.69
1.82
2.77
1.79
2.73.
2.32
2.82
2.34
2.95
2.39
2.90
2.25
2.86
2.07
2.81.
Total
Phos.
P
mg/1
0.36
0.13
0.25
0.18
0.24
0.19
0.24
0.27
0.17
0.19
0.19
0.31
0.23
0.33
0.18
0.26
0.22
0.25
PH
7.4
8.1
7.4
8.1
7.4
8.1
7.4
8.0
7.5
8.0
7.4
8.0
7.4
8.0
7.4
7.9
7.4
8.0
Mean values do not include 400 feet upstream or 200 feet downstream.
-------
Potamogeton foliosus (leafy pond weed)
Saggittaria latifolia (duck potato)
Typha latiofolia (broadleaf cattail)
In general, the upper 300 feet of the test stretch were sparsely popu-
lated, with the 400-foot mark having the least aquatic vegetation. Beginning
at the 200-foot mark and moving downstream toward Bradley Road, vast mats of
waterweed and plantain were observed. Collections within this section indi-
cated that hexane extractable materials were being trapped in the leafy por-
tions of the plants. Based upon the bottom mud data and this observation, it
can be concluded that the vegetation functions as a strainer, removing hexane
extractable materials from the water during periods of low velocity. Gentle
stirring of the vegetation with the collection hook caused the visible release
of some hexane extractable material into the waterway. This indicates that
during periods of high velocity and turbulence there is a release of some of
this material which eventually settles to the bottom. Although a great deal
of the aquatic vegetation was removed during the cleanup procedure, a suffici-
ent population was found during the "after" survey to assure the complete vege-
tative repopulation of the river within this test reach.
Algae and Benthic Survey
A portion of each water sample taken within a river cross-section was set
aside for a cross-sectional composite. This composite was used for visual free-
floating algae identification and chlorophyll extraction. At least five slides
were observed for each cross-section for a total of 40 slides. No free-floating
algal forms were observed. The chlorophyll extractions made with 85% acetone
using a technique designed for a Turner fluorometer indicated chlorophyll lev-
els in the range of 10 to 25 parts per billion. Although it is believed there
is a free-floating algal population, the density of it was not clearly de-
tected. "After" survey samples indicated no apparent change. Attempts to col-
lect fixed algal species such as Cladaphora also proved fruitless. All of the
debris found in the water was coated with a layer of hexane extractable mate-
rial which apparently served as a deterrent to algal attachment.
Benthic samples collected at each of the sampling points in the river in-
dicated that no benthic population existed. Traces of a snail population were
found under the railroad trestle. No other indications of benthic life were
found in either the "before" or "after" samples.
60
-------
SECTION 6
INDUSTRIAL BIO-TEST OPERATIONS
DEMONSTRATION SITE DESCRIPTION
The 500-foot segment of the river mandated as the location for the demon-
stration of the Industrial Bio-Test/R P Industries system extended 500 feet up-
stream from Calumet Road. This relatively straight section of the river, vary-
ing in width from 6 feet at its narrowest point to 12 feet at its widest
point (for an estimated area of 4600 square feet), flows almost due south with
a stream velocity very much dependent on the amount of rainfall-produced run-
off 'from the adjacent and upstream farms and residential developments. A
tributary drainage ditch that enters the stream at a point 300 feet down-
stream of the mandated starting point contributes little to the flow of the
stream except in times of rainfall when it can become swollen with stormwater
and join with the river to flood the adjacent lowland areas. THis recurring
flooding made selection of the site for the operations base difficult, but dry
ground was located on the east bank of the river just south of the tributary
and the system was deployed there in a circus tent.
The narrowness of this segment of the stream, coupled with the presence
of the aforementioned drainage ditch, made water level in the stream extremely
sensitive to rainfall, rising and falling rapidly. For instance, measurements
taken on October 16, 1972, gave a mean depth of the stream of 18.5 inches with
a range of 10 to 29 inches. Measurements taken at the same locations on
November 6, 1972, gave a mean depth of 24.2 inches with a range of 11 to 34
inches. In addition, on October 23, 1972, the river very nearly overflowed its
banks, which are at least 48 inches above the stream bed.
The entire east bank of the river was covered by bushes and dense vegeta-
tion, making access difficult from this side. The west bank is less densely
covered with grass. Some sections of the stream bed were covered with aquatic
vegetation which was not present at the time the project was formulated. It
was, therefore, agreed that the contractor could spend 2 days in site prepara-
tion removing the vegetation, in advance of the 10-day period assigned for
bottom cleanup.
RETRIEVAL AND TREATMENT PROCESSES
The successful removal of the river bottom muds and associated contami-
nants, as well as production of a high-quality system effluent for return to
the river, required the development of three distinct unit operations: a
retrieval device to physically remove the mud and contaminant without plugging
itself with them, a solids/liquid transport system capable of conveying the
61
-------
bottom muds from the retrieval device to the treatment process, and a process
to reduce the volume of the mud slurry by dewatering and treating this water
to remove any residual contaminants.
GENERAL PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Industrial Bio-Test utilized a relatively small-scale system, shown sche-
matically in Figure 26. This lightweight, mobile, continuous-flow decontamin-
ation system was automated to the maximum extent possible and could be operated
by only two men. Its main components were a hand-held vacuum nozzle, an in-
line grass filter, a primary settling column, a Dynactor, a secondary settling
column, a magnetic separator, and a final sand filter.
The creosote-mud slurry entered the system at a rate of 12 gpm through a
nozzle that was designed in much the same manner as a vacuum cleaner nozzle,
so that there were no constrictions where clogging could take place. The slur-
ry then passed through a grass filter that was needed to protect the rest of
the system from fouling caused by aquatic weeds and other debris from the
river bottom.
From the filter, the slurry was pumped to the primary settling column
where a flocculant was added and the mud and creosote were separated from the
water. The settling column used for this purpose was a lightweight, inclined,
parallel plate clarifier which is capable of processing approximately 15 gal
of slurry per minute while occupying only 4 square feet of surface area
Creosote-Mud_
SIurry
VACUUM
NOZZLE
GRASS
FILTER
PRIMARY
SETTLING
COLUMN
Untreated Water
Magnetic Car-
bon Added
SECONDARY
SETTLING COLUMN
Creosote-Mud
Sludge for Disposal
Treated Water
Magnetic Carbon Sludge
\
Treated Water
Back to River"
SAND
FILTER
__, Treated
Water
MAGNETIC
SEPARATOR
Thickened Carbon
Sludge for Disposal
Figure 26. Schematic of Bio-Test treatment process.
62
-------
(conventional separators of equal capacity require several times the space and
are considerably heavier). The separated mud-creosote sludge was drained from
the bottom of the settler and disposed of at the approved landfill.
The clarified liquid from the settling column was then pumped through the
Dynactor, where a blend of 15% magnetic iron oxide and 85% powdered activated
carbon was introduced to remove the residual dissolved or colloidal creosote
from the water. The introduction of iron oxide with the carbon permits mag-
netic separation of both substances.
The effluent from the Dynactor was then introduced into the secondary
settling column after a high molecular weight polymer had been added to floe
the iron oxide carbon mixture. The thickened carbon sludge from the underflow
of the settler was pumped to the continuous-flow magnetic separator for final
dewatering.
The dewatered sludge was disposed of at the approved landfill. The clar-
ified water from this process, along with the supernatant water from the sec-
ondary settler, were passed through a sand filter for final polishing. The
effluent from the filter was then returned to the river.
Retrieval Device
Originally it was planned to produce a funnel-shaped device with a heli-
cal auger, driven by a small gear-reduced motor. The wide end of the funnel
would be inserted into the mud. The rotating helix was intended to stir up
the river bottom beneath the funnel, insuring pickup of contaminant and bot-
tom mud to a depth determined by the projection of the auger. During design
and river testing of the pickup funnel, it was found that the auger contrib-
uted nothing to the pickup of the fine silt bottom deposits and the auger con-
cept was abandoned. After fabrication and testing of about 20 pickup funnel
designs, a design very similar to the pickup attachment of a portable vacuum
cleaner was selected. During operation, the narrow end of the nozzle, the
internal surfaces of which are as smooth as possible to prevent plugging, is
inserted into the mud to preclude the pickup of objects too big to enter the
flexible rubber hose.
Solids/Liquid Transport
A pickup rate of 10 gallons per minute was chosen as the design rate of
the transport system. It was thought that this would be sufficient to allow
thorough cleaning of the assigned segment if a continuous flow at this rate
could be maintained.
Primary Settling Column
Early in the program it was decided that specially designed continuous-
flow, high-rate settling columns would be necessary to concentrate suspended
solids from the pumped mud slurry into a thick sludge. Figure 27 is a gen-
eral schematic diagram of the high-rate settling column constructed of PVC.
The column is lightweight, corrosion-resistant, and rugged. The inclined
plates are spaced 1 inch apart so that any solid particle needs to rise only
2 inches to be removed totally from the liquid stream. (Vertical rise equals
63
-------
OVERFLOW
EFFLUENT
INFLUENT
THICKENED, SETTLED
SOLIDS UNDERFLOW
EFFLUENT
Figure 2.1 - High^rate settling column.
spacing divided by sin 30°). The inclined section of the column is at an
angle of 60° from the horizontal plane, an angle which is above the angle of
repose for nearly all solids, thereby insuring that internal clogging will not
occur.
