REMOVAL AND TREATMENT OF
CONTAMINATED RIVER BOTTOMS: FIELD DEMONSTRATION
Robert W. Agnew
Envirex Inc. (A Rexnord Company)
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53214
EPA Contract 68-03-0182
Project Officer
i
Joseph Lafornara
Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills Branch
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory (Cincinnati)
Edison, New Jersey 08837
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract 68-03-0182
to Envirex Inc. It has been subject to the Agency's peer and administrative
review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Men-
tion of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation 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 complexity of that environment and the interplay of its
components require a concentrated 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 solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
develops new and improved 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 results of a field demonstration to remove
creosote-contaminated muds from a small stream, the Little Menomonee River,
in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. River bottom muds from approximately 1230 lineal
meters (4040 lineal feet) of river were removed and treated at a cost of
about $100.70/1ineal meter ($30.80/lineal foot). Based on analyses before
and after treatment, about 76% of the creosote contamination was removed
from this section of river. While this publication reports on removing
creosote-contaminated muds from a small stream, the same techniques could
be applied to cleaning up other sediments such as those contaminated with
PCB or kepone.
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Municipal Environment Research
Laboratory
m
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the results of a field demonstration to remove
creosote-contaminated muds from a small stream, the Little Menomonee
River, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. River bottom muds from approximately
1230 lineal meters (4040 lineal feet) of river were removed and treated
during this study at a cost of about $100.70/1ineal meters ($30.80/lineal
foot). Based on analyses before and after treatment, about 76% of the
creosote contamination was removed from this section of river.
Before starting the cleanup, a residual level of 5000 ppm of creosote
was established by bioassay tests to be safe for incumbent or potential
aquatic species. Skin irritation tests were also carried out to use in
protecting the personnel involved in the operation.
The field clean-up procedures were designed to minimize damage to the
shoreline and the river. Two floating river sweepers equipped with
suction heads were used to dredge mud from the river bottom and pump it
to a land-based basin where it was allowed to settle. The liquid
overflow was then treated with coagulants and clarified, passed through
multi-media pressure filters, and given a final polishing with granular
activated carbon. The liquid was returned to the river while the sludges
and solids were disposed of in a landfill.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of EPA Contract No.
68-03-01.82 by Envirex Inc. under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Work was completed as of April 1975.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES vi
TABLES vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS viii
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 2
3. Recommendations 3
4. Toxicity Studies and Analytical Procedures
Toxicity Studies 4
Field Procudure - Hexane Extractables 17
5. Cleanup and Treatment Methods
Bankline cleaning 20
River bottom cleaning 22
Treatment process ; . 24
6. Operating Results
Bankline cleaning 35
River bottom cleaning 37
7. Operating Problems and Recommendations
Future cleanups 49
8. Costs 57
References 60
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Project Location Map 21
2 River Sweeper Number I 23
3 General Arrangement Drawing of River Sweeper No. II 25
4 River Sweeper Number II 26
5 Land Based Sweeper Pump 27
6 Clarifier (Presettler Tank) 29
7 Reaction-Clarifier Tank 30
8 Hazardous Spills Vechicle 33
9 Block Diagram Showing Process Flow of Hazardous
Spills Vechicle 34
10 Map Showing Location of Little Menomonee River 36
11 Typical Mud Retrieval and Treatment System Setup 47
12 Hexane Extractable Removals 48
13 Priority Locations 59
VI
-------
TABLES
Number Page
i Toxicity Test, Series One, Flight One 7
2 Toxicity Test, Series One, Flight Two 8
3 Toxicity Test Series Two, Special Stress .10
4 Rabbit Primary Skin Irritation: Series I 13
5 Evaluation Factors for Primary Skin Irritation Test ... 16
6 Rabbit Primary Skin Irritation: Series II . . . 18
7 Field Analytical Method for Estimating Hexane
Extractable Substance in Mud 19
8 River Bottom Muds - Hexane Extractable Concentrations
Before and After Cleaning Little Menomonee River 39
9 Operations Log 51
10 .Cleanup Costs 59
VII
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We sincerely thank Mr. Robert Mikula and Mr. Irv Heipel of the
Milwaukee County Park Commission for their cooperation throughout the
project.
We also appreciate the encouragement and assistance of Dr. Joseph P.
Lafornara and Mr. Ira Wilder of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This project was directed by Mr. Roy A. Johnson with assistance from
many members of the Envirex staff.
vm
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The Little Menomonee River is a small, meandering stream located in
northwestern Milwaukee County. The river is a tributary to the much
larger Menomonee River that flows into Lake Michigan. The bottom muds
and shore of the lower 5 miles of the LHtle Menomonee are laden with
creosote. This material is thought to have been discharged into the
river for many years as a waste product following its use as a
preservation for wooden railroad ties'. Creosote is a distillate of coal
tar produced by high-temperature^carbonization of bituminous coal (1).
The substance is similar to oil in its appearance, but is heavier than
water. Attention was brought to the dangers of this material in 1971
when a member of a citizens group engaged in cleaning the river had to be
hospitalized with burns after coming in contact with the creosote in the
river.
The U.S.. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded first-phase
contracts in July of 1972 to Envirex and Industrial Biotest Company to
design and demonstrate feasible means of removing and treating a
hazardous material such as creosote from river muds. The results of
these first phase contracts are documented elsewhere (2).
This report documents the second phase of this contract—an attempt
to remove the remaining contaminants from the river bottom and banks.
Included are the results of this cleanup effort, toxicity and skin
sensitivity tests, and suggestions for future cleanup efforts of this
type.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
1. Bioassay and skin irritation studies established the following
maximum levels of pollutant:
a. To protect incumbent and potential aquatic fauna, the
maximum creosote that may remain in the muds after
cleanup must not exceed 5,000 ppm.
b. To establish 24-hour residence zones of passage for incumbent
or potential aquatic fauna, the maximum creosote
that may remain in the muds after cleanup must not exceed
10,000 ppm.
c. To prevent potential hazards to humans not sensitive to
creosote, no scum-generating area may exceed creosote
concentrations of HO,000 ppm afer cleanup.
2. The cleanup system developed and demonstrated for this effort was
capable of achieving the desired residual levels and restoring the
quality of the river to the point where land and aquatic species long
absent were again observed. Approximately 76% of the creosote
contamination was removed from the cleaned section of the river.
3. The cost for cleaning the river banks of creosote contaminated trash,
debris, and soil was $6.04/lineal meter ($1.84/linear foot). Removal,
treatment and disposal of contaminated muds cost approximately
$100.79/lineal meter ($30.80/linear foot) of river bottom, exclusive of
equipment purchase.
4. Quick response to spills of hazardous materials is of the utmost
importance in reducing dispersion of the material and, ultimately, in
minimizing the cost of cleanup.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Additional testing should be conducted to determine the levels at
which creosote is dangerous to humans, particularly in light of the
hypersensitivity exhibited by some workers.
2. Methods for locating and quantifying contamination of river beds
need to be improved.
3. The cleanup of the remaining reaches of the Little Menomonee
should be completed as soon as funds become avail able—perhaps by
diverting the river and using land vehicles.
4. A small dredge such as those used on the Little Menomonee may be
suitable where the pollutant is not interspersed with the bottom muds.
Otherwise, damming or diversion of the river, coupled with mechanical
removal using front loaders or bulldozers, would be preferred.
-------
SECTION 4
TOXICITY STUDIES AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
Before initiation of cleanup activities, it was necesssary to establish
the level of creosote-contaminated mud that was toxic to aquatic plants and
animals as well as the level at which creosote became an irritant to
humans. In addition, a rapid field procedure was necessary to permit
determination of creosote concentrations immediately after cleaning to
enable recleaning if tests indicated that the toxicity level was exceeded.
A discussion of these results and procedures follows.
TOXICITY STUDIES • • . i
Creosote is a relatively stable substance composed of liquid and solid
aromatic hydrocarbons, tar acids (up to 8%) and tar bases. It is heavier
than water and practically insoluble. In the Little Menomonee River, the
alleged discharge of creosote occurred over a number of years and tended to
distribute unevenly throughout the mud layer at depths up to 0.6-1.0 m (2 to
3.5 ft.). Because of its 'aromatic and volatile nature, it was not possible
to identify the contaminant specifically as creosote since some of the
lighter fractions had boen stripped off. The basic nature of the material,
however, left little doubt that it was of coal tar orgin.
Two types of bioass.iys were used to determine tolerance limits—static
and continuous. The static bioassay is suitable to detect and evaluate
toxicity that is not associated with excessive oxygen demand. The physical
and chemical properties of the contaminant indicated that the static
procedure as described in Standard Methods of the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 13th Edition, 1971, would be a suitable bioassay procedure.Tor
these studies the test was modified as suggested by the addition of air to
maintain higher levels of dissolved oxygen required by the test organisms.
Selection and Preparation of -Test Materials and Organisms
Approxinately 75.7 L (20 gal) of contaminated river mud from the Little
Menomonee River was collected and returned to the laboratory for analysis
and bioassay tests. Uncontaminated mud was selected from the river from a
point upstream of the contaminant source. The uncontaminated mud contained
27 mg/L of hexane extractable material while the contaminated mud contained
15,150 mg/L of hexane extractable materials. Both values represent the
arithmetic mean of five individual analyses.
-------
Since creosote is only very slightly soluble in water it was decided to
use City of Milwaukee tap water as the water source for the bioassay tests.