By making use of advanced fluid dynamics technology and by employing light-
weight plastics, a superior portable high-rate settling column was evolved. By
comparison, similar settling vessels of earlier design are as much as five
times heavier than the custom-built columns. In addition, the column could
clarify 21,400 gallons per 24-hour day while occupying only 4 square feet of
surface area, an improvement of 740% in surface area required over conventional
settling basins and nearly twice as effective as earlier tube or plate types
of high-rate settling systems. Moreover, the lightweight construction is it-
self an advantage, making possible the design of large systems having superior
characteristics when compared with conventional settling vessels or "high rate"
equipment available up to the present time.
Dynactor
Figure 28 shows a cross-sectional schematic diagram of the thin-film gas-
liquid-particulate contact device used in Contract 68-01-0123 and modified for
this program. The device, the Dynactor, was developed by R P Industries and
weighs less than 40 Ibs and is about 7 ft in height.
64
-------
LIQUID INPUT,
40 TO 100 PSI
AIR INPUT
LOW VELOCITY,
AMBIENT
PRESSURE
HIGH /
VELOCITY
SUB-
AMBIENT
PRESSURE
REACTION
COLUMN
RESERVOIR/SEPARATOR (LIQUID)
PLENUM CHAMBER
RADIAL PRESSURE
TRANSFORMATION SECTION
SHOWER OF THIN FILMS
AND PARTICLES
TURBULENT MIXED FLUID
GAS OUTPUT
BAFFLE
LIQUID
LEVEL
DETERMINING
TRAP
LIQUID
OUTPUT
Figure 28. Dynactor diffusion system cross-sectional view.
65
-------
The_Dynactor can be viewed as a macroscopic diffusion pump that makes
use of diffusion principles in order to aspirate large volumes of air per vol-
ume of motive liquid. Liquid entering the system under a pressure of 40 to
100 Ibs per square inch (typical) is atomized into thin films and droplets of
average thickness or diameter less than 1/64 inch. This liquid discharge
sprays into the reaction chamber, causing air or gas to be aspirated by being
trapped within the moving shower of films and particles. The internal config-
uration is constructed to maximize gas-liquid turbulence and contact through-
out the length of the 6-foot-long, 12-inch-diameter reaction column. The re-
sulting mixed fluid then continues to travel down the reaction column with
intimate contact maintained between gas and liquid, causing physical and chem-
ical equilibria to occur by the time the mixed fluid exits from the reaction
column and enters the separation reservoir.
In the radial pressure transformation section' the partial vacuum that
obtains within the Dynactor is produced by accelerating ambient air at low
velocity and atmospheric pressure to high velocity and subambient pressure as
it enters the reaction column. By utilizing diffusion, the Dynactor aspirates
up to 4800 standard volumes of gas per volume of motive liquid. Venturi
eductors will aspirate typically in the range of 100 volumes of gas per vol-
ume 'of motive liquid.
The two-stage Dynactor employed during this study used an input of about
5 gpm of water at 100 Ibs per square inch pressure. Approximately 2000 stan-
dard cubic feet per minute of atmospheric air were aspirated into the Dynactor
and contacted with this water under these conditions with power requirements
of 1/3 horsepower.
Since the moving liquid in the reaction chamber is essentially a thin
film, the gas transfer, mass transfer, and heat transfer reaction rates are
extremely rapid.
The Dynactor was equipped with liquid, gas, and powder metering systems,
thus enabling stoichiometric quantities of decontaminating agents such as
lime, bicarbonate, ozone, acetic acid, and powdered carbon to be introduced
into the flow of contaminated water through the Dynactor. Key decontamina-
tion reactions that have been accomplished and demonstrated in the Dynactor
system can be listed as follows:
1. Aeration
2. Oxidation
3. Ozonation
4. Neutralization
5. Precipitation
6. Carbon adsorption
7. Combination reactions
66
-------
Since carbon adsorption was to be used in this study to remove traces of
soluble creosote before returning the effluent water to the stream, the details
of this process will be documented here. Examples of all other decontamination
reactions have been reported elsewhere.
The use of powdered carbon (Nuchar 190N) processed by the Dynactor in both
slurry and powdered form has been extensively and quantitatively studied in the
decontamination of water containing phenol, chlorine, DDT, ethion, toxaphene,
and the water-soluble hydrocarbons from fuel oil No. 2. When slurries (10%
carbon) are used, they are metered directly into the contaminated water (liquid)
input line before passing through the nozzle. Dry powdered carbon is aerosol-
ized by the powder feed mechanism and sucked into the throat of the Dynactor
by the air intake under the baffles of the impedance section. The wetting and
dispersion of the carbon by the turbulent thin-film contact is excellent at a
liquid flowrate of 5 gal per minute and a carbon metering rate of about 15 to
20 grams per minute.
Powdered carbon introduced by the Dynactor will be used to remove the
soluble portion of creosote and other hydrccarbons. This will ensure a high-
quality effluent to the stream.
The exact amount of carbon needed to remove water-soluble creosote frac-
tions to yield an effluent of satisfactory water quality were determined ex-
perimentally. Samples of mud removed from the bottom were thoroughly agitated
and the aqueous phase separated by laboratory centrifugation. The soluble
and creosote portion was determined gravimetrically by the hexane extraction
method before and after carbon treatment.
Secondary Settling Column
The magnetic carbon/water/bottom mud slurry from the reservoir of the
Dynactor was pumped to the secondary settling column which was identical in
construction to the primary settling column. A high molecular weight polymer
flocculant was added to enhance the settling rate. The thickened carbon
sludge was continuously bled off through the manually operated valve at the
bottom of the settler.
Magnetic Separation of Solids
During another EPA contract (68-01-0123) it was clearly demonstrated that
batches of suspended solids, precipitates, and carbon dispersions could be
thickened by the formation of a magnetic floe when the proper_amounts of mag-
netic material were mixed with them in the presence of an optimum amount of a
polyelectrolyte flocculating agent.
In a mobile field configuration, the decontamination of waterways im-
pacted by spilled hazardous materials usually requires a continuous-flow pro-
cess to remove potentially toxic precipitates, suspended solids, and spent
carbon in suspension.
Suspensions of powdered carbon from the effluent of the Dynactor were very
difficult to thicken by state-of-the-art techniques. Flocculating agents were
67
-------
used, and Although some of these produced a suitable floe within 2 seconds
after addition of about 1 ppm, when the carbon floe was processed in
continuous-flow separators or commercial filters, the shear forces were suf-
ficient to disrupt the lacy structure of the carbon floe and incomplete sep-
aration resulted. However, when an inexpensive magnetic oxide was added to
the suspended carbon in combination with a flocculating agent, the resulting
floe became magnetic and could be quantitatively removed in a continuous-flow
magnetic separator.
In order to simultaneously remove the magnetic floe of suspended solids
and dewater the solids, a particular kind of magnetic separator was used.
Sludge from the secondary settling column containing activated carbon, suspended
solids (containing creosote) and a polyelectrolyte flocculating agent was al-
lowed to flow by gravity through the orifice or "slice" of the head box under
the moving Mylar belt suspended below the magnet structure. The magnetic floe
of suspended solids materials was rapidly attracted to the bottom side of the
moving belt due to the presence of the magnetic structure suspended above this
element. Clarified water flowed down to a sump and could be released back into
the stream. Dewatered solids material was continuously scraped off the moving
belt after the belt has passed by and away from the magnet structure. Thickened
solids, including all remaining stream bed solids, carbon, and magnetic material
were collected in plastic barrels and transported to a landfill area designated
for the purpose.
Separation of suspended solids in a magnetic floe
magnetic separator proved rapid, efficient, continuous.
able effluent for release to the river.
Sand Filtration
by the above-described
and produced an accept-
As shown in Figure 26, the treated water from both the secondary settling
column and the magnetic separator was passed thorugh a sand filter before re-
lease to the river. The filter, a Hanson Industries type, commonly used as a
swimming pool filter, was used to prevent unsettled carbon fines from being
discharged along with the treated water.
FIELD DEMONSTRATION
Preparation
Experimental data on the project was developed over a period of 5 months
from July through November 1972. Analytical work on all samples was completed
and reported in December 1972.
System design, fabrication, and testing were started in July. The gaso-
line powered screw pump was procured for pumping mud from the stream bottom.
The pump, rated at 10.3 gpm, was designed to pump slurries and suspensions.
It will pass pebbles and particles up to 3/16-inch in diameter without clog-
ging. It is self-priming, positive displacement and can deliver bottom mud to
the treatment system at any practical distance within the contract geography
of Phase I. The pump was taken to the Assabet River in Marlboro,
Massachusetts, several times in order to conduct performance studies and to
68
-------
better define the mud-sucking equipment problems. It was decided that a nar-
row slot pickup device was required for effective removal of silt and mud.
Velocity is high into the narrow slot pickup device, and essentially no cloud
of stirred up bottom sediment escapes. Clogging was experienced with early
designs and several redesigns had to be fabricated, eliminating any internal
angles and shoulders where mud, grass, and leaveds could impact. An auger
was designed and tested, but contributed very little to the efficiency of sed-
iment removal.
During August and September, design and fabrication of the high-rate
settling columns, Dynactor system including plenum chamber, reservoir and car-
bon dispenser, the magnetic separator, premagnetizing section, traps, and
suction removal scoop were completed. Tests on effluent from the magnetic
separator indicated that the clarified effluent was of sufficient water qual-
ity to be returned to the stream.