Sediment transfer studies conducted in conjunction with the toxicity tests
indicated only 1 mg/L of creosote in the water after a 5 day period. The
sediment transfer study was conducted by placing approximately 2.5 L of
contaminated mud in an 18.9 L (5 gal) aquarium and covering it with fresh
tap water which had been run through activated carbon for removal of
chlorine. The mud was allowed to settle and a 500 ml sample of the cover
water was collected daily and analyzed by hexane extraction for the creosote
concentration. These concentrations ranged from 0 to 1 mg/L.
Very little was known of the natural aquatic fauna of the Little
Menomonee River at the advent of these tests. Observations led to the
selection of Procambium sp. (crayfish) as one of the test organisms. The
remaining organisms selected had originally consisted of Lepomis macrochirus
Raf. (bluegill), Semotilus atromaculatus (Mitchill) (creek chub) and Daphnia
pulex (de Geer) (water fleajiThese selections were made based upon common
occurence in southeastern Wisconsin waters. Later it was discovered that
Rinichthys atratulus (Herman) (shortened dace) had been collected in the
upper reach of the Little Menomonee River collected specimens were
substituted for the Semotilus atmomaculatus. The bluegills were obtained
from a commercial breeder and ranged in size from 7.62 to 12.7 cm (3 to 5
in.) in length. The creek chub, crawfish and daphnia were purchased
locally. The minnows were from 2.54 to 38 cm (1 to 15 in.), the crayfish
approximately 7.62 cm (3 in.) and daphnia, 1.5 to 2.5 mm (0.05 to 0.09 in.)
long. Once organisms were moved to controlled stock tanks prior to testing,
the feeding was terminated until the completion of the test.
Seven 75.7 L (20 gal.) and seven 18.9 L (5 gal) all glass aquariums were
obtained for test purposes. A 1136-L (300 gal) steel water trough was
obtained as a common holding tank. The holding tank was kept as near as
possible to the test conditions of dissolved oxygen and temperature. All
the specimens except the D pulex (de Geer) were initially^placed in the
holding tank. The D pulex (de Geer) were held in a 18.9;^ (5-gal)
aquarium. Two days before any test, the organisms to be' used were moved
into controlled stock tanks, either 75.7-L (20-gal) or 18.9-L (5-gal)
aquariums for acclimation to test conditions. These tests were always an
exact duplication of test conditions minus only the suspected toxic
materials.
Test Preparations
Four 75.7-L (20-gal) and four 18.9-L (5-gal) aquariums were set aside as
test containers. One of each type received 2 liters of the concentrated
creosote contaminated (15,150 mg/L) mud. The remaining pairs received 2
liters of 8240-, 1730-, and 205-mg/L creosote-contaminated muds. All the
tanks were then filled with tapwater filtered through activated charcoal to
remove residual chlorine. These served as test tanks.' The control and
stock tanks were filled with filtered tapwater only. A 24-hour
sedimentation time was allowed in the test containers before starting any
test.
-------
The test containers were placed in a 232.25-m2 (2,500-ft2)
laboratory. In-tank heaters and room air conditioners furnished temperature
control. Dissolved oxygen levels were maintained with stone diffusers and
aquarium pumps. Temperature was monitored continuously using an Auto Lite
Model 1000 recording thermometer. Dissolved oxygen was monitored with a YSI
dissolved oxygen meter and pH with a Beckman Model SS-2 pH meter.
Two series of tests were planned for each organism. The first series
was used to test various levels of contamination pinpointing the toxic
range. The second was to concentrate in that range to more clearly define
the toxic concentration. Time remaining, special tests applying additional
external stress of pH and temperature were to be conducted.
Series One Tests
I
The first toxicity series was arranged in two flights for convenience.
Daphnia pulex (de Geer) and Rhinichthys atratulus (Mitchill) were tested in
the first flight and Lepomjs macrochilFu's Raf. and Procambrus S£ were tested
in the second. The controls for each flight were in separate aquariums
containing only filtered tapwater. The results of the first toxicity series
are shown on Tables 1 and 2.
The results of the initial tests series indicated creosote
concentrations up to 15,150 mg/L were not toxic to the test organisms. Some
symptoms of distress did appear at the 15,150 mg/L level.
No mortalities were, noticed iri1 'tests run on the D pulex ,(de Geer)
population. The control organisms were observed to rest on the bottom of
the test container periodically. Such was not the case with those
containers coated with creosote contaminated mud.
The Rhinichthys atratulus (Hermann) exhibited the poorest survival rate
of the organisms tested in the first series. Those fish that died in the
test tank were infected with fungus suggesting death in that manner. An
examination of the gills and stomachs of the dead minnows in the test tanks
provided slight additional information. Appearance of blood near the
surface of the juncture of the fins to the body was noted in the tanks which
used river mud, as is, and in the tanks that used river mud diluted by 50%.
The bluegill (Lepomus rnacrochirus Raf.) exhibited no lethality. Some
reaction symptoms did appear in the concentrated tanks. The pelvic girdles
and bases of the anal and dorsal fins appeared to have blood accumulating in
the body juncture tissues. In addition, the fish seemed very dry and an
apparent breakdown of the body mucus on some specimens was indicated by
comparison to control specimens. Placing a single specimen back in control
conditions resulted in a regeneration of mucus and a lightening of the
tissue coloration of tissue adjoining the funds.
The Procambriis sp (crayfish) exhibited complete survival in the first
series. lolorationThanges similar to the bluegills were apparent in the
joints of the appendages with the main pincer points being the most
noticeable.
-------
Table 1. TOXICITY TEST, SERIES ONE, FLIGHT ONE
Test organism
and parameter measured
Daphnia pulex (de Geer)
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
PH
Temperature, °C
96-hour survival ratio,
Rhinichthys atratulus,
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
PH
Temperature, °C
96-hour survival ratio,
Control
, 10 specimens
8.9
7.0
21
% 100
10 specimens
6.9
7.0
19.5
% 80
Creosote
(15,150 mg/1)
8.9
7.0
21
100
7.5
7.0
19.5
70
Creosote
(8236 mg/1)
8.9
7.0
21
100
7.3
7.0
19.5
70
Creosote
(1734 mg/1)
8.9
7.0
21
100
7.3
7.0
19.5
80
Creosote
(205 mg/1)
8.9
7.0
21
100
7.2 •
7.0
19.5
80
-------
Table 2. TOXICITY TEST, SERIES ONE, FLIGHT TWO
co
Test organism
and parameter measured
Lepomis macrochirus, 8
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
PH
Temperature, oc
96-hour survival ratio,
Procambrus sp
Dissolved oxygen
pH
Temperature, oc
96-hour survival ratio,
Control
specimens
7.4
7.0
20
% 100
4.6
7.0
22
% 100
Creosote
(15,150 mg/1)
6.8
7.0
20
88
6.3
7.0
22
100
Creosote
(8236 mg/1)
6.3
7.0
20
88
5.9
7.0
22
100
Creosote
(1734 mg/1)
6.4
7.0
20
88
5.6
7.0
22
100
Creosote
(205 mg/1)
6.2
7.0
20
100
5.4
7.0
22
100
-------
All indications from the first series of tests demonstrated the
non-lethality of the contaminant (creosote) at concentrations of 205 mg/L.
Symptoms of distress appeared only in the highest concentration of
creosote. The decision was made to place additional stress on the tested
organisms.
.''.erjes Two Tests
Additional stress was placed upon the tested organisms by varying the pH
temperature of the test containers. This selection was made based on the
probability that stress might be applied as either the pH or the temperature
in the river changed.
According to Bennett (3) fish are able to survive in water having a pH .
range from about 5 to 10. Neess (4) has indicated fish develop
hypersensitivity to bacterial parasites in the range of pH 5.5. McCarraher
(5) and others indicate survival was more successful at high pH than at low
pH. The pH range selected for the tests, based upon the information
presented, was 5-6.
Temperature influences the rate of metabolism in fish. It is often
critical in spawning and embryo development and influences the relative
activity of fish in water. In addition, increases in temperature can
generally be linked with changes in chemical solubility. Bennett (3) sets
the lethal temperature point for bluegills at 31.5°C after acclimatization
at 2Qoc before 24 hours. The holding and stabilization tanks were set at
20&C before introduction of the organisms into the test range of 25°C to '
300C.
After the termination of the first series of tests, the aquaria were
cleaned and rinsed with clear water. A control with only filtered tapwater
was established, along with control tanks varying pH only and temperature
only. The remaining four tanks received two liters each of the concentrated
mud and a covering of filtered tapwater. Four were set in the selected
temperature range (25°C to 300C) and the remaining four in the selected
pH range (ph 5 to 6). Twenty-four hours were allowed for sedimentation to
occur.
The organisms tested in the stress series were Lepomis macrochirus^ Raf.,
Rhinichthys atratulus (Hermann) and Procambrus sp. The results of the"
tested organisms are summarized in Table 3. D~nTy the Rhinichthys atratulus
(Hermann) exhibited a death rate of 71% and 57% within 96 hours in the
stress and creosote tanks, respectively. Survival of the remaining
organisms tested coincided with the initial unstressed survey.
The apprrent toxic response of the dace population to the creosote plus
stress condition is in fact quite deceptive in nature.
The reaction symptoms exhibited by the bluegills and crayfish in the
initial stuay were even more pronounced under stress conditions. Additional
lesions were apparent on the sides of the bluegills and fungal infectation
was apparent.
-------
Table 3. TOXICITY TEST SERIES TWO, SPECIAL STRESS
Test species
and parameter measured
Rhinichthys atratulus,
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
PH
Temperature, °C
96-hour survival ratio,
Lepomis macrochirus, 10
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
PH
Temperature, °C
96-hour survival ratio,
Control
10 specimens
6.6
7.0
22
% 100
specimens
7.3
7.0
21
% 100
Control
6. pH
6.3
5.9
22
100
6.3
5.9
21
90
Control
& temp.
5.6
7.0
26
90
5.6
7.0
26
100
Creosote
& pHl
5.9
5.8
22
29
5.2
5.7
22
100
Creosote
& tempj
5.4
7.0
26
43
4.0
7.0
28
100
Procambrus sp, 10 specimens
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
PH
Temperature, °C
96-hour survival ratio,
6.3
7.0
21
% 100
6.1
5.8
22
100
5.8
7.0
25
100
5.2
5.8
22
100
4.8
7.0
26
100
1. Creosote contaminated muds containing 15,150 mg/1 were used in all tests with special
stress.
-------
The dace remaining alive after 96 hours were all infected with a fungus
growth, and all dead dace were covered with fungal suggesting the
possibility of death by disease other than creosote toxicity. •
The accumulated data clearly indicates an apparent reaction of the test
organisms to creosote contamination. The mucus breakdown on the bluegills
and dace, the blood red areas apparent on the crayfish as well as the fish,
the appearance of lesions and finally fungal infectation of the fish,
suggest a reaction quite similar to the human response. Creosote appears to
be, at least in concentrations in the area of 15,000 mg/1 or more, an
irritant. Although not toxic in itself, in combination with additional
external stress or in sufficient concentration and detention by itself,
creosote apparently renders the organsim much more susceptible to disease.
Creosote levels in the range of 7,500 mg/1 elicit this response only
slightly and levels in the range of 1500 mg/1 apparently exhibit no ill
effects.
Skin Irritation Studies
The contamination of the Little Menomonee River was brought to the
attention of the general public in 1971 when high school students involved
in a cleanup of the river received rather severe chemical burns. A search
of the literature failed to turn up any information on the skin toxicity
levels of creosote in humans. Although toxicological studies were beyond
the scope of this project, it was necessary to establish guidelines for
residual creosote concentrations which were not harmful to humans who might
come in contact with the river muds.
Two series of tests were conducted to evaluate the skin irritation
potential of the creosote/bottom mud mixture. The first series contained
various creosote concentrations up to 15,150 mg/1 creosote. The second
series contained samples of 5%, 10% and 20% creosote/mud mixture as well as
a creosote/water emulsion.
The skin irritation tests were performed by the Rossner-Hixson
Laboratories in Chicago, Illinois, with samples supplied by Envirex
personnel. The procedure used in testing was as follows.
The hair was clipped from the abdomen of six male albino rabbits for
each sample and two areas of the abdomen approximately ten centimeters apart
were designated for application of the patches. A one inch square site on
the right side was abraded while a similar area on the left remained
unabraded.
In each group of six rabbits, 0.5 ml of sample was placed on the skin at
each abraded and intact site under a small square of cotton gauze and
maintained in contact with the skin under a larger square of polyethylene
film and anchored to the skin with strips of adhesive tape. A square of
flannel cloth was then taped around the trunk of the animal to further
protect the patches from being dislodged.
11
-------
After 24 hours, the vest and patches were removed, and the skin was examined
for signs of irritation (erythema and/or edema). Examination was made again
after 72 hours.
Skin irritation scores are presented in Table 4. A guide to evaluation
and scoring of skin irritation reactions is given in Table 5.
The primary irritation scores of 0.16 to 0.58 indicated that none of the
samples are skin irritants. In accordance with Federal hazardous Substances
Labeling Act Regulations (F.R. 119), a primary irritation score of 5 is
required for designation as a primary skin irritant in the experimental
procedure. Therefore, creosote concentrations in these muds up to 10,000
ppm would not be considered as potential skin irritants for humans.
Immediately following the completion of these tests, several of the crew
members who were working on the cleanup contacted the creosote-oil
contaminant and experienced painful "chemical burns". Medical advice and
attention was pursued for two crew members exhibiting a possible
hypersensitivity. No medicine of any sort was prescribed; however, they
were directed to avoid further contact with the material and to keep the
burns clean. It was the doctor's opinion that certain skin types may be
more susceptible to adverse reactions.
Following these burns, Rossner-Hixson Laboratories was asked to repeat
the tests with new mud samples containing creosote/mud mixtures of 5, 10 and
20% creosote. A fourth sample containing an oil/water scum that separates
from creosote under quiescent conditions was also tested.
Sensitivity tests identical to the first series were conducted and the
results are shown in Table 6. The primary irritation scores of 0.25 to 0.84
for the 5% to 20% creosote/mud mixture indicated that these samples were not
skin irritants. The primary irritation score for the creosote/water
emulsion was 4.58 indicating the likelihood that the creosote/water emulsion
may be a primary irritant.
i
These tests should not be considered as conclusive evidence that the
creosote/mud is not a primary skin irritant because even though laboratory
tests indicated that it was not, crew members did in fact suffer chemical
burns. In addition, there 'is evidence that creosote can be transferred
through the skirt, causing damage to certain internal organs.
It is recommended that additional testing be conducted to establish the
levels at which contact with creosote becomes hazardous to human health.
Standard of Performance
Based on the results of the toxicity study, the following standards of
performance were established:
1. To protect incumbent and potential aquatic fauna, the maximum
residual creosote which may remain in the muds after cleanup
should not exceed 5,000 ppm (1/2%).
12
-------
Table 4. RABBIT PRIMARY SKIN IRRITATION TESTS: SERIES I
24 Hours
Rabbit
Unabraded
No. Frythema
Abraded
72 Hours
Unabraded
Edema Erythema Edema Erythema
Edema
Abraded
Erythema Edema
Sample: Mud Sample 6/4/73, #1, 10,000 ppm Creosote
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
Average
1
1
1
1
0
1
0.83
0
1
0
0
0
0
0.17
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0.83
Primary
0
1
0
0
0
0
0.17
irritation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
score:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sample: Mud Sample 6/4/73, #2, 5000 ppm Creosote
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
Average
1
0
1
1
0
1
0.83
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0.83
0
0.
1
2
0
1
0.67
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Primary irritation score:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.58
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(Continued)
13
-------
Table 4 (Continued).
24 Hours
Rabbit
Unabraded
No. Erythema
Edema
Sample
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
"Average
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Abraded
Erythema
72 Hours
Unabraded
Edema Erythema
: Mud Sample 6/4/73, 1000
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.33
Primary i
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.33
rritation
0
0
0
0
0
• o
0
score:
Abraded
Edema Erythema
Edema .
ppm Creosote
0
' 0
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
• o
0
0
Sample: Mud Sample 6/4/73, 100 ppm Creosote
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
Average
0
1
0
0
1
0
0.33
0
0
1
0
0
0
0.17
0
1
0
0
1
0
0.33
0
0
1
0
0
0
"0.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Primary irritation score: 0.25
(Continued)
14
-------
Table 4 (Continued).
24 Hours
Rabbit
No.
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
Average
Unabraded
Erythema
0
0
0
1
0
1
0.33
Abraded
Edema Erythema
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sample: Mud
0
0
0
1
0
1
0.33
Edema
Sample
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72 Hours
Unabraded
Erythema
6/4/73,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Edema
Control
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Abraded
Erythema
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Edema
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Primary irritation score: 0.16
15
-------
Table 5. EVALUATION FACTORS
FOR PRIMARY SKIN IRRITATION TEST*
Symptom Value!1
A. Erythema and eschar formation
Very slight erythema (barely perceptible) 1
Well defined erythema 2
Moderate to severe erythema 3
Severe erythema (beet redness) to slight
eschar formation (injuries in depth) 4
B. Edema formation
Very slight edmea (barely perceptible) 1
Slight edema (edges of area well defined by
definite raising) 2
Moderate edema (area raised approximately 1 mm) 3
Severe edema (raised more than 1 mm and extending
beyond area of exposure) 4
^ The value recorded for each reading is the average value of the
animals subject to the test.
* Calculation of primary scores is done as follows:
Average values for erythema and eschar formation at 24 hours and 72
hours for intact are added to values on abraded skin at 24 hours and
72 hours (four values). Similarly, values for edema formation at 24
hours and 72 hours for intact and abraded skin are added (four values),
The total of the eight values is divided by 4 to give the primary
irritation score.
A primary skin irritant is a substance that results in an empirical
primary irritation score of 5 or more.
16
-------
2. To establis' 24-hour residence zones of passage for incumbent or
potential auuatic fauna the maximum residual creosote which may
re1 lain in the muds after cleanup should not exceed 10,000 ppm (1%).
3. To prevent potential hazard to humans, scum or potential scum-
generating areas should not exceed residual concentrations of 10,000
ppm (1%) of creosote in the mud after cleanup.
Sufficient contaminant muds were removed to achieve objective 1, the
protection of incumbent and potential aquatic fauna.
FIELD PROCEDURE - HLXANE EXTRACTABLES
A rapid field procedure for estimating the creosote concentration in the
bottom muds was also developed. The method utilized color standards of
hexane (petroleum ether) extractions concentrated from an actual Little
Menomonee mud/oil analysis (using the soxhlet extraction technique). These
color standards for oil concentration were then compared with decanted and
filtered petroleum ether extract taken from on-site bottom mud oil analyses.
The field technique was rapid, requiring approximately one hour from
start to finish. Bottom-mud oil analyses using the soxhlet technique were
compared with the field method, with errors consistently on the conservative
side (field procedure estimates were high because of background color). The
detailed procedure is given in Table 7.