During August, personnel from R P Industries and Bio-Test made a site
visit to the Little Menomonee River with the Project Officer. Several sites
along the river were explored and bottom mud samples collected for analysis and
settling rate studies. Since a growth of aquatic grass and other vegetation in
sections of the river was observed and it was determined that the growth was
not in existence at the time the project was formulated, it was agreed that the
contractor could spend 2 days in advance site preparation removing debris and
pulling out vegetation in advance of the 10 days of assigned bottom cleanup.
In addition, it was observed that any disturbance of the river bottom
caused the appearance of an oil slick and the odor of creosote. To prevent
this contamination from being carried downstream during cleanup operations, oil
absorbent booms (Johns Manville Sea Serpents) were placed across the river
downstream from cleanup operations.
Samples of river bottom sediment containing creosote were taken to R P
Industries' laboratories and evaluated for settling rate and clarification
chatacteristies. Settling speed was substantially slower than anticipated and
emulsion formation was encountered due to the presence of creosote. As a re-
sult, the primary settling column was redesigned and a high-rate column was
substituted for the originally planned conventional system. A modified slanted
tube section was designed in order to increase the effective retention time
without adding additional volume to the system.
Chemical Coagulation Studies
Since creosote in the river sediment markedly interfered with coagulation
and settling, it was considered essential to the program to conduct pertinent
laboratory experiments with additional samples of mud to solve the problem of
emulsion formation and slow settling.
These studies were performed for Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories at the
facilities of its parent company, Nalco Chemical Company, using the extensive
industrial water treatment experience of their research and development labor-
atories group. Sample description of Little Menomonee River bottom mud were
deep brown in color, had a pH of 7.0, and the odor of creosote. On
69
-------
centrifugation, they showed 60% water and 40% sediment. A Freon extraction
test showed 1.6% extractables. Samples of mud were diluted 9:1 with water to
simulate dredge conditions.
Methodology
Fifteen-mi sample tubes were filled with the muddy water, dosed with
chemicals, and placed in a rack designed to rotate 40 tubes at a time. After
a 10-minute rotation period, the tubes were checked for emulsion breaking
activity. Chemicals checked were N-600, N-603, N-634, 7720, 7721, 7722,
7740-A, and D-2366. Of these, 603, 634, and 7722 showed sufficient activity
to proceed to jar tests.
Jar tests were performed on each of the three chemicals primarily to
observe their coagulation characteristics and water clarify.
Settling times were done by the following method: A 10% mud suspension
was prepared and poured through a No. 4 filter screen to remove rocks, sticks,
and leaves. This filtered slurry was used to fill 250-ml stoppered graduated
cylinders. Each chemical was added in known quantities, and the cylinders
were inverted five times. Settling was measured as the time in seconds for
the interface to travel 3 inches and then converted to feet per hour.
Settling Test Results
The experimental results are shown in Figure 29 and Table 10. N-634
showed a rapid settling rate at greater than 125 ppm and N-603 showed a maxi-
mum effect at 100 ppm by volume. The N-603 gave a cloudy supernatant,
whereas the N-634 produced a clean supernatant and a slightly higher set-
tling rate. Freon extractions were made in the supernatant liquid from the
jar tests. AT 150 ppm by volume (176 ppm by weight), N-634 gave 10 ppm total
extractables by volume, and N-603 at 125 ppm showed 80 ppm extractables. By
using N-610 at 10 ppm in addition to N-634 at 150 ppm, significantly higher
settling rates were obtained. However, in view of the excellent performance
of N-634 the extra cost was not deemed justified. The fact that the superna-
tant after flocculation with N-634 showed only 10 ppm Freon extractables indi-
cated that most of the creosote will stay with the mud sediment and can be
removed by the high-rate settling column.
The flowrate into the primary column was assumed to be 10 gpm, and the
addition of 0.03 gpm (114 ml per minute) of a 5% solution of N-634 was
recommended.
Field Setup
All of the equipment for cleanup and decontamination of creosote in the
river bottom sediment previously described was loaded in a rented truck by
R P Industries personnel in Marlboro for departure to Milwaukee on October 9,
1972. Supervisory engineer personnel flew to the site in advance of the
equipment arrival.
70
-------
60
50
40
I
t:
LU
H
_
30
20
634
7603
7722
10
50 75 100 125 150 175
CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION, PPM BY VOLUME
200
225
Figure 29. Little Menomonee River floe settling studies.
-------
TABLE 10. RESULTS OF BIO-TEST SETTLING TIME STUDIES
Chemical
N-634
7722
N-603
N-634 ,
+ 10 ppm 610
75 ppm
34.0
51.3
22.0
--
Settling
100 ppm
22.3
41.8
17.3
--
Rate (Seconds
to go 3
125 ppm 150 ppm
18.0
48.0
24.8
--
17.3
47.3
26.0
11.5
inches)3
175 ppm
17.0
48.8
29.8
--
200 ppm
17.0
--
--
— —
a - Average of four runs.
b - Average of two runs.
During the week of October 9, arrangements were made with local vendors
to procure services and facilities, including rental of a tent, a gasoline-
driven power source, extension ladders to serve as river bridging platforms,
sheets of plywood, a wheelbarrow, a sickle-bar grass mower, telephone, night
guards from Merchants Police, a Dumpster from Industrial Waste Corp. for re-
moval of sludge and debris to sanitary landfills, a kerosene-fired space
heater, kerosene, flexible hose, and miscellaneous hardware items.
Aquatic vegetation, branches and miscellaneous debris were removed from
the 500-foot stretch on October 11, 12, and 13, by manual raking. Creosote-
contaminated material was placed on polyethylene sheets, rolled up and placed
in the Dumpster for disposal. Weeds and grass were cut to provide for a road-
path and the location of a tent approximately 24 feet in diameter and 14 feet
high to protect the system equipment and workers from the elements. Sections
of plywood were used as flooring for the tent to provide walkways and dry
storage areas.
The processing equipment was unloaded from the truck at the tent site and
set up as shown in the block diagram, Figure 26, on October 11. All of_the
equipment was interconnected in accordance with the logic table and wiring dia-
gram previously prepared by R P Industries engineers. All equipment was tested
for water tightness and operation of electrical components, and the equipment
functioned satisfactorily. The portable gas-electric generator provided power
in excess of that required to operate all equipment and lights. A telephone
was available in the tent, and communiations between the tent and personnel on
the river was possible by walky-talky units.
FIELD OPERATIONS
On October 16 initial water and bottom samples were obtained by field per-
sonnel from Bio-Test. Standard methods of sampling for water quality analysis
72
-------
were_strictly adhered to. Locations of the measurements were taken at the
stations and in the manner previously described, samples were immediately
taken to Bio-Test Laboratories in Northbrook, Illinois, for analysis.
Actual river bottom removal and system start-up began on the afternoon
of October 16. Initial observations on the processing of the creosote contain-
ing mud slurry sucked from the river bottom were as follows. The sludge out-
put of the first high-rate settling column was a thick, black mud with a
strong odor of creosote. Samples drawn from the mud discharged to the
Dumpster showed that consolidated mud predominated. After 3 hours settling
time in a glass jar, about 75% of the volume was mud and 25% clear water on
top. This was an unexpectedly high solids content and attested to the ef-
fectiveness of the primary chemical flocculant selected for the primary set-
tling column.
The supernatant overflow from the first settler appeared as slightly tur-
bid water with a faint odor of creosote and a trace of suspended solids. The
Dynactor processed this effluent by adding powdered carbon (Nuchar 190N) con-
taining 15% by weight of magnetic iron oxide. The effluent from the
Dynactor appeared as a black suspension of carbon, as expected. This efflu-
ent flows through the second high-rate settling column after addition of 1 ppm
of a high molecular weight polymer to floe the magnetic carbon. The overflow
effluent was essentially clear water with no odor and a very slight gray
tinge. This effluent was then passed through a sand filter, resulting in a
crystal-clear water which subsequent analysis showed to have less than 0.1 ppm
hexane extractables and 12 mg/1 suspended solids.
The thickened carbon from the underflow of the second settler was pumped
to the continuous-flow magnetic separator yielding a dewatered sludge and a
clear effluent that was likewise passed through the sand filter and returned
to the river.
On October 17 a sudden early morning "hard freeze" caused ice formation in the
hoseline which required half a day to unclog. A continuation of the cold snap
into October 18, 19, and 20 caused operations to be limited to 5 hours on each
of those days. At this point in time, progress on river bottom cleaning was
estimated at about 190 square feet per hour.
On October 21 and 22 up to 3 inches of rain fell in the area and limited
operations to half-days. Rain and runoff was washing mud and silt and creo-
sote back into the stream from the river banks. The roadway was impassable
and working conditions were very difficult. On October 23 the river flooded
and all operations had to be suspended. Working in the area was becoming dan-
gerous, and the rising water threatened to inundate the tent and equipment.
On October 24, operations were suspended and emergency measures were taken to
protect the equipment until river conditions returned to normal. Security and
consulting personnel remained at the site, while operations personnel returned
to their respective offices. From October 26 through October 30, daily checks
were made by phone on weather and river conditions. The operating personnel
returned to the site on October 31 and spent the balance of the day cleaning up
from the flood and getting the equipment into operation condition again.
73
-------
Operations resumed on November 1 and continued on a relatively routine
basis with the 140 square foot per hour rate maintained for the next 4 days.
This rate included removal of creosote from heavy pockets that were encountered.
Cleanup operations were completed during the morning of November 5.