17
-------
Table 6. RABBIT PRIMARY SKIN IRRITATION TESTS: SERIES II
Z4 Hours
7Z-Hours
Rabbit •Unabraded Abraded- •• -Unabraded • • •
No. Erythema Edema Erythema Edema trythema Edema--Erythema- Edema
•Abraded-
2102
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
Average
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
Average
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
Average
1
1
0
0
1
0
0.5
0
1
0
1
0
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.0
Sample: 5X Creosote/Mud
1
1
0
0
1
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Primary Irritation score: 0.25
Sample: 10% Creosote/Mud
0
1
0
1
0
1
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Primary Irritation score: 0.25
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.17
Sample: 20X Creosote/Mud
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.17
0
0
1
0
1
1
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Primary Irritation score: 0.84
Sample: Creosote/Mud Emulsion
0
0
1
0
1
1
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
Average
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.0
1
2
4
2
3
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.0
1
2
4
2
3
3
2.5
3.67
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.0
3
4
4
3
4
4
3.67
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.0
Primary irritation score: 4.58
18
-------
Table 7. FIELD ANALYTICAL METHOD
FOR ESTIMATED HEXANE EXTRACTABLE SUBSTANCE IN MUD
Item
Procedure
1. Apparatus
2. Reagents
3. Procedure
4. Calculations
Burrell shaker - trip balance
12 - 250 erlenmeyer flasks
Saran wrap
Sample bottles
Spatula
#40 filter paper
Small funnel!
Screw tap test tubes
1 ml graduated pi pet
Cenco moisture meter
Distilled water
Solvent (petroleum ether)
Hydrochloric acid
Weigh about 5 grams of well mixed mud into
an erlenmeyer flask (avoid large stones,
twigs, leaves, etc.)- Add 45 ml distilled
water, 0.5 ml HCL, and 50 ml solvent, mix
so all mud is in solution, cover with
saran wrap and secure with rubber band.
Place on Burrell shaker and shake for 1
hour at a setting as high as possible (4)
without spilling or getting solvent trapped
around the top of flask. Remove and filter
solvent layer (top) through #40 filter
paper into small screw tap test tubes and
compare with standards. Estimate as best
as possible to nearest 100 or 200 mg/L.
(Run 3 or 4 samples and average.) Also
run a solids content on Cenco moisture
balance.
% solids = 100 - reading of Cenco meter
Weight dry sample = wet sample weight x
% solids/100
Estimated extractable material
(in mg/kg dry mud) =
50 x est. standard reading
dry weight sample
Estimated extractable material
(in mg/kg wet mud) =
50 x ext. standard reading
Wet weight sample
19
-------
SECTION 5
CLEANUP AND TREATMENT METHODS
The removal of hazardous pollutants from watercourses is a relatively new
area of activity and presented numerous challenges during the duration of
the cleanup. The Little Menomonee River is narrow and meanders
significantly in the 5 miles of contaminated reach (Figure 1). The river is
located in a low population density area and in many places is up to 0.5
mile from an access road. The stream is shallow and is not navigable except
by flat bottom rowboats. Its soft, marshy banks precluded the use of motor
powered vehicles for removal of debris and contaminated vegetation. Because
the discharge of creosote occurred over many years it was distributed in
layers in the stream bottom and in the river bank at points where the stream
changed direction or widened.
BANKLINE CLEANING
The first phase of the cleanup operation involved the removal of debris,
overhanging tree limbs and creosote saturated vegetation as well as bottom
muds which were exposed during the flow and creosote contaminated bank
material. As with all too many streams in this country, man's lack of
concern for the environment resulted in the disposal of much trash into this
already abused stream. Debris removed included refrigerators, stoves, old
tires, an engine block, bed springs, bottles, cans and other materials too
numerous to mention. Debris was manually loaded in flat bottomed boats and
hauled to the nearest access point where it was deposited into dumpsters for
disposal in a landfill.
All dead tree limbs and branches which interfered with the bottom
cleanup machinery were cut up and removed. In some cases live tree branches
which overhung the river bank had to be cut and hauled away. Because of the
inaccessibility of the river, this effort required a significant amount of
manual labor. Some reduction in labor was effected by using 2 portable leaf
and limb shredders. Uncontaminated vegetation was mulched and spread as
ground cover.
Some bank areas which contained visible amounts of creosote were cleaned
by rototilling the earth, shoveling the contaminated soil into boats and
hauling it away. The stripped areas were then seeded with a quick
germinating grass seed to prevent erosion.
In some areas contaminated bottom muds were exposed during low flow
periods leaving an island of creosote laden mud. These areas were cleaned
by shoveling the mud into boats and hauling to dumpsters for landfill
disposal.
20
-------
2.54 cm = 609.6 m
1" = 2,000 f
Figure 1
IV
Project location map
21
-------
RIVER BOTTOM CLEANING
Two river sweepers were utilized to remove muds from the river bottom.
The first (Sweeper 1) shown in Figure 2 was a floating, pontoon supported
chassis, containing a suction line (mast) which was hydraulically powered
to move simultaneously in three dimensions, along with an operator's chair
and control instruments. The suction line consisted of a 7.6 cm (3 in.)
thin walled steel tubing with a 40.6 cm (16 in.) diameter circular
spun-aluminum suction head attached to the bottom end. The suction line,
which terminated at the top of the mast, was connected to a 7.6 cm (3 in.)
flexible rubber hose which lead to a suction pump located on shore. The
suction head could be extended 1.4 m (4.5 ft) below the water surface, and
provisions were made to allow greater depths to be achieved by adding
extensions in deeper water.
Based on the work done in Phase 1 a second sweeper (Sweeper II) was
designed and fabricated incorporating the following improved features:
1. Independent frames bearing the hydraulic operating package and
suction pump to minimize the difficult problem of movement over
rough terrain and reduce the headloss on the suction side of the
pump.
2. A gimbal mounted suction mast extended over the support frame to
permit a continuous sweep rather than a "post-hole" type movement.
In addition, this design offered a greater fixed point reach and
much better access to the edges of the stream.
3. Hydraulic control of the boom and support studs from a central
operator's platform.
4. Downstream movement of the sweeper by means of a winch for more
accurate placement of the sweeper.
The second river sweeper assembly had a pontoon supported aluminum
chassis with overall dimensions of 2.7 x 7.9 m (9x26 ft) including a front
outrigger which contained two hydraulic spuds for holding the sweeper
stationary in the stream. With the sweeper extension attached (for deeper
water), the overall length was 9.58 m (31.5 ft).
The sweeper consisted of a suction arm with attached suction head
capable of removing stream bottom mud and sediment by a vacuuming action.
The suction head was equipped with two hydraulically operated cutting
knives to prevent debris from clogging the head and to aid in removing mud
too stable for vacuum retrieval alone.
The suction arm was capable of sweeping both laterally and vertically.
This movement was accomplished through the use of two hydraulic cylinders,
operated from a single control lever located on the main platform in the
operator instrumentation' area of the sweeper. This arrangement permitted
the operator to move the boom while maintaining a "feel" of the river
bottom.
22
-------
SUCTION LINE
SPUDS
SUCTION HEAD
Figure 2. River sweeper I
23
-------
Once a section of stream bottom was swept, the entire sweeper was moved
by raising the hydraulic spuds, activating a winch located on the rear of
the sweeper, and resetting the spuds in the stream bottom.
A gasoline engine driven suction pump was located on the sweeper to
provide the "vacuum" and a gasoline engine driven hydraulic pump supplied
the hydraulic power for sweeper operation. A gasoline tank located on the
rear of the sweeper aided in making the unit self-contained with a minimum
of shoreside support equipment. Valving was provided to permit reversing
the water flow to flush out the sweeper boom and head in case in clogging.
A general arrangement drawing of Sweeper II is given in Figure 3. An
actual photograph of Sweeper II is shown in Figure 4.
Mud was pumped from the river bottom by means of two HYDR-0-MATIC 10.2
cm (4 in.) centrifugal trash pumps manufactured by the Hydromatic Pump
Company of Haynesville, Ohio. Each of these self-priming pumps, Model No.
40EP-VH4DWA, was wheel mounted and powered by a 30-horsepower, gasoline fuel
engine. The pumps had a total head of 44 m (145 ft) at 6.3 1/s (100 gpm), a
suction lift of 7.6 m (25 ft) and the ability to pass a 7.6 cm (3 in.)
solids. A photograph of one of the land-based sweeper pumps is shown in
Figure 5.
Hosing of 7.6 cm (3 in.) was used to connect the river sweeper suction
line to the pump and also to connect the pump to the treatment process.
Hard wall rubber hose was used on the suction side of the pump and one 15.2 m
(50 ft) length on the discharge side, the remainder being common 7.6 cm ( 3
in.) mil hose or plastic hose. All hose connections were of the quick
diconnect type to facilitate adding or removing hose sections as needed.
To prevent pluggages of the suction line between the sweeper head and
the pump, a cleanout package was added to facilitate flushing of the suction
header. This package included four 7.6 cm (3 in.) valves mounted on a
rubber-tired wagon to permit the pumpage of clean river water back through
the pump suction line. With this technique, most blockages could be removed
in 1 to 3 minutes.
The pump discharge hose to the treatment system was kept as short as
possible but extended approximately 395 m (1300 ft) on at least one occasion.
TREATMENT PROCESS
Since the Phase 1 study had shown that it was impossible to remove more
than about 50% of the creosote from the bottom muds by froth flotation, it
was decided to simplify the treatment process by using a small presettling
tank for gross solids removal rather than the "mobile beach cleaner" used in
Phase 1.
The bottom muds were therefore pumped into a 2.1 m (7 ft) diameter,
conical-bottomed clarifier. The purpose of this clarifier was to remove as
much of the heavy sand and mud as possible prior to introduction into the
24
-------
ro
O
HYDRAULIC PACKAGE
SUCTIO.N PUMP
•CCTlOH *-»
Figure 3. General arrangement drawing of river sweeper II
-------
Figure 4. River Sweeper II
26
-------
Figure 5. Land-based sweeper pump
27
-------
reaction-clarifier section, since- the removal of heavy sludge from the flat
bottom mud flocculation-sedimentation tank was an extremely time consuming
and tedious task.
Clarifier
The clarifier shown in Figure 6 was a center feed, peripheral weir type
with a 3.9-m (13-ft) straight wall section. The 60-degree conical bottom
was equipped with a 7.6-cm (3-in.) drawoff point value for sludge removal.
The entire clarifier was hinged and mounted on a small trailer for transfer
to new setup points.
During initial operations, substantial difficulties were encountered
with rocks and other debris clogging the sludge drawdiff valve. This
necessitated'transfer of the clarifier contents and disassembly of the valve
to remove the blockage.
Subsequently a manually cleaned bar screen was added to the clarifier
inlet to remove large debris. This device consisted of a box 6.7 x 6.7 x
6.7 cm (2x2x2 ft) with a 0.63-cm (0.25-in.) bars spaced approximately 3.8 cm
(1.5 in.) on center. Although this device required the full time attention
of an operator, it reduced much of the down time which had occurred earlier
in the project.
The sludge from this clarifier was generally on the order of a 6-10%
solids and was pumped with a 7.6 cm (3 in.) gasoline driven HYDR-0-MATIC
pump to a 18,925-L (5,000-gal) sludge holding tank.
Liquid Treatment System
The liquid treatment system used for this project was the hazardous
spills vehicle developed by Envirex for the EPA under Contract 68-01-0099(6).
The spills vehicle is a completely operational, mobile physical-
chemical treatment system with a hydraulic flow capacity of 12.6 L/s
(200 gpm). The vehicle has its own self-contained power supply, a portable
rubber reaction-settling tank, mixed media filters, carbon columns, chemical
feed system and controls.
The clarifier liquid from the precleaning clarifier was conveyed by
gravity to the reaction-sedimentation tank, shown in Figure 7, which
consisted of a tank within a tank. The inner tank had a diameter of 3.43 m
(11.25 ft) with nineteen 10.16-cm (40-in.) diameter orifices located around
the periphery of the tank, 27.94-cm (11-in.) below the top. The outer tank
was 7.6 m (25 ft) in diameter and 1.4 m (4.5 ft) high, as was the inner
tank. The inner tank, which was used as a flocculation chamber in this
process, had a volume of 12,718 L (3,360 gal). The outer tank was used as a
sedimentation basin and had a volume of 49,886 L (13,180 gal), for total
volume of both tanks of 62,604 L (16,540 gal).
28
-------
N>
VO
Figure 6. Clarifier (presettler tank)
-------
Figure 7. Reaction-clarifier tank
30
-------
Because of the frequent shutdowns to move Sweeper I and to remove hose
blockages, the system was operated on a semicontinuous basis. Water was
pumped from the reaction tank through an inline mixer installed on the
spills vehicle (Figure 8) where 50 to 200 mg/1 of FeCla and 1 mg/1 of
Atlasep 105C were added for coagulation by means of a BIF, Model
1271-23-9121, chemical feed pump and the flow rate measured. The flow from
this header was connected by hose to an opening on the bottom of the inner
(flocculation) 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 introduction of the supernatant
into the hazardous spills vehicle for mixed-media filtration and carbon
adsorption.
The hazardous spills vehicle shown in Figure 8 was originally developed
as a mobile unit which could quickly respond to the site of a spill of both
organic and inorganic water soluble substances such as ammonia, phenol,
chlorine and methyl alcohol, heavy metal compounds, and chlorinated
hydrocarbon pesticides. The entire treatment system was mounted on a 13.7-
x 2.5-m (45-x 8-ft).truck trailer. The portable sedimentation tank was
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
included the capability for addition of chemicals for coagulation and pH
adjustment, followed by mixed media filtration and carbon adsorption. A
block diagram of the process flow is shown in Figure 9.
The mixed media filtration process consisted of three pressure
filtration columns, operated in parallel. The columns were each 106.68 cm
(42 in.) in diameter and 203.2 cm (80 in.) high and contained 45.72 cm (18
in.) of sand beneath 60.96 cm (24 in.) of anthracite. The sand used was
common red flint sand having an effective size of 0.5 mm and a uniformity
coefficient of 1.5. The anthracite used was Anthrafilt No. 1 1/2, with a
standard size of 0.85 and 0.95 mm. The total surface area of the three
columns was 2.68 m2 (28.8 ft2). The columns housing the filter media
were flakeglass lined steel pressure vessels.
Carbon adsorption was accomplished in three columns that could be
operated either in parallel or series. These columns were 210.82 cm (83
in.) in diameter by 266.7 cm (105 in.) high and were enclosed in flakeglass
lined steel pressure vessels. For use on this project, only one carbon
column was filled with carbon and used. The column was filled with 6,000 Ib
of 18 x 40 mesh Witco Grade 718 activated carbon. The wetted volume of
carbon was estimated to be 6.51 m3 (230 ft3).
Three portable rubber pillow tanks were also part of this vechicle.
These tanks were 3.66 x 3.66 m (12 x 12 ft) and had a volume of 11,355 L
(3000 gal). Their purpose was to store sludge from the sedimentation tank
and hold a supply of backwash water for the mixed media and carbon columns.
The system was designed to be backwashed with the wash water going back to
the sedimentation tank, where the solids are settled out and handled with
the normal sludge. In the application on the Little Menomonee River, one of
31
-------
the pillow tanks was used to store carbon column effluent for backwash. The
sludge from the sedimentation tank was pumped directly from the tank to a
18,925-L (5000-gal) sludge storage tank and then transported to a Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources approved landfill.
32
-------
Figure 8. Hazardous spills vehicle
33
-------
Pump
Flow
Measurement
Coagulant
Addition
pH
Ad j us tment
In-Line
Mixing
I
CO
-pa
Carbon
Adsorption
Mixed
Me*A-t a
rieuia
Filtration
Pump
SoHlm*»nt*fl t"l nn
Figure 9. Block diagram showing process flow
-------
SECTION 6
OPERATING RESULTS
The banks and bottom muds of the Little Menomonee River were
contaminated with a creosote-type material from Brown Deer Road south to
approximately Silver Spring Road (Figure 10). The degree of contamination
varied widely throughout this stretch, with shallow areas of fast-moving
water being de.void of contamination and some of the wide slow velocity areas
having high concentrations. Areas of high contamination were found from the
creosoting operation at the railroad trestle south of Brown Deer Road south
to approximately Bradley Road and in the "oxbow" area where the river flows
under the Fond du Lac Freeway.
The basic project philosophy was to begin cleaning at the upstream end
and to work downstream, thereby preventing recontamination by the suspension
of contaminants during high flow periods. The cleanup included two basic
phases—bankline and bottom cleaning.
BANKLINE CLEANING
Bankline cleaning was the first field effort since it was necessary to
remove all obstructions and debris prior to bottom cleaning. It also
permitted the contractor to get a head start on the project while the
treatment equipment was being prepared for deployment.
Bankline cleaning was initiated at the railroad trestle approximately 38
m (190 ft) south of Brown Deer Road and was terminated 4023 m (13,200 ft)
downstream, somewhat upstream of the Fond du Lac Freeway. The amount of
debris removed during the bankline cleaning was approximately 305 m^ (400
yd^). In addition an undetermined amount of brush was mulched on-site and
left to decompose. The bankline cleaning effort required approximately 2800
man-hours of work.
Although there were relatively few areas of the river bank that required
removal of contaminated soil, this was an extremely time consuming and
expensive task. Whenever there were visual indications of creosote deposits
on the banks the area was cored and soil removed until there was no visual
evidence of contamination. The bank was then reseeded. Throughout the
entire project, extreme caution was exerted to insure an absolute minimum of
damage to the environment, which contributed to the extremely high cost of
cleanup.
35
-------
.5A cm = 609.6
1" = 2,000
Figure 10. Map showing location of Little Menomonee River
36
-------
RIVER BOTTOM CLEANING
Removal of contaminated bottom muds was initiated 152.4 m (500 ft)
downstream of Brown Deer Road. During the approximately 3.5 months of
operation, 1231 linear meters (4040 linear feet) or approximately 9290 m?
(100,000 ft?) of river bottom were cleaned.
Before the initiation of river bottom cleanup, a complete sampling
survey was undertaken to identify the concentration of hexane-soluble
materials in the bottom muds. Samples were collected by means of a Pfleger
corer to a depth of 0.6 m (2 ft). Three cores were taken at each
cross-section, with the interval between sampling stations ranging from
approximately 7.6 to 38.1 m (25 to 125 ft), depending on the conditions
found at each site. The cores were then composited and the hexane-solubles
were determined by the field procedure described in Section 5. A summary of;
these results is shown in Table 8.
The results of this pre-cleanup survey were used as a primary measure of
the degree of contamination. In most cases a secondary qualitative measure
of contamination could be obtained by the amount of oil rising to the
surface as the crew worked in the river.
Because of the length of river that was cleaned, the treatment system
was set up in three different locations. Movement of equipment from one
location to another required approximately 14 man-days of effort including
the time required to remove sludge from the reaction-settling tanks.