On November 3 and 5 a limited number of bottom samples were taken as repre-
sentative of mid-core sampling. The bottom sediments were taken in midstream,
station 2 at transects 1, 2, 4, and 8, on November 3, 1972, and November 5,
1972.
A complete sampling identical to the "zero time sampling" protocol was
conducted on November 6, 25 hours after final cleanup operations.
74
-------
SECTION 7
INDUSTRIAL BIO-TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
SAMPLING POINTS, PROCEDURES, AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
Sampling and analyses for suspended solids and hexane extractables were
performed at various points in the pickup and treatment process to determine
the effectiveness of the individual unit processes in producing a good quality
effluent for return to the river. The sample locations are listed below:
Raw Flow
Effluent from Primary Settling Column
Effluent from Dynactor
Effluent from Secondary Settling Column
Effluent from Magnetic Separator
Effluent from Sand Filter
As required by the contract, sampling and analyses of river water quality
and bottom mud contamination were performed before, during, and after the
actual field operations to determine the effectiveness and environmental impact
of the bottom cleanup.
Analytical Method
All applicable methods were done according to standard methods. Since no
standard method was available for creosote, a modification of 209A, Soxhlet
Extraction Method for Grease Determination (Standard Methods for the Examina-
tion of Water and Wastewater, 13th ed. , American Public Health Association,
Washington, DC, 1971) was used.
DISCUSSION OF TREATMENT PROCESS
Each of the unit processes employed contributed toward the production of
water effluent highly suitable for discharge to the river. Table 11 summarizes
the creosote removal effectiveness of each process and of the total system,
while Table 12 furnishes similar information regarding suspended solids re-
moval. The data presented in these tables are typical of the results obtained
during the 10 days of Phase I operations. Table 11 shows the effective per-
formance of the Bio-Test/R P system in removing creosote from the influent mud
slurry pumped from the bottom of the river. The influent samples had creosote
(hexane extractables) levels of approximately 240 mg/1. The primary settling
column produced an overflow effluent of 9.1 mg/1, which was further processed
by carbon adsorption in the Dynactor to the point where the creosote could
75
-------
TABLE 11. INDUSTRIAL BIO-TEST/R P INDUSTRIES TREATMENT
SYSTEM: CREOSOTE REMOVAL EFFECTIVENESS
Item
Primary settling
column
Dynactor
Secondary settling
column
Magnetic separator
Sand filter
Total system
a - As determined by
TABLE 12.
SYSTEM
Item
Primary settling
column
Dynactor
Secondary settling
column
Magnetic separator
Sand filter
Total system
% of
Influent Effluent Remaining % of Total
(mg/1) (mg/1) Creosote Creosote
Creosote3 Creosote Removed Removed
240.0 9.1
9.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
240.0 0.1
96 96.0
99+ 3.8
— _
-
-
99+
Cumulative
% of
Creosote
Removed
96
99+
99+
99+
99+
99+
hexane extractables method.
INDUSTRIAL BIO-TEST/R P INDUSTRIES TREATMENT
: SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL EFFECTIVENESS
Influent Effluent
(mg/1) (mg/1)
Suspended Suspended
Solids Solids
48,000 560
560 1,600
1,600 15b
20,000 15C
15 10
48,000 10
% of Cumulative
Remaining % of Total % of
Suspended Suspended Suspended
Solids Solids Solids
Removed Removed Removed
99 99
(-2.2)a
99+ 3.20
33 0.01
99+
a - Approximately 1000 mg/1 of carbon/iron oxide mixture introduced
process.
b - Spent carbon, iron oxide, and mud removed in this process.
c - Approximately 20,000 mg/1 of sludge from secondary settling col
99
96+
99+
99+
99+
99+
in this
umn (under
flow) dewatered in this process.
76
-------
barely be detected, that is, less than 0.1 mg/1. Table 12 indicates that 99%
of the suspended solids in the influent river bottom mud/creosote slurry
(48,000 mg/1) was removed by the first high-rate settling column. Additional
solids (1000 mg/1), however, were introduced into the Dynactor in the form of
activated carbon (to adsorb the creosote) and iron oxide (to facilitate the
magnetic separation of the carbon). This material, plus the residual sus-
pended solids from the effluent of the primary settler, were further processed
in the secondary settling column where more than 99% of these solids were con-
centrated into a sludge (20,000 mg/1) which was further dewatered to 150,000
mg/1 in the magnetic separator and subsequently disposed of in the approved
landfill. The clarified water effluents from both the secondary settler and
the magnetic separator (each having a solids content of 15 mg/1) were passed
through the sand filter for final polishing to a suspended solids content of
not more than 10 mg/1. This high-qual-ity effluent, indicated above to be es-
sentially free of hexane extractables, was returned to the river.
CHARACTERIZATION OF RIVER WATER AND BOTTOM MUDS
Sampling Methodology and Equipment
Before, during, and after cleanup, sampling was conducted at locations
along the designated 500-foot section. These "locations" were at approximately
100-foot-length intervals. There were "sampling stations" at 5-foot-wide inter-
vals at each "loation" starting 2 feet from the near bank. In addition, samp-
ling was done at locations approximately 200 feet upstream from the start of
the section and 400 feet downstream from the end of the section. Bottom sam-
ples were taken at each station and water column samples were taken at 1-foot-
depth intervals starting 3 inches from the bottom and ending 3 inches from the
surface. The total number of bottom samples taken was 65. The number of water
samples was 195.
All analytical procedures were performed as specified and previously de-
scribed. Figure 30 shows the details of the geographic and sampling locations
for the Little Menomonee River Project. All physical and water quality data
are shown as individual values in Tables 13 through 16.
The low air temperature recorded at Mitchell Field was 24°F, and the
high was 63°F during the period of operations. A low of 17°F was recorded at
the cleanup site. The total precipitation for the period was 3.24 inches, and
precipitation was recorded on 12 of the 22 days of operation.
River Water Characterization
All of the individual data was studied for meaningful differences and
trends. The data for physical and water quality measurements at each sampling
station was totaled and averaged for the initial (October 16, 1972) and final
(November 6, 1972) sampling periods to characterize any marked changes in
these parameters during the cleanup operations. These averages are summarized
in Table 17.
Other than physical changes caused by rainfall and cold weather, there
were no significant or marked shifts in water quality related to the cleanup
operations.
77
-------
OO
MILWAUKEE -
WISCONSIN
ILLINOIS
KENOSHA
LEGEND OF
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Upstream: 11, 12, 13
Study Area: 21,22,23,31,32,33
41, 42, 43, 51, 52, 53,
61, 62, 71, 72, 73
Downstream: 81, 82, 83
»- JJA—„—Jljll
LITTLE MENOMONEE
RIVER
^-__2J^_8,_2JJ . lif
i- s
Kg:
P DIRECTION.
OF FLOW
111
PERSPECTIVE FORESHORTENED
TO FACILITATE INCLUSION OF ALL
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
83
82
81
- ---- 16' ----- 4 ---------- A
fe*
Figure 30. Monitoring sample locations for sediment and water quality, Little Menomonee River.
-------
TABLE 13. WEATHER DATA, LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER
UD
Parameters
Sampling
Transect
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
8
Date
1972
10-16
11-3
11-5
11-6
10-16
11-3
11-5
11-6
10-16
11-6
10-16
11-3
11-5
11-6
10-16
11-6
10-16
11-6
10-16
11-6
10-16
11-3
11-5
11-6
Time
1930
1145
1140
1245
1755
1130
1110
1313
1700
1351
1605
1100
1020
1435
1500
1522
1345
1615
1200
1650
1005
1230
1300
1815
Air
Wet Bulb,
7.2
5.0
7.8
8.9
7.2
5.0
8.3
9.4
9.4
9.4
10.0
5.0
6.7
8.9
11.1
7.8
11.7
7.8
10.6
7.2
9.4
5.0
7.8
7.8
Temperature
UC Dry Bulb, DC
11.7
5.6
10.6
12.8
13.9
6.1
11.7
13.3
16.1
12.2
16.7
5.6
8.3
11.1
17.2
10.0
17.2
8.9
15.0
9.4
10.6
6.1
11.1
9.4
Relative
Humidity, %
52
91
68
60
45
84
63
60
40
69
40
91
75
75
47
74
51
87
58
74
86
84
62
82
Wind
Velocity, mph
4-5
0-2
4-5
3-4
8-9
3-5
5-6
4-5
8-9
3-5
8-9
0-2
4-5
5-8
8-9
4-6
7
0-1
10
2-3
8-10
4-5
3-5
0-3
Wind
Direction
NW
N
S
sw
w
N
S
sw
w
sw
w
N
S
SW
w
SE
W
SE
SW
SE
NW
N
S
SE
Cloud
Cover, %
0
100
70
100
0
100
60
100
0
100
0
100
80
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
30
100
-------
TABLE 14. PHYSICAL DATA, LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER
Sampling Stations3
11
11
12
12
12
12
13
13
21
21
22
22
22
22
23
23
31
31
32
32
33
33
41
41
42
42
42
42
43
43
51
51
Date, 1972
10-16
11-6
10-16
11-3
11-5
11-6
10-16
11-6
10-16
11-6
10-16
11-3
11-5
11-6
10-16
11-6
10-16
11-6
10-16
11-6
10-16
11-6
10-16
11-6
10-16
11-3
11-5
11-6
10-16
11-6
10-16
11-6
Parameters
Seech i Disc, in.
b
13.0
b
17.0
19.0
18.0
b
11.0
17.0
20.0
18.0
17.0
27.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
18.0
17.0
18.0
20.0
17.0
18.0
17.0
20.0
21.0
18.0
28.0
21.0
17.0
19.0
15.0
21.0
Depth, in.