A typical setup of the entire retrieval-treatment system is given in
Figure 11. Mud was pumped from the river via a 7.6 cm (3 in.) hose to the
presetting tank. The clarifier wastewater then flowed by gravity to the
reaction tank where FeCl3 and Atlasep 105C were added and mixed. The
flocculated river water overflowed to the other setting tank for further
clarification. This clarified water was then pumped through the multi-media
filters and the activated carbon filters and then back to the river. No
tests were conducted on the carbon column effluent since work performed in
1972 had indicated that the effluent quality from this system was more than
adequate for discharge back to the river. Performance data from 1972 is
summarized in Figure 12.
Sludge from the presettling tank and the final settler was pumped to a
18,925 L (5000 gal) tank trailer. This trailer served as a "day tank" and
permitted some thickening prior to ultimate disposal in a landfill. The
supernatant from the day tank was decanted back to the reaction tank each
morning in order to reduce the sludge hauling costs.
During the cleanup operation, a crew of 10 men was used, including:
1 - Project engineer
1 - Sweeper operator
37
-------
1 - Pump and valve operator
1 - Presettler operator
2 - Chemical technicians - sampling and analysis
2 - Treatment system operators
1 - Hose handler
When both sweepers were on line simultaneously, the chemical technicians
were used to operate the second sweeper.
Due to materials shortages, River Sweeper II was not available for use
until the last month of the project. The design objectives were achieved
and the sweeper proved to be much more flexible and easier to use than
Sweeper I. During the period when both sweepers were on line it was
possible,to clean approximately 33.53 to 38.10 lineal meters (110 to 125
lineal feet) per day or 185.8 to 232.25 m2 (2000 to 2500 ft2).
During the cleanup phase, 5,828,900 L (1,540,000 gal) of river muds were
processed through the system. Grit collected in the presettler amounted to
45,798.5 L (12,100 gal) and liquid sludge was 692,644 L (183,000 gal). The
thickened liquid sludge varied from 3% to 55% soilds with the estimated
average concentration being 35% solids.
Immediately following the cleaning of a reach of river, the section was
sampled and analyzed to insure that the residual concentration was less than
the 5,000 mg/kg level established as the level adequate to protect incumbent
and potential aquatic fauna. In those cases where the residual concen-
trations exceeded the standard, the section was recleaned until the standard
was achieved. The residual concentrations after cleanup are also given in
Table 8.
Within 45 days following the cleanup, sightings of bluegills, largemouth
bass, black bullheads, white suckers, and muskrat and turtles were made in
an area that previously had been totally devoid of higher organisms.
Because of the extreme variability in the contaminant concentration, it
is difficult to accurately report the results of the cleanup effort. For
the 1231.39 m (4040 ft) that were cleaned, the mean concentration before
cleanup was 6,911 mg/kg and after cleanup was 1,670 mg/kg, indicating a 76%
removal of contaminants. The vertical and horizontal distribution of this
contaminant is such that though the removal percentage is quite good, the
data could be skewed depending on the exact sample location.
There definitely appears to be a need for basic study to develop
statistically reliable techniques for sampling bottom sediments.
38
-------
Table 8. RIVER BOTTOM MUDS - HEXANE EXTRACTABLE CONCENTRATIONS
BEFORE AND AFTER CLEANING LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER
CO
10
Station
meters
„
15.24
30.48
45.72
56.99
60.96
76.20
91.44
106.68
121.92
137.16
148.43
152.40
167.64
182.88
198.12
213.36
228.60
243.84
259.08
274.32
289.56
304.80
320.04
335.28
reet
0
50
100
150
187
200
250
300
350
400
450
487
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
Sample
Location No.
Brown Deer Road 1
2
3
4
R.R Trestle
5
6
7
8
9
10
•
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Before cleaning
estimated oil
content,
mg/kg
*1,190
< 1,220
< 1.400
12.700
—
8.800
10.900
1.800
3.300
2.900
2,700
—
1.400
1,900
1.900
10.300
3,900
4.000
10.500
3.800
1,900
2.100
10.300
2.000
1,900
After cleaning
estimated oil
content,
mg/kg
2360
-.
0
2.150
3.090
2,020
2,150
2,250
Comments
Bank line cleaning
started
Bottom cleaning
started
(Continued)
-------
Table 8 (Continued).
Station
meters feet Location
350.52
365.76
381.00
396.24
411.48
422.76
426.72
441.96
457.20
472.44
487.68
502.92
518.16
533.40
548.64
563.88
579.12
594.36
609.60
624.84
640.08
655.32
670.56
685.80
701.04
716.28
731.52
1150
1200
1250
1300
1350
1387 Moss Tie Bridge
1400
1450
1500
1550
1600
1650
1700
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
2050
2100
2150
2200
2250
2300
2350
2400
Sample
No.
24
25
26
27
28
—
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41 ,
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Before cleaning
estimated oil
content,
rog/kg
1.900
3,280
3,280
3,390
4.760
~
10,000
15,910
18,180
12.200
9,440
10.870
10.000
10,200
18,500
8.930
20,410
3,080
1.850
1.700
2,220
4.260
2,170
3,130
2,570
4,760
2,170
After cleaning
estimated oil
content,
ing/kg Comments
2,200
0
1,240
2,200
1,940
4,720
930
2.960
1,970
970
0
2,970
3.220
(Continued)
-------
Table 8. (Continued)
Station
meters
746
762
772
792
807
822
838
853
868
883
899
914
929
967
1005
1043
1082
1120
1158
1196
1234
1272
1310
1363
1385
1402
1424
1447
.76
.00
.24
.48
.72
.96
.20
.44
.68
.92
.16
.40
.64
.74
.84
.94
.04
.14
.24
.34
.44
.54
.64
.98
.92
.08
.94
.80
feet Location
2450
2500
2550
2600
2650
2700
2750
2800
2850
2900
2950
3000
3050
3175
3300
3425
3550
3675
3800
3925
4050
4175
4300
4475
4547
4600
4675
4750
Sample
No.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
Before cleaning
estimated oil
content,
ing/kg
3
2
4
3
4
2
7
13
13
11
10
4
5
11
4
6
12
11
14
16
5
5
2
16
2
14
4
43
,920
,500
,550
,330
.870
,280
,140
,510
.160
,630
,420
.540
.880
.360
.260
,670
.200
.630
.700
,670
.560
.130
,270
,130
,630
,290
,550
,480
After cleaning
estimated oil
content,
mg/kg
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
7
,960
879
—
0
,540
,510
0
,290
660
0
.730
,020
.400
,590
0
,340
0
.740
Comments
1036
1066
1097
1188
1219
1280
1341
1371
.32 m
.80 m
.28 m
.72 m
.20 m
.16 m
.12 m
.60 m
3400
3500
3600
3900
4000
4200
4400
4500
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
(Continued)
-------
Table 8. (Continued)
Station
meters
1470.66
1492,53
1516.38
1531.62
1554.48
1577.34
1600.20
1623.06
1645.92
1668.78
1691.64
1714.50
1737.36
1760.22
1783.08
1805.94
1828.80
1851.66
1859.28
1866.90
1889.76
1912.62
1935.48
1958.34
1981.20
2004.06
2026.92
2049.78
feet Location
4825
4900
4975
5025
5100
5175
5250
5325
5400
5475
5550
5625
5700
5775
5850
5925
6000
6075
6100
6125
6200 R.R. Trestle
6275
6350
6425
6500
6575
6650
6725
Sample
No.
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Before cleaning
estimated oil
content,
rag/kg
4,080
4,350
2,380
2,330
23,260
2,630
12,500
2,220
9,380
2,780
5.560
2,440
30,300
2,330
13,890
23,810
12.200
0
0
3,770
1.960
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
After cleaning
estimated oil
content,
mq/kg Comments
Bradley Road
1931.52 m
(6337 ft)
(Continued)
-------
Table 8. (Continued)
Station
meters
2072.64
2095.50
2118.36
2141.22
2164.08
2186.94
2209.80
2232.66
2255.52
2278.38
2324.10
2346.96
2369.82
2392.68
2415.54
2423.16
2438.40
2461.26
2484.12
2506.98
2529.84
2552.70
2575.56
2598.42
2621.28
2644.14
2667.00
2689.86
feet
6800
6875
6950
7025
7100
7175
7250
7325
7400
7475
7625
7700
7775
7850
7925
7950
8000
8075
8150
8225
8300
8375
8450
8525
8600
8675
8750
8825
Sample
Location No.
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
Before cleaning After cleaning
estimated oil estimated oil
content, content,
mg/kg mg/kg Comments
1,450
0
0
0
0
3,280
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,520
0
0
5,460
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,750
0
1,670
3.130
(Continued)
-------
Table 8. (Continued)
Station
meters
2712.72
2735.58
2758.44
2781.30.
2815.74
2850.18
2884.63
2919.07
2953.51
2987.95
3021.48
3056.84
3091.28
3155.72
3160.17
3194.61
3229.05
3263.49
3297.94
3332.38
3366.82
3401.26
3435.71
3474.72
3505.20
3535.68
3566.16
3575.30
feet
8900
8975
9050
9125
9238
9351
9464
9577
9690
9803
9913
10029
10142
10255
10368
10481
10594
10707
10820
10933
11046
11159
11272
11400
11500
11600
11700
11730
Sample
Location No.