10.0
13.0
12.0
17.0
19.0
18.0
10.5
11.0
19.5
25.0
20.0
28.0
27.0
28.0
18.0
23.0
18.0
31.0
28.0
34.0
17.0
23.0
17.0
24.0
21.0
28.0
28.0
28.0
17.0
23.0
18.0
23.0
(continued]
80
-------
TABLE 14 (Continued)
Sampling Stations3
52
52
53
53
61
61
62
62
63
63
71
71
72
72
73
73
81
81
82
82
82
82
83
83
Date, 1972
10-16
11-6
10-16
11-6
10-16
11-6
10-16
11-6
c
10-16
11-6
10-16
11-6
10-16
11-6
10-16
11-6
10-16
11-3
11-5
11-6
10-16
11-6
Parameters
Secchi Disc, in.
20.0
23.0
20.0
21.0
20.0
18.0
22.0
19.0
-
12.0
20.0
17.0
21.0
17.0
20.0
14.0
b
16.0
18.0
22.0
b
13.0
b
Depth, in.
28.0
32.0
23.0
26.0
29.0
28.0
22.0
28.0
-
12.0
24.0
22.0
34.0
20.0
33.0
14.0
12.0
18.0
22.0
22.0
18.0
13.0
18.0
a - The first digit of the sampling station is the transect number. The sec-
ond digit is the station number in the respective transect starting with
one on the east bank and increasing going west.
b - The Secchi Disc reading could not be taken due to darkness.
c - Sampling Station 63 was eliminated due to the 6-foot width of the river
making a third station in transect 6 impractical according to the contract
81
-------
TABLE 15. PRECIPITATION AND HIGH AND LOW AIR TEMPERATURES,
LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER
Date, 1972
10-16
10-17
10-18
10-19
10-20
10-21
,10-22
10-23
10-24
10-25
10-26
10-27
10-28
10-29
10-30
10-31
11-1
11-2
11-3
11-4
11-5
11-6
High Air
Temperature, °F
63
42
41
43
49
48
51
51
43
51
58
53
49
44
46
44
47
55
45
41
51
52
Low Air
Temperature, °F
38
31
29
24
25
41
47
39
30
30
40
38
44
39
39
42
43
42
39
36
39
36
Precipitation,
inches9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.45
1.68
0.45
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.02
0.15
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
a - Data obtained from General William Mitchell Field, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
82
-------
TABLE 16. LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER, WATER QUALITY DATA - BIO-TEST SEGMENT
Parameters
Sampling
Stations
lla
lib
lie
lla
lib
lie
12a
12b
12c
12a
• 12b
12c
12a
12b
12c
12a
12b
12c
13a
13b
13c
13a
13b
13c
21a
21b
21 c
21a
21 b
21c
22a
22b
22c
22a
22b
22c
22a
22b
22c
Date, Temperature,
1972 °C
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-3
11-3
11-3
11-5
11-5
11-5
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-3
11-3
11-3
11-5
11-5
11-5
11.0
b
11.0
8.0
b
8.0
11.0
b
11.0
c
8.5
c
c
8.1
c
8.0
b
8.0
11.0
b
11.0
8.0
b
8.0
11.0
11.0
11.1
8.7
8.7
8.7
11.1
11.1
11.1
c
8.5
-
-
8.1
-
Oxygen
Dissolved,
mg/1
8.7
b
8.7
9.1
b
9.2
8.7
b
8.7
c
7.9
c
c
8.4
c
9.1
b
9.0
8.7
b
8.7
9.0
b
8.9
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.4
8.4
8.3
8.7
8.7
8.7
-
7.7
-
-
8.4
-
Oxygen
Saturation
%
78
b
78
76
b
77
78
b
78
c
65
c
c
71
c
76
b
76
78
b
78
76
b
75
78
78
78
72
72
71
78
78
78
-
66
-
-
71
-
pH
7.8
b
7.8
7.6
b
7.6
7.8
b
7.8
c
7.7
c
c
7.7
c
7.8
b
7.7
7.8
b
7.8
7.8
b
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.8
—
7.7
™
-
7.7
—
Turbidity,
J.T.U.
18
b
22
16
b
21
23
b
18
c
15
c
c
8
c
24
b
14
37
b
29
20
b
29
17
19
16
19
18
17
18
21
16
™
11
*
—
8
—
(continued)
83
-------
TABLE 16 (Continued)
Parameters
Sampling
Stations
22a
22b
22c
23a
23b
23c
23a
23b
23c
31a
31 b
31c
31a
31 b
31c
32a
32b
32c
32a
32b
32c
33a
33b
33c
33a
33b
33c
41 a
41b
41c
41 a
41 b
41 c
42a
42b
42c
Date, Temperature,
1972 oc
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
8.7
8.7
8.7
11.0
11.1
11.0
8.7
8.7
8.7
11.5
11.5
11.5
8.7
8.7
8.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
8.7
8.7
8.7
11.5
11.5
11.3
8.7
8.7
8.7
11.0
11.0
11.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
Oxygen
Dissolved,
mg/1
8.2
8.2
8.1
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.0
7.5
7.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.7
8.6
8.6
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.6
8.4
8.4
8.5
8.5
8.6
8.3
8.2
8.1
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.4
8.4
Oxygen
Saturation
%
70
70
69
78
78
78
68
65
65
77
77
77
74
73
73
77
77
77
73
72
72
77
77
78
71
70
69
76
76
76
71
72
72
77
76
76
, Turbidity,
pH J.T.U.
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.5
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.5
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
15
17
16
21
14
25
20
18
22
19
15
17
25
20
34
15
15
15
19
18
22
22
14
17
17
34
28
28
20
60
14
19
14
16
23
16
(continued]
84
-------
TABLE 16 (Continued)
Parameters
Sampling
Stations
42a
42b
42c
42a
42b
42c
42a
42b
42c
43a
• 43b
43c
43a
43b
43c
51a
51b
51 c
51a
51b
51c
52a
52b
52c
52a
52b
52c
53a
53b
53c
53a
53b
53c
61 a
61 b
61 c
61a
61b
Date, Temperature,
1972 oc
11-3
11-3
11-3
11-5
11-5
11-5
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
c
8.4
-
-
7.8
-
9.0
9.3
9.3
10.9
10.9
10.9
9.3
9.3
9.3
10.9
10.9
10.9
8.5
8.5
8.5
11.0
10.9
10.9
8.5
8.5
8.5
11.0
11.0
11.0
8.5
8.5
8.5
10.1
10.1
10.0
9.0
9.0
Oxygen
Dissolved,
mg/1
7.8
_
_
8.3
-
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.3
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
7.3
7.3
7.2
8.3
8.2
8.2
7.3
7.3
7.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
7.2
7.1
Oxygen
Saturation
%
66
-
_
69
-
72
73
73
76
76
76
72
71
71
74
74
74
62
62
62
75
74
74
62
62
62
74
74
74
62
62
62
73
73
73
62
61
, Turbidity,
pH J.T.U.
7.8
-
-
7.7
-
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.7
„
14
-
-
9
-
13
17
17
14
16
15
21
18
25
23
16
24
34
21
35
17
24
18
17
18
16
18
22
23
17
15
18
15
12
14
16
19
(continued)
85
-------
TABLE 16 (Continued)
Parameters
Sampling
Stations
Date,
1972
Temperature,
°C
Oxygen
Dissolved,
mg/1
Oxygen
Saturation,
% pH
Turbidity,
J.T.U.
61c 11-6 9.0 7.0 60 7.7 16
62a 10-16 10.0 7.9 73 7.8 14
62b 10-16 10.0 7.9 73 7.8 13
62c 10-16 10.0 8.0 73 7.8 14
62a 11-6 9.0 6.9 59 7.7 15
62b 11-6 9.0 6.9 59 7.7 17
62c 11-6 9.0 7.0 60 7.7 16
63a d - - -
63b - - -
63c - - ...
'63a - - - - -
63b - - - -
63c - - - ..-
71 a 10-16 8.9 8.0 69 7.8 25
71 b 10-16 - - - - -
71c 10-16 8.9 8.0 69 7.7 17
71a 11-6 9.0 6.8 59 7.7 18
71 b 11-6 - - - - 0;
71c 11-6 9.0 6.8 57 7.7 27
72a 10-16 8.9 8.0 69 7.7 13
72b 10-16 8.9 8.0 69 7.8 14
72c 10-16 8.9 8.0 69 7.8 16
72a 11-6 9.0 6.6 57 7.7 5
72b 11-6 9.0 6.6 57 7.7 4
72c 11-6 9.0 6.6 57 7.7 13
73a 10-16 8.9 8.0 69 7.8 16
73b 10-16 8.9 8.0 69 7.8 13
73c 10-16 8.9 8.0 69 7.8 2
73a n_6 9.0 6.6 57 7.7 8
73b n-6 9.0 6.7 58 7.7 3
73c 11-6 9.0 6.7 58 7.7 14
81a 10-16 8.0 7.9 66 7.8 12
81b 1Q-16 b 5 n ^ 7 a iq
81c 10-16 8.0 7.9 66 7.8 15
81a 11-6 9.0 7.8 67 7.6 20
81b 11-6 b b b b b
81c 11-6 8.9 7.8 67 7.7 14
(continued)
86
-------
TABLE 16 (Continued)
Parameters
Sampling
Stations
82a
82b
82c
82a
82b
82c
82a
82b
82 c
82a
82b
'8'2c
83a
83b
83c
83a
83b
83c
Date, Temperature,
1972 OC
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-3
11-3
11-3
11-5
11-5
11-5
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
8.0
7.9
7.9
c
8.5
c
c
8.8
c
8.5
8.8
8.8
7.5
b
7.9
9.0
b
9.0
Oxygen
Dissolved,
mg/1
7.9
7.8
7.8
c
8.3
c
c
9.3
c
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.7
b
7.7
8.2
b
8.1
Oxygen
Saturation
%
66
66
66
c
72
c
c
79
c
66
66
66
64
b
66
71
b
70
, Turbidity,
pH J.T.U.
7.8
7.8
7.8
c
7.8
c
c
7.8
c
7.5
7.5
7.7
7.8
b
7.8
7.7
b
7.7
13
12
13
c
17
c
c
8
c
16
15
13
13
b
13
14
b
15
(continued)
87
-------
TABLE 16 (Continued)
oo
CD
Sampling
Stations
lla
lib
lie
lla
lib
lie
12a
12b
12c
12b
12c
12a
12b
12c
12a
12b
12c
13a
13b
13c
13a
13b
13c
21a
21b
21c
Date,
1972
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-3
11-3
11-5
11-5
11-5
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
Ammonia
mg/l-N
0.12
b
0.13
0.09
b
0.09
0.11
c
0.12
0.06
c
c
0.08
c
0.09
c
0.12
0.12
b
0.06
0.09
b
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.11
Nitrate
mg/l-N
2.73
b
2.54
2.78
b
2.83
2.96
c
3.08
2.07
c
c
2.35
c
2.59
c
3.17
3.11
b
3.00
2.99
b
2.76
2.76
3.08
2.54
Sol. , Ortho-
phosphate
mg/l-P
0.021
b
0.020
0.024
b
0.023
0.019
c
0.019
0.016
c
c
0.029
c
0.023
c
0.023
0.019
b
0.021
0.023
b
0.024
0.022
0.019
0.020
Parameters
Organic
Carbon, Total
mg/1
20
b
20
37
b
25
33
c
28
18
c
c
32
c
43
c
35
27
b
25
40
b
25
29
48
18
Specific
Conductance
vimhos/cm
1111
b
1128
972
b
967
1111
c
1108
874
c
c
953
c
971
c
970
1274
b
1102
972
b
969
1101
1099
1115
Solids,
Suspended
mg/1
43
b
52
17
b
32
53
c
27
28
c
c
24
c
36
c
12
23
b
46
26
b
42
32
23
17
(continued)
-------
TABLE 16 (Continued)
oo
Sampling
Stations
21a
21b
21c
22a
22b
22c
22a
22b
22c
22a
22b
22c
22a
22b
22c
23a
23b
23c
23a
23b
23c
31 a
31b
31c
31a
31b
31c
Date,
1972
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-3
11-3
11-3
11-5
11-5
11-5
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
Ammonia
mg/l-N
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.12
0.12
0.12
c
0.07
-
-
0.09
-
' 0.10
0.09
0.08
0.12
0.13
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.08
Nitrate
mg/l-N
2.61
2.99
2.99
2.20
2.40
2.40
-
2.22
-
_
2.70
-
2.78
2.99
3.68
, 2.10
2.92
3.11
2.91
2.48
3.17
2.92
2.48
3.18
2.58
2.38
2.78
Sol . , Ortho-
phosphate
mg/l-P
0.024
0.023
0.022
0.016
0.018
0.022
-
0.016
-
-
0.029
-
0.025
0.024
0.023
0.022
0.018
0.016
0.022
0.023
0.023
0.017
0.018
0.018
0.023
0.025
0.024
Parameters
Organic
Carbon, Total
mg/1
22
23
26
22
32
18
-
23
_
_
45
-
38
36
28
18
26
22
30
25
37
38
32
25
43
38
28
Specific
Conductance
)jmhos/cm
972
972
973
1112
1106
1100
-
876
_
_
952
_
970
968
968
1105
1107
1112
975
970
968
1112
1126
1097
970
972
973
Solids,
Suspended
mg/1
18
18
18
200
120
101
-
38
-
_
22
_
16
12
.14
20
15
7
19
16
17
35
22
19
14
10
7
(continued)
-------
TABLE 16 (Continued)
Sampling
Stations
32a
32b
32c
32a
32b
32c
33a
33b
33c
33a
33b
33c
41a
41b
41c
41a
41b
41c
42a
42b
42c
42a
42b
42c
42a
42b
42c
Date,
1972
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-3
11-3
11-3
11-5
11-5
11-5
Ammonia
mg/l-N
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.12
0.13
0.13
c
0.08
-
-
0.09
-
Nitrate
mg/l-N
2.76
2.40
2.40
2.38
2.38
2.31
3.08
2.80
2.92
2.75
2.99
2.52
2.68
2.61
2.92
3.38
3.17
2.58
2.40
2.92
2.76
-
2.35
-
-
5.32
-
Sol . , Ortho-
phosphate
mg/l-P
0.018
0.018
0.017
0.023
0.025
0.024
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.023
0.025
0.025
0.016
0.017
0.015
0.024
0.023
0.024
0.016
0.016
0.017
-
0.015
-
-
0.027
-
Parameters
Organic
Carbon, Total
mg/1
20
19
22
27
37
26
37
24
31
25
29
36
25
41
46
34
38
25
20
37
22
-
15
-
-
24
-
Specific
Conductance
ymhos/cm
1118
1116
1108
973
972
969
1125
1116
1106
970
970
968
1122
1101
1103
921
968
983
1106
1102
1121
-
873
-
-
951
-
Solids,
Suspended
mg/1
17
10
7
30
14
18
22
38
13
12
18
14
27
17
111
28
28
28
20
20
20
-
30
_
-
33
-
(continued)
-------
TABLE 16 (Continued)
Sampling
Stations
42a
426
42c
43a
43b
43c
43a
43b
43c
51a
515
51c
51a
51b
51c
52a
52b
52c
52a
52b
52c
53a
53b
53c
53a
53b
53c
Date,
1972
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
Amnion i a
mg/l-N
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.12
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.11
0.13
0.07
0.07
0.09
0.06
0.07
0.13
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.08
0.08
0.08
Nitrate
mq/l-N
2.61
2.45
2.41
2.76
3.00
2.96
3.20
2.31
3.08
3.08
2.88
2.92
2.99
3.16
2.55
2.73
2.61
3.18
2.58
2.20
2.78
3.30
3.58
3.33
1.92
2.34
2.28
Sol ., Ortho-
phosphate
mg/l-P
0.024
0.023
0.024
0.016
0.017
0.017
0.023
0.023
0.021
0.017
0.017
0.016
0.024
0.024
0.023
0.017
0.016
0.016
0.024
0.024
0.024
0.015
0.017
0.017
0.024
0.024
0.024
Parameters
Organic
Carbon, Total
mg/1
27
35
18
37
24
19
28
36
45
18
20
26
38
31
26
23
24
32
26
25
29
21
26
41
35
40
27
Specific
Conductance
)j mhos/cm
986
979
976
1118
1122
1124
965
972
973
1123
1120
1125
968
974
971
1118
1152
1170
972
975
978
1126
1122
1124
972
972
974
Solids,
Suspended
mq/1
24
46
36
22
18
15
44
106
138
30
21
17
70
46
50
26
21
14
36
26
30
26
26
26
24
22
32
(continued)
-------
TABLE 16 (Continued)
Sampling
Stations
61a
61b
61c
61a
61b
61c
62a
62b
62c
62a
62b
62c
63a
63b
63c
63a
63b
63c
71a
71b
71c
71a
71 b
71c
72a
72b
72c
Date,
1972
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
d
-
-
-
-
-
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
Ammonia
mg/l-N
0.12
0.12
0.14
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.15
0.14
0.08
0.10
0.08
0.08
_
-
-
-
-
-
0.13
b
0.14
0.08
-
0.09
0.15
0.14
0.14
Nitrate
mg/l-N
3.33
3.13
3.33
2.20
2.52
2.96
2.96
3.00
2.80
2.10
2.45
3.03
_
-
-
-
-
-
2.92
-
2.48
2.55
-
2.45
2.48
2.13
2.13
Sol., Ortho-
phosphate
mg/l-P
0.016
0.015
0.016
0.025
0.024
0.024
0.015
0.016
0.016
0.022
0.025
0.025
„
-
-
-
-
-
0.014
-
0.017
0.025
-
0.026
0.017
0.015
0.015
Parameters
Organic
Carbon, Total
mg/1
19
25
32
22
26
26
26
22
29
33
35
23
_
-
-
-
-
-
20
-
19
31
-
29
38
43
35
Specific
Conductance
umhos/cm
1116
1116
1128
969
971
972
1123
1118
1139
975
973
975
.