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
Before cleaning After cleaning
estimated ojl estimated oil
content, content,
mg/kg mg/kg Comments
1.540
2,860
1,410
2,890
0
4.270
0
0
4.610
1.590
3.220
0
1.510
3.450
0
0
3,720
1,730
0
1.590
1.790
0
0
6,790
0
1.640
3.520
1,420
(Continued)
-------
Table 8. (Continued)
-P.
in
Section
meters
3584.45
3593.59
3602.74
3611.88
3621 .02
3630.17
3639.31
3648.46
3657.60
3666.74
3675.89
3685.03
3695.18
3703.32
3712.46
3721.61
3730.75
3739.90
3749.04
3758.18
3767.33
3776.47
3785.62
3794.76
3803.90
3813.05
3822.19
feet
11760
11790
11820
11850
11880
11910
11940
11970
12000
12030
12060
12090
12120
12150
12180
12210
12240
12270
12300
12330
12360
12390
12420
12450
12480
12510
12540
Sample
Location No.
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184 •
185
186
187
188
Before cleaning After cleaning
estimated oil estimated oil
content, content,
mg/kg mg/kg Comments
3,330
5,370
1,970
0
3,720
1.560
0
3,720
5.800
2.890
1.640
8.600
1.930
2,980
3.330
1.930
0
0
0
1.700
0
3,120
3.280
0
0
0
0
(Continued)
-------
Table 8 (Continued)
OV
Station
meters
3831.33
3840.48
3849.62
3858.77
3867.91
3877.06
3886.20
3895.34
3904.49
3913.63
3922.78
3962.40
3971.54
3977.64
3986.78
3995.93
4005.07
4014.22
4023.36
feet
12570
12600
12630
12660
12690
12720
12750
12780
12810
12840
12870
13000
13030
13050
13080
13110
13140
13170
13200
Sample
Location No.
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
End Point 207
Before cleaning
estimated oil
content,
mg/kg
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.760
4,200
0
5,280
0
1.920
1,790
7.160
1.790
0 .
0
10.070
1.490
After cleaning
estimated oil
content,
mg/kg Comments
..
Bank line cleaning
terminated
-------
RIVER
SWEEPER
LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER
PUMP (LAND BASED
OR FLOATING)
7.6 cm
(3") HOSE
18,925 1. (5000 gal.-)
TANK TRAILER
FILTERED EFFLUENT
TO RIVER
2.Ml x 13.72 m .(8x*»5') TRAILER
MIXED MEDIA £ CARBON
2.13 m (7 ft) DIA. SETTLJNG TANK
2k.38x7.62 m
(180x25 ft)
AREA
7.62 m (25') DIA. RUBBER
SEDIMENTATION TANK
BACKWASH
TANK
Figure 11. Typical mud retrieval £ treatment system setup
-------
oo
FROTH SED. CARBON
RAW FLOTATION TANK COLUMN
FLOW EFFLUENT EFFLUENT EFFLUENT
4600 -
« 1200 .
-Q
•>
LU
_l
CD
}_
^ 800 .
x
LU
LU
X
LU
1 400
0
J
i
X
co
0\
ON
i-H
m
r-
V
<
o
LU
!
CO
JO
rH
sr
oo
CO
00
oo
II
H REMOVAL
CO
in
o
oo
ON
II
_1
0
,LU
• .-'=
i
CO
0
25
50
o
LU
O
o
LU
a.
. 75
100
Figure 12. Hexane extractable removals.
-------
SECTION 7
OPERATING PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE CLEANUPS
The existence of toxic or hazardous materials in watercourses is
generally the result of either one time accidental spills or a continous
discharge over long periods of time. Although the first case can cause
serious environmental damage, if the cleanup is implemented within a very
short period, the spread of materials can generally be contained within a
reasonably small area.
The long-term, continuous discharge presents a much more difficult
problem with regard to cleanup since the hazardous materials are spread out
over a large area. In the case of the Little Menomonee, the pollutants
were spread out over 8.05 km (5 miles) of stream, into the stream bank and
to depths of 0.9 to 1.2 m (3 to 4 ft) in the stream bottom for some
locations.
The removal of pollutants from the bottoms of streams is a most
difficult task. Ideally large dredging equipment could be used to dredge
contaminated muds with a minimum of operating problems. However, the small
size of streams such as the Little Menomonee precludes use of large dredges
even if adequate treatment capacity (63.09 to 315.45 L/s [1000 to 5000
gpm]) could be provided.
In the case of the Little Menomonee, a small dredge (6.3 L/s [100 gpm])
was utilized which could be matched to a transportable treatment system.
Use of a small dredge, however, presents numerous problems of pluggage and
equipment damage from underwater obstacles (see operating log, Table 9).
Based on observations made during the Little Menomonee study, it
appears that a number of alternatives exist for different problems.
1. For small or large streams in which the pollutant is not
interspersed with the bottom muds, a small hydraulic dredge such as
used on the Little Menomonee can be coupled with a transportable
system to provide a satisfactory means of retrieval and treatment.
2. For small streams where the contaminant is interspersed with the
bottom muds to any substantial depth ( 15.24 cm [ 6 in.]) the
stream, if possible, should be dammed up or diverted and the
pollutant removed by mechanical means such as rubber tired front
end loaders or bulldozers.
49
-------
3. For large waterbodies where the contaminant is interspersed with
the bottom muds to a depth of greater than 15.24 cm (6 in.), it
will be necessary to utilize a relatively large dredge to pump the
contaminated muds to a storage pond and/or treatment system.
The system used for the Little Menomonee operation appeared to be an
adequate method for removing contaminated bottom muds to a depth of
approximately 15.24 cm (6 in.). In those cases where the muds were
contaminated to depths greater than 15.24 cm (6 in.) the frequency of line
clogs and equipment breakdowns greatly impeded progress and other methods
should be investigated.
50
-------
Table 9. OPERATIONS LOG
July 25 to August 10. 1973
Day
H
T
W
Th
F
S
S
M
T
M
Th
F
S
S
M
T
W
Th
F
Date
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Hours
worked
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 ...
10
10
10
Problems, remarks, etc.
Final setup and adjustments to equipment
before operations
Setup and adjustment to equipment cont'd.
First day of operations
River too low to operate, s«ndbag dam at
Bradley Road
Good day; ran dilution water between sweeper
moves
Moved pumps; backwashed filters, decanted
holding tank
Burst 7.6 cm (3") hose; problems w/plugged
lines
Coupling problem w/hydraullc pump
New coupling parts Installer: backwashed
filter
Plugged sweeper mase, burst hose, backwashed
filter
Railroad spike jammed pump, new pump used
Unplugged presettler, replunbed pillow
tank, backwashed filters, removed solids
High solids loading, numerous shutdowns
Removed mud, moved pumps, ram In p.m.
Ralnout - no work
Good day; changed method of moving Sweeper 1
Volume processed,
liters
24,413
7,305
157,645
89.136
128,756
119.416
57.986
130.582
100,113
143.981
117.143
16.199
0
92.278
gallons
6.450
1.930
41.650
23.550
34.020
31 .500
15,320
34.500
26.450
38.040
30.950
4,280
0
24.380
Sludge volume
removed
liters gallons
17.032 4.500
34.065 9.000
17.032 4.500
(Continued)
-------
en
r>o
Tible 9. (Continued)
August 11 to September 10, 1973
Day
S
s
M
T
M
Th
F
S
S
M
T
M
Th
F
S
S
N
T
W
Th
F
S
S
N
Date
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
Hours
worked
7
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
8
8
8
9
10
Volume processed.
Problems, remarks, etc.
Plugged mast and Install vac. gage; sweeper
operator
Pump mud out of reaction tank
Broken coupling, worn through suction hose
water In gas
Sweeper to Moss Bridge 9:30, In & out of
water by 3 pro
Wear plate broken, burst hose, plugged
presettler
Moved pumps, filters loaded
Began equipment move - 10 am
Continued equip, move, decanted sedimen-
tation tank
Removed built up sludge
Replaced byd. engine moved presettler
& spills trailer
Rained steady all day
Broken sweeper spud; Intermittent rain
Very hot - 99"F; broke another sweeper
leg; plugs
Continued hot; repaired spud, moved pumps
Clogs, (wood chips), Influent dirty;
cont'd hot
Part rain; weed plugs; presettler plugged
Broken hyd. pump fittings
Labor Day
liters
37,093
113.176
24.337
75.737
97.425
48.902
23,731
36.638
0
0
0
53,368
56,018
71,044
66,502
38,342
94.095
gallons
9,800
29,900
6.430
20,010
25.740
12.920
6.270
9.680
0
0
0
14,100
14,800
18,770
17.570
10,130
24,860
Sludge volume
removed
liters gallons
17,032 4,500
17.031 4,500
17.031 4.500
17.032 4.500
(Continued)
-------
en
CO
Table 9 (Continued)
August 11 to September 10, 1973
Day
T
U
Th
F
S
S
H
T
U
Th
F
S
S
H
T
U
Th
F
S
M
Date
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
n
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
Hours
worked
10
10
10
10
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
2
10
10
10
7
10
10
Volume processed.
Problems, remarks, etc.
Rained out; decanted sedimentation tank
Fix hyd. pack; head broke off mast
No access due to rain; system mud loaded
Broken hyd. fittings; plugs In presettler
System mud loaded; broke pump fitting
Cutter head motor problems, sludge pump out
TOTAL LINEAL METERS - 320 (1050 ft)
September 11 to October 10, 1973
Wear plate stud broke
Dirty filters; chem feeder check valve plugged
Change old wear plate; pump plugs
Plugged presettler, hyd. package broke,
sweeper hung up
Repair coupling, mud buildup slower sweeper
Rained all day
No access to sludge tank; system full of mud
Grit chamber Installed; began gravelling road
Good day due to "clean" tanks
Rained half day; broke suction hose
Bad "0" ring on pump; moved pump
Plugged presettler
liters
9,500
32,702
68,622
44.890
27.695
73.958
95.760
25.208
79.295
54,163
64.534
. 0
56.472
46.025
26.930
43,092
43.338
gallons
2.510
8,640
18.130
11.860
7.370
19,540
25.300
6.660
20.950
14.310
17,050
0
14,920
12,160
7,115
11,385
11,450
Sludge volume
removed
liters gallons
17,032 4,500
17,032 4,500
17,032 4.500
17,032 4.500
17,032 4,500
(Continued)
-------
Table 9. (Continued)
September 11 to October 10. 1973
Day
T
W
Th
F
S
H
T
W
Th
F
S
S
H
T
H
Th
F
S
H
T
Date
25
26
27
28
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
Hours
worked
2
10
10
2
8
10
10
10
10
10
8
0
10
10
10
10
10
8
10
10
Problems, remarks, etc.