_
-
_
_
-
1120
-
mi
973
-
970
1120
1123
1113
Solids,
Suspended
mg/1
21
19
10
16
18
14
23
17
16
20
10
34
_
_
_
_
_
-
14
_
14
49
_
50
17
10
13
(continued)
-------
TABLE 16 (Continued)
Sampling
Stations
72a
72b
72c
73a
73b
73c
73a
73b
73c
81a
81b
81c
81a
81b
81 c
82a
82b
82c
82a
82b
82c
82a
82b
82c
82a
82b
82c
Date,
1972
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-3
11-3
11-3
11-5
11-5
11-5
11-6
11-6
11-6
Ammonia
mg/l-N
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.14
0.08
0.13
0.10
0.12
0.09
0.16
b
0.14
0.10
b
0.10
0.07
0.09
0.15
c
0.08
c
c
0.08
c
0.09
0.08
0.08
Nitrate
mg/l-N
2.45
2.31
2.75
2.48
2.37
2.76
2.07
2.24
1.90
2.48
b
2.54
2.03
b
1.79
2.50
2.48
3.00
c
2.28
c
c
3.06
c
2.20
1.85
1.95
Sol. , Ortho-
phosphate
mg/l-P
0.026
0.027
0.026
0.014
0.015
0.015
0.025
0.025
0.026
0.016
b
0.016
0.023
b
0.023
0.016
0.016
0.016
c
0.015
c
c
0.027
c
0.025
0.025
0.025
Parameters
Organic
Carbon, Total
mg/1
33
28
46
36
23
18
24
33
33
36
b
29
28
b
21
19
43
54
c
17
c
c
21
c
22
22
37
Specific
Conductance
pmhos/cm
973
971
970
1143
1132
1119
977
971
971
1120
b
1130
972
b
973
1128
1122
1118
c
876
c
c
952
c
969
973
973
Solids,
Suspended
mg/1
30
30
27
15
20
16
31
26
34
11
b
19
49
b
30
13
13
11
c
46
c
c
25
c
31
30
26
(continued)
-------
TABLE 16 (Continued)
Samplinga
Stations
83a
83b
83c
83a
83b
83c
Date,
1972
10-16
10-16
10-16
11-6
11-6
11-6
Ammonia
mg/l-N
0.13
b
0.14
0.08
b
0.08
Nitrate
mg/l-N
2.76
b
2.48
2.55
b
2.23
Sol . , Ortho-
phosphate
mg/l-P
0.016
b
0.015
0.025
b
0.026
Parameters
Organi c
Carbon, Total
mg/1
28
b
26
19
b
42
Specific
Conductance
pmhos/cm
1126
b
1120
969
b
970
Solids,
Suspended
mg/1
18
b
13
34
b
27
a - The first digit of the location is the transect number. The second digit is the station number in
the respective transect, starting with one on the east bank and increasing going west. The depth is
to determined by the small letter following the digits, where "a" is 3 inches from the surface, "b" is
"^ the mid-depth, and "c" is 3 inches from the bottom.
b - Due to the shallowness of the river, a mid-depth sampling could not be made.
c - Mid sampling regulations allowed for only one water sample to be taken at transects 1, 2, 4, and 8.
Therefore, the water samples were taken in mid-stream, Station 2 of the respective transect at mid-
depth "b."
d - Sampling Station 63 was eliminated due to the 6-foot width of the river making a third station in
transect 6 impractical according to the contract.
-------
TABLE 17. AVERAGE OF WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
FOR INDUSTRIAL BIO-TEST DEMONSTRATION
Parameter Averaged
Depth (inches)
Water temperature (°C)
Dissolved oxygen (mg/1 )
Oxygen saturation (%)
PH
Turbidity (J.T.U.)
Ammonia (mg/l-N)
Nitrate (mg/l-N)
Soluble orthophosphate (mg/l-P)
Total organic carbon (mg/1)
Specific conductance (umhos/cm)
Suspended solids (mg/1)
Initial Value
(10-16-72)
18.6
10.4
8.31
74
7.79
18.3
0.11
2.79
0.017
27.9
1121
28.3
Final Value
(11-6-72)
24.2
8.8
7.83
67
7.76
18.9
0.086
2.59
0.024
30.7
971
29.8
Characterization of Bottom Muds
Initial and final creosote values for core samples taken at each sampling
station are shown in Table 18. Results of selected mid-core samplings are
shown in Table 19. Unfortunately, the data is difficult to interpret because
of the long interval of time between cleanup and sampling at some of the sta-
tions and the unknown magnitude of redeposition of creosote-laden silt from
flood water runoff of the heavy creosote deposits on the banks.
Transect 7 was cleaned 24 hours before core sampling and exhibited creo-
sote levels of 1.3%, 0.4%, and 0.2% before, and 0.02%, 0.1%, and 0.02% after
cleanup. It is not reasonable to calculate a "mass balance" of creosote be-
fore and after cleanup comprising all six transects because of the unknown
amounts of redeposited creosote. Analyzing each transect individually, four
of the six transects showed less creosote after cleanup than before (2, 4, 6^,
7) with the composite percent removal varying from 23% at Station 2 up to 78%
at Station 7. Two of the stations showed greater amounts of creosote after
cleanup.
It should be pointed out that the soft sod, clay and mud banks of the
Little Menomonee show very substantial quantities of creosote which were not
programmed to be cleaned in this part of the study. The maneuvering of samp-
ling crews caused creosote-containing material to be stirred up and to flow
into the river in some areas no matter how carefully the work was carried out.
95
-------
TABLE 18. BOTTOM SEDIMENT DATA, INITIAL AND FINAL CORE SAMPLING,
LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER
Sampling
Station
11
12
13
21
22
23
31
32
33
41
42
43
51
52
53
61
62
71
72
73
81
82
83
Creosote,
Initial % a
(10-16-72)
1.0
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.3
1.8
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.02
0.2
1.0
1.3
0.4
0.2
0.5
2.3
0.1
Creosote,
Final % a
(11-6-72)
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.2
1.0
0.3
0.2
0.02
0.1
0.02
0.2
3.0
0.8
Change in Creosote Composition
(Final - Initial ),
(+ or - %)
-0.8
+0.1
-0.2
-0.2
+0.2
-0.3
+0.1
+0.1
+0.2
-1.7
+0.3
+0.1
-0.1
-0.1
+0.98
+0.1
-0.8
-1.28
-0.3
-0.18
-0.3
+0.7
+0.7
a - The calculation for the % creosote was determined on a dry weight basis
where the wet sediment sample was dried using magnesium sulfate monohy-
drate as the drying agent. According to Standard Methods for the Exam-
ination of Water and Wastewater, 13th edition, 1971, page 412, magnesium
sulfate monohydrate is capable of combining with 75% of its own weight
in water, forming a heptahydrate. Therefore the following calculations
were made in determining the % creosote:
weight Mg SO. x 0.75 = weight of water in wet sample.
weight of wet sample - weight of water = weight of dry sample.
grams creosote found by analysis
weight of dry sample
x 100 =
% creosote
basis.
on a dry weight
96
-------
TABLE 19. BOTTOM SEDIMENT DATA, MID-CORE SAMPLINGS3
LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER
Sampling Station Date, 1972 Creosote mid,
12
22
42
82
12
22
42
82
11-3
11-3
11-3
11-3
11-5
11-5
11-5
11-5
1.1
0.1
0.1
2.2
0.05
0.3
0.1
0.8
a - Mid sampling regulations allowed for one bottom sample to be
taken at transects 1, 2, 4, and 8 on 11-3-72 and 11-5-72.
Therefore, the bottom sediments were taken in mid-stream,
Station 2 of the respective transect.
Redeposition of creosote due to flooding and receding waters certainly
could explain finding creosote levels at previously cleaned sites as well as
the variable pattern obtained. The results obtained at Station 7, however,
indicate the thoroughness with which the removal system can effectively oper-
ate when environmental variables are minimum.
97
-------
SECTION 8
COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PHASE II
COMPARISON OF METHODS
As stated in the Introduction of this report, the performance of Phase II
was to be awarded to the contractor's system that best met the design goals of
the RFP. A comparison of the two systems for each of the design goals
follows.
Compact Size and Mobility
The two systems differ radically in size. The Rex Chainbelt system made
use of two trailer-mounted water treatment devices and a rather large "river
sweeper" which was fairly difficult to launch in the river. However, within
10 hours of arrival of the equipment on-scene, setup was complete and contam-
inated sediment was being removed. On the other hand, the Industrial Bio-Test/
R P Industry system consisted of much smaller equipment, as evidenced by the
fact that the entire system was transported from Massachusetts in a 40-foot
rented moving van. However, the system, which was automated to the maximum ex-
tent possible and therefore was more complex than the other, was not ready to
commence removal operation until the third day after its arrival on-scene.
When a comparison must be made on the basis of total time elapsed from
time of notification of a spill at a given location to the time when actual
removal operations begin, there is probably little difference between the two
systems. The Rex Chainbelt system using large equipment will take longer to
reach the destination, but less time to put into operation. The Industrial
Bio-Test/R P system will be more rapidly transported (it could probably be
packaged for air delivery in an L-130 aircraft), but its setup at the spill
site will require more time.
Minimal Damage to Stream Bed and Banks
Both systems performed well in this regard. However,if strict supervi-
sion of this aspect is not imposed, there is a potential for a problem with
both. Any cleanup activity in a stream or on its banks will disturb them to
some degree, but by judiciously choosing the location for deploying its heavy
equipment, the Rex Chainbelt system was able to enter and leave the stream
with very little damage. The only problem with the streams, banks or beds
which arose during the Industrial Bio-Test/R P Industries demonstration was
the displacement of a small amount of creosote and mud from the banks into the
stream when workers were working on the banks. This situation, however, was
caused by the fact that the river was at or near flood stage during almost the
98
-------
entire period when cleanup operations were in progress. This flooding turned
the banks into a jelly-like consistency.
Minimum Resuspension of Bottom Muds
As evidenced by the fact that the concentration of suspended solids and
creosote in the river did not vary significantly before, during, and after
the cleanup operations, the two systems met this requirement. However, a sheen
of oil/creosote was observed on the surface of the river during both operations
whenever the bottom mud or banks were disturbed. The sheen during the Rex
Chainbelt demonstration appeared to be more prevalent when the "river sweeper"
was repositioned by personnel wading into the river. This activity in the
river could easily be minimized by motorizing the spuds and by using tow ropes.
The previously mentioned redisposition of mud from the banks during the'
Industrial Bio-Test/R P Industries demonstration also caused a significant
sheen on the river, but as stated above, this situation was a "freak of nature"
and would have been nearly impossible to avoid, given the flooding that was
experienced. Both contractors did use sorbent oil booms to prevent the sheen
from being carried downstream of their demonstration segments by the current.
Sol ids-Water Separation
As mentioned in the Introduction, for a bottom cleanup to be economically
feasible, the volume of materials to be transported from the site and disposed
of have to be minimized. Both systems performed well in regard to reducing
the volume of bottom mud that had to be disposed of. Typical suspended solids
concentrations of the Rex Chainbelt and Industrial Bio-Test sludges were
201,000 mg/1 and 250,000 mg/1, respectively. The water removed from the ori-
ginal creosote/mud slurry pumped from the river was treated by both systems to
a water quality better than that of the river water itself. For instance, the
Rex Chainbelt and Industrial Bio-Test processes produced typical effluent
creosote concentrations of 2.3 mg/1 and less than 0.1 mg/1 respectively, as
compared with a typical concentration of 11 mg/1 in the river water. Similar-
ly, suspended solids levels in the systems' effluents were significantly lower
than in the river water.
The systems both effectively reduced the volume for disposal while not
sacrificing the stream's water quality.
Acceptable Discharge of Effluent
Both systems discharged their effluents in a manner that minimized the
damage to the stream banks and bed from erosion. Neither the 100-gpm flow
from the Rex Chainbelt system nor the 10-gpm flow from the Industrial Bio-Test
system was sufficient to create a turbulence problem when discharged directly
into the flow of the river.
Acceptable Disposal of Sludges
The sludges generated during the course of both cleanup demonstrations
were disposed of at a state-approved landfill site nearby.
99
-------
Effectiveness of Creosote Removal
.As stated in earlier sections of this report, even though every precau-
tion was taken to place the two demonstrations on the same basis, several un-
controllable factors affected the comparability of the two methods. Despite
the choice of October, normally the dryest month of the year, for the demon-
stration, the last 2 weeks of the month were very wet and the river flow was
adversely affected to the point where Industrial Bio-Test operations had to
be halted for a week. In addition, the high flow probably recontaminated the
areas that had been cleaned previous to the flood.
During the course of both operations, it was discovered that the river
bottom varied from several feet of silt in some places to gravel in others and
hard clay in others. This variability in consistency also resulted in a vari-
ability in creosote contamination with the high creosote concentrations being
detected in silted areas and much lower concentrations in the gravel and clay
areas where the natural current scoured the bottom.
When the discrepancies mentioned above are taken into account, a compari-
son of both methods' removal efficiencies does not yield-a clear advantage to
either Rex Chainbelt or Industrial Bio-Test. For instance, .calculations from
the data in Table 20 reveal that average creosote concentrations in the Rex
Chainbelt segment were reduced by 58% during the cleanup, while only being
reduced by 39% in the Industrial Bio-Test segment. However, since sampling
was only done after the Bio-Test demonstration was completed, the 300 feet
cleaned up before the flood could have been recontaminated. Indeed, it can be
seen from Table 20 that creosote concentrations increased at two of the four
TABLE 20. AVERAGE CREOSOTE CONCENTRATIONS (% BY WEIGHT)
IN THE DEMONSTRATION SEGMENTS*
Contractor - Time 500 ft 400 ft 300 ft 200 ft 100 ft
Avg Total
Segment
Rex Chainbelt -
Before
1.8
10.8
.64
.33
.36
.36
2.38
Rex Chainbelt -
After
Industrial
Before
Industrial
After
Bio-Test
Bio-Test
1.3
_
.43
—
.33
2.0
.17
.30
1.55
.73
.30
.34
.17
.43
.46
.6
.25
.14
.63
.05
.97
.46
.28
* As determined by hexane extractables method, on page 37.
100
-------
locations in this portion of the demonstration segment. If data from these
four locations is discarded, then the average reduction of creosote at the re-
maining two locations is 75%.
These data cannot be used, therefore, as the basis for awarding the Phase
II cleanup, but they do demonstrate that each system was capable of solving
the problem of removing spilled hazardous materials from the bottoms of small
watercourses.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PHASE II
Determination of Safe Creosote Residual
During the conduct of Phase I it became apparent that it would-be virtually
impossible to remove all traces of creosote from the river bed. However, there
is no toxicologic data available on which to establish a permissible level of
creosote that could be left in the sediment. It was decided that the contractor
who was awarded Phase II should conduct tests appropriate to determining the
maximum level of creosote in the sediment which would not present a public
health hazard or prevent the ecological restoration of the stream. The ecologi-
cal 'tests should be conducted in such a manner that the conditions of the stream
will be closely simulated and should employ authentic creosote-contaminated sed-
iment from the Little Menomonee River instead of fresh creosote. The tests to
determine the public health data should be conducted using Little Menomonee
River mud to establish a level at which irritation will not occur when the sedi-
ment is contacted by the skin.
Development of Field Test for Creosote Residual
During the conduct of Phase I, difficulty was experienced in determining
when a section of river bottom had been cleaned sufficiently to allow proceed-
ing to another section. To alleviate this problem it was decided that the
Phase II contractors should develop a "spot test" to determine if the creosote
concentration was below the permissible level. The test should not require the
use of sophisticated laboratory equipment and should be able to be conducted
quickly at the operations site to minimize equipment down time during the
determination.
Removal of Creosote Contamination from River Banks
Difficulty was encountered during the Industrial Bio-Test Phase I opera-
tion with the disposition of creosote/mud from the banks into the river. Fur-
ther investigation revealed that certain areas of the banks were soaked with
creosote. It was decided that the Phase II contractor should, when necessary,
cut back those banks that are contaminated with creosote prior to bottom
cleanup operations. The concentration remaining in the banks should be below
the permissible level so that the bank will not present a public health hazard.
101
-------
Prevention of Recontamination from Upstream
The high flow conditions experienced during the Industrial Bio-Test opera-
tions and the redisposition of creosote attributed to the flow reinforced the
decision to initiate Phase II operations at the source of the creosote contam-
ination and work downstram. State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
assurances should also be sought that no other creosote is entering the stream
at the source.
Selection of a Contractor
Since both systems had demonstrated that they could meet the design goals
of the RFP and neither showed a clear overall superiority, it was decided to
award the Phase II work on the basis of cost. A revised scope of work was
prepared based on the above recommendations and the two contractors were re-
quested to submit detailed technical and business proposals for evaluation.
Both contractors submitted acceptable proposals and the Phase II contract was
awarded to Rex Chainbelt on the basis of lower cost.
102
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
REPORT NO.
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Removal of Hazardous Material Spills From
Bottoms of Flowing Waterbodies
5. REPORT DATE
June 1981
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. AUTHOR(S)
8i PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Robert G. Sanders
Charles A. Hansen, and
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
a) Rex Chainbelt Corporation (now Rexnord Corp.)
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
b) Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc.
Northbrook, Illinois 60062
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA 68-03-0181
EPA 68-03-0182
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13 TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final, July 1972-December 1974
14. SPONSORING AGENCY COCE
EPA/600/
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Joseph P. Lafornara,
201-321-6741
Project Officer
16. ABSTRACT
This report documents the results of a study to determine the feasibility of removing
spilled insoluble hazardous materials from the bottom of flowing watercourses. De-
scriptions are given of two full-scale systems developed to suck up spilled materials
and contaminated bottom mud, remove excess water from the pumped slurry, and decon-
taminate the water removed so that it can be returned to the stream. The two systems
that were developed by Rex Chainbelt and Industrial Bio-Test, respectively, were dem-
onstrated at the Little Menomonee River in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the bottom of which
was laden with spilled creosote. These demonstrations indicate that spilled hazard-
ous materials can be removed from the bottoms of small watercourses by suction
dredging.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Activated Carbon, Dredging, Water Pollu-
tion, Hazardous Materials
Creosote, Dredging,
Little Menomonee River,
Dynactor, Mobile Beach
Cleaner, Carbon
Adsorption
H/07
13/02
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
112
20. S
[This page)
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rav. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDI TION i s OBSOLETE
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
Insert the EPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Set subtitle, if used, in smalle
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
5. REPORT DATE
Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., date of issue, date of
approval, date of preparation, etc.).
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7. AUTHOR(S)
Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe, J, Robert Doe, etc.). List author's affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
zation.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organizational hirearchy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Insert appropriate code.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with. Translation of, Presented'at conference of,
To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
16. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report. If the report contains a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS • Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms that identify the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COSATI FIELD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI Subject Category List. Since the ma-
jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be specific discipline, area of human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group assignments that will folloi
the primary posting(s).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." Cite any availability tc
'he public, with address and price.
19. Si 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, if any.
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) (Reverse)
------- |