Rained all day
Hydraulic power package problems
No access for sludge pickup
Rained all day
Pump moved
No sludge pickup; more gravel; operations
slow
Coupling broke; crushed roci Installed
Sludge pickup; good day
Two sludge pickups; rained
Two sludge pickups; good da./
Broken taper lock coupling
Fixed coupling; generator didn't start -
fixed; pumped sludge . •
Began dismantling equipment good day
Equipment move
TOTAL LINEAR METERS - 252.91; (830 ft)
October 11 to November 10, 1973
Equipment moved to Site III
426 meters (1400 ft) of hose from Sweeper 1
to presettler
New power cords, booster punp, etc
Finished setup, problem w/pump 1 engine
Fixed chock plate; launched part of
Sweeper II
Volume processed.
liters gallons
0
52.649
62.831
0
54.882
61.165
79.182
78.500
18,925
78.728
42.505
0
68.546
40.007
63.133
0
13.910
16,600
0
14.500
16.160
20.920
20.740
5.000
20.800
11.230
0
18.110
10.570
16.680
Sludge volume
removed
liters gallons
17.032 4.500
34.065 9.000
34.065 9,000
17.032 4,500
17.032 4,500
34.065 9.000
(Continued)
-------
Table 9. (Continued)
October 11 to November 10, 1973
Day
U
Th
F
S
S
H
T
M
Th
F
S
S
H
T
M
Th
F
S
S
H
T
U
T
F
S
S
Date
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Hours
worked
10
10
9
10
10
11
10
10
10
2
10
10
10
9
2
2
2
2
2
Sludge volume
Volume processed. removed
Problems, remarks, etc.
Hyd. power package maintenance, snapped
welds on Sweeper II
Snapped stud on pump case; borrowed stud,
snapped again
Repaired studs; assembled Sweeper II
Both sweepers operating; good day
Generator not working; bad condenser
Modified new sweeper; excellent day
Too ouch flow; fast mud buildup; good day
Sweepers bottomed; dam down
Too much mud; no sludge pickup due to closed
dump; very slow, must let settle; alternating
sweepers
Hose and pump plugs
Steady rain
Bad "0" ring & wear plate on Sweeper II
Steady drizzle In morning
To tie bridge
Freeze
Unseasonably cold - low 20' s
Cold; some maintenance performed
Cold; some maintenance performed
Cold; some maintenance performed
Cold; some maintenance performed
liters
67,145
35,351
59,083
87.130
151.059
179.863
141.596
130,885
81 .642
125.472
0
107,191
130.506
107.494
0
0
0
0
0
gallons liters
17.750
9.340
15.610
23,020 17.032
39.910
47,520
37.410 17.032
34,580 34.065
21.570 17.032
33.150
0 34,065
28,320
34,480
28.400
0
0
0
0
0
gallons
4,500
4,500
9.000
4.500
9,000
TOTAL LINEAL METERS - 385 (1175 ft)
(Continued)
-------
Table 9. (Continued)
November 12 to November 30, 1973
Day
H
T
W
Th
F
S
S
M
T
M
Th
F
Date
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
29
30
Hours
worked
9
9
9
9
9
5
10
10
8
Problems, remarks, etc.
Repaired freeze damage, 5 valves & Isolator
Finished 22.9 m (75') upstream section and
15.3 (50') before tie bridge
Drained system
Started cleanup
Site & equipment cleanup; moved
Back to office
Equipment back to subcontractors
Final sludge pickup by AA
Removed storage tank
Sludge volume
Volume processed, removed
liters gallons liters gallons
23.996 6.340
38.531 10.180 34.065 9,000
51,097 13,500
17,032 4,500
9,462 2,500
TOTAL LINEAL METERS - 38.1 (125 ft)
-------
SECTION 8
COSTS
The costs of removing the creosote contamination from the Little
Menomonee River was estimated for bankline and bottom cleaning and is shown
in Table 10. The costs for capital equipment items are not included in the
estimate.
These unit costs are considered high and reflect the problem of a "brute
force" manual effort approach. These costs plus the 0.6 to 0.9 m (2 to 3
ft) depths of contaminated muds found in the upper reaches are the reasons
for not completing the cleanup of the entire contaminated reach.
Table 10. CLEANUP COSTS
Item
Amount
Bankline cleaning
Labor
Trucking
River bottom cleaning
Cost
Length of river
Unit Cost
Estimated m2 =
Estimated ft2 =
Unit Cost =
$23,000
1.080
$24,080
$6,040/1000 lineal meters
$1,840/1000 lineal feet
$123,975
1,230 lineal meters (4,040 lineal feet)
$123.975 = $100.79/1ineal meters
1230 m
$123.975 = $ 30.80/1ineal feet
4040 ft
9290
100,000
$123.975 = £13.35/m2
9290 n*
$123.975 = $1.24/ft2
100,000
57
-------
Some 1219+ lineal meters (4000+ lineal feet) of contaminated river
bottom remain, plus the oxbow at Leon Terrace (Figure 13), which should be
cleaned up should funds become available. This objective could be best
accomplished by damming off the river north of the Brown Deer Road and using
a rubber-tired tractor working in the river bottom to scoop out the muds.
58
-------
Priority 1 - From bridge at 8451 N. 91st
downstream to RR Trestle (152.4 m (500 ft)
north of Bradley Road). Length: 522.4 m (1750 ft)
Priority 2 - 60.96 m (200 ft) from Calumet Bridge I
downstream to drainage culvert directly west of I
Dogwood. Length - 365.76 m (1200 ft) j
Priority 3 - Stormwater drainage ditch north |
of Calumet including river downstream & upstream."
Length: ditch 30.48 m (100 ft); river 76.2 m (250 ft)
Priority 4 - Begins at concrete foot bridge
supports & upstream to mud flat. Length -
106.68 m (350 ft)
Priority 5 - Section begins 45.72 m (150 ft)
south of Dogwood culvert. Length: 121.92 m
(400 ft)
I © 533
I 1750 ft
Figure 13. Priority locations
59
-------
REFERENCES
1. The Merck Index of Chemicals and Drugs, 7th Edition, page 293, Merck and
Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, 1960.
2. Lafornara, J.P., and Wilder, I., "Solution of the Hazardous Material
Spill Problem in the Little Menomonee River", Proceedings of the 1974
National Conference on Control of Hazardous Material Spills,
San Francisco, CA, August 25-28, 1974, pp. 202-207.
3. Bennett, George W., "Management of Lakes and Ponds", 2nd Edition,
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1970.
4. Neess, John C., "Development and Status of Pond .Fertilization in Central
Europe", Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Vol. 76, No. 3,
pp. 335-358.
a.
5. McCarraher, D.B., "Northern Pike, Esox lucius g in Alkaline Lakes of
Nebrasks.", Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Vol. 91,
No. 3, July 1962, pp. 326-329.
6. Hansen, Charles A., "Demonstration of Removal and Treatment of
Contaminated River Bottom Muds", prepared for Office of Research and
Monitoring, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Edison, New Jersey,
1972.
AWBERG
60
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(I'li-asc read laWnctions on tin: reverse before co
I. REPORT NO.
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
REMOVAL AND TREATMENT OF CONTAMINATED
RIVER BOTTOM MUDS: FIELD DEMONSTRATION
7. AUTHOR(S)
Robert W.
Agnew
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Envirex Inc.
5103 W. Beloit Road
Milwaukee, WI 53214
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory--Cin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
April 1975
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
CBRD1A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA 68-03-0182
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final 4/73-4/75
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Contact: Anthony Tafuri (201) 321-6604
16..ABSTRACT
This report documents the results of a project to remove creosote contaminated river
bottom muds from the Little Menomonee River in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Bioassays were
conducted to determine toxicity levels for aquatic organisms, and primary skin
irritation tests were performed to establish skin irritation levels in humans Based
on these tests, an allowable residual concentration of 500 mg/kg of hexane solubles was
established.
The removal/treatment system was designed and operated to accomplish the cleanup with
an absolute minimum of damage to the shoreline and adjacent land. The system consisted
of two floating, hydraulically powered river sweepers to dredge mud from the river
bottom and pump the material to a presetting tank for removal of sand and other hiqh
density solids. The liquid from the presettler was chemically treated and clarified in
a portable rubber sedimentation tank. The clarifier liquid was processed through mixed
media filters and granular activated carbon filters and discharged back to the river
The sludge was thickened in a 18,025-liter (5000-gal) tank truck and disposed of in an
industrial waste landfill.
Approximately 1230 lineal meters (4040 lineal feet) of river bottom muds were cleaned
and treated during this study, at a cost of $100.70/1 ineal meter ($30.8Q/1inea1 fooU.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Hazardous Materials
Creosote
Dredging
Waste Treatment
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPFN ENDED TERMS
physical/chemical tre<
toxicity levels
c. COSATI Field/Group
tment
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
2O. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |