EPA-440/5-78-004 0
MITIGATION FEASIBILITY
for the
KEPONE-CONTAM1NATED
HOPEWELL/JAMES RIVER AREAS
JUNE 9, 1978
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS DIVISION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20450
-------
MITIGATION FEASIBILITY
for the
KEPONE-CONTAMINATED
HOPEWELL/JAMES RIVER AREAS
JUNE 9, 1978
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS DIVISION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
FOREWORD
In the Fall of 1976, the Governors of Virginia and Maryland
jointly requested that EPA evaluate the Kepone problem in the
Hopewell, Virginia area and James River system and explore corrective
or mitigative actions.
In response to this request, EPA Headquarters initiated the Kepon
Mitigation Feasibility Project. The project support teams included:
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District; the Department of
Energy, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories; EPA's Gulf Breeze
Environmental Research Laboratory; and the Virginia Institute of
Marine Science. Coordination channels were also established with the
States of Virginia and Maryland, and other related staffs and
agencies. The intensive on-going cooperation, critique and review
provided by the States of Virginia and Maryland were a major
contribution to the effectiveness of the research and quality of the
results.
The tight deadlines established for the project necessitated
completion of many participant tasks simultaneously, which ideally
would have been accomplished sequentially. A sequential programming
of such tasks would have required two to three years, rather than the
one year originally allotted. The great interdependence of many of
the separate participant tasks required establishment of conditional
findings and conclusions in their separate reports. Accordingly, the
overall project findings and recommendations are reflected in this
report.
There are no easy solutions to the Kepone contamination problem.
The work accomplished under the project should provide the basis for
focusing efforts on the most critical issues and promising solutions.
In addition, the investigation of applicable technologies for
mitigation will be useful in addressing other similar contamination
problems.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction 1
Background 3
Scope of Project 5
Findings and Recomnendations 7
I. PROBLEM PERSPECTIVE
Problem Occurrence 1-1
Chronology 1-2
Kepone Production and Routes 1-15
Kepone Routes to the Atmosphere 1-18
Kepone Routes to the Sewer System 1-19
Health Effects 1-20
Action Level Determination 1-22
Litigation and Registration Actions 1-23
II. PROBLEM RESPONSES
EPA, State, and Local Efforts II-l
Request for an EPA Mitigation Feasibility Project II-6
Guidelines .Established for EPA Mitigation Feasibility II-6
Project
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA
Hopewell and Prince George County III-l
The James River III-7
IV. PROJECT APPROACH
Organizing the Project IV-1
Laboratory Standardization IV-4
Project Field Efforts IV-6
Project Laboratory Efforts IV-7
Project-Related Field Efforts IV-21
Kepone-Related Investigations IV-22
Modeling Efforts for Kepone Tracking IV-24
V. KEPONE TRANSPORT AND DISTRIBUTION
Behavior of Kepone in Sediments, Water Columns, and V-l
Species
Kepone Degradation by Physical, Chemical, and V-8
Biological Means
Distribution of Kepone V-14
-------
VI. BIOLOGICAL FATE, IMPACT, AMD CLEAN-UP INDICES
Acute Toxicity to Salt-Water Organisms VI-1
Chronic Toxicity to Salt-Water Organisms VI-2
Symptoms of Exposure VI-4
Kepone Bioconcentration from Water VI-4
Kepone Bioaccumulation from Food VI-9
Kepone Bioavailability from Sediment VI-11
Comparative Routes of Uptake VI-11
Kepone Mitigation Clean-up Indices VI-15
VII. KEPONE PROBLEM PROJECTIONS
Kepone Transport Projections VII-1
Summary of Implications of Kepone's Continued VII-3
Presence
VIII. NON CONVENTIONAL MITIGATION METHODS
Dredge Spoil Fixation VIII-1
Elutriate/Slurry Treatment VI11-9
In-Situ Processes VIII-21
Biological Treatment VI11-26
Appraisal VIII-29
IX. CONVENTIONAL MITIGATION METHODS
Scope and Approach IX-1
Potential Dredging Technology IX-2
Site Evaluation of Japanese Technology IX-5
Dredge-Type Approaches for Bailey Creek, Gravelly IX-9
Run, and Bailey Bay
Elutriate and Runoff Treatment and Dredge Spoil IX-10
Stabilization
Alternatives for Bailey Creek, Gravelly Run, and IX-14
Bailey Bay
James River Alternatives IX-26
Mitigation of Elevated Contaminated Areas IX-32
Alternatives for Bailey Creek, Gravelly Run, and IX-39
Bailey Bay
APPENDICES (Reports of Funded Participants)
A. Department of Energy - Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
B. Department of The Army - Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District
C. EPA Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory and
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
-------
KEPONE MITIGATION FEASIBILITY PROJECT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The hazard of highly persistant, toxic substances contaminating
large land and water areas is a problem of continuing concern
worldwide. The Kepone problem in Hopewell, Virginia surfaced through
deleterious effects on production worker's health at the Kepone
production plant of Life Science Products. Three years after the
closedown of the production site/ contamination still persists in the
Hopewell area and in the James River.
In the Fall of 1976, the Governors of Virginia and Maryland
jointly requested that EPA evaluate the Kepone problem in the James
River system and explore corrective or mitigative actions. In
response to this request, a plan was proposed in November 1976. Phase
I involved an assessment of: suspected continuing sources of Kepone
contamination; the fate and transport of Kepone in the James River
system; the current'and long-range effects of Kepone contamination on
.the biota; and an evaluation of mitigation and removal methods. An
allocation of $1.4 million was made for support studies in Phase I.
The project was initiated on March 31, 1977. Following review of
recommendations by EPA and the States of Virginia and Maryland,-Phase
-------
II could involve a decision to: seek funding for a major cleanup or
mitigation program; proceed with pilot testing of alternative
corrective actions; or withhold action.
Project development and management responsibility was assigned to
the Criteria and Standards Division of EPA with project participants
including: the Corps of Engineers (COE); the Department of Energy
(DOE); Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories; EPA's Gulf Breeze
Environmental Research Laboratory; and the Virginia Institute of
Marine Science. Extensive on-going coordination has been accomplished
with the States of Virginia and Maryland, EPA's Region III, and other
elements of EPA. Information also has been exchanged with the State
of New York's PCB Task Force which faced a similar river contamination
problem.
This report documents the results of the project effort,
describing: the nature of the Kepone contamination in the Hopewell,
Virginia/James River area; Kepone effects and impacts; efforts
undertaken by the Kepone Mitigation Feasibility Project to assess the
problem and determine solutions; and the resulting findings and
recommendations. The Appendices to the report document the efforts of
the individual funded participants.
-------
BACKGROUND
Kepone, a highly chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticide, was discharged
into the environment around Hopewell, Virginia from 1966 to 1975 from
two manufacturing operations. The Allied Chemical Corporation's Semi-
Works Plant produced Kepone intermittently from 1966 to 1974. Life
Science Products Company initiated Kepone production under contract to
Allied Chemical in 1974 and continued production until closure of the
plant in Sept.1975. Fish and sediment samples indicate Kepone
contamination existed in the James River as early as 1967.
Early warnings of Life Science Products' careless manufacturing-
and disposal practices were apparent with the malfunctioning of the
digestors of the Hopewell sewage treatment plant and the deleterious
health effects on the production workers. Subsequently, the finding
of high levels of Kepone contamination in James River fish brought
about a ban on fishing for a wide range of species. The releases from
the Life Science Products plant into the environment were associated
with atmospheric emissions/ wastewater discharges and bulk disposal of
off-specification batches. The atmospheric emissions from the plant
settled on the surface soils. Wastewater discharges entering the
sewage system passed through the Hopewell sewage treatment plant into
Bailey Creek, passing into Bailey Bay and the James River. Disposal
of off-specification batches and manufacturing residues of Kepone
occurred at a minimum of two sites - the Hopewell landfill and a
-------
disposal trench at the former Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate Plant.
Following closure of Life Science Products, residues from the
dismantled plant and site cleanup were buried at the landfill.
Drummed residues from Kepone production were stored at the Hopewell
sewage treatment plant and at Portsmouth, Virginia. Kepone-
contaminated sludge from the Hopewell sewage treatment plant was
stored in a lagoon constructed at the sewage treatment plant site.
Almost three years following the closure of the Life Science
Products plant, the disposal of the drummed Kepone production residues
and the Kepone-contaminated sludge is unresolved. Several sites in
the City of Hopewell contain Kepone; small inflows of Kepone continue
into the James River, and the levels of contamination remain
sufficiently high to cause continued closure of the James River to
recreational and commercial fishing for many species of fish and
shellfish.
Litigation related to the Kepone incident has continued. The
original indictments against Allied Chemical Corporation, the City of
Hopewell and executive a of the Life Science Products Company resulted
in large fines - $13.2 million in the case of Allied Chemical
Corporation. However, several workers suits remain unresolved. The
State of Virginia recently settled part of its claims against Allied
Chemical for $5.25 million, but reserves the right to sue Allied
-------
Chemical for cleanup of the James River/ and disposal of stored Kepone
residuals.
Allied Chemical is being sued in a Class Action Suit
(Pruitt vs. Allied Chemical Corp.) on behalf of all the people in the
Chesapeake Bay region who have lost income because of the Kepone
incident. In addition, there are two watermen suits (Adams and
Ferguson). Their suits against Allied Chemical are for loss of
fishing from the closed James River.
SCOPE OP PROJECT
The immensity of the Kepone contamination problem, the limited
U.S. experience in handling in-place toxic pollutant problems of this
type, and other constraints on the Kepone Mitigation
Feasibility Project limited the effort to specific areas. The
project's primary focus was to evaluate the extent of the
contamination, its fate and transport, and explore mitigation
alternatives. A full-scale environmental assessment, an economic
analysis of the effects of the contamination and a cost/benefit
analysis of potential cleanup options were beyond the scope of the
project. Furthermore, the project represents only one of a series of
past and continuing efforts to fully assess and seek solutions to the
Kepone contamination problem. For example, the States of Virginia and
Maryland both have substantial continuing programs to monitor and
-------
assess the Kepone problem. In addition, the State of Virginia has
formulated a long-range plan to deal with the Kepone problem.
Despite constraints in time and scope, the project findings should
provide a sound foundation for progress in mitigating the Kepone
contamination problem and/or limiting the impact of the contamination.
For example, more than 900 soil and sediment samples, combined with
the continuing sampling programs of the States of Virginia and
Maryland, have materially elucidated the extent of contamination and
delineated areas requiring special attention. The analyses of a wide
range of research studies on the biota affected by Kepone have
provided guidance on both continuing impacts and promising areas of
investigation. The engineering, field, and laboratory analyses of
both conventional and nonconventional mitigation methods have
established fruitful areas of development and eliminated others which
are ineffective or hazardous.
Finally, the analysis and synthesis of engineering and biological
studies, modeling studies and field investigations should provide a
useful reference source to move forward with a sense of perspective on
mitigation of the Kepone problem and to approach other serious
waterway contamination problems in this country.
-------
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS
The following findings and recommendations result from the
investigations of the Kepone Mitigation Feasibility Project. The
findings and recommendations are divided into four parts/ those
relative to: the James River/ the Chesapeake Bay, the Eopewell area/
and recommended research•
James River Findings
- Estimates indicate that there are 9,000 to*17,000 kg (20,000 to
38,000 Ih) of Kepone in the top one foot of James River sediments.
Estimates for deeper sediments cannot be made reliably because of a
lack of investigative data. However, the top foot of sediment is
believed to contain most of the Kepone.
- Most of the Kepone in the James River is associated with the
sediments/ with much lesser amounts found in the water.
-------
- Modeling and laboratory-derived coefficients, show that an
average discharge of 89 kilograms (195.8 Ib) per year of Kepone leave
Burwell Bay downstream, of which 66.6 kg (146.5 Ib) is dissolved in
the water and 22.5 kg (49.5 Ib) is attached to suspended sediments.
- Calculations indicate that an additional 72 kilograms (158.4 Ib)
of Kepone may leave the James River in the tissues of migratory fish.
- The present navigational dredging practice in the Kepone
contaminated portion of the James River is to discharge the removed
dredged material back into the river away from the navigational
channel.
- Adequate dredge spoil facilities could be designed and developed
along the James River, but further investigation is needed to identify
and evaluate disposal sites.
- Based on modeling analysis, cleanup programs which address only
the areas of concentrated Kepone contamination will not effectively
reduce Kepone residuals in the short term in James River biota below
the current FDA Action Levels.
-------
- Operational technology exists in the area of spoil fixation and
in situ stabilization. A proven operational spoil fixation and in
situ stabilization technique for handling in-place toxic pollutants is
available. This fixation system has been used effectively on
sludge/sediments contaminated by mercury, copper, zinc, cadmium, lead,
chromium and PCBs. Laboratory tests have shown the fixation process
to be effective on arsenic as well. Current development results
appear promising for Kepone.
- The Japanese Oozer dredge is capable of high solids removal and
low secondary pollution via secondary suspension. If dredging is
employed for mitigation, use of the Oozer will reduce elutriate
treatment requirements and permit the use of smaller disposal areas.
- The UV-ozone treatment process has demonstrated an effective
capability for the destruction of Kepone in slurries of high solids
content. Preliminary cost estimates, not including equipment
amortization, are extremely favorable at $0.10 to $0.20 per cubic yard
for slurries containing 20 to 50 percent solids.
11
-------
- A temporary filtration/adsorption wastewater treatment system
appears to be practical for elutriate treatment. The effectiveness of
activated carbon in treating Kepone was demonstrated with the clean-up
of the Life Science Products plant site.
- Several techniques for adsorbing Kepone from sediments and
fixing sediments show some promise in laboratory evaluations/ but
would require extensive additional laboratory investigation before
their operational utility could be addressed.
James River Recommendations
- Based on the enormous costs of total James River amelioration
efforts, the lack of knowledge on ecological impacts of widespread
mitigation efforts, the unavailability of economic impact
determinations, and supportive evidence that most of the Kepone will
remain in the zone of turbidity maximum, no full-scale cleanup action
on the James River should be undertaken at this time.
12
-------
- The Oozer dredge should be seriously considered for any
navigational dredging in the turbidity maximum. Navigational dredged
spoil from Kepone-contaminated "hot-spots" should not be disposed
overboard, but be placed in adequately protected dredge spoil sites
developed along the James River.
- Further evaluation of potential mitigation technologies should
be initiated to provide knowledge for immediate response to
unpredicted movement of Kepone in the James River. Among the
technologies to be given priority evaluation are fixation techniques,
UV-ozone treatment and activated carbon processes for elutriate
treatment.
- Based on the demonstrated operational capabilities of a fixation
system on other contaminants and promising results with Kepone,
developmental funding should be provided to continue specific Kepone
fixation investigations.
- The promising UV-ozone treatment should be funded for performing
bench tests to define approximate operating parameters, including
costs, for various slurry concentrations, and to conduct concurrent
chemical analyses to determine the degree of degradation of Kepone by
UV-ozone required to negate Kepone's toxicity.
13
-------
- In light of the proposed NCI and NIEH joint carcinogenicity
study and with the implications to commercial fishing of long-term
closure of the James River, the present FDA Action Levels of 0.3 ug/g
(ppra) for finfish and shellfish and 0.4 ug/g (ppm) for crabs should b«
re-examined and re-evaluated.
- Systematic monitoring of Kepone levels in water, sediment and
biota should be continued in the tidal James River by the State of
Virginia, in order to provide warning of unexpected movements of
Kepone contamination toward Chesapeake Bay.
Chesapeake Bay Findings
- Present evidence regarding the potential spread of Kepone
contamination, including historical trends, recent sampling data, and
transport projections, does not provide justification for Kepone
cleanup actions in the James River to protect the Chesapeake Bay. The
data indicate no imminent danger of Kepone contamination to the
Chesapeake Bay at this time. However, major coastal storms and like
events could alter these predictions.
-------
- While early Kepone sediment tests of the James River are few/
historical evidence from oysters, bluefish and bald eagles indicate
that Kepone was present in the James River as early as 1967. Kepone
sediment contamination of Chesapeake Bay is not evident.
- Following a 10 year period of Kepone contamination in the James
River, sediment samples collected by VIMS from twelve stations in the
lower Chesapeake Bay in September 1977 contained no detectable amounts
of Kepone.
- In a report submitted to EPA by VIMS in November 1977, it was
concluded that: "Most Kepone concentrations are located in and above
the null zone and they persist with time, both over the short term (8
months of sampling) and over the long term as demonstrated from
distribution at depth with cores".
- Male Blue crabs with Kepone concentrations above the FDA Action
Level of 0.4 ug/g (ppm) have been found in Chesapeake Bay, but are
believed to have migrated into the Bay from the James River. Finfish
in Chesapeake Bay have exhibited Kepone concentrations but not above
the FDA Action Levels.
15
-------
- Predictive modeling, simulating a variety of flow rates, and
supportive field sampling data from the past 10 years involving two
major storms, indicate that the Kepone will remain predominantly
situated in the James River sediments upstream from Burwell Bay in the
zone of Turbidity Maximum. However, such modeling results and field
data could be influenced by major coastal storms and like events and
could alter predictions.
Chesapeake Bay Recommendations
- Continued systematic monitoring of Kepone levels in water,
sediment, and biota should be conducted in the Chesapeake Bay by the
States of Virginia and Maryland to provide warning of unexpected
movements of Kepone contamination into Chesapeake Bay.
- A long-term strategy should be developed for the expeditious
implementation of emergency mitigation measures for the possibility of
unexpected movement of Kepone contamination. The strategy should
include engineering studies, such as investigation of the use of
submerged silt dams for the containment of Kepone movement from the
lower James River, assessment of the feasibility of rapid, large-scale
dredging operations, and an integrated development program for
assessment of technologies previously described.
16
-------
Hopewell Area Findings
- Kepone residuals persist in the Hopewell soil areas. Estimates
of such surface soil residuals range from 45kg(991b)to 450 kg (990 Ib)
of Kepone.
- Kepone concentrations in the soil are highest in the vicinity of
the former Life Science Products plant and diminish with distance from
the site. The highest Kepone surface concentrations ranged from
9.5 ug/g (ppm) to 1,530 ug/g at the former Life Science Products
plant, from 9.2 ug/g (ppm) to 770 ug/g in Nitrogen Park, from 1 ug/g
(ppm) to 940 ug/g in the Station Street neighborhood, and from
0.01 ug/g (ppm) to 1,860 ug/g (subsurface) at the Pebbled Ammonium
Nitrate site.
- Human health effects have not been determined for Kepone
dispersion by soil or air transfer.
- An estimated 1,363 kg (3,000 Ib) of Kepone is in the top four
inches of a Bailey Creek marsh adjacent to the southeast portion of
the Hopewell landfill. The marsh encompasses approximately one-fourth
acre.
17
-------
- The Xepone/sludge lagoon, which contains an estimated 100 kg
(220 Ib) of Kepone, may be leaking and discharging Kepone into Bailey
Creek.
- A small amount (6 grams/day average) of Kepone is routed from
the Hopewell primary sewage treatment plant to the Regional sewage
treatment plant.
- Runoff from the Hopewell area is estimated to contain 3.3 grams
per day of Kepone under low flow conditions and 64 grams per day under
storm flow conditions.
- No other significant amounts of Kepone were found in the
Hopewell soil areas, including domestic groundwater sources.
Hopewell Area Recommendations
- Potential health impacts in areas of elevated Kepone
contamination should be investigated.
18
-------
- Final disposal of the contaminated material through incineration
or other appropriate means in the Kepone/sludge lagoon should be
expedited. If disposal action is delayed, it is recommended that all
runoff and precipitation be prevented from entering the lagoon.
- Action should be initiated to eliminate or contain the Kepone
from the concentrated source in the southeast portion of the Hopewell
landfill and the adjacent marsh.
Research Recommendations
Research actions should concentrate on developing appropriate
mitigation technologies including retrievable and non-retrievable
sorbents, molten sulfur sludge fixation/ electron beam and gamma
radiation, and amine photodegradation treatment.
Additional research should be undertaken to more fully evaluate
impacts of Kepone on the important commercial and recreational species
of fish and shellfish in the James River.
19
-------
I. PROBLEM PERSPECTIVE
PROBLEM OCCURRENCE
Xepone is a registered trade name for the decachloro-
octahydro-1,3,4-metheno-2H-cyclobuta(cd) pentalen-2-one member of the
cyclodiene family of insecticides, it was developed by Allied
Chemical Company* in the early 1950's to control ants and roaches.
Most of the production was exported for use in Carribbean and Central
American banana fields, and in other countries for control of potato
beetles.
Kepone was produced since the 1950's at two places in the eastern
United States: state College, Pennsylvania, and Hopewell, Virginia.
Releases of Kepone into the environment have occurred, at both
locations. This report results from a study of the Hopewell, Virginia
area.
Kepone was produced at Hopewell, Virginia by Allied Chemical from
1966 to 1974, when the Life Science Products Company,** continued
Kepone production under contract to Allied (Exhibits 1-1 and 1-2).
Life Science Products, closed after an investigation by State of
Virginia Public Health officials in July 1975 when workers were
*Referred to hereafter as Allied Chemical
**Referred to hereafter as Life Science Products
1-1
-------
Toppohcnnock
Bailey
Bay
HOPE WELL * Bu5wel]:
NORTH CAROLINA
HOPEWELL,VIRGIN I A
KEPONE STUDY
VICINITY MAP
NORFOLK DISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SEPTEMBER 1977
Exhibit 1-1
SCALE IN MILES
10 20
-------
Cityfblnt
1 ' V— •. _
. AHOP'KWELK^JMV
- -\ ' • (/?'" Nl
••> A--VCXLft
f,.nl !wh \ ** vCAimOfytf *-f I "W'
%VA:S
Hopewell, Virgini'a and Bailey Bay/James River
U.S. Geological Survey
Washington, D.C.
CO INI
.S Ml
«nn ^(liiMl.ilin"; IN FTFI OATIIH IS HFAN I OW WATER
-------
diagnosed to have Kepone poisoning. More than 70 individuals
developed ailments ranging from slurred speech, loss of memory,
irritability and sleeplessness, to liver damage and sterility. At the
present time, all but a few such individuals have recovered and no
longer show symptoms.
CHRONOLOGY
Listed below is a chronology of relevant events associated with
the Kepone problem at Hopewell. The events and dates are taJcen from
various proceedings, including the Senate Subcommittee Hearings on
Kepone Contamination in January 1976 (Senate Hearings, 1976), the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ, 1976) and other Federal and
State documents. The Senate Hearings and the CEQ Report have been
chosen as the prime sources, since the exact dates of certain events
varied between the several documents used.
1966 - March 1971 Intermittent manufacture of Kepone by
Allied Chemical occurred at its
Semi-Works plant in Hopewell, Virginia.
October 1973 Life Science Products applied to the
Virginia State Water Control Board for
1-2
-------
permit to discharge sanitary wastewaters
into the Hopewell sewage treatment plant.*
The application claimed no industrial
discharges would enter the Hopewell
treatment plant.
November 1973
Life Science Products signed an agreement
with Allied Chemical to produce Kepone on
a toll processing contract basis.
February 1974
Life Science Products began production of
Kepone. Malfunctions of production
equipment allowed the release of sulfur
trioxide to the atmosphere. The Virginia
Air Pollution Control Board cited Life
Science Products for failure to obtain an
air permit.
October 1974
A bag-filter collector was installed at
the Life Science Products plant.
During survey of the Hopewell treatment
plant, the Virginia Water Control Board
*Referred to hereafter as the Hopewell treatment plant
-------
discovered the plant's digester was
operating improperly. Kepone was being
discharged into the city's sewage system.
A meeting to discuss the matter was
attended by staff members of the City of
Hopewell, the Virginia State Water
Control Board, the Virginia Department of
Health, and Life Science Products, staff
of the Board stated that the levels of
Kepone discharged to the Hopewell
treatment plant must be drastically
reduced.
November 1974 The Virginia water control Board
developed an effluent limitation of
0.4 parts per billion for Kepone
discharges into the municipal system.
Life Science Products agreed to implement
a continuous monitoring system in order
to establish those levels of Kepone to
protect the integrity of the Hopewell
treatment plant.
-------
December 1974 The staffs of the Virginia Department of
Health and State Water Control Board met
with representatives of the City of
Hopewell and Life Science Products.
Further pretreatment of wastewater
discharged by the company would be
required to meet the limitation of 0.017
pounds Kepone per day in the Hopewell
treatment plant effluent.
April 9, 1975 The staff of the Virginia Water Control
Board recommended amendments to the
Hopewell National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. These
amendments provided for limitations on
Kepone in the Hopewell treatment plant
effluent of 1.0 ug/1 (ppb) maximum
instantaneous concentration, 0.5 ug/1
(ppb) daily average, and 7.59 g/day
(0.017 Ib/day) daily maximum. The
amendments also contained the condition
that the City of Hopewell require Life
Science Products to pretreat Kepone to a
level of 100 ug/1 (ppb), effective June
6, 1975.
1-5
-------
April 1975
The City of Hope well began construction
of an asphalt-lined lagoon to contain
Kepone-contaminated sewage sludge from
the Hopewell treatment plant.
July 11, 1975
The Atlanta Center for Disease Control
received a blood specimen of a Life
Science Products worker. Analysis
revealed a 7.4 ug/g (parts per million)
level of Kepone.
July 23, 1975
Virginia health officials conducted an
inspection of the Life Science Products'
operations and examined 10 employees
working in the plant. Seven of the
employees had symptoms of neurological
illnesses. Several had symptoms severe
enough to require hospitalization. Plant
inspection revealed building, air, and
ground contamination by Kepone.
July 24, 1975
Life Science Products management agreed
to close the plant and comply voluntarily
with all the conditions of the Virginia
Health Department.
1-6
-------
July 25, 1975
Virginia State Health Department ordered
Life Science Products to stop production.
However, limited production continued
into September.
August 19, 1975
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) first visited
Hopewell where Kepone production
continued despite the state order to
close. OSHA issued citations to Life
Science Products for four violations of
the OSHA Act of 1970, including failure
to prevent employee exposure to harmful
levels of Kepone. Fines totalling
$16,500 were proposed.
August 20, 1975
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
issued an order to Life Science Products
under the authority of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) to stop the sale or use of
Kepone, as well as to prevent its removal
from the premises.
1-7
-------
September 9, 1975
An Ad Hoc Committee, consisting of
members of the State Water Control Board,
State Health Department and the City of
Hopewell was established to determine
methods and costs involved in cleaning up
the Life Science Products plant site and
disposing of any waste materials.
November 20, 1975
State Health Department submitted oyster,
sediment and fish samples from the lower
James River for analysis of Kepone
content to EPA at Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina.
December 5, 1975
An interagency Kepone Task Force was
established by the Commonwealth of
Virginia to coordinate all State
activities related to Kepone. The state
Department of Health was chosen as the
lead Agency.
December 18, 1975
Governor Mills £. Godwin, Jr., of
Virginia, closed the entire James River
and its tributaries from Hopewell to the
Chesapeake Bay for the taking of
1-3
-------
shellfish and finfish until July 1, 1976,
or until such time as the order might be
rescinded.
February 3, 1976
The EPA recommended to the Food and Drug
Administration an Action Level* of
0.3 ppm in shellfish and the removal from
the market of any Kepone-contaminated
shellfish exceeding this level.
February 25, 1976
The EPA recommended to the Food and Drug
Administration an Action Level of 0.1 ppm
in the edible portion of finfish.
May 7, 1976
A Federal grand jury indicted Allied
Chemical, Life Science Products, the City
of Hopewell, and several individuals of
1,097 counts for violating Federal
anti-pollution laws.
*Action Level is the allowable level of residue of the substance
(Kepone). The level is used as an enforcement guide.
1-9
-------
August 19, 1976
Allied Chemical pleaded no contest to 940
criminal charges and was convicted of
discharging Kepone wastes into the James
River.
August 25, 1976
The EPA Administrator designated a Kepone
Coordinator for the Agency and for an EPA
Headquarters/Region III working group.
August 26, 1976
The Federal/State Kepone Task Force
recommended a Kepone mitigation
feasibility project.
August 30, 1976
The Governors of Virginia and Maryland
requested the EPA Administrator to
undertake a mitigation feasibility
project on the Hopewell, Virginia/James
River Kepone contamination problem.
September 1976
The EPA recommended to the Food and Drug
Administration an Action Level of 0.4 ppm
in crabs.
1-10
-------
September 2, 1976
The EPA Administrator announced EPA's
intent to undertake a Xepone mitigation
feasibility project. Actions were
initiated to develop a project plan and
establish funding.
October 5, 1976
Allied Chemical was fined $13.24 million
by Judge Robert Merhige on its no contest
plea of 940 pollution counts. The fine
later was reduced to $5.24 million when
Allied agreed to give $8 million to
establish the Virginia Environmental
Endowment.
October 11, 1976
First Kepone Seminar was held at
Gloucester Point/ Virginia.
Early 1977
A Kepone incineration test program was
conducted, which demonstrated that Kepone
could be incinerated in a safe and
effective manner.
1-11
-------
March 17, 1977
Following a series of hearings, the
Federal Food and Drug Administration
adopted an Action Level for Kepone in
finfish of 0.3 ppm.
March 31, 1977
EPA Headquarters initiated the Kepone
Mitigation Feasibility Project with
support funding of $1.4 million.
July 6, 1977
The Virginia Health Department signed a
contract with Flood & Associates, Inc.,
of Virginia, to conduct a design study
that would culminate in a facility plan
to suggest methods to dispose of
Kepone-contaminated wastes stored in
Hopewell.
August 31, 1977
The first public meeting on the initial
screening of alternatives for the
ultimate disposal of Kepone-contaminated
wastes stored in Hopewell was held in
Hopewell.
1-12
-------
September 18, 1977
Governor Godwin of Virginia closed part
of the lower Chesapeake Bay to the
harvesting of male blue crabs.
September 19, 1977
The second Kepone Seminar was held at
Easton, Maryland.
October 1977
The State of Virginia agreed to a partial
settlement with Allied Chemical for
$5.25 million.
October 18, 1977
The second public meeting was held at
Hopewell at which the final alternatives
to be evaluated in a facility plan for
the ultimate disposal of Kepone-contam-
inated wastes stored in Hopewell were
presented.
December 30, 1977
Governor Godwin extended the fishing ban
order for the James River for one year.
February 8f 1978
Draft report of EPA Kepone Mitigation
Feasibility Project was distributed for
technical review.
1-13
-------
In August 1975, the State of Virginia asked the EPA Health Effects
Research Laboratory in North Carolina to institute a human and
environmental sampling program to ascertain the extent and effects of
Kepone contamination. EPA reported its results on December 16, 1975.
Blood and sebum skin samples from 28 hospitalized Life Science
Products workers and one worker's wife contained Kepone residues
ranging from 0.2 to 7.5 ug/g (ppm). Kepone was found in the James
River water samples at concentrations of 0.1 to 14 ug/g (ppm). some
of the water and shellfish samples were collected 40 and 64 miles
downstream from Hopewell, respectively (EPA, 1975). Sewage sludge and
James River sediments contained significant Kepone concentrations.
As a result of Kepone contamination, the Governor of Virginia
closed the James River to fishing on December 18, 1975. Restrictions
were placed on the taking of fish, shellfish and crabs from the James
River. The river, which enters the lower Chesapeake Bay, had
supported the livelihood of many watermen and other individuals in
fishery-related activities. Thus, the Kepone restrictions have had,
and continue to have an adverse effect upon the economy of the region.
-------
KEPONE PRODUCTION AND ROUTES
Allied Chemical's Semi-Works plant was a flexible facility used to
produce specialty or small volume products. As noted previously, it
produced Kepone intermittently from 1966 to 1974. Life Science
Products began production of Kepone in early 1974, soon after Allied
Chemical ceased its Kepone production. The company was formed by an
agreement with Allied Chemical, whereby Allied Chemical supplied raw
materials to Life Science Products, paying a prearranged price for the
Kepone product. Exhibit 1-3 shows the amount of Kepone estimated by
Ferguson (1975) to have been produced by Allied Chemical and Life
Science Products.
The Kepone losses from Life Science Products were principally from
four basic sources: (1) atmospheric releases from drying and bagging
operations; (2) routine daily wastewater discharges; (3) releases to
the sewer from spills, malfunctions, and bad batches; and (4) bulk
liquid and solid waste loads discharged to the terrestrial sites
around Hopewell.
Estimates of the Kepone losses from Life Science Products and the
Allied Chemical's Semi-Works plants are difficult to calculate because
of the limited amount of information available. However, James River
oyster samples from 1967 to 1970 exhibited Kepone concentrations as
high as 0.21 ug/g (ppm) (Oswald, 1976). Bluefish, menhaden and spot
1-15
-------
Exhibit 1-3
Produc-tion Levels of Kepone from Allied Chemical's Semi-Works Plant
Production
Year kg Ib
1966 35,935 78,125
1967 47,990 105,800
1968 36,535 80,550
1969 46,990 103,600
1970 41,460 91,400
1971 204,800 451,515
1972 176,970 390,150
1973 100,435 221,425
1974 72,260 159,300
Total 762,875 1,681,865
Production Levels of Kepone from Life Science Products
Production
Year kg Ib
1974 385,370 849,600
1975 364,020 846.625
Total 769,390 1,696,225
1-16
-------
fish samples from 1973 also showed Kepone concentrations in the flesh
as high as 0.62 ug/g (ppm) (SWCB, 1973). In addition, U.S. Fish and
wildlife Service samples of Chesapeake Bay area bald eagles from 1970
to 1972 exhibited Kepone in livers as high as 83 ug/g (ppm) (U.S. Fish
and wildlife service, 1977).
1-17
-------
KEPONE ROUTES TO THE ATMOSPHERE
Production at the Life Science Products plant resulted in
significant releases of particulate Kepone into the atmosphere.
During the period of operation, complaints were received on these
particulate emissions. The complaints led to State of Virginia action
requiring installation of a bag-filter bouse in October 1974.
Subsequent analysis of preserved filters from State-operated air
sampling stations revealed contamination of particulate matter to be
as much as 40 percent Kepone. Detectable levels of Kepone were
measured at distances of 25 km (16 mi) from Hopewell. An air
monitoring station was about 200 yards from the Life Science Products
plant. From these air filters, calculations indicated Kepone levels
would have been between 0.2 to 50 ug/m3 of air during the period of
March 1974 to April 1975 (EPA, 1975).
Monitoring of air in the Hopewell area after the Life Science
Products closure revealed a decline in Kepone concentrations to
nondetectable levels. Consequently, it can be assumed that the
atmosphere held Kepone only for a short period and the air should not
be considered a major reservoir for Kepone.
I-1S
-------
KEPONE ROUTES TO TEE SEWER SYSTEM
Wastewater from Life Science Products passed through the Station
Street pumphouse to the Hopewell treatment plant where it was treated
and discharged to Bailey Creek. Analysis of samples revealed that
wastewater discharges from the Life Science Products plant contained
Kepone up to 36.9 tng/1 (ppm). Analysis of one of the digesters at the
sewage treatment plant revealed a level of 68 mg/1 (ppm) in digester
sludge (Senate Hearings, 1977).
Initially, the sewage sludge was disposed in the city's sanitary
landfill. However, after concern developed over contamination by the
sludge, it was decided to contain the sludge to prevent leaching of
Kepone. In May 1975, a Xepone/sludge lagoon was completed on the
grounds of the Hopewell treatment plant (see Exhibit 1-2), and the
digester sludge was placed in it. The lagoon holds approximately
5,700 cubic meters (1.5 million gallons) of sludge. Sludge samples
taken from the Kepone/sludge lagoon and from the Hopewell sanitary
landfill contained 596 and 189 ug/g (ppm) Kepone (EPA, 1975). The
remains of the dismantled Life Science Products plant is in another
clay and PVC-lined pit at the Hopewell sanitary landfill.
Effluent levels of Kepone from the Hopewell treatment plant have
been monitored since 1976 on a weekly, and at present, on a monthly
basis. The Kepone concentrations have ranged from O.OU to 5.26 ug/1
1-19
-------
(ppb). In July 1977, Kepone levels rose to 5.26 ug/1 (ppb) and have
often stayed above 0.5 ug/1 (ppb) through much of 1977.
HEALTH EFFECTS
Production workers at Life Science Products were the most severely
affected individuals from their exposure to Xepone. Production
personnel exhibited a symptoms rate 'of 64 percent with an average
latent period of six weeks. Generally, non-production persons, who
were exposed less directly to Kepone, were less affected by the
symptoms of Kepone poisoning (16 percent) (Cannon, et al., in press).
However, there were also exposures to the Hopewell populace to Kepone
near the Life Science Products plant when Kepone was produced.
Seventy-six Life Science Products personnel contracted a
previously unrecognized clinical illness characterized by nervousness,
tremor, bursts of rapid eye movement (opsoclonus), weight loss, and
pleuristic and joint pain, other symptoms included ataxia, skin rash,
sterility, liver enlargement and abnormal liver functioning. The
relative blood concentration of Kepone workers with the illness was
2.53 ug/g (ppm), while workers without the illness averaged 0.60 ug/g
(ppm). Residents and other workers within a mile of the Life science
Products plant had blood levels ranging from undetectable to 32.5 ng/g
(ppb) (Cannon, et al., in press).
1-20
-------
Physicians at the Medical College of Virginia, in recent work with
Life science Products workers, have developed a method which reduces
Kepone by fecal excretion an average of seven tines the natural rate.
Kepone output in the bile was 10 to 20 tines greater than in the
feces, suggesting that Kepone was being reaisorbed by the intestine.
Cholestyranine, an anion-exchange resin, was found to bind Kepone and
allowed accelerated elimination of Kepone from the workers* bodies
involved in this program. After completion of the trial, all patients
were given cholestyramine, and six months later, blood levels were
undetectable in 12 of 22 patients and none were judged to have more
than "mild" neurologic signs (Cohn, et al., 1978).
Kepone has been tested under the auspices of the National Cancer
Institute (1976). Osborne-Mendel rats and B6C3F1 mice, fed Kepone in
their diets at two dose levels for 80 weeks, developed a significant
increase in liver tumors (hepatocellular carcinomas) in the
high-dose-level rats and at both dose levels for mice. Some
controversy has surrounded the NCI study concerning the experimental
methodology and the identification of the tumors. A new joint study
between NCI and the National Institutional of Environmental Health
(NIEH) is being developed. The human carcinogenicity risk associated
with Kepone at the level found in the Life Science Products workers
will be assessed. Starting ahout October 1978, NIEH will examine
dose/response relationships in subchronic studies on tremor, memory
loss, sterility and other adverse Kepone effects. From this
1-21
-------
information NCI vill perform chronic tcxicity studies to project
threshold levels which could be carcinogenic. The entire program is
anticipated to last three years.
ACTION LEVEL DETERMINATION
In February 1976, EPA recommended "Action Levels" to the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) of 0.3 ug/g (ppm) in the edible portion of
shellfish (oysters and clams), 0.1 ug/g (ppm) in finfish, and 0.4 ug/g
(ppm) in crabs. EPA also recommended a 0.3 ug/g (ppm) Action Level in
"X
processed oyster stew. These recommendations were made using
classical estimating procedures for threshold effects. At that time,
EPA committed itself to further consideration of this Action Level for
possible revision if new data warranted it. EPA revised its
recommendations in early 1977. Revised Action Levels are 0.3 ug/g
(ppm) for fish and shellfish and 0.4 ug/g (ppm) for crabs. The
January 1, 1978 Emergency Rule of the State of Virginia for the James
River allows the taking of catfish, shad, herring, baby eels and
turtles. The harvesting of blue crabs is permitted only in certain
parts of the river and only under certain conditions.
1-22
-------
LITIGATION AND REGISTRATION ACTIONS
Criminal indictments were brought against Allied Chemical Life
Science Products and the City of Hopewell, Virginia. In addition,
criminal actions were brought against individual employees of both
companies. In two trials. Allied Chemical was convicted on 940 counts
for violation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1399 ("the Refuse Act"), with
an imposed fine of approximately $13.24 million. Life Science
Products was convicted on 153 counts and fined approximately
S3.8 million. The City of Hopewell pleaded guilty, .was fined $10,000,
and was placed on five years probation (whitman, 1977).
Criminal suits were brought against the president and vice-
president of Life Science Products and against four employees of
Allied Chemical. The president and vice-president were convicted and
each fined S25,000 and placed on five years probation. Several
individuals pleaded "nolo contendere" to reduced charges
(misdemeanors) in return for dismissal of the felony conspiracy
charges. Two defendants were acquitted before U.S. District Court
Judge Robert R. Merhige, Jr. The Department of Justice determined
that sentencing of the other individuals for the same conduct would be
unjust, therefore, charges were dismissed against the remaining
defendants. Allied Chemical's 313.24 million fine was reduced to
55 million with the establishment of the Virginia Environmental
1-23
-------
Endowment financed with S3 million of Allied Chemical's money
(Whitman, 1977).
Suits brought by individual workers of Life Science Products
against Allied Chemical have been settled out of court. Less than
five workers* suits remain unresolved. The State of Virginia recently
has settled part of its claims against Allied Chemical for
$5.25 million. The State reserves the right to sue Allied Chemical
for cleanup of the James River/ and disposal of stored Kepone
residuals.
Allied Chemical is being sued in a Class Action Suit (Pruitt vs.
Allied Chemical Corp.) on behalf of all the people in the Chesapeake
Bay region who have lost income because of the Kepone incident. In
addition, there are two watermen suits (Adams and Ferguson). Their
suits against Allied Chemical are for loss of fishing from the closed
James River.
In an agreement with Allied Chemical, EPA has cancelled technical
and manufacturing use registrations of Kepone {Federal Register,
1976). Some pesticide formulators were permitted to utilize small
percentages of Kepone in inaccessible ant and roach traps until stocks
were used or until May 1, 1978, whichever came first (Federal
Register, 1977).
1-24
-------
II. PROBLEM RESPONSES
EPA, STATE, AND LOCAL EFFORTS
The Kepone-related problems which Virginia encountered prompted
Governor Mills E. Godwin/ Jr. to establish a coordinated effort to
deal with the issue. At the direction of the Governor,
Mr. Otis L. Brown, Secretary of Human Affairs, and
Mr. Earl J. Shiflet, Secretary of Commerce and Resources, established
the interagency Kepone Task Force on December 5, 1975. The State
Department of Health was assigned the role of lead Agency and
Dr. James B. Kenley, then Deputy Commissioner of Health, now
Commissioner of Health, was appointed the chairman of the Kepone Task
Force. The Kepone Task Force was charged with the responsibility for
coordinating the comprehensive efforts by relevant State agencies and
organizations in dealing with the problem of Kepone. Subsequently,
EPA established an internal task force to work with State and other
Federal agencies to offer technical assistance and research support.
Other Virginia State agencies and organizations which provided
representation to the Virginia Kepone Task Force included: Air
Pollution Control Board; Attorney General's Office; Division of
Consolidated Laboratory Services; Department of Labor and Industry;
Virginia Commonwealth University/Health Sciences Division; and Stare
water Control Board.
II-l
-------
Subsequent to the initial organization of the Virginia Kepone Task
Force, other State agencies and groups assumed responsible roles in
the Task Force. These included: the Virginia Council on Environment;
Department of Agriculture and Commerce; Virginia Institute of Marine
Science: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Marine
Resources Commission; and the Office of Emergency Services.
To supplement the Virginia Kepone Task Force expertise, assistance
was solicited from numerous Federal agencies and private
organizations, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal
Food and Drug Administration, Center for Disease Control in Atlanta,
and Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
The major problem areas, which confronted the Virginia Task Force
at the time of its establishment, some of which persist today,
included: cleanup of Life Science Products facilities in Hopewell;
cleanup and disposal of wastes located at the Hopewell primary sewage
treatment plant; epidemiclogical studies; marine studies; cleanup of
the James River; and assessment of the economic impact of closing the
James River.
In December of 1975, the Virginia State Water Control Board
developed a long range program for monitoring the contamination in the
James River. This program was initiated in January 1976 and has
involved extensive water and a sediment sampling and a fish sampling
II-2
-------
program with the Virginia Institute of Marine science. Forty-eight
locations for water and sediment sampling were designated, ranging
from the discharge area at the Hopewell primary treatment plant to the
Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel, seven zones were defined in the fish
sampling plan, extending from Eopewell to Chesapeake Bay. The
continuing comprehensive sampling program of the Virginia Water
Control Board has been invaluable for its guidance in the design of
complementary sampling efforts for EPA's Kepone Mitigation Feasibility
Project.
Concurrently with the development and implementation of the
Virginia Water Control Board's Kepone monitoring program, Virginia's
Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services, with assistance of
Allied Chemical, developed and implemented protocols and the
analytical methods for determining the quantity of Kepone residing in
the air, water, soil, sediment and biota. Specific protocols were
developed for determination of Kepone in:
1. Shellfish and Fish
2. Dairy Products, Eggs, and Feeds
3. Vegetables, Fruit, and Juices
4. Air Filters, Wall Wipes, and Vacuum Dust Bags
5. water
6. Sediment and Soils
ri-3
-------
The protocols cure used in the State of Virginia's market sampling
and seed oyster sampling programs as well as the other continuing
Re pone moni-coring programs.
While the immediate impact of the Kepone contamination
necessitated a large scale Kepone-related effort in the State of
Virginia, the State of Maryland also initiated efforts to continue to
assess potential impacts of Kepone in Maryland by appointing a
multi-agency, multi-disciplined state Task Force. Its efforts guided
Allied Chemical in their containment and safe storage of Kepone
material located at an Allied Chemical facility in Baltimore. In
1975, residents aear the Baltimore Allied Chemical plant were screened
for Kepone. No detectable amounts of Kepone were found. A playing
field next to the Allied facility showed 10 ug/g (ppm) Kepone levels
along a common fence. The park was closed, the land stripped, and
resodded with uncontaminated soil.
The Maryland Task Force also initiated efforts to sample
Chesapeake Bay for Kepone. In the Bay, oyster bars with seed oysters
transplanted from the James River were tested for Kepone. There were
varying amounts of Kepone from low to non-detectable with only one
oyster bar near the mouth of the west River having concentrations
exceeding the FDA Action Levels. The single oyster bar was closed and
reopened a year later when Kepone was not detected. Slue crabs were
sampled on the Maryland side of Chesapeake Bay, but Kepone
-------
concentrations were below the FDA Action Levels. Likewise/ bluefish
showed low levels of Kepone. Kepone was not detected in the
sediments. At present, the State of Maryland has a continuing market
sampling program for Kepone and the Maryland State Health Department
requires Virginia to certify that seed oysters are free from Kepone
before they can be transplanted to Maryland waters of the Chesapeake
Bay.
The need for routine maintenance dredging of the James River for
navigational purposes posed an additional problem and requirements to
be assessed by a State of Virginia/Corps of Engineers/EPA effort.
Dredging of the James might disperse the Kepone contaminants
downstream and thus create more widespread contamination and threaten
Chesapeake Bay. Accordingly, a test dredging of selected shoal areas
was undertaken in July 1976 by the O.S. Corps of Engineers in
coordination with EPA and the Virginia Water Control Board.
Monitoring of the test dredge operation indicated that increased water
and sediment contamination by such dredging were confined to the areas
of dredging. Dredging with disposal in the river near the channel is
now examined on a case by case basis by the Commonwealth of Virginia,
which may then issue a Water Quality Certificate. In addition, a U.S.
Corps of Engineers section 404 permit is required.
II-5
-------
REQUEST FOR AN EPA MITIGATION FEASIBILITY PROJECT
The results of the initial efforts to assess the nature and extent
of Kepone contamination in the Hopewell-James River areas indicated a
pervasive and critical problem. Accordingly, on August 26, 1976 the
Federal/State Kepone Task Force recommended that a feasibility study
be undertaken to evaluate dredging or other means to mitigate Kepone
effects in the James River. Based on this recommendation, Virginia's
Governor Godwin and Maryland*s Governor Mandel issued a joint request
on August 30, 1976 to the Administrator of EPA to undertake a
feasibility study. While requesting an analysis of dredging or other
means of containing the Kepone contamination, the Governors cautioned:
"While current research indicates dredging may be an alternative, the
impact on downstream aquatic life, the degree of reduction of
contamination, the cost involved, the problems of spoil disposal, and
long term effect on the River need to be determined before any
intelligent decision can be made as to the impact of dredging on the
River."
GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED FOR EPA MITIGATION FEASIBILITY PROJECT
In response to the Governor's request, the Administrator of EPA
announced his intent on September 2, 1976 to initiate a feasibility
szudy. As reflected in the caution of the Governors' request to EPA,
it was immediately apparent that a much more thorough data acquisition
II-6
-------
and analysis effort would be required to provide a basis for assessing
the problem and exploring mitigation measures for the Hopewell/James
River areas. Accordingly, a series of approaches were developed which
evolved into a two-phased project plan proposed in November 1976.
Phase I, the subject of this report, involved a detailed assessment
of: suspected continuing sources of Kepone contamination; fate and
transport of Kepone in the James River system; current and long-range
effects of Kepone contamination on the biota; and evaluation of
mitigation and removal methods. The results of Phase I are to provide
a basis for action recommendations. Following review of the
recommendations by EPA and the states of Virginia and Maryland, Phase
II might involve a decision to: seek funding for a major cleanup or
mitigation program; proceed with pilot testing of alternative
corrective and oiitigative actions; or withhold further action.
II-7
-------
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA
The area under investigation, as shown on Exhibits 1-1 and 1-2 is
the City of Hopewell, Prince George County, and the James River from
Hopewell to Chesapeake Bay.
HOPEWELL AND PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY
Physical Features
As indicated in Exhibit 1-1, Hopewell and Prince George County lie
entirely in the coastal plain of Virginia and encompass about 11 and
276 square miles, respectively. The topography at Hopewell generally
is hilly with steep streambanks in the vicinity of Bailey Creek and
Gravelly Run, with elevations ranging from near sea level to
approximately 130 feet above sea level. Slopes -in the Prince George
County portion of the study area can approach 40 to 50 percent in some
steeper areas. In the City of Hopewell, slopes generally are more
gradual and amenable to the development that has occurred.
Temperatures in the area average 27 degrees C (80 degrees F) in July
and 4.5 degrees C (40 degrees F) in January, with precipitation
averaging approximately 40 inches per year.
In 1913, Hopewell developed from a population of about 300 people
into a boom town after the completion of a dynamite plant by the
III-l
-------
DuPont de Nemours Company, with the beginning of World War I, the
factory was converted for the production of gun cotton and was making
more than one million pounds a day until the end of the War. The
population of Hopewell was estimated to be approximately 40,000 during
this period, with 15,000 to 20,000 people working at the factory.
with the end of world war I and the closing of the DuPont factory,
people left Hopewell as rapidly as they had come. By 1920, the census
showed a city population of only 1,320. However, during the next
decade, the population began to increase again as new industries moved
to the area formerly occupied by DuPont's gun cotton plant.
One company to locate in Hopewell after World War I was Hercules
Powder Company. The principal product was explosives, but they also
manufactured film, lacquers, and material for rayon, transparent
cellulose, and stationery. Today, Hercules employs over 1,000 people
in the production of plastic materials, synthetic resins, and chlorine
industrial inorganic chemicals. Another large industry in Hopewell is
the forest Industries, formerly known as Continental Can Company,
which produces liner board and material for corrugated boxes.
In 1928, Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation established a nitrate
plant through their subsidiary, the Atmospheric Nitrogen Corporation.
In 1954, Allied's National Aniline Division located a fiber operation
in Hopewell. The General Chemical Division of Allied Chemical built a
small alum plant near Route 10. Currently, Allied Chemical maintains
III-2
-------
two plants in Hopewell, the Fibers Division and the Industrial
Chemicals Division. The Fibers Division manufactures industrial
organic chemicals and the Industrial Chemicals Division manufactures
alum. Together/ these two plants employ approximately 1/150 people.
Firestone located in the city in 1960 and produces nylon and
polyester yarns. With approximately 1/500 employees, this company is
the largest industrial employer in Hopewell.
Social Background
The populations of both Hopewell and Prince George county have
increased since 1950. The most recent estimates indicate that
Hopewell had a population of 23,300 and Prince George County had a
population of 18/700 as of July 1, .1975 (University of Virginia/
1975). Projections for the area's population through the year 2000
show small but steady increases for both Hopewell and Prince George
County.
Manufacturing is the foundation of Hopewell's economy/ and it
directly provides slightly over 50 percent of the city's jobs.
Additional jobs are found in wholesale and retail trade and in
government. By contrast, in Prince George County, governmental
agencies, primarily Federal, accounted for two-thirds of the
III-3
-------
employment as of 1972. Income levels far both Hopewell and Prince
George County are close to State levels.
Land- Use Patterns and Plans
The Land-Use Plan for Hopewell indicates that 56 percent of the
land area in 1970 was developed. The majority was included in the
residential and industrial categories. Probably the most important
factor influencing the land-use pattern is Hopewell's large industrial
complex. This complex has forced residential development westerly
away from the James River.
The section of the city bordering the western side of Bailey Creek
is currently zoned for heavy industry to just past the Hopewell
primary sewage treatment plant and zoned for residential in other
parts. Although much of this area zoned residential is vacant,
housing construction is currently taking place between the Hopewell
treatment plant and Route 156. The county land areas adjacent to
Bailey Creek are planned primarily for residential development through
the year 2000.
-------
Archeolocrical Resources
At present, little is known concerning the archeological resources
of the Hopewell area, although at least five upland archeological
sites have been identified by the Virginia Historic Landmarks
Commission. Principal sites of archeological or historical
significance are Eppes Island, located at the confluence of the James
and Appomattox Rivers, and Shirley Plantation, located five miles
north of Hopewell.
Environmental Description
Air Quality
Suspended particulates and sulfur dioxides are measured regularly
in the Hopewell area by the Virginia state Air Pollution Control Board
(SAPCE). Recent tests indicate that sulfur dioxide does not appear to
be a problem. For the year ending March 1977, there were no
violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards noted in the
Hopewell area. However, violations for suspended particulates have
occurred in the past (SAPCB, 1977).
Odor is also a problem in this area. Odor-causing substances are
emitted from the several fiber mills in Hopewell. Also, odors emanate
from Bailey Creek and Bailey Bay waters.
IIX-5
-------
Water Quality
The water quality in Bailey Creek and Gravelly Run has been
influenced by the effluent from Hopewell's primary treatment plant,
industrial outfalls, and cooling water outlets located on these
tributaries. The volume of waste entering Bailey Creek and Gravelly
Run is the cause for its severe water quality problem. Dissolved
oxygen, pH, BOO, TXN, nitrate and orthophosphate vary significantly
from the values that would be expected for these types of streams.
Additionally, a black plume originating in Bailey Creek and Gravelly
Run is normally visible in the James River from the air for at least 5
to 10 miles (8 to 16 kilometers) below Bopewell (NASA, 1977).
In late 1977, the Regional secondary sewage treatment plant* at
Hopewell began operation. Evidence of water quality improvement in
the project area is expected. The dissolved oxygen, BOO, and pH will
be improved, but the exact effect of the plant on the receiving waters
cannot be estimated at this time.
*Hereafter referred to as the Regional treatment plant
III-6
-------
Environmental Setting
The land area in Hopewell and vicinity consists of areas that are
heavily industrialized, urbanized, and suburbanized. It is composed
of agricultural areas, upland woods, wooded swamp, and marsh. Data
gathered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel during August
1977 indicate that while the upland and marsh areas appear normal,
exclusive of the odor and color of the water and sediments, there are
significant differences between the wooded swamps of Bailey - CreeJc and
a similar area downriver. The survey made particular note of the
absence of fish-eating birds and songbirds in the Bailey Creek area.
Although the new Regional treatment plant should lessen the impact
that pollution in Bailey Creek has had on Bailey Bay and the James
River, improvement in water quality of Bailey Creek and Gravelly Run
will continue to be inhibited by the effects of the polluted sediments
in these streambeds.
THE JAMES RIVER
The James River is the largest of Virginia's river systems.
Although the James River originates in West Virginia, consideration in
this study is limited to the tidally influenced region from Hopewell
east to its confluence with the Chesapeake Bay. Most of the study
area is flat, rising less than 40 feet above sea level.
III-7
-------
The James River is tidal from the falls at Richmond to its mouth,
a distance of 153 km (95 mi.). Its width varies from approximately
0.3 km (1/2 mi.) wide near Richmond to approximately 8 km (5 mi.) wide
near its mouth. The tidal portion c£ the river has four main
tributaries: the Appomattox, the Chickahominy, the Nansemend, and the
Elizabeth Rivers. The flow in the James River at Richmond has varied'
from 8,863.17 cubic meters per second (cms) to 9.06 cms with the
average flow being 212.38 cms.
Lands adjoining the river are fertile agricultural tracts,
forested upland and bottomland, and marshes and swamps that afford
high value habitat for migratory waterfowl, other birds, game and fur
animals. Hunting and fishing are important recreational pursuits
along the tidal section of the James. There are numerous privately
owned hunting and fishing camps and two public wildlife refuges in the
area. The Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries maintains
a 2,100 acre waterfowl refuge on Hog Island and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service maintains Presguile National Wildlife Refuge, a 1,329
acre refuge on Turkey Island upstream of Hopewell.
The only major population area along the River downstream from
Hopewell is at the mouth of the river where Newport News, Hampton,
Portsmouth, and Norfolk form the Hampton Roads Area.
III-8
-------
The tidal portion of the James River is sluggish and is
characterized by a sandy/silty bottom. Both fresh and salt water
species are typically found in the James River with the species found
according to their salinity regimes. The tidal James River has long
been utilized for commercial and sport fishing. Fishery resources are
diverse and productive. The river contains freshwater and marine
fish, including many migratory species. The commercial fishing
grounds extend from upstream of the Eopewell area to the mouth of the
James River. The freshwater and upper portion of brackish water zones
are extensively used as spawning and nursery grounds. The lower
estuary is a productive shellfish zone.
Due to Kepone contamination, fish harvesting is now restricted by
the FDA Action Level determinations previously discussed. The river
is open to the taking of oysters, clams, some migratory species,
female crabs downstream from the James River Bridge, and several
resident species, such as catfish. The river is closed to the taking
of most freshwater sport species, except on a catch/release basis.
Because of the nature, size, and depth of the river, commercial
navigation has been important on the James since colonial times. The
complex river currents, augmented by tides, constantly shift and move
sediments in the river. As a result, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
maintains a deep water navigation channel from the Chesapeake Bay to
Richmond.
III-9
-------
The chemistry and biology of the James River varies from the mouth
to Richmond. It is largely dependent on the magnitude of the
freshwater discharge and the tidal action. Salinity concentrations
change as a result of the salt wedge migration which is governed by
the quantity of fresh water discharged to the estuary. The reach of
the James River from Turkey Island near Hopewell to the Chesapeake Bay
can be divided into four salinity zones. They are generally as
follows:
Tidal Freshwater
Oligohaline
Mesohaline
Polyhaline
River Mile UO to 80
River Mile 25 to UO
River Mile 12 to 25
River Mile 0 to 12
Salinity 0 to 0.5 ppth
Salinity 0.5 to 5 ppth
Salinity 5 to 15 ppth
Salinity greater than 15 pp
111-10
-------
IV. PROJECT APPROACH
ORGANIZING THE PROJECT
Development and management of the Kepone Mitigation Feasibility
Project was assigned to EPA's criteria and Standards Division, Office
of Water and Hazardous Materials. Among the responsibilities of this
Division is Section 115 of Public Law 92-500, "In-place Toxic
Pollutants.N However, since funding was not available under Section
115 appropriations, Phase I of the study was funded from other EPA
resources. Resolution of resources and negotiations for support to
conduct the project were initiated in November 1976. An allocation of
$1.4 million for support "was made. A comprehensive work plan was
developed and negotiations were begun for support studies through
interagency agreements with the U.S. Corps of Engineers (COE), the
Department of Energy (DOE - at that time the Energy Research and
Development Agency), and an allocation of funds to EPA's Gulf Breeze
Environmental Research Laboratory and the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science (VIMS). However, with detailed work plans and support
agreements completed, the Agency was requested to delay action until
the implications of the project could fce evaluated in terms of the
State of Virginia Kepone plan. Following this evaluation, the
interagency agreements were consummated with the DOE and the COE on
March 31, 1977.
IV-1
-------
At the same time the interagency agreements were signed, funds
vere transferred to the ongoing research programs of EPA's Gulf Breeze
Laboratory and VIMS for specific tasks to be accomplished in time to
support the requirements of the Kepone project. A year was allocated
for project completion. The completion date was later extended to
May 31, 1978 in order to permit more effective collaboration with the
State of Virginia in review and preparation of the final project
report.
Under the interagency agreement with the COE, Norfolk District.^
engineering studies to contain, stabilize, or remove Kepone-con-
taminated sediments were specified. Alternatives were to be evaluated
with funding provided on a task basis to S400K. Arrangements were
ilso made by the COE with the O.S. Fish and wildlife Service (DSFWSJ
of the Department of Interior for complementary ecological surveys of
the Hopewell/James River area. Under the interagency agreement with
DOE, the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories were tasked with
responsibility for: conducting sampling and analysis of the suspected
sources of Kepone contamination in Hopewell and the James River; in
coordination with VIMS/ obtaining water quality, sediment, hydroiogic
and other data on the James River; modeling the transport and fate of
sediments in the river; evaluating nonconventional Kepone mitigation
techniques, which would complement those of the COE; and assessing the
overall acological impact of the current Kepone contamination and
possible mitigation approaches. The funding for this effort was S800K
IV-2
-------
with work proceeding under detailed task orders. The EPA Gulf Breeze
Laboratory was assigned responsibility to provide scientific data and
analysis on the effects of Kepone on the estuarine biota, including
the biological accumulation, distribution and fate of Kepone. Of the
S200K transferred to Gulf Breeze, S100K went to VIMS for associated
field studies on the biota and hydrology of the James River. Exhibit
IV-1 summarizes the individual project responsibilities.
To insure effective administration and coordination of the
project, a management plan was developed concurrently. As shown in
Exhibit IV-2, the project director was supported by an environmental
scientist and an environmental engineer. Coordination channels were
also established with the states of Virginia and Maryland, EPA*s
Region III, and other elements of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Simultaneously, channels for information exchange were established
with the State of New York's PCB Task Force which was faced with a
similar river contamination problem.
IV-3
-------
EXHIBIT IV-1
KEPONE MITIGATION FEASIBILITY PROJECT RESPONSIBILITIES
DQE/BATTFT.r.R
Sampling and analysis of suspected Kepone contamination to comple-
ment existing data.
Acquisition of water quality, sediment, hydrologic and other data
in the James River in coordination with VIMS.
Modeling of transport and fate of Kepone in the James River.
Evaluation of nonconventional mitigation techniques.
Assessment of the overall impact of current Kepone contamination
and possible mitigation approaches.
COE (With USFWSl
Analysis of worldwide sediment removal/dredging techniques and
applicability.
Engineering studies to contain, stabilize, or remove Kepone-con-
caminated sediments.
Evaluation of environmental impact of selected engineering alter-
natives.
EPA GULF BREEZE LABORATORY
Effect of Kepone on estuarine biota, including biological accumu-
lation, distribution and fate.
VIMS
Field data on biota, sediments and hydrology of the James River.
EPA HEADQUARTERS
Program management and report.
-------
Exhibit IV-2
KEPONE PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION
State of Virginia\
Department of Health \
l-'ater Control Board y
Kepone Task Force /
EPA Reoion III
Kepone Project
Management
Director
Environmental Scientist
Environmental Engineer
PCB
Hudson River
Task Force
EPA
Edison Lab
RTP
COE
a
USF&WS
DOE
(Battelle)
EPA
Gulf Sreeze
VIMS
-------
LABORATORY STANDARDIZATION
Kepone is a very complex chlorinated hydrocarbon which can be
detected by the use of electron capture-gas chromatography. when the
Kepone incident occurred, techniques for measuring the chemical were
rudimentary at best. Since many sample types were involved (i.e.,
sediments, plants, animals and water), and Kepone concentrations
ranged between parts per million and parts per billion, chemists were
confronted with a variety of problems which had to be solved to assure
reliable analyses.
The first efforts on quality control and assurance were those of
the State of Virginia Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services.
In this program, samples of soil, fish, blood and water were sent to
participating laboratories. The results of the analyses were
statistically examined by the Consolidated Laboratories and returned
to the participants. Following these efforts, fish and oyster samples
were sent by the Food and Drug Administration in Washington, D.c. to
their field laboratories and some laboratories within the State of
Virginia. In addition, individual investigators exchanged samples
with each other.
With the initiation of the Kepone Mitigation Feasibility Project,
participants believed it necessary to institute a standardization
procedure to assure the precision of Kepone results between the
IV-
-------
laboratories. Accordingly, the project arranged for the development
ind administration of a standardization procedure by the SPA Health
Effects Research Laboratory at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Participating laboratories were:
U.S. EPA Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Fish and wildlife Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
State of Virginia Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
William H. Jennings Laboratory, Inc.
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Four sediment sample groups were distributed and analyzed: (1)
control without Kepone; (2) control known to have interfering
compounds (PCB-Aroclor 1254); (3) James River Kepone-contaminated
sediment sample; and (4) fortified (spiked) sample of known Kepone
quantity. Participating laboratories were sent twelve blind 21-gram
samples of the above groups, including replicates. In addition, an
analytical standard was forwarded for the laboratories' use.
In general, the results of the laboratories appeared good -
excellent in some cases - considering that several different analyti-
cal methods were employed in the various laboratories. The
standardization procedure has been valuable for the laboratories in
the Kepone Mitigation Feasibility Project because instruments have
been thoroughly tested, analytical techniques have been perfected, and
future Kepone results can be compared with greater confidence. Since
the standardization, contractors and laboratories have examined
initial project data and data generated prior to the project
IV-5
-------
initiation. No significant adjustments were necessary in the use of
previous data for the Kepone Mitigation Feasibility Project analyses.
For water analyses of Kepone, laboratories have placed the limits of
detectability with good reliability at approximately 0.02 parts per
billion (ppb). A. few laboratories feel confident about stating values
lower than this. Sediment and animal tissue lower limits of
detectability are usually placed at 0.02 parts per million (ppm).
PROJECT FIELD EFFORTS
Laboratory and field programs were undertaken as part of the EPA
Kepone Mitigation Feasibility Study to provide the data needed to
assess the possibility of eliminating the problem of Kepone
contamination from the James River. These programs built upon the
results of previous Kepone studies, as well as addressed new research
areas required for a fuller understanding of the issue. The following
sections discuss the details of the Kepone Mitigation Feasibility
Project field efforts.
The field studies undertaken as part of the Feasibility Project
were designed to satisfy the following needs:
1. Provide additional data on Kepone contamination in the James
River;
IV-6
-------
2. Provide input data for modeling efforts of Kepone movement in
the James River;
3. Provide an engineering and environmental data base for
assessing alternative conventional mitigation measures in the
Bailey Bay area;
4. Establish the distribution of Kepone residuals in Bailey Bay
and its tributary streams;
5. Establish the distribution of Kepone residuals in the
terrestrial areas of the Hopewell region; and
6. Identify potential sources of continuing Kepone contamination
into the James River.
Data for Modeling
A plan was developed to undertake a joint field sampling program
of the James River in June 1977. The sampling data were designed for
use in developing, calibrating, and verifying computer simulations of
Kepone movement in the James River as well as to provide data for the
further assessment of Kepone contamination in the James.
Eleven sampling transects were designated. Eight of these
transects were sampled by Battelle and four by VIMS. One transect was
duplicated by Battelle and VIMS for comparison purposes. However,
logistics and equipment acquisition problems prevented a simultaneous
IV-7
-------
sampling cruise by Battelle and VIMS. The VIMS sampling was therefore
accomplished in August 1977.
June Sampling Program
In June, Battelle Laboratories collected data at eight transects
along a 70-mile reach of the James River from City Point at Kopewell
to the James River Bridge. Three stations were located on each
transect and one to three depths were sampled per station for each of
three current conditions (flood, slack and ebb). The locations of
these stations are listed belcw:
James River Bridge
Rocklanding Shoal
Hog Island
West Swann Point
Windmill Point
Jordan Point
Bailey Bay
City Point
The first four stations were located in the saline portion of the
estuary, while the latter four stations were located in the freshwater
portion. The Jordan Point, Bailey Eay and city Point stations were
IV-8
-------
selected to provide better resolution in the Kepone source area. All
^ross-sections are tidally influenced.
Tbe sampling data gathered in the field included: meteorological
and hydrological information; channel and flow characteristics;
physical and chemical characteristics of suspended load and bed
sediments; and water quality characteristics. Kepone analyses were
conducted on water, suspended load, and bottom sediment samples.
Hater quality parameters measured at each station and depth included
water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity.
August Sampling Program
In August 1977, personnel from VIMS performed their hydrographic
survey at four James River transects which bracketed the turbidity
maximum with three stations at each transect. The transects were
located near the following: Herring Creek, West Swann Point, Brandon
and Fort Eustis. Each survey was conducted for a period of
approximately 100 hours to span eight tidal cycles. Parameters
measured included total suspended sediment, salinity, dissolved
oxygen, current direction and speed and tidal stage.
17-9
-------
Mitigation Alternatives Data Base
Other field work involved compiling data required to assess the
conventional Kepone mitigation alternatives developed by the Corps of
Engineers for the Bailey Bay area. This included the collection of
geotechnical, hydrological, and environmental information.
Under the supervision of the Norfolk District Corps of Engineers
borings were taken in May 1977 in Bailey Bay and Bailey Creek to
provide data on foundation potential for dams or dikes. Since the
Kepone study was only in the concept stage of development, the
subsurface investigation was limited to 12 borings with standard
penetration testing. The locations of these borings, labeled DH-1
through 5, and 7 through 13 are shown on Exhibit IV-3.
Hydrologic field work was undertaken because no known detailed
topographic data existed to facilitate the required preliminary design
and associated cost estimates. Cross-sections were obtained on both
Bailey creek and Gravelly Run to aid the development of preliminary
design features for each alternative, including flood routings and
channel designs. The location of each cross-section is shown on
Exhibit IV-4.
Under an agreement with the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service performed an environmental assessment of Bailey
IV-10
-------
CITY
POINT
WELLY
RUN
BAILEY CREEK
../ y\
Exhibit lV-3
COB Boring Locations
..X.
2000
SCALE IN FEET
2000
-------
HOPEWELL
«
SEWAGE
TREATMENT
.PLANT
ALLIEP
CHEMICAL'
'••-., CO,.^'..- CONTINENTAL
CAN BRIDGE
678 6-3 A e-3
G-38
;Y*V
w
C- B-l
BAILEY BAY
GRAVELLY
RUN
B-3
B-4
BAILEY CREEK
B-5
Exhibit IV-4
COE Ifydrologic Sampling Stations
-B-6
..X
SCALE IN FEET
20OO 0 2OOO
4000
-------
Creek and its associated wetlands in August 1977. Involved in this
procedure was an environmental description of the sector and a habitat
evaluation. This was accomplished through the use of an environmental
inventory of the specified areas and with preparation of a general
habitat: map. Biologists made observations of wildlife through signs
or actual sightings. The Corps did some limited water quality work
and sediment analyses in preparation of the environmental assessment.
Fish and wildlife Service biologists conducted their
investigations of the wetland creeks to determine which wildlife
species or groups of species appeared to be absent from the ecosystem
and which would be expected in Bailey Creek if the Creek were not so
heavily polluted. For comparison, similar field studies were
undertaken in Powell Creek, the closest creek system along the James
.liver with physiographic features similar to Bailey Creek. An attempt
was made to identify pollutant pathways through the Bailey Creek
ecosystem. Preliminary impact evaluations of the various structural
alternatives being designed by the Corps were determined by the Fish
and wildlife service.
Bailey Bay Xepone Distribution Determination
The thrust of the Battelle field sampling program in Bailey Bay
was the collection of sediment cores for Kepone analysis. TO
establish sampling sites in the bay, a grid network was overlain to
IV-11
-------
yield squares of 305 meters (1,000 feet) on a side. Every other
square in a checkerboard was designated for core sampling. The
sampling points were illustrated in Exhibit IV-5. Twenty-seven sites
were identified for sampling in Bailey Eay. This is 37.5 percent
greater than the minimum number necessary to evaluate contaminated
sediments according to the EPA formula for aquatic sediments (EPA,
1974). Seven of these cores were divided into 2.5 cm (1 in.) thick
slices to yield Kepone variations with depth. Four sampling locations
were designated for heavy metals and broad spectrum gas
chromatograph/mass spectrograph organic analysis. These samples
served to indicate the presence of other contaminants which could
potentially interfere with Kepone cleanup.
Identifying Kepone Distribution and Transport in Hopewell
A comprehensive sampling plan for Bailey Creek, Gravelly Run, the
terrestrial areas of the town of Hopewell, the primary sewage
treatment plant area, and the municipal landfill was established to
quantify inflows of Kepone to Bailey Eay and the James River system.
Sediment
Since it was believed that significant amounts of Kepone were
associated with the sediments of creeks flowing into Bailey Bay,
sediment cores at 2,000 foot intervals beginning at the creek mouth
IV-12
-------
Lily
I'd I III
Exhibit IV-5
Sampling I'aLt^rn for Bailey Bay and Tributaries
• Sediment fore Stimuli's
• Seillinent Core ijiii|>lt:S wllli
Vurticlc Uisirilniiloii
V Heavy He la I i and
S|»cclniiii Oirj.inirs
Multr biii.,|.lL-s. aud
Uisirjl.nlion (2 ids)
-------
were taken on Bailey Creek, Cattail Creek, Gravelly Run, and Poythress
Run. The upstream limit of sampling was State Highway 156 for Bailey
Creek, a point 1,000 feet above any possible influence of the
landfill; for Cattail Creek, the State Highway 10 bridge; for Gravelly
Run and for Poythress Run, Station Street. Sediment samples taken in
the Creeks were a composite of three stations on a bank-to-bank cross
section. The map in Exhibit IV-5 plots the location of sediment
samples taken from Hopewell area creeks.
Soil
. Soil samples were taken at several locations in the Hopewell area
to determine the extent of Kepone contamination in the soils of the
area's watersheds. The sampling points were so located to ascertain
>he distribution and magnitude of soil Kepone levels, thereby giving
insight into the possible significance of contamination of the James
River from terrestrial sources. Particular attention was given to the
area around the former Life Science Products plant. Other points were
dispersed throughout the City of Hopewell and the area immediately
surrounding the City, as illustrated in Exhibit IV-6. Site
descriptions are given in Exhibit IV-7.
Water samples were taken to measure inputs of Kepone from
streamflow, runoff, ground water, and seeps. Screamflow samples were
collected from several locations on Bailey Creek, Cattail Creek,
IV-13
-------
Exhibit IV-6
lor Soil Samples in
-------
EXHIBIT IV-7. SITE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SOILS SAMPLES
1. Church, north corner of Boston and Sunnyside Streets.
2. Baseball field behind James school.
3. North side Cavalier Ice Plant.
4. Nitrogen Park between State well and Hopewe11 streets.
5. Off northeast corner of Life Science Plant Building.
6. Park, corner of Burnside and Allen.
7. Near main Pump Station.
8. Grove of trees on LaPrade Street across from Industrial
Piping and Supply.
9. Southwest corner of State Highway 10 and Point of Rocks Road.
10. Apartments, southwest corner of 20th and Broadway.
11. North side of State Highway 10 at Civic Clubs sign.
12. Apartment, corner of 2nd and Eppes.
13. Park, 100* east of the Hopewell News Building.
14. South side of State Highway 10 at FOP Lodge Road.
15. Just off road between Shirley Plantation and Eppes Island.
16. Nitrogen Park.
17. Nitrogen Park.
18. Nitrogen Park.
19. Nitrogen Park.
20. Life Science Products site next to the railroad track.
21. 20 feet north of Highway 10 across from the PAN sice.
-------
22. DuPont School playground
13. Main Pump Station.
24. Appcmattox No. 2 Pump Station.
25. Sussex Drive Pump Station.
26. Western Street Pump Station.
27. Pebble Ammonium Nitrate site.
28. Black field where liquid waste from tankers was disposed of.
29. Northwest corner of the Life Science Products site.
30. North side of Allied chemical's Semi-works plant.
31. West side of Semi-Works plant.
32. Between Gravelly Run and State Highway 10 across from the first
Allied effluent discharge.
-------
Gravelly Run, Moody*s Creek, Foythress Run, and Cabin Creek. When
possible, each station was sampled on two days: one during low flow;
one during a period of high runoff.
Samples of storm runoff were also taken from areas suspected to
contain high Kepone concentrations (Life Science Products plant area,
landfill area), as well as from representative points throughout the
city. Sample sites are displayed in Exhibit IV-8 and described in
Exhibit IV-9. Ground water samples for Kepone analysis were taken
from seven test wells bored by the State Water Control Board and two
private wells in the area. Waner was also sampled in the vicinity of
the Keone/sludge lagoon. Samples were collected from within the
lagoon, in a puddle outside the dike, and from ground water seeps
flowing into Bailey Creek immediately below the lagoon.
17-14
-------
Exhibit IV-8
Surface Water and Runoff Sample Locations
-------
EXHIBIT IV-9. SITE DESCRIPTION FOR RUNOFF AND CREEK WATER SAMPLES
1. Bailey Creek at State Highway 156.
2. Bailey Creek just above Cattail Creek.
3. Cattail Creek at power line above Landfill.
4. Cattail Creek just above Bailey Creek.
5. Gravelly Run at Continental Can Road.
6. Drainage ditch at Station Street east of crossing.
7. Gravelly Run at state Highway 10.
8. Gravelly Run at Continental Can Road.
9. Bailey Creek at State Highway 10.
10. Bailey Creek below confluence with Cattail Creek.
11. Bailey Creek above confluence with Cattail Creek.
12. Bailey Creek at State Highway 156.
13. Bailey Creek at power line above Hopewell Treatment Plant.
14. Drainage ditch at Station Street easternmost crossing.
15. Cattail Creek at state Highway 156.
16. Cattail Creek at power lines.
17. Cattail Creek at sewer line crossing.
18. Corner of LaPrade and Highway 156.
19. Corner of Arlington and Highway 156.
20. Bailey Creek upstream of Hopewell Treatment Plane effluent and
the seeps below the Kepone/sludge lagoon.
21. Corner of Locust and Dellrose.
-------
22. Dinwiddle Avenue 100 feet southeast of corner of OaJclawn.
23. Corner of Smithfield and Cedar Level.
24. Cabin Creek under Jackson Farm Road.
25. End of West Broadway near the railroad tracks.
26. Riverside Avenue across from the Hopewell Yacht Club.
27. Corner of Brown and Burnside.
28. Life Science Products plant site.
29. Corner of 14th and City Point.
30. Same location as Sample 20.
-------
Sewer System
Initial sampling in the Hopewell sewer system focused on the
sewage treatment plant and on the sewer line connecting it with the
Life Science Products site. This included the Station Street and main
pump stations through which the effluent and runoff from the Life
Science Products plant site were pumped. Samples were taken of the
water, slimes, and sludges in these facilities. In addition, raw
sewage and slime samples were taken from 11 pump stations in the
Hopewell municipal sewage system through which Life Science Products
effluent and runoff has not flowed. The pump stations of the sewer
system are located and described in Exhibits IV-10 and IV-11.
Follow-up Sampling
Following analysis of samples collected in the initial field study
plan, it became apparent that additional sampling would be beneficial.
Certain significant findings warranted follow-up field sampling in
order to establish the magnitude of potential Kepone problems.
Additional field work was undertaken at the Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate
(PAN) plant site and the southeast corner of the Hopewell sanitary
landfill.
At the PAN site, 14 shallow holes were drilled with a hand auger.
Samples were collected from the surface and at a depth of five fee-c.
IV-15
-------
• 4
Exhibit IV-10
l'uin|> Scat Jon SolJJs and Wastewatur Sample Local lout,
-------
EXHIBIT IV-11. PUMP STATIONS LOCATED IN EXHIBIT IV-10,
1. Western Street
2. Sherwood Land
3. Sussex Drive
U. Cabin Creek
5. Appomattox No. 1
6. Appomattox No. 2
7. Park Avenue
8. Mansion Hills
9. Sixth Avenue
10. water street
11. Station Street
12. Main
13. Bailey Creek
-------
Next, 8 deep holes were bored to depths between 35 and 50 feet, and
samples taken at 1 to 5-foot intervals. Several sediment cores were
also collected in the marshy areas around the PAN site. Four sediment
cores were taken from the site itself, and 9 cores collected from the
Moody's creek marsh immediately down-flew. A series of runoff samples
and several subsurface soil samples using a 10-foot hand auger were
also taken.
Several series of samples were collected adjacent to the
southeastern edge of the Hopewell landfill in order to establish the
magnitude and transport of highly concentrated Kepone residuals
detected in this area during previous sampling. Field work included
collection of several 1 to 2-foot cores and 1-inch grabs of-sediment
to calculate the amount of Kepone residing in this area. Runoff and
hand-augered soil samples to depths of 10 feet were gathered to detect
any possible transport pattern.
IV-16
-------
PROJECT LABORATORY EFFORTS
Numerous laboratory studies were conducted to support the Kepone
Mitigation Feasibility Project, including physical, chemical,
biological, toxicological and engineering. The following describes
those efforts by the several contractors or laboratories.
EPA Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory
Studies of Kepone Availability from water
1. Toxicity and uptake of Kepone in four
species of marine unicellular algae.
Output: EC 50 values and Kepone concentrations values
2. Acute toxicity of Kepone to estuarine animals.
Output: Acute 96-hour LC50 values and average bio-
concentration factors for:
Grass Shrimp Palaemonetes pugio
Blue Crab Callinectes sapidus
Sheepshead Minnow cyprinodon variegatus
Spot Leiostomus xanthurus
Mysid Shrimp Mvsidopsis bahia
Oyster Crassostrea virgin!ca
3. Full life cycle bioassay studies.
Sheepshead Minnow Cyprinodon variegatus
Mysid Shrimp Mvsidopsis bahia
U. Bioaccumulation and loss of Kepone in estuarine animals
(multiple concentraticns).
Oyster Crassostrea virginica
Sheepshead Minnow Cyprinodon varieoatus
Spot Leiostomus xanthurus
IV-17
-------
Grass Shrimp Palaemonetes puqio
Blue Crab Callinectes sapidus
5. Studies on Kepone accuonilaticn from contaminated food.
Studies on the bioaccumulation and toxic effects of animals
exposed to Kepone contained in their food, in Kepone-contam-
inated water, and in Kepone-uncontaminated water.
Algae-Oyster food chain
Brine Shrimp - Mysids - Spot food chain
6. Studies on sensitive life stages
Juvenile Blue Crab Callinectes sapidus
Larval Oysters Crassostrea virgin!ca
Sheepshead Minncw Cyprinodon variegatus
7. Studies of bioaccumulation in, and toxicity to estuarine animals
in contaminated sediments.
8. Studies on biodegradation, volatility, and sorption-desorption.
The above laboratory studies were made to determine the toxicity
of Kepone to representative animals. Both acute and chronic studies
were performed on these animals for which there are accepted culture
methods and comparative data for other toxic materials. Many species
tested are indigenous to the James River and Chesapeake Bay ecosystem
and are economically significant to the seafood industry. They
constitute important links in the estuarine food chains. Laboratory
Kepone exposure levels were related to field observations on the James
River where possible. This research was directed toward the
development of Kepone criteria for water, sediment and food.
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) has also
undertaken a variety of studies relating to Kepone in the aquatic
environment. Efforts with Kepone have concentrated on improving the
17-18
-------
accuracy of Kepone detection, partition coefficient determinations,
and instrumentation development. Biologists at VIMS studied the
Kepone effects on James River organisms in the laboratory, such as
clams and oysters. These shellfish were examined over time as they
were exposed to Kepone-contaminated sediments, either in suspension or
by association with sediments. Such efforts are continuing under new
funding from the State of Virginia as a result of a recent partial
settlement on Kepone claims between the State and Allied Chemical.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in developing their eighteen
conventional alternatives in Bailey Creek, Bailey Bay, and Gravelly
Run, used data from a previous grain size study at windmill Point to
perform their engineering studies. The data were used to evaluate the
foundation, stability and settlement potential at or near the mouth of
Bailey Creek. The data also were used to determine the availability
and type of borrow material available and subsequent shear strengths.
Battelie Pacific Northwest Laboratories performed numerous
experiments while investigating nonconventional mitigation techniques.
Fixation and stabilization processes were evaluated on the basis of:
(1) short-term elutriate tests; and (2) long-term leach tests.
Physical/chemical, elutriate/slurry treatment processes were also
investigated. Battelle Columbus Laboratories performed degradation
experiments with radio-labeled Kepone.
IV-19
-------
Several aspects of photolysis were examined. "Landfarm" vessel
experiments were used to investigate photochemical degradation. The
effects of amine solutions and sunlight exposure were tested for their
efficiency in degrading Kepone as well as experiments using chlorine
dioxide (Oxine) to oxidize Kepone with and without sunlignt.
Ozonation was tested because of its oxidizing capability.
Kepone contaminated sediments were exposed to x-ray radiation by
Battelle Laboratories to determine if Kepone degradation could be
achieved by oxidation of Kepone dissolved in water. Also investigated
were in situ Kepone amelioration techniques, including the use of
sorbents, such as activated carbon, coal, and some synthetic
adsorbents produced by Diamond Shamrock, Rohm and Haas, Bently
Laboratories, and Calgon. Polymer films were investigated because
they might be able to provide a means of retarding or limiting the
availability of Kepone to the surrounding environment. In the
selection of a sealing bottom film tear strength, tensile strength,
water resistance, chemical resistance, temperature resistance, and
handling characteristics were considered.
Battelle performed experiments with barley plants to determine if
plants could take up Kepone through their roots to edible parts.
There had been concerns that Kepone around the Hopewell area could be
taken into food crops or plants fed to livestock, so barley
experiments were deemed appropriate.
IV-20
-------
PROJECT-RELATED FIELD EFFORTS
Integration of Previous Kepone Studies
In designing an approach to the Kepone Mitigation Feasibility
Study, an effort was made to integrate the study with previous Kepone
research programs. Following closure of the Life science Products
plant in July 1975, several programs were undertaken to establish the
magnitude of the Kepone problem. These included collecting human and
environmental samples for Kepone analysis, and laboratory studies
designed to understand the characteristics of the chemical. Results
from a number of these studies were incorporated in the Kepone
Mitigation Feasibility Project to provide insight into the problem.
These studies are discussed briefly below.
The Virginia Water Control Board collected a variety of samples
from the Hopewell area and the James River beginning in 1975. These
included sediment, aquatic biota, soil, ground water, and runoff
samples which were analyzed for Kepone content. Of particular value
to the Feasibility Project were the results of the sediment sampling
which established the general pattern of Kepone residuals in the James
River. Virginia water Control Board sediment sampling is a cor.rinuo.ng
program in which cores from more than 50 stations are collected
throughout rhe James River system annually.
IV-21
-------
Sediment cores analyzed in previous research efforts by the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science also provided useful data on
Kepone distribution in the James River. Their sampling program
involved systematically collecting cere samples during each of the
four seasons beginning in September 1976.
Data used from previous sampling were provided by the City of
Hopewell. Samples of sewage sludge and effluent have been collected
by the city on a regular basis and analyzed for Kepone. In 1976 these
were sampled weekly, then beginning in April 1977, the sampling period
was changed to a monthly basis.
KEPONE-RELATED INVESTIGATIONS
In addition to the contractors and laboratories funded through the
Kepone Mitigation Feasibility Project, the following groups had been
or are continuing to study Kepone and its effects. The information
and laboratory data generated by these groups has been incorporated by
the Feasibility Project.
Allied Chemical has had its own research program examining ways in
which Kepone could be removed from the James River or ways in which
Kepone effects could by attenuated. Allied Chemical also has various
contractors, such as EGSG, Bionomics, Inc. who are examining some cf
IV-22
-------
the biological implications of Xepone. Allied Chemical's laboratory
research efforts are continuing.
U.S. Sport Fisheries and wildlife Columbia, Missouri Pesticide
Laboratory is conducting research on Kepone and Mirex uptake, storage
and elimination in aquatic food chains. Also being studied is the
microfaunal metabolism, including aerobic and anaerobic conditions.
Physiological profiles are .being derived and indications obtained to
determine how perturbations can interfere with geochemical cycles.
Dr. Rita Colwell at the University of Maryland has been
investigating possibilities of Kepone degradation by microorganisms
(Orndorff, et al., in Press).
Design Partnership Consulting Engineers (Flood and Associates,
Inc.) had conducted several laboratory studies for the Stare of
Virginia in 1976, including the possibility of anaerobic
biodegradation of Kepone. A report of all of their findings is
currently under review by the State of Virginia.
The EPA Office of Research and Development has funded a study,
conducted by the National Research Council, on Kepone, Mirex and
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene. The report is now in draft form, but
should be publicly released later this year.
IV-23
-------
The National Cancer Institute (NCI, 1976) conducted a study on the
potential cardnogenicity of Kepone. Their report covered a year and
a half of laboratory studies in mice and rats. A new joint study is
being developed between NCI and the National Institute of
Environmental Health (NIZE) to examine the human carcinogenicity risk
associated with Kepone.
Envirogenics has recently been studying a process to destroy
chlorinated hydrocarbons through the use of catalysts which facilitate
the reduction of chlorine functional groups to form chlorides in
solution. Their experiments have utilized a copper-iron catalyst in a
reductive column with sand as the working substrate. Westgate
Research Corporation has experimented with the combined use of ozone
and ultraviolet irradiation in the degradation of Kepone. Details on
of the above studies are included in Appendix A.
•
MODELING EFFORTS FOR KEPONE TRACKING
The assessment of Kepone distribution and its migration pattern
must take into account the Kepone/sediment/river water interactions.
Because of the lack of existing verified generalized mathematical
models, engineers have had to rely on field studies or experience to
estimate the distribution of contaminant concentrations. Field
studies are useful to evaluate the present Kepone distributions in the
James River, but such measurements cannot be used to predict
-------
accurately the future Kepone inventory and its dispersion unless
hydrological and other conditions remain similar in the future to
those which prevail during the monitoring periods. To deal with such
eventualities, mathematical simulation must be undertaken.
Several model concepts were proposed for use in the Kepone
project. However, the only comprehensive model sufficiently developed
to be utilized in the time frame of the project was Battelle's- model
of the FETRA and SERATRA codes by Onishi at Battelle (Onishi, et al.,
1976, 1977a, 1977b, 1977c. The appropriateness of the model was
confirmed by a recent workshop on the evaluation of mathematical
models (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1978). The workshop indicated
that there are only two computer models, the FETRA and SERATRA codes,
presently available to calculate migration of contaminants by taking
into account the interaction between the contaminants and sediment
(e.g. contaminant adsorption by sediment, desorbtion from sediment,
deposition and resuspension of contaminated sediment) . Both models
are time-dependent, two-dimensional transport models that calculate
migration of sediment and dissolved and particulate pollutants. FETRA
solves longitudinal and lateral distributions of sediments and
contaminants, while SERATRA predicts longitudinal and vertical
concentrations. Because of the importance of lateral distributions of
Kepone in the tidal James River, the FETRA code was selected for this
study.
IV-25
-------
The Kepone Mitigation Feasibility Project Model
The Battelle mathematical model was adapted to simulate sediment
and Xepone transport and their interactions in the tidal James River.
This model simulates transport of Kepone by taking account of
Kepone/sediment/river water interactions. The original model was
developed for sediment and radionuclide transport prediction in the
Columbia River. The expanded model applied to the James River has
been verified both through comparisons of analytic and model
predictions and by comparison with field data from the James. This
verification/ as well as model results, are discussed in Section 711.
The detailed description of the model is contained in Appendix A of
this report.
The mathematical simulation of Kepone migration in the tidal James
River consisted of three submodels: (1) sediment transport model; (2)
dissolved contaminant transport model; and (3) particulate contaminant
transport model. The FETRA code, consisting of these three submodels,
then computes sediment and contaminant simulation for any given time.
Sediment transport has been modeled for three sediment types (i.e.,
cohesive sediments, noncohesive sediments, and organic matter). The
simulation of Xepone transport considers dissolved and particulate
Kepone (attached to sediments). Particulate Kepone has been analyzed
separately for that adsorbed by sediment in each sediment type. The
model covers the tidal portion of the James River to Burwell Bay.
17-26
-------
The output of the model assists in answering two key questions
related to Kepone contamination of the James River.
1. How much time will be required for the River to "cleanse"
itself through natural dispersion?
2. What volumes and concentrations of Kepone can be expected to
pass Burwell Bay and enter the Chesapeake Bay?
Other Modeling Efforts
A related modeling effort under development is that of
Dr. Donald O'Connor of Manhattan College, whose work has been
supported by EFA's Gulf Breeze Laboratory. However, this model has
not been developed for operational application to the James River
problem at this time. The model under development is an extension of
a water quality model for estuaries. The model design incorporates
physio-chemical mechanisms such as hydrodynamic transport, adsorption
to and desorption from the suspended and bed solids, and settling and
resuspension of these solids. The model will also address bio-
ecological phenomena such as assimilation and excretion routes through
the various components of the food chain.
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science is also developing
mathematical models to simulate transport of Kepone in the tidal
IV-27
-------
portion of the James River. One model simulates sediment transport,
including Kepone dissolved in water and Kepone adsorbed to sediment
particles. The model will include consideration of the turbidity
maximum with expansion to account for Kepone pathways through living
organisms. It will simulate the movement for a time period of days or
weeks. A, tidal-average model is being designed to simulate the Kepone
movement for a time period of months or years.
17-28
-------
V. KEPONE TRANSFER, TRANSPORT AND DISTRIBUTION
BEHAVIOR OF KEPONE IN SEDIMENTS, WATER COLUMNS, AND SPECIES
Kepone resides in the soil, sediments, water, and biota of the
Eopewell area and the Janes River Basin. Much of this contain-nation
has moved from where it was originally deposited. The translocation
continues at the present time and is an important factor in
determining the long-term implications of Kepone contamination. It
is, therefore, important to examine the various pathways by which
Kepone moved through the environment. The pathways include physical
and biological mechanisms in the air and water as diagrammed in
Exhibit V-1. Pathways examined for Kepone movement patterns '.neluded
volatilization, sorption-desorption, plant uptake, bioconcentration,
and physical movement of Kepone-laden suspended solids. Thes° are
discussed individually in the following sections. Kepone mo\3ment in
the James River is the subject of the sediment transport modeling
effort described in Chapter VII.
Volatilization
Laboratory studies revealed the lack of Kepone volatilization from
both water and sediment/water systems (Appendix C, No. 12; Appendix
A). The data suggest that volatilization is not a significant factor
in the fate of Kepone in the James River. Continued persistence of
Kepone in the James River supports these observations.
V-1
-------
fO
Exhibit V-l Kepone Pathways in the Fhvironment
-------
Sorption
Sorption dynamics predict that an equilibrium exists for Kepone
between sediment and water (Kd = (ppb water)/(ppb sediment)). Field
observations (Appendix C, No. 17; Appendix A) reflect higher
concentrations of Kepone in sediments as compared to Kepone
concentrations in water (at or below detection limits).
Partition coefficient (Kd) averages for water and sediment from
the James River near Hopewell are about 1 to 5 x 10-* (Appendix C, No.
17). These sediments contained high levels of organic carbon (13 to
20 percent) . In the field, Kepone concentrations 'are highest in the
larger-sized, high-organic particles (Appendix C, No. 17; Appendix A).
Laboratory studies (Appendix A; Appendix C, No. 12) with reference
sediments and with James River sediment revealed Kd values ranging
from 10-3 to 10-*. Sediments with higher organic content displayed
greater affinity for Kepone (marsh sediment; o.c. = 20 percent; Kd =
10-*). These coefficients were unchanged for a given sediment in
batch sorption tests when Kepone concentrations were varied 100-fold
(Appendix C, No. 12). Kepone partitioning was not affected by
salinity, temperature, aeration, or sunlight (Appendix C, No. 12 and
No. 17; Appendix A). Although high pB ranges affect Kepone sorption
between sediment and water, environmental pH ranges (6 to 8) do not
influence the partition coefficient (Appendix C, No. 17; Appendix A).
V-3
-------
Since the partition coefficient for Kepone is independent of
concentration, temperature, aeration, and sunlight for a given
sediment, a replacement of Kepone-contaminated water, with
uncontaminated water will predictably cause Kepone to desorb from the
sediment. Batch sorption experiments confirmed that Kepone was
desorbed from James River sediment by water replacement. Continuous-
flow sediment/water systems lost Kepone at constant rates and their
partition coefficients were similar to the batch experiments (Appendix
C, No. 12).
These considerations are important for predicting Kepone movement
in the James River. Due to Kepone's preference for sediments with
high organic content (Kd = 10-*), Kepone movement in the river is
dependent on sediment transport mechanisms. However, a dynamic
exchange between Kepone-contaminated sediment/water and uncontaminated
sediment/water influences Kepone transport predictions. Kepone in the
water of the James River is below conventional detection levels, but
it is still available for uptake by aquatic organisms.
Contaminated sediment provides a direct source of Kepone to some
organisms and acts as a continuing reservoir of Kepone for dissolution
into water. Accordingly, any major cleanup efforts will have to be
directed toward the sediments, where the bulk of the Kepone resides.
V-4
-------
Kepone Bioconcentratlon in Species
Although Kepone is intimately bound to sediments of the James
River, it can desoxb from those sediments, or organisms can extract it
from the sediments to become incorporated into laving systems. It can
be passed between organisms readily as one organism uses another as
food. Kepone is also available to animals from the water, but the
exact mechanisms of exchange is not fully understood.
Walsh, et al. (Appendix C, No. 4) has shown that unicellular algae
can readily bioconcentrate Kepone at many times the concentration
which had existed in the surrounding water. For the four marine algae
tested, Kepone bi©concentration factors ranged from 230 to 800 times
the amount of Kepone found in the surrounding water. Thus algae,
constituting an integral part of the James River food web, have the
potential of concentrating Kepone on a primary level and then making
it available to other species at higher levels.
Oysters, which filter the water for food, could consume
contaminated algae and increase the amount of Kepone in the
shellfish's body. Haven and Morales-Alano(Appendix C, No. 18) have
shown in lab experiments that oysters fCrassostrea virqinica) can
bioconcentrate Kepone from the surrounding water from quantities as
low as 0.082 ug/1 (ppb) to near (0.203 ug/g (ppm)) the FDA Action
Level for shellfish of 0.3 ug/g (ppm). They also showed different
V-5
-------
routes of Kepone transport even in the same species. Kepone
concentration usually ranged higher in the oyster feces (11,500 to
55,500 times), than in the "pseudofeces" (3,000 to 20,000 times).
Pseudofeces are particles rejected by the shellfish as unfit to eat
and which never enter the mouth. Banner, et al. (Appendix C, No. 9)
has shown in oysters a Kepone bioconcentration factor from water of
approximately 9,300 times the amount of Kepone in the surrounding
water.
Animals can gain Kepone by uptake from the water, from ingested
sediments, and from eating contaminated organisms or their remains
(Appendix C, No. 5, 18 and 14). The alosin fish group, such as
alewife, shad and herring, filter the water to extract small particles
of food. Through this process, Kepone could enter the fish, but it is
not clear if dissolved Kepone is leaving the water as it passes over
gill membranes, or if Kepone attached to suspended particulate
material is consumed with the food particles.
For lugworms (Arenicola cristata) and probably for other benthic
invertebrates, Kepone can accumulate through feeding contact with
contaminated water. Kepone was acutely toxic to lugworms during a
144 hour experiment at a concentration of 29.5 ug/1 (ppb) (Appendix C,
No. 13). In addition, James River sediments with 0.25 ug/g Kepone
were toxic to lugworms and fiddler crabs (Uca puqilator). These
animals ingested the sediments and accumulated high burdens of Kepone.
V-6
-------
No lugworms survived more than 21 days of exposure to the sediments,
while fiddler crabs did not appear to be affected by exposure to
Kepone, but depuration was slow (Bahner, et al. in preparation).
Bluefish, carnivores at the top of the food web in the James River
ecosystem, eat large quantities of other fish, such as alewives,
menhaden, etc. When bluefish enter the James River in the spring, as
part of their annual northward migration, they generally have
nondetectable to low amounts of Kepone. After several weeJcs in the
river, they may approximate or exceed the FDA Action Level of
0.3 parts per million for fish (Bender, et al. 1977).
Blue crabs (Callinectes sapidusl from the James River averaged
0.19 ug/g Kepone for females and 0.81 ug/g for males. The males spend
a greater proportion of their lives in the river system than do
females and this habit probably accounts for the observed difference
in Kepone body residues (Bender, et al. 1977a).
Kepone was administered to blue crabs CCallinectes sapidus) in
seawater (0.03 or 0.3 ng/1) or food (oysters at 0.25 ug/g). The crabs
were found to take up Kepone in the 56 day experiment primarily
through contaminated food (oysters). When the crabs were held for 28
days in Kepone-free water and with Kepone-free oysters, no loss of
Kepone was evident. In a second phase of the experiment conducted
over a 90-day period, blue crabs were fed oysters (0.15 ug/g Kepone)
V-7
-------
from the James River and laboratory-contaminated oysters .(0.15 or
1.9 ug/g Kepone). Blue crabs fed Kepone-contaminated oysters followed
by a diet of Kepone-free oysters for 90 days had detectable
concentrations of Kepone in their tissues. Crabs, which ate oysters
containing Kepone in concentrations similar to those found in James
River oysters, died or molted less frequently than blue crabs fed
Kepone-free oyster meats {Appendix C, No. 11).
KZPONE DEGRADATION BY PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL MEANS
Kepone is an extremely stable member of the cyclodiene
insecticides and there is no evidence to date that Kepone degrades
under natural conditions in the environment. Consequently, total
Kepone residuals in the environment can be expected to remain
relatively constant, with their distribution reflecting the natural
movement of soil, sediment or organisms.
The half-life of Kepone in the environment has not been
determined, but laboratory evidence suggests it may be on the order of
decades. Natural photochemical degradation by sunlight was examined
by Battelle (Appendix A), and in all cases sediment Kepone levels
remained unchanged throughout the exposure period. Photochemical
degradation will be discussed more fully in Chapter Till.
7-8
-------
Many destruction techniques were examined in the nonconventional
mitigation examinations, but in no cases were any of the processes
occurring naturally in the environment. Laboratory data imply that
sediment covering and mixing, gradual solubilization, and dilution may
disperse the Kepone to harmless levels over time.
Kepone Biodecrradation in the Natural Environment
Practically all of the studies which have examined the possibility
of Kepone degradation in the environment by microorganisms, have
concluded that there is little potential for biogradation of Kepone.
Typically, these studies have examined contaminated James River
sediments in the laboratory under aerobic and anaerobic conditions
over extended periods of time.
Studies by Garnas, et al., and Bourguin, et al. (Appendix c. No.
12 and 10) of the Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory
employed static water/sediment systems to assess both biological and
non-biological degradation of Kepone. Sediments with and without
Kepone contamination were taken from the James River and used in these
systems. The fate of Kepone was monitored using radiolafcelled
Carbon 14 material and total budget chemical analysis. The
investigators employed a variety of experimental conditions including
oxygen concentration, nutrient additions, Kepone levels, sediment
sources, sunlight, temperature, and salinity. Gulf Breeze studies
V-9
-------
indicate that Kepone does not degrade (i.e. complete recovery of
Kepone after extended incubation periods) either biologically or
chemically in Gulf Breeze's laboratory systems. The above data
suggest that degradation processes will not significantly reduce the
levels of Kepone now found in the water and sediment of the Janes
River.
Data submitted by Allied chemical showed essentially no decline in
soil concentration after 154 days (EPA, 1975a). No evidence of
microbial dehalogenation of Kepone could be found in the literature
(Appendix A). Work by Vind (1976) in both aerobic and anaerobic
seawater solutions over a 12-month period produced no measurable
Kepone reduction.
Or. Rita Colvell, of the University of Maryland, has grown Kepone-
resistant bacteria in media made of Kepone as the nutrient. Kepone
resistance appears to be piasmid mediated and resistance is dependent
on exposure of the bacteria to the Kepone and possession of an extra-
chromosomal Kepone resistance factor (Orndorf f, et al., in press).
Or. Ralph Valentine, of Atlantic Research corporation, believes
they have a series of fungi which will degrade Kepone. One isolate
showed 41 percent disappearance of Kepone in 22 to 31 days (Appendix
A). However, these experiments have been performed only in the
laboratory, and no scaling-up has been attempted. These fungi
7-10
-------
probably cannot compete under natural conditions, thus their
usefulness is restricted to controlled conditions.
Effects of Kepone on Estuarine Microorganisms
Results at the Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory
(Appendix C) of tests with laboratory cultures and natural
environmental assemblages show that Kepone is toxic to some bacteria.
Kepone concentrations as low as 0.2 mg/1 (ppm) significantly reduced
the number of colony-forming units for James River water samples.
However, since Kepone was not universally toxic, some laboratory
cultures and environmental isolates survived and exhibited resistance.
In toxicity studies using anaerobically grown microorganisms, Kepone
was not as toxic as it was for aerobically grown microorganisms
(Appendix C, No. 10).
Kepone has also been shown to affect the biodegradation potential
of natural microorganisms from the James River (Appendix C) . In
systems containing James River sediments, the usual rate of
degradation of the pesticide, methyl parathion, was reduced by
60 percent in the presence of Kepone. These studies show that Kepone
could be disruptive to metabolic destruction of other organic
pollutants and could alter metabolic processes in the James River
estuary.
7-11
-------
Kepone Biological Transport
Since Kepone is concentrated in animal tissues, it is subject to
movement as the organism moves. Migratory fishes move into the James
River to spawn and return to the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic
Ocean. The young of these species remain in the James River until
they are sufficiently grown to leave the area. Resident species stay
in the river, but may move extensively within certain sections of the
river during their lifetime. Finfish Kepone levels from the James
River have varied greatly, with residue levels being dependent on
species and length of residence for migratory fishes. Average Kepone
residues in freshwater fish varied from 0.04 to 2.4 ug/g (ppm). Long-
term resident estuarine finfish had mean concentrations between 0.6
and 2.7 ug/g (ppm). Short-term resident marine finfish (American shad
and menhaden) showed low Kepone residues averaging less than 0.1 ug/g
(ppm), while spot and croaker, which reside in the river for longer
periods, had higher residues averaging 0.81 to 0.75 ug/g (ppm),
respectively (Bender, et al.. 1977).
The best available data of the many biological transport
components is the commercial fish catch, but the application and
interpretation of these data are complex. In the computation of the
fish biomasa which could contain Kepone, the following assumptions
apply:
V-12
-------
1. The limited field samples are representative of the entire
catch;
2. The laboratory data are applicable to the field situation;
3. The migratory species are resident within the James River for
sufficiently long to accumulate Kepone to equilibrium levels.
Using the biomass estimates of the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science (Bender, 1977a), Battelle Laboratories estimated the maximum
Kepone in the migratory commercial fish species of the James River to
be approximately 125 kg (275 Ib). In early phases of the Kepone
problem, fish samples along the Atlantic coast were tested for Kepone.
Levels generally were well below the present Action Levels or non-
detectable (FDA, 1977). Compared to the potential of 20,000 to
40,000 pounds of Kepone in the James River, the annual removal of
Kepone from the James River by migratory fishes will involve small
amounts with a large dispersal of these fishes along the Atlantic
coast with subsequent "dilution1* of the Kepone.
V-13
-------
DISTRIBUTION OF KEPONE
The Battalia Laboratories have conducted an intensive sampling
program for Kepone in the HopewelI/Bailey Bay area (Exhibit V-2). The
objective was to determine the location and quantity of Kepone
deposits which might exist in the region. More than 900 samples were
collected during this survey.
Bailey Bay and its Tributary Streams
The main component of the Bailey Bay sampling program was the
collection of core samples of bottom sediment. Cores were obtained
from all parts of the bay and analyzed for Kepone content. These
results were used to establish the present distribution of Kepone
throughout Bailey Bay, including its vertical profile. Cores were
also collected from Bailey Creek, Poythress Run, Gravelly Run, Cattail
Creek, and the western side of Tar Bay.
The results of Kepone analysis of sediment samples collected by
Battelle from Bailey Bay and its major tributaries are presented in
Exhibit V-3. Data represent average Kepone concentration in
homogenized cores to a depth of 30 cm (12 in). Kepone was found
throughout most of the bay deposited in a "Y1* or yoke-shaped pattern.
The tail of the yoke begins in Bailey Creek. The arms extend up the
eastern and western shorelines of the Bailey Bay. The mid-bay area
7-14
-------
Cicy Point
North
Life Science
Site
Hopevell
Landfill &
Treatment
Plant
Bailey Bay
Allied's Semi-Works
Plant
&»>--1Iravelly Run
^ 3i»
to
PAN Plant Q
Irene
\ >Corps of Engineers
Sampling Sice
Exhibit V-2
Location of Key Features in Hopewell, Virginia
V-15
-------
CP>
*167 ug/o Kepone found at 4 In. below surface level
Exhibit V-3 Results of Kepone Analysis In Sediment Cores (pg/g-ppm)
-------
has a markedly lower overall level of contamination. The deposition
pattern coincides with the path of Bailey Creek water which is tidally
influenced. Extrapolating from these data, there is estimated to be
540 leg (1,188 Ib) of Kepone in Bailey Bay (Appendix A).
Kepone concentrations in sediment cores froji tributaries of Bailey
Bay are illustrated in Exhibit V-3. The core displaying, the highest
Kepone level was from the upper Poythress Run lowland which receives
runoff from Nitrogen Park. No outlets exist at this lowland and hence
the 66.14 ug/g (ppm) Kepone concentration reflects accumulation over
time from contaminated runoff as well as possible atmospheric
deposition from the Kepone production period. Other high readings,
30.5 ug/g (ppm), (167 ug/g at 4n below surface) and 12.6 ug/g (ppm)
(43.5 ug/g at 6" below surface) were at the mouth of Bailey Creek. In
Bailey Creek, Kepone levels increased from the Highway 156 crossing to
a point just upstream of the confluence of Cattail Creek. Especially
high Kepone concentrations were found in the area where landfill
runoff and seeps near the disposal lagoon enter Bailey Creek. The
same increase in Kepone with, movement downstream is true of Cattail
Creek itself.
V-17
-------
Vertical Distribution in Sediment Cores
Kepone analyses were undertaken for vertical sections of repre-
sentative cores. The results are shown in Exhibit V-U. The cores
from the mouth of Bailey Creek, the western shore, and Jordan Point
display a be«l-like distribution, with the maximum concentration of
Kepone occurring at four to eight inches below the surface. There are
several possibilities for this type of distribution. It is possible
that the Kepone deposition at depth corresponds to the maximum
production and subsequent decline of Kepone production by Life Science
Products, but this would have meant an extremely high sediment
deposition rate. Another hypothesis is that Kepone could have been
lost from surface layers through desorption. Flowing water over the
bottom could have extracted the Kepone and carried it downstream.
Neither supposition has been adequately proven, but the latter
corresponds well with subsequent model results which showed 65 to
70 percent of Kepone movement in the James River to be the result of
solubilized Kepone. The cores from the middle of Bailey Bay and Tar
Bay have high surface contamination levels which rapidly decline with
depth, but these are also areas outside of the main flow of the
channel.
V-18
-------
Exhibit V-U
KCPONE DISTRIBUTION IN SEDIMENT CORES WITH DEPTH (ppra)
Midway
Depth from
Surfai e (111.)
1
*
3
4
5
b
7
b
9
10
11
12
IJ
14
15
16
Uulley Creek Above
Route 10 Bridge
0.81
0.59
I.JO
0.78
16.46
2.91
65.14
19.17
0.90
0.45
Bailey Creek
Mould
1.36
1.66
2.54
3.88
14.07
40.74
42.29
13.87
4.J4
0.86
<0.51
<0.42
<0.19
<0.10
<0. 14
<0.04
Uulley Creek
Moutli
9.44
10.55
46.53
167.0
102.0
18.34
5.12
0.55
0.41
0.37
0.31
0.36
0.38
0.14
Gravelly Run
Mouth
<0.34
-------
Organic Preference
Sediments sampled by Battelle from three locations around Bailey
Bay were analyzed for Kepone concentration and there appears to be a
correlation between Kepone concentration, organic content, and
particle size. Kepone is preferentially associated with the larger
organic particles in the sediment and this observation coincides with
those made by Allied Chemical (Williams, 1977) and by the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science (Huggett, et al. 1977). This correlation
suggests that detrital matter has an important role in the binding and
transport of Kepone.
Kepone Distribution in the Hooewell Area
Production Area Runoff
Runoff sampling was conducted by Battelle at the Life Science
Products plant site on May 4, 1977, when 5.8 cm (2.3 in) of
precipitation fell on the City of Hopewell. Runoff samples collected
at the Life science Products site had elevated Kepone concentrations
of 387 and 394 ug/1 (ppb).
Runoff samples were also collected in the area of the Allied
Chemical Semi-Works plant. On August 7, 1977 after a rainfall of
0.25 cm (0.1 in) standing water on the site was found to contain
V-20
-------
54.1 ug/1 {ppb) Kepone. Water discharging from a nearby drainpipe
into Gravelly Run contained 3.38 ug/1 (ppb) Kepone. A second detailed
sampling of overland runoff was conducted in November in the open
areas in the neighborhood of the former plant site. Sample locations
and Kepone levels are shown in Exhibit v-5. Runoff samples showed a
sample from the Life Science Products site to contain 687 ug/1 (ppb),
while other samples further away ranged from 1.08 to 96.6 ug/1 (ppb).
Overland Runoff
To estimate the effect of runoff on Kepone movement, a series of
water samples was taken by Battelle along creeks in the area during
low flow (May 19, 1977) and runoff conditions (May 16, September 7,
October 3, 1977). The results of subsequent Kepone analyses are
presented in Exhibit V-6. Zn all cases, high runoff conditions in the
creeks increased the total Kepone concentration over those observed
during low flow with the possible exception of the mouth of Gravelly
Run, where both samples were extremely low.
A second set of Bailey Creek water samples was collected on
January 12 and 13, 1978 to delineate Kepone transport in "that area.
The results of this analysis were compared with earlier data and
conditions in the creek. Highest Kepone concentrations occurred on
days when runoff was heavy. At the mouth, the effect is most notable
during slack tide. The January 12, 1978 flood tide sample at the
V-21
-------
(1.G6) (4.32) (1.03) OS"/
R13 R14 R15 R7
(7.32;
^?^fe^'^V'"
Rll R12 R17
R16 R9 R8
R2
RIO
u i p
V-5 Runoff Scfnpl'-^g Locations »nc
-------
(1.66) (4.32) (1.08) C667J
R13 R14 R15 R7
(25.20) (11.83) (9.82) (7.33)
R6 R5 R3 R4
Rll R12 R17
(1.50)(20.78)(3.39)
R16 R9 R8 R2 RIO Rl
(96.6) (13.86)(U.77) (14.08) (2.68) (6.73)
EXHIBIT V-5 Runoff Sampling Locations and Kercne Concentrations
Open Areas Around the Life Sciences Site (11/29/77)
(ug/l - ppb)
in
V-22
-------
IX)
. .17 low flow
.36 runoff
4 runoff
.OIJ runoff
09 low flow4""
11 runoff
runoff
.96 runofV
.13 low flow
.19 runoff
Exhibit V-6
Effect of Runoff on Movement of Kepone In Hopewe11 Area Concentrations Ju |ig/£
-------
mouth suggested that water from Bailey Bay did not affect Kepone
concentrations. The effect of varying pH levels cannot be fully
assessed. The high pH values were all found near the mouth and
consequently, the high Kepone levels in that same area may reflect
higher solubilities under these conditions.
An approximation of the total quantity of Kepone transported from
streams during low flow and runoff conditions was made using these
data and data for streamflow at the point of sampling. These data
indicate that during high flow periods, there is approximately 20
times the Kepone .discharged per day as there is during dry weather
flow. An observation which must temper this conclusion is that there
are many seeps and nonpoint sources which could add to the total
Kepone burden in Bailey Bay. It is also important that these
tributaries are tidally influenced so some Kepone may be cycled back
to Bailey Creek with incoming tides.
In general, Kepone concentrations in runoff are highest near the
Life Science Products plant site and decline as one moves outward.
From these values and the stream data, an estimated 64 grams (0.14 Ib)
per day of Kepone is transported to the James River system from the
Hopewell area during average periods of rainfall. During dry times,
the total is 3 to 4 g/day (Appendix A).
V-24
-------
Groundwater
In May 1977, groundwater samples were collected from three private
wells and eight state Water Control Board (SWCB) monitoring wells.
All wells tested were shallow and penetrated only localized
groundwater sources. Detectable levels of Kepone were restricted to
three wells: the monitoring well near the Kepone Pit at the Hopewell
sanitary landfill (0.24 ug/l-ppb), the south monitoring well at the
Kepone/sludge lagoon (0.81 ug/l-ppb), and the J.w. Quick private well
(0.08 ug/l-ppb).
Soils
The runoff data of Battelle revealed that portions of the Hopewell
area still contributed Kepone to the James River via uptake from soil
surfaces. Data from a sampling of surface soils from around the
Hopewell area are presented in Exhibit V-7. Detectable levels of
Kepone were found at all stations including one station on Eppes
Island across the James River and one across the Appomattox River.
Kepone concentrations in soil were generally found to increase at
stations located nearest the site of the Life Science Products plant
as might be expected. Samples taken in the vicinity around the plant
had from 1.91 to 938 ug/g (ppm) Kepone. A single sample from the
northwest corner of the plant site was found to contain 1,540 ug/g
V-25
-------
Cf\
• rt»y 1971
T 9/27/J7
• IU/3/77
O 9/J/77
Uasults of Soil Analysis In Hopewell Area (ng/g-ppin)
Exhibit V-7
-------
(ppm). This area had been used for storage and did not appear to have
been cleaned with the rest of the site, soil samples away from the
Life Science Products site on the perimeter of the city averaged
0.1 ug/g (ppm) (Exhibit 7-8).
Surface soil levels in Nitrogen Park were 9.19, 29.2, 30.2, 104
and 770 ug/g (ppn). A vertical analysis at one sample site in
Nitrogen Park revealed the following Kepone concentration changes with
depth:
Depth
(in.)
1
2
3
U
5
6
7
8
9
10
Kepone Concentration
U<7/<7 (PPDl)
29.2
0.76
0.35
0.31
0.097
0.060
0.038
0.091
0.23
0.80
The vertical distribution of Kepone in the soil of Nitrogen Park
suggests that Kepone has migrated from the upper layers and has become
concentrated at the eight to ten inch level. No explanation has been
found for the Kepone concentration at this level.
Several other sites were sampled at depth to ascertain if
percolation of Kepone was widespread. These samples were similar to
V-27
-------
(2.96) (4.53) (1.91) (56.6)
S26 S38 S39 $25
(15^0) (44.7) (33.5) (7.45) (61.0) (6.30)
S37 S32 S33 S36 S31
S23 S24 528 S30 S22 S29 S21 S34 S20 S35
(8.87) (10.78) (8.67) (0.93) (10.33) (4.78) (122.0) (938.0) (30.9) (71.6)
Exhioit V-8
Soil Sampling Locations and Kepone Concentrations in Open
Areas Around the Life Science Site (2/4/78) (ug/g-pp*)
V-28
-------
those from Nitrogen Park in that Kepone concentrations dropped an
order of magnitude from the first to the second inch of surface soil.
Previous data reported by the Virginia State Water control Board
of cores collected while drilling a monitoring well in Nitrogen Park
had indicated Kepone as low as 6. 1 meters (20 ft) below the surface.
Consequently, hand-augered cores were collected by Battelle at two
sites to determine the distribution with depth. Kepone was detectable
to a depth of 3.05 m (10 ft). At both locations, concentrations were
found to increase measurably at the 1.8 to 2.5 meters (6 to 8 ft)
zone, reaching a Kepone concentration as high as 0.062 ug/g (ppm).
This unequal distribution in the soil column may represent differences
in sorption by various soil strata, or it may coincide with vertical
movement of Kepone from the surface.
Hopewell Sewer System
Influent Kepone levels at the Hopewell treatment plant were
measured by Battelle at 0.77 and 0.44 ug/1 (ppb), while the effluent
contained 0.57 and 0.49 ug/1 (ppb) Kepone. It is clear that Kepone
was either never completely cleaned from the system or is" still
entering the Hopewell sewer system and subsequently being discharged
in treatment plant effluent. Surveys of major sewer trunklines were
conducted to determine the geographical distribution of Kepone inflow
sources. Results of these wastewater and slime samples from all pump
V-29
-------
stations and manholes tested were found to have measurable Kepone
concentrations ranging from 0.085 to 4.88 ug/1 (ppb). Slimes ranged
between 0.12 and 118 ug/g (ppm). The 118 ug/g figure was detected at
the main pump station.
It is hypothesized that the Kepone present was adsorbed or
otherwise accumulated by the slime from Kepone inflows during the Life
Science Products production of 1974-1975. Currently, these deposits
help maintain the levels of Kepone found in wastewater. This nay
occur when Kepone-contaminated growth breaks away from the walls and
enters the sewage as suspended solids or it may occur through
desorption of the Kepone from the slime. Recent levels of 0.5 ug/1
(ppb) account for an average Kepone effluent discharge of 5.69 grams
per day. Higher Kepone concentrations occur periodically as A
function of increased precipitation. During periods of high runoff,
daily Kepone discharges were found to be 37.6 grains. This is over six
times the dry weather contribution. The effluent from the Hopewe11
primary treatment plant now flows to the new Regional treatment plant
where Kepone may well be removed through sorption on sludge.
Consequently, the above calculated inputs of Kepone to the James River
may be reduced or eliminated.
V-30
-------
Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate Plant Site
Little has been reported about the disposal of Kepone and related
wastes in the vicinity of Hopewell. In the latter part of 1974,
pressure was exerted on Life Science Products to reduce the amount of
Kepone discharged from its facilities into the city sewer system. The
State Water Control Board discovered that Kepone was interfering with
the digesters at the Hopewell treatment plant (Senate Hearings, 1976).
As a result. Life Science Products looked for alternative means for
disposing of its contaminated wastewater. In December of 1974,
discharge of wastewater began at the site of the Pebbled Ammonium
Nitrate (PAN) plant.
The PAN site lies along the southern edge of the state Highway 10,
approximately one-half mile west of Bailey Creek. It is relatively
isolated in an industrial area of town. In 1970 Allied Chemical sold
the deserted plant and site, which was subsequently used by Greenbank
Services, Inc. for salvage, storage, office space, and sand
quarrying.
The 6.1 meter (20 ft) wide trench into which the wastewater was
discharged measured roughly 1.2 meters (4 ft) deep by 11 meters
(35 ft) long. It lay above a steep ravine where drainage flowed
outward through a culvert under Highway 10 into a marsh. Water flows
in a northerly direction through the marsh for approximately one
V-31
-------
quarter mile, then *.urns east and joins Bailey Creek below the Highway
10 bridge.
There are no good estimates currently for either the amount of
Life Science Products wastewater discharged into the trench or the
water13 concentration of Kepone. it is known that the trench received
wastewater on a regular basis, perhaps daily, from December 1974 into
the summer of 1975. A single homogenized core from 1976 state water
Control Board (unpublished data) showed nearly 3 percent Kepone
(27,325 ug/g-ppm) .
Battelle sampled the PAN site on October 3, 1977 and
November 22, 1977. These data showed Kepone-contaminated soil in the
area of the trench, with highest levels found at 4 feet (1,863 ug/g-
ppm) . Apparent horizontal movement in the surface soil occurred in
the natural drainage direction with surface samples downstream
reaching 84.3 ug/g (ppm) Kepone. Samples taken on the west face of
the quarry pit revealed very low Kepone levels with no real variation
with depth.
After review of data, auger samples were supplemented with deep
core drilling of 15 meters (50 ft) and hand core sampling. Some of
these sample locations and subsequent results are presented in Exhibit
7-9. A variability of nearly three orders of magnitude was found at
the sites. Values of Kepone concentration for the cores ranged from
V-32
-------
PAN 4
0.63-Surface
PAN 3
84.3 Surface
PAN 2
0.22-Surface
PAN 9
0.35-Surface
*- PAN 5
0.36-Surfacs
PAN 7
0.28-Surface
PANS
69.2-Surfacs
PAN 6
2.46-3urface
T5 T4 PAN1 73 n T2
0.32-5' 1.06 483-fly 1863-4' 0,143-4.5'
0.48-5' ash com- ,,- g gtx
posite - ^ /-**3 I
1-4'
(6.08-5')
Exhibit 7-9
Auger Sampling Locations and Results November 23, 1977
(yg/g-ppn) (Depth in feet of saaple follows results.)
V-33
-------
0.001 to 6.13 ug/g (ppm) with two-thirds of the readings below
0.050 ug/g (ppm). Only three concentrations exceeded 1.0 ug/g (ppm).
Strata from some of the cores were also analyzed for
hexachlorocyelopentadiene (ECF). Hexachlorocyclopentadiene residuals
were approximately comparable to those for Kepone, except for one core
where as much as 192 ug/g (ppm) HOP were found at 5.8 to 6.1 m (19 to
20 ft).
Water samples were collected by Battelle from several locations at
the PAN site during a rainstorm. Results of the sampling showed the
highest level of Kepone (89.35 ug/1) originated from the disposal
trench area and flowed into the small reservoir behind an earthen dam.
All other runoff also contained Kepone levels from 0.13 to 7.04 ug/g
(ppm) .
From the data collected at the PAN site, Battelle estimated the
quantity of Kepone in the disposal trench (37 m2-400 ft*) would not
exceed 100 kg (220 Ib), while HCP was estimated at 23 kg (50 Ib).
Both Kepone and HCP in one core showed marked concentration increases
between 6.1 meters (20 ft) and 10.7 meters (35 ft), suggesting
horizontal movement within that layer.
-------
Cores were also taken in the marsh and bed of Moody's Creek, which
receives runoff from the PAN site. Results did not indicate the
presence of any major zone of Kepone in the Moody*s creek drainage.
The Kepone/Sludge Lagoon
As noted earlier, a 5,700 m3 (1.5 million gal) lagoon was
constructed to hold contaminated sludge from the Eopewell treatment
plant digesters. The lagoon is a 33.5 meters (110 ft) by 58 meters
(190 ft) rectangular holding pond formed by earthen dikes. It has a
maximum depth of 2.13 meters (7 ft) and is reportedly lined with a
layer of clay and two layers of gravel impregnated with asphaltic
material (Keener, et al. 1976). The potential that this lagoon could
contribute Kepone-contaminated leachate to Bailey creek led to a
series of investigations by Battelle throughout the spring of 1977.
Initially, attention was paid to the monitoring of seeps discovered in
the area (Exhibits V-10, 11).
Additional water samples were taken on August 15, 1977 from the
lagoon, the marsh seep E, seep C, monitoring well No. 5 in the
landfill just upgradient from the lagoon and the monitoring well (No.
8) at the south end of the lagoon. These were then subjected to a
series of chemical analyses to determine if further evidence could
link water in the lagoon to that discharged by the seeps.
V-35
-------
sues
Well i?8
Puddle A
Kepane Sludge
Lagoon
Seep
A - Mud Puddle in road - apparent seepage into this puddle.
8 - Seep into creek out of hill side, <6.1 cfs.
C - Small seep, wet ground, no noticeable above ground flow.
D - Seep into creek from hillside, 0.1-0.2 cfs.
E - Seep or flow from marsh, upstream from sewage outflow but
could be influenced by it.
Location of Sample Sites Around Kepone Sludge
Lagoon
Exhibit 7-10
-------
Exhibit V-ll KEPONK LEVELS IN THE VICINITY OF THE SLUDGE LAGOON
I
^
l....iiili..i
____ Kcpone Cuncciurat Inn
Hay 2B (ii«7t-l»ph) July B
In Ruml
5.26
B-Sit-p Nt.ir Crc<-k '0.1 «.!• 0.84
C-(hiUi I'Jli-h at Baac of Hill 0.20
U-Scup HI Hiau. O.I-0.2 elf 0.22
k-baup In HdLli Area. .S l/aec 17.40
»-Sei-p bviiua Hi Bank
IUB....M 9/.5U
0.40
<.I2
IB. 16
Generate Soil Sept • 6 Supitnln-r H..v. II
July 6 (uK/t-ppl.) July 8 (IIB/M-PIM.) (lig/l-iipi.) (l.d/t-lM-b) (|i«/»-ppb)
.17. .09 - Ulfca
0.47
<.I7
18.41
211
-Ol
1.88
.01
».17
71 i* Jhl*
77.1
41 S
Ib. H
1 - S.mplnl 9-It
1 - &.wiplei| 9-16
• - S^nplud «-26
-------
Results of Kepone analysis showed all seeps had detectable levels
of Kepone; B and E exceeded levels measured in the monitoring well on
the south corner of the lagoon. They are also much higher than the
0.05 ug/1 (ppb) detected in the same seeps by State officials in 1976
(SHCB, 1976a). Centrifuging did not reduce the Kepone levels and,
hence, they appear to result from the dissolved form rather than
particulate Kepone or Kepone .sorbed onto particles. Desorption tests
with contaminated soil in the area of the seep produced no more than
0.72 ug/1 (ppb) after 90 days contact.
Samples taken in September revealed much higher levels of
contamination, including 77.3 ug/1 (ppb) Kepone in a new seep (F)
discovered at the base of the embankment below the lagoon and a value
of 361 ug/1 (ppb) Kepone from the source of seep E.
From the parameters measured, Battelle concluded that a link
exists between the two water sources: the lagoon and seep £. In
addition to the previously discussed correlation in Kepone values,
there are significantly higher concentrations of phosphate, chloride,
fluoride, conductivity, antimony, hardness, pH, and alkalinity in
these two samples than in any of the other (Exhibit v-12f. Indeed, of
the parameters tested, only sulfate and nitrate did not correspond.
All paramters would not be expected to reflect the same dilution
ratios since varying levels of interaction with the soil would be
expected. Hence, phosphate, which often precipitates out in soil, may
V-38
-------
Exhibit V-12 COMPARATIVE VALUES FOR COMPONENTS FOUND IN THE KEPONE SLUDGE
LAGOON, SEEPS, AND NEARBY WATER
Ji'LS S°t
I. IdgUIHI J.7S
i. Haiiili Si-af Ha. E J^6
1. llJln Seep Nn. C 110
4 l-.ui.ll III M«| I -I
b. I-...I.I U, II <|
* - -
IMtd IKIU fnaiilu* ot July 8.
J'l"
rtl4 Total
72.)
l.i
.76
i;
.7J
F
16. i
i.o
2 0
l.i
VP1 Pfb .
I. IS Jl]
.68 18.41
.17 <.I7
.17
.17
•Icro •liua/n
Conductivity
1.220
1 .0811
600
2 DO
740
ffb
Am ln.ii>>
57
17
'16
HOl-H
S.I
^
6.4
i.a
'1
ILiiduuiia
116
118
84
58
52
7.9
7.7
6.6
7..'
1.1
AUollnUj
J6O
114
40
HB
81
-------
appear to be more effectively diluted than chloride which is quits
mobile.
From the above analysis, there is good probability that Kepone is
leaking from the Kepone/sludge lagoon. Kepone concentrations in seeps
are markedly higher than reported in 1976, and those for E exceed all
levels in the creek, sewage treatment plant outfall, and other
potential sources of Kepone. However, it should be noted that
clandestine dumping in the area could have occurred, thus feeding
leachate without input from the lagoon.
Hopewell Landfill
Records and statements by former life Science Products employees
have revealed that Kepone-contaminated residues were discharged at the
Hopewell landfill. While some disposal locations are well known,
little has been reported on their contents, and no single authority
has accumulated a composite picture of where all the sites were within
the landfill, when they were in use, and what they received.
Locational information has been gathered and summarized in Exhibit V-
13.
The Life Science Products plant burial pit is the site where
2,100 m3 (2,300 yd') of rubble from dismantling the facility were
buried and marked with a permanent plaque. The miscellaneous waste
V-40
-------
LANDFILL
BOUNDARY
LIFE SCIENCE
PLANT BURIAL PIT
MISCELLANEOUS WASTE
DISPOSAL FROM LIFE
SCIENCE (1974)
LIE SCIENCE .
BULK DISCHARGE AREA
UNCONFINED
CONTAMINATED
SEWAGE SLUDGE
DISPOSAL
LINED
CONTAMINATED
SEWAGE SLUDGE PIT
EXHIBIT V-13 Known and Suspected Deposits of Kepone in the Hopewell Landfi
ll
-------
disposal site was utilized during 1974 for plant wastes from Life
Science Products. This included refuse and it is unknown what amounts
of Kepone, if any, were deposited there. The Bulk Discharge Area is a
general zone thought to have received a bulk discharge of Kepone.
Testimony on file at the State Attorney General's office indicates
that in late October 1974, oil entered the quench tank at Life science
Products. Two spetic tank cleaning trucks were brought in to pump out
several loads apiece. These were discharged at the head of an
embankment at the landfill and were allowed to run down into an
adjacent marsh. On November 30, 1977 a series of water samples and
cores were collected by Battelie to identify significant Kepone
outflows from the landfill. Runoff samples revealed elevated Kepone
concentrations below the bulk discharge disposal site. Samples from
other suspected or known disposal sites have measurable Kepone levels,
but these are comparable to values detected throughout the Hopewe11
area and; therefore, do not display surface contamination different
from that of nondisposal areas, of the remaining sites, only two had
runoff with Kepone in excess of 1 ug/1 (ppb): one below the
miscellaneous waste disposal area, and one from the lined sewage
sludge disposal pit. No runoff sample was taken in the area around
the unconfined sewage sludge disposal site.
Results of Kepone analysis for 30 centimeter (12 in) cores from
the landfill site are presented in Exhibit V-1U. The bulk of the
V-42
-------
(0.004)
SI
(0.50)
(0.94) I (2.23)(2.42) (0.94) (0.13)
W2 W6 Wl W9 W10 W7
C3 C2 C4 Cl
(5.41) |
(10,160)
C5
(2.63)
C in ug/g (top 4 inches)
S i n ug/g
W i n ug/ I
EXHIBIT y-lA Landfill Sampling Locations and °esults of Kepone Analyses
November 30, 1977
V-43
-------
contamination occurs in the top 10 centimeters (4.in) of soil. One
sample* the C2 site, exceeded 1 percent Kepone (10,160 ug/g-ppm).
This site corresponds with the high runoff values identified and
reflects an area of major discharge. Additional sampling was
performed to determine the extent of contamination in the marsh area.
Concentrations of Kepone found in the surface sediments of the
marsh samples are presented in Exhibit V-15. These ranged from a low
of 2.2 ug/g (ppm) to a high of 35,163 ug/g (ppm). A pentagonal
section approximately 1,000 m* (0.25 acre) in area contains sediments
averaging 12,200 ug/g (ppm) or 1.2 percent Kepone in the top 4 inches.
Variations in Kepone concentrations with depth occurs. Kepone
concentrations below an average of a 4-in. depth are roughly an order
of magnitude less and quickly drop to levels in the tens of parts per
million range. Based on 1,000 m* (0.25 acre) of sediments
(1,122 kg/m3, 70 lb/ft3 dry) contaminated to an average level of
12,200 ug/g (ppm) in the top 10 cm (4 in.), it is estimated that
1,i»00 kg (3,100 Ib) of Kepone currently lie in the marsh. This is
78 percent of the estimated 1,800 kg (4,000 Ib) that were released
into the Bulk Discharge Area.
V-44
-------
SECONDARY
CHANNEL
BOUNDARY
100 FEET
(APPROXIMATE)
Exhibit V-15
Kepone Levels In Surface Sediment of Marsh and Approximate Boundary of Heavy Contamination
-------
James River
Field Sampling Program
Sorption-desorption kinetics and the affinity of Kepone for
organic particles suggested that sediments played a key role in the
movement of Kepone in the James River. Sediment transport was modeled
to quantify Kepone movement and to determine the fate of Kepone
residuals. To achieve this, Battelle conducted a field sampling
program on June 25-28, 1977, which was complemented by a survey by
VIMS in August 1977. The purpose of the sampling program was to
obtain data on the James River for input to and calibration of
Battellefs sediment and contaminant transport model (FETRA) , as well
as to provide data for the further assessment of Kepone contamination
in the James River. One of the major objectives of the program was to
observe the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical variations in the
measured parameters and to make a qualitative judgment on the
importance of the magnitude of these variations during the sampling
program. Thus, the field sampling program was confined to a
relatively short period of time and the number of transects and
stations was limited.
The sampling program consisted of data acquisition at eleven
transects from the James River Bridge near Newport News to City Point
at Hopewe11. Three stations were located on each transect and one to
V-46
-------
three depths were sampled per station for each of three tidal
conditions (flood, slack and ebb). The locations of these stations
are listed below and shown in Exhibit V-16.
James River Bridge (June sample)
Rocklanding Shoal (June sample)
Fort Eustis (August sample)
Hog Island (June sample)
west of Swann Point (June and August samples)
Brandon (August sample)
Windmill Point (June sample)
Herring Creek (August sample)
Jordan Point (June sample)
Bailey Bay (June sample)
City Point (June sample)
The first six stations were located in the saline portion of the
river, while the remainder were located in the fresh-water portion.
Stations were located close together at Bailey Bay to give a concise
view of Kepone near the source area at Hopewell. Sampling occurred
during a 20-year low flow period of the James River.
The sampling conducted in the field was directed to:
meteorological and hydrological information; channel and flow
characteristics; physical and chemical characteristics of suspended
load and bed sediments; and water quality characteristics. Kepone
analyses were conducted on water, suspended load and bottom sediment
samples.
Meteorological and hydrological data included wind velocity,
direction, and wave height, including wave period and direction at
V-47
-------
CIIY PI
£
Herring
C reek
APPOMAIIOX
RIVER
HOPEWELL
CHICKAHOMINV RIVER
JAMES RIVER
KILOMETERS
5 10 15
Exhibit V-16
Tidal James River
-------
each station. Wave height, direction, and period at each station were
estimated from visual observations. Channel and flow characteristics
included a bathyme-trie profile of each transect, tidal stage
measurements, continuous current velocity/direction measurements at
the mid-channel station, and current velocity measurements at each
sampling depth at each station. Bathymetrie profiles were taken at
each cross section using continuous recording fathometers. Continuous
current velocity/direction measurements were recorded and tidal stage
measurements were also taken.
Water quality parameters measured at each station and depth
included water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity.
Temperature measurements were taken by a readout module, and dissolved
oxygen measurements were obtained using the modified Winkler titration
method. Conductivity and pH measurements were performed on-board with
a conductivity bridge and pH meter.
Two types of suspended sediment data were obtained. A 1-liter
water sample was obtained from the Van Dorn water sampler for each
depth for laboratory analysis of suspended sediment load. A
continuous 76 liter (20 gal) water sample was obtained using a water
pump at each station under each flow condition at a depth of
1.5 meters (5 ft) above the bed. These samples were stored in
19 liter (5 gal) containers and were decanted and centrifuged at a
later date (2 weeks). The solids and supernatant water were analyzed
V-49
-------
in the laboratory for Kepone. Total suspended solids were measured
using filtration. Details of the analytical procedure employed can be
found in Appendix A.
Bathymetry
The tidal Janes River averages about 6.3 km (4 mi) wide in the
more saline - portion and 1.6 km (1 mi) or less in the upper freshwater
tidal portion. The James River can be divided into the main flow
channel of 6.1 meters (20 ft) or greater depth, channel margins of 3
to 6 meters (10 to 20 ft) depth, and subtidal flats of less than
3 meters (less than 10 ft) depth. In the lower or saline portion of
the James River, the subtidal flats encompass to 90 percent of the
bottom surface area. In the upper or nonsaline portion of the tidal
James River, the subtidal flats seldom account for over 50 percent of
the bottom surface area. Exhibit V-17 shows two of the transects
across the James River at Bailey Bay and City Point.
Flow Characteristics
Flow characteristics in the tidal James River are primarily a
function of tidal currents, freshwater discharge and wind-generated
currents. During the June 25-28 sampling program, the freshwater
discharge was very low and the wind velocity seldom exceeded 5 knots.
Therefore, during this time period tidal generated currents were the
7-50
-------
VJl
p SOUTH
B BANK
^ or*
10
20
30
STATION 1
STATION 2
STATION 3
NORTH
BANK
00
a.
LU
o
0
SOUTH BANK
o
UJ
oa
0
10
20
30
40
I
I
I
I
1000 2000
3000 4000 5000 6000
DISTANCE (FEET)
7000 8000 9000
STATIONl STATION 2
STATION 3
NORTH BANK
CITY POINT
1000 2000 3000 4000
DISTANCE (FEET)
Exhibit V-17 Bathymetry at Bailey Bay and City Point
-------
principal factor of water movement. Mid-channel current velocities
differed only slightly from transect to transect, varying to slightly
over 1 knot at maximum flood and ebb flow. The largest variations
occurred in the lateral and vertical dimensions. Generally, current
velocities decreased with depth and were greatest in the deep water
flow channel, decreasing towards the tid-1 flats. During the sampling
program on June 25-28, the flood currents were generally of greater
magnitude and of longer duration than predicted, whereas the ebb
currents were of lesser magnitude and of shorter duration than
predicted. This deviation from the predicted currents is probably due
to the extremely low freshwater discharge during the sampling program.
Exhibit V-18 shows a comparison of predicted currents, continuous
current records and depth-averaged instantaneous current velocity
measurements at Rocklanding Shoal.
conductivity
The largest variation of conductivity occurred in the longitudinal
direction, varying from a maximum of 1,260 umhos at the James River
Bridge to a minimum of 225 umhos at City Point. No large conductivity
gradients were observed during the samp." Ing program, either in the
longitudinal or vertical directions. This absence of a large gradient
in these two directions indicates the lack of a turbidity maximum
(null zone area where fresh and saline waters intermix) and is due to
the very low freshwater discharge during the June 25-28 sampling
V-52
-------
f
Ul
2.0
0
2.0
n
o
>*
2« JUNE •
— PREDICTED CURRENT
o STATI ONI-SOUTH
A STATI ON 2-MID-CHANNEL
o STATI ON 3-NORTH BANK
• CONTINUOUS CURRENT RECORDER
DEPTH AVERAGED
»':o-
,,,0
Exhibit V-18
Rocklandlng Shoal
-------
program. The average freshwater discharge of the James River at
Carterville, Virginia is 200,000 I/sec (7,000 ftVsec) . On June 25-
28, the average discharge was 51,000 I/sec (1,800 ft^/sec). Exhibit
V-19 shows the average conductivity along the length of the James
River as a function of tidal stage.
pH
The greatest variations of pfl in the James River water during the
June 25-28 sampling program occurred in the longitudinal direction,
where it decreased in the upstream direction until the vicinity of
Hopewell, where the pH increased dramatically. Exhibit v-20
illustrates the longitudinal changes during flood, ebb, and slack
flows. During flood, the depth-averaged pH at the James River Bridge
was 7.7 and decreased to 7.0 at Windmill Point. The pH then increased
slightly to 7.1 at Jordan Point and Bailey Bay. At City Point, the pH
increased dramatically to 8.5. The highest pH during the June 25-28
sampling program was observed at the mouth of Bailey Creek during ebb
with a measurement of 11.0. The high pE values found in Bailey Bay
between Jordan and City Points probably can be attributed to the high
pH of industrial discharges into Bailey Creek and Bailey Bay.
V-54
-------
1500
1000
500
James River
Idge
DEPTH AND CROSS-SECTION AVERAGED
FLOOD
—— — — FRR
Chiekahondny
SLACK
Bailey
r
50
0 10 20 30 40
Distance from Mouth (Nautical Miles)
Exhibit 7-19 Average Conductivity as a Function of Tidal Stage
60
9.0
3.0
7.0
6.0
DEPTH AND CROSS-SECTION AVERAGED
FLOOD
James River
Bridge
EBB
i
10
20
30
i
40
i^
50
Distance from Mouth (Nautical Miles)
Exhibit V-20 Longitudinal Variation of pH
7-55
-------
Dissolved Oxygen
During the June 25-28 sampling program, dissolved oxygen (DO)
ranged from a value of 0 mg/1 (ppm) in Bailey Creek to 9.2 mg/1 (ppm)
in the north side of the channel opposite Jordan Point. Dissolved
oxygen levels remained unchanged or increased slightly in the upstream
direction from James River to west of Swann Point, where the average
concentrations were between 6 mg/1 (ppm) and 7 mg/1 (ppm) (Exhibit V-
21). From Swann Point to Jordan Point, dissolved oxygen levels
decreased dramatically during flood and slack waters to concentrations
between 2 mg/1 and 3 mg/1 (ppm). Dissolved oxygen levels increased to
concentrations of 4 mg/1 to 6 mg/1 (ppm) between Jordan Point and City
Point. The tidal phase variations of dissolved oxygen were small in
the lower tidal James River but were large in the upper portion,
varying from 2.5 mg/1 (ppm) during flood stage to 5.5 mg/1 (ppm)
during ebb stage at Jordan Point.
Temperature
The water temperature during the June 25-28 sampling program
ranged from 26.8 to 32 degrees C. Water temperatures in Bailey Creek
generally exceeded those in the James, ranging from 32 to
35.5 degrees C. Water temperature closely followed the daily
temperature pattern with the lowest temperatures in the morning and
the highest in the late afternoon. Slight vertical gradients of
V-56
-------
3.0
6.0
I
«
o
I
i/i
1/1
2.0
James River
Bridge
DEPTH AND CROSS-SECTION AVERAGED
FLOOD
EBB
SLACK
JR-1 JR-2
JR-3JR-4
JR-7 JR-3910
10
20
30
40
50
i
60
Distance from Mouth (Nautical Miles)
Exhibit V-21 Variation of Dissolved Oxygen with Tidal Stage
V-57
-------
approximately 1 degree C were observed in the deeper areas. The
shallow subtidal flats tended to have a greater range in water
temperatures than did the deeper areas of the river.
Suspended Sediment
The suspended sediment load of the tidal James River during the
June 25-28 sampling program was quite variable in the longitudinal,
lateral/ and vertical dimensions. Suspended sediment loads were
observed to be as high as 98.6 mg/1 (ppm) and as low as 11.1 mg/1
(ppm). Generally, as shown in Exhibit V-22, high suspended solids
levels were found in the lower portion of the river between Newport
News and Hog Island, and in the upper portion around Hopewell. The
levels were generally lower in the stretch of river between Hog Island
and Windmill Point.
Kepone
Longitudinal variations of Kepone associated with suspended
sediment during the June 25-28 sampling program are shown in Exhibit
V-23. Kepone levels were found to generally decrease in the
downstream direction from the source area near Hopewell. The highest
Kepone levels were found in Bailey Creek suspended sediment with
levels exceeding 1.0 ug/g (ppm). The lowest Kepone levels were found
at the furthest downstream sampling location at the James River Bridge
7-58
-------
60
3 50
en
£ 40
S 20
UJ
Q_
CO
10
James River
Brldge
DEPTH & CROSS-SECTION AVERAGED x^ - -
FLOOD
EBB
SLACK
Bailey
i
20
i
40
r
50
10 20 W
DISTANCE FROM MOUTH (NAUTICAL MILES)
Ebchiblt 7-22 Longitudinal Variation of Suspended Solids
T^
60
V-59
-------
200
180
S160
g-140
§ll20
o\
o
LO
80
60
40
20
CROSS-SECTION AVERAGED
FLOOD
EBB
SLACK
VALUES ARE LESS THAN
INDICATED DUE TO INSTRU-
MENT DETECTION LIMITS
Bailey
Bay,
Chickahomlny
River
1
James River /
Bridge,
10
30
50
20 30 40
DISTANCE FROM MOUTH (NAUTICAL MILES)
60
Exhibit V-23
Longitudinal Variation of Kepone Attached to Suspended Sediment
-------
with levels less than 11 ng/g (ppb). The largest longitudinal
decrease in concentrations occurred between Bog Island and just west
of Swann Point. Large lateral variations in Kepone levels attached to
the suspended sediment were observed. These lateral variations are
shown in Exhibit v-24. The largest lateral variations occurred
between Hog Island and Jordan Point.
Exhibit v-25 shows Kepone distribution with depth of the James
River bottom sediments and by sediment size. The bulk of the Kepone
is associated with the larger-sized sediment particles which are
greater than 62 microns. Exhibit v-26 shows the Kepone concentrations
found by Battelle in composite sediment samples for all their sampling
stations from Newport News to Hopewell. Battelle*s estimates for the
amounts of Kepone found in various sections of the James River is
shown in Exhibit V-27, but should be considered only an approximation.
Over the past two years, comprehensive sediment sampling was
undertaken by the Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB) and the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) to determine the amount of
Kepone in all areas of the tidal James River. The resulting Kepone
distribution pattern compiled by the SWCB from their data' is shown in
Exhibits V-28 to V-30. Independent estimates of the total current
Kepone deposits in the James River sediments have been made by
Battelle (Appendix A) and by VIMS (Bender, 1977a). The two estimates
compare favorably. Battelle estimated an average of 9,600 kg
7-61
-------
200
180
5160
40
20
— STATION I (SOUTH BANK)
—STATION 2 (MID-CHANNEL)
— STATION 3 (NORTH BANK)
VALUES ARE LESS THAN
INDICATED DUE TO
INSTRUMENT DETECTION/
LIMITS /
I
I
Chick&hoiainy
River
\
r.
Exhibit V-
-1 1 1 1 1-
10 20 30 40 50
- DI STANCE FROM MOUTH (NAUTICAL MILES)
60
Lateral Variation of Kepone Attached to Suspended
Sediment During Flood
V-62
-------
£
y 0-3
GO
a 3-6
UJ
CO
1 6-9
§
O
^ 9-12
1 1
MM^Illl • 1
HI
MTI EMa<4p
^1 1 1 >62|i
m
i ii
9 0.1 0.2 0.3 a4
KEPONE CONCENTRATIONMQ/9
Exhibit V-25
Depth Olscributlon of Kepone by Sediment Size Fraction -
West of Swann Point
-------
Exhibit 7-26
KEPONE IN BED SEDIMENTS
Cross-
Section Scat ion
Janes River Br.
it
n
Rocklandlng Shoal,
n
it
Hog Island
n
West of Svann Ft.
n
n
Windmill Ft.
n
n
Jordan Point
n
n
Bailey Bay
n
City Point
n
n
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
3
Composite
Deoch (in.)
0-12
0-12
0-12
0-12
0-12
0-4
0-12
0-5
0-10
0-12
0-12
0-12
0-1
0-12
0-12
0-12
0-12
0-6
0-12
0-12
0-12
0-12
Kepone
(ug/g) (pom)
<0.002
0.003
<0.002
<0.002
<0.005
<0.001
<0.001
<0.003
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
0.044
0.170
0.032
0.422
<0.001
0.005
0.009
<0.003
0.006
<0.-003
<0.003
V-64
-------
Exhibit V-27
BASIS FOR ESTIMATE OF KEPONE DEPOSITS IN JAMBS RIVER SEDIMENTS
VJ1
Area
Mean concentration
l'6/8-PI>m
Mean + one standard
deviation (Jjj/g-ppm
Volume (ft3)
assumes 1 ft depth
Mass of dry sediments
(ll>) (assumes 70 Ib/ft )
Mean total Kupone (kg)
Maximum total Kupone
[mean + sid. devlatlon](lb)
Number of sample sites
Number of points wltli
<0.02 inj/g Kupone
Sampling density (points/ml ) 20
Bailey Bay
800 acres
0.91
3.31
3.5 x 107
1.3 x 109
537
1.183
1.956
4.303
25
3
20
Jordan Point to
Turkey Island
3.3 ml2
0.07
0.21
9.2 x 107
3.48 x 109
110
243
332
730
9
3
2.7
Jamestown to
Jordan Point
44.9 ml2
0.15
0.28
1.25 x 109
4.7 x 1010
3.204
7,050
6.000
13.160
66
5
1.5
Newport News to
Jamestown Island
132.7 ml2
0.08
0.15
3.7 x 109
1.4 x 1011
5,091
11,200
9,545
21,000
66
13
0.5
Hamilton
Roads
60.9 ml2
0.02J
0.0375
1.7 x I09
6.4 x 1010
670
1,472
1.091
2.400
39
21
0.64
Total
24J.1 mi2
6.8 x 10
-------
Source: Va. State Water Control Board (1977-1978)
SCALE
1 3/4"-IN. MILE
t
o\
APPOMA
KEPONE ppm
10.0
0.1 to 0.99
0.02 to 0.09
LJ None Detected
EPPES ISLAND
BAILEY'S BAY
&• ^SK^
<>&Sk3f:8i:iV&&:f8ftiZK#»
'SEDIMENT KEPONE CONCENTRATIONS
M «< ,
0.0
l,vJh
i-o.
HA Y AHHA
-------
Source: Va. State Water Control Board (1977-1978.)
KEPONE ppm
1.0 to 9.99
0.1 to 0.99
HJ 0.02 to 0.09
] None Detected
Exhibit V-29
SEDIMENT KEPONE CONCENTRATIONS
0.0-3.5 INCHES, TAR BAY TO CHICKAHOMINY RIVER
-------
Source: Va. State Water Control Board (1977-1978)
f
o\
00
E£J 0.1 to 0.99
HI 0.02 to 0.09
| JNone Detected
Ebchibit V-30 ' - ' 10MILES
SEDIMENT KEPONE CONCENTRATIONS,
00-3.5IINCHES, CHICKAHOMINYTO
i i lliviuLu v>hv-fAi-vj uiori i
-------
(21,000 Ib) and a maximum of 19,000 kg (42,000 Ib) , while VIMS
estimated 11,000 to 18,000 kg (25,000 to 40,000 Ib) . The majority of
this Kepone lies in the sediments of the turbidity maximum zone.
Summary of Environmental Inventories
Summarized in Exhibit V-31 are Battelle's estimates from current
data of the amount of Kepone residing in the James River and Hopewell
area environment. Of approximately 25,000 pounds of Kepone identified
in the James River and land areas excluding drummed material, less
than 2,300 kg (5,000 Ib) persist in the Hopewell/Bailey Bay region. A
majority of the Kepone residuals have migrated into the James Rivar,
and currently are associated with the underlying sediment. The
largest remaining terrestrial Kepone deposit is the estimated 1,400 kg
(3,100 Ib) in marsh sediment adjacent to the southeastern portion of
the Hopewell landfill.
V-69
-------
? 7-31 ZST™A1I OF SEPONZ 3ZSIDUALS ETCLDDIXG SiAXSSIAL
DREMUD AT THE LUZ SCI2ICZ PRODUCTS PLANT A5TS2,
CLQSU2Z CDECZJGSL 1977)
Estimated Ouascir;
Re'sidinz In
Sever system
Surface soil (1 la.)*
ILepone sludge lagoon
Bailey Bay sediments*
Janes Siver sedisie
Druais ac Hopevell
Droas ac Portsmouth
Landfill1"
Pebbled Amonius id trace
plane site
Sounded total*
Ib
23
45-450
100
5*0-2,000
9,000-17,000
9,400
3,700
1,400
100
24,400-34,300
50
100-1,000
220
1,200-4,300
20,000-38,000
20,700
8,100
3,100
220
53,600-75,600
* Low value reflects esdaate excrapolated froa cean concentra-
tions; high value reflects estimates' based on aean plus one
standard deviation.
4- Includes identified deposits only.
V-70
-------
VI. BIOLOGICAL FATE, IMPACT, AND CLEAN-OP INDICES
ACUTE TOXICITY TO SALT-WATER ORGANISMS
Kepone was found by the EPA Gulf Breeze Environmental Research
Laboratory (Appendix C) to be acutely toxic to algae, oysters,
shrimps, and fishes. It vas found not to be toxic to blue crabs at
the levels tested (210 ug/1). Nine species of estuarine organisms, of
which eight are known to exist in the James River, were investigated
for acute toxicity. The organisms were: the unicellular algae,
Chlorococcum sp., Dunaliella tertiolecta. Nitzchia sp., and
Thalassiosira pseudonana; the grass shrimp (Palaemonetes puqio), blue
crab (Callinectes sapidus), sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon varieoatusl,
and spot (Leiostomus xanthurusl. The 96-hour LC50 varied widely. The
most sensitive species tested was spot, which had an LC50 of 6.6 ug/1
(ppb). The second-most sensitive species tested was the marine mysid,
Mvsidopsis bahia. which had an LC50 of 10.1 ug/1 (ppb). This species
is not found in the Chesapeake region, but other species of Mvsidopsis
and mysids inhabit northern Atlantic waters. The oyster larvae EC50
was reported at 69.5 ug/1 (ppb). The sheepshead minnow had an LC50 of
70 ug/1 (ppb), while the grass shrimp were more tolerant with an LC50
of 120.9 ug/1 (ppb). Algal growth was reduced to 50 percent by
concentrations of 350 to 600 ug/1 (ppb) (Appendix C, No. 5 and 4) .
VI-1
-------
In a comparison of six sediment types from around the United
States, Swartz, et al. (1977) examined the toxicity of the settleable
phase of dredged material to marine benthic organisms. They found
that mean survival after 10 days' exposure to Bailey Creek sediments
was significantly less than controls. No attempt was made to
determine which toxicant(s) may have caused the mortalities.
CHRONIC TOXICITY TO SALT-WATER ORGANISMS
Kepone also was found to cause pronounced chronic toxicity,
reproductive, and teratogenic effects in life-cycle tests with
estuarine mysids. Life-cycle toxicity tests were conducted using
survival, reproduction, and growth of mysids (Mvsidopsis bahia) as
criteria for effects of toxicity of Kepone (Appendix C, No. 3). The
19-day (life-cycle) LC50 was 1.4 ug/1 (ppb) at 25 to 28 degrees C and
10 to 20 ppth salinity. The duration of the test allowed production
of several broods. The average number of young per female at 20 days
was 15.3 in the controls, and 8.9 in 0.39 ug/1 (ppb) Kepone. There
were significant differences between controls and the 0.39 ug/1 (ppb)
concentration indicating that the average number of young produced per
female had been reduced by the presence of Kepone.
In preliminary tests, growth of some mysid individuals in higher
concentrations of Kepone appeared to be less than control mysids. To
evaluate this effect, two separate 14-day tests were begun by exposing
VI-2
-------
24-hour-old juveniles to Kepone and concluded by measuring their total
body lengths. Female mysids exposed to 0.072 ug/1 (ppb) Kepone grew
less than the control mysids. This effect was consistent with
apparent effects on reproductive success (fewer juveniles per female).
Sublethal effects observed after prolonged exposure to Kepone were:
(1) delay in the formation of brood pouches; (2) delay in the release
of young; (3) fewer young produced per female, and (4) reduced growth.
In nature, the loss of mysids due to the direct toxic effects of
pollutants or the indirect effects on their growth or population size
could affect the food supply of many fishes (Appendix C, No. 3).
The chronic effect of Kepone on sheepshead minnow growth and
survival of embryo, fryr and juveniles was investigated by Hansen, et
al. (Appendix C, NO. 6). Adult minnows were held in Kepone
concentrations ranging from 0.05 to 24.0 ug/1 (ppb) for 29 days. All
of the fish in the higher two concentrations (7.8 and 24 ppb) died.
Survivors of the 28-day bioassay spawned and the progeny were observed
for survival, growth, hatching and development in a 36-day exposure to
six Kepone concentrations from 0.08 to 33.0 ug/1 (ppb). A significant
portion of the embryos, produced by adults previously exposed to
Kepone (1.9 ppb) died during embryonic development even when held in
Kepone-free water. Kepone, which was bioconcentrated by adults
(5,200 X), was passed to embryos and was very slow to depurate.
Forty-six percent of the Kepone in the eggs was still found in the fry
36 days after hatching. Fry exposed to 0.08 ug/1 (ppb) were stunted.
VI-3
-------
SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE
Symptoms of poisoning in fish during exposure were darkening of
\
the posterior of the body, hemorrhaging near the brain, fin rot, loss
of swimming coordination, cessation of feeding, and scoliosis. Onset
of these symptoms was related to concentration and length of exposure.
KEPONE BIOCONCENTRATION FROM WATER
Kepone was bi©concentrated from water by algae, oysters, mysid
shrimp, grass shrimp, sheepshead minnows, and spot in all
concentrations tested, and all species showed Kepone at equilibrium
levels in tissues within 8 to 17 days after exposure to Kepone began
(Appendix C, No. 9). Bioconcentration factors for Kepone in these
species ranged from 2,300 to 13,500 in long-term (96-hour) flow-
through bioassays. Kepone bioconcentrated in oysters to approximately
10,000 times the concentration in water within 19 days. Mysid shrimp
(Mvsidopsis bahia) bioconcentrated Kepone to 13,000 times the amount
measured in the exposure water. The grass shrimp (Palaemonetes puqio)
also has a high bioconcentration factor for Kepone, and like other
decapod crustaceans is one of the least sensitive species to acute
exposures (Appendix C, No. 5). Grass shrimp bioconcentrated Kepone to
11,000 times the concentration in water. Sheepshead minnows
bioconcentrated Kepone 7,200 times the concentration in water, and
spot bioconcentration factors were approximately 3,000. Twenty-two
VI-4
-------
percent of Kepone accumulated in edible fillets of spot as one of the
largest quantities of Kepone in total weight. Although the greatest
body concentrations of Kepone on a unit basis were in the brain, liver
and gill tissues, the relatively large mass of muscle and offal
tissues accounted for their having the high Kepone quantities
(Appendix C, No. 9). A summary chart on bi©concentration and
bioaccumulation values is shown in Exhibit VI-1.
Uptake by Mollusks Exposed to Suspended Sediment
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science completed eight Kepone-
uptake experiments with the oyster (Crassostrea virqinica) five
experiments with the clam (Ranqia cuneata) and one experiment with the
clam (Macoma balthica) which involved exposure of the animals to
Kepone-contaminated sediments in suspension. The oysters exhibited
high Kepone concentrations in their meats when they were exposed to
mean hourly concentrations of Kepone at 0.153 ug/g (ppm) in the
suspended sediments (Exhibit VI-2). The bivalves Crassostrea
virqinica, Ranqia cuneata, and Macoma balthica concentrated Kepone
from suspended sediments by factors ranging between 1,000 and 3,000
over that in the water (Appendix C, No. 18).
In another experiment, the Ranqia and the oyster were buried in a
bed of Kepone-contaminated sediments with uncontaminated river water
flowing over them. The shellfish generally accumulated Kepone and
VI-5
-------
Exhibit VI-1
Chironic Effects, Dioconcentration and Bloaccumulation of Kepone
Tissue Blucoiicenlrallon
Concentration F«|or
Bloaccunulatlon
Factor Se/S!*nt£.
Cliluroroccnm sp...
Hlt|kjila IK.
IhalosslusjiM P_sueijgnana
Grass shrlup
Palciiinonetes pjigla
Oluii Crab
Callhieclfis sap.hjek
Sheepshead oilnnou
S|Hlt
0/slui
Hysiil
Byi J'J'iu? tl baJiii
Gra'.s bhrlnp
j'tfleuiiiiiiiutj!* (luglo
Sliukfibliedd nliuiuw
C)|irjnyi)oii varjegatus
i|.0t
SliecpsliuJd nliuuiw
(•yiTj!10*1?.'! Yt"J§!liUi
Adullt
Juveniles
100 ppb. 24 hr ECso(«r<210u
-------
s
I
•i
i.j
1C
Ul
I-
ۥ>
n.
o.
•(
111
O
o
u
o
a.
u
x
02O
015
OIO-
005 •
0-
(OI01)
(0 OOO)
o
TRAY C
TRAY U
(0033)
21
EXPOSUHE PCH100 (DAYS)
Exhibit VI-2 [-'.can conccntrni-ion of rCc-pono in inc.it.s oC oysters r-xposr
to COM Lrm.iiKi Li;il L>«jdir::o:i^u in suspension. 1'iruL :.:•.• r inii
of oxporiiiu.MiLu, 2-1 l\-l:.-27 .".afch 1977. Ficjuios in
prUriMiLhcscii iin: tminn r.o-rly concentration of Kcpnno in
'.i_:i i; ...Mil.:; :or \.'<-cl I11 : . r : •-. : r-ii(!in<| .it lli.il. point.
(Appendix C, No. 18)
-------
then gradually lost most or all of it. Oysters averaged 0.037 ug/g
(ppm) after a week of burial, but then lost Kepone to non-detectable
levels. Rangia followed a similar pattern to that of the oyster
(Appendix C, No. 18).
At the same time that oysters were accumulating Kepone in their
tissues to levels greater than that of the water, they were also re-
depositing high concentrations of the chemical in the form of feces
and pseudofeces. The bioconcentration factors for oyster feces ranged
from 11,000 to 55,000. In pseudofeces, the range was between 3,000
and 20,000. The concentration in feces was always higher than that in
pseudofeces, but the magnitude of the difference varied. This re-
deposition of feces and pseudofeces was in the form of material less
likely to be resuspended because of its nature as an aggregate
(Appendix C, No. 18).
Depuration from Exposed Animals
Kepone depuration was most rapid in the oysters with Kepone
reaching nondetectable levels within 7 to 20 days; other organisms
were much slower, particularly grass shrimp and fish. Kepone
concentrations remained at 50 to 70 percent of the peak value in the
flesh for 24 to 28 days after initiation of depuration in these
species (Appendix C, No. 9).
VI-8
-------
Field studies included collecting Kepone-laden oysters from the
James River and moving them to uncontaminated areas (Bender, 1977).
These transplanted oysters were sampled over time to determine the
effects of seasonal changes on the depuration rate. As might be
expected, the oysters depurated more slowly in the winter when
metabolic activity levels were depressed. The biological half-life of
Kepone in oysters in the summer is approximately one week, while in
the winter 40 days is required.before there is a measurable decline in
the residue levels.
KEPONE BIOACCUMULATION FROM FOOD
Banner, et al., and Schimmel, et al., (Appendix C, No. 9 and 14)
investigated the transfer of Kepone through a series of food chain
experiments representative of various trophic (energy) levels from
plankton to fish. Not all of the species were indigenous to the James
River ecosystem, but they did serve as models.
Vl-9
-------
Three study routes were examined:
1. Water > Algae > Oyster
2. Water————-—> Oyster > Blue crab
3. Water— ————> Brine shrimp——> Mysid
shrimp---> Spot
In a 14-day experiment, oysters bioaccumulated Kepone to 0.21 ug/g
(ppm) when fed the single-celled alga (Chlorococcum sp.) containing an
average of 34 ug/g (ppm) of Kepone. Kepone was not detectable (less
than 0.02 ug/g) 10 days after the oyster (Crassostrea vircrinica)
received no contaminated food. The quantity of Kepone transferred
from these algae to oysters was limited, probably due to rapid
depuration of the chemical from the oysters. Most of the Kepone was
depurated from oysters within 96 hours. Blue crabs, fed oysters
contaminated with 0.15 or 0.25 ug/g (ppm) Kepone, accumulated the
insecticide readily in their muscle and whole-body tissues in 28 days,
but after an additional 29 days in a Kepone-free environment, no
depuration of the compound was evident. Both concentrations in food
increased mortality in the crabs (Appendix C, No. 14) .
Brine shrimp (Artemia salina) served as "plankton" and were preyed
upon by mysid shrimp (Mysidopsis bahia) which in turn were fed to spot
(Leiostomus xanthurus). Kepone concentration in spot, which consumed
mysids for 30 days, were slightly less than that of mysids, but the
uptake of Kepone exceeded the fishes' depuration. The bioaccumulation
VI-10
-------
factor from mysids to spot was estimated at greater than 0.85, while
the bioaccumulation factor for the entire food chain was greater than
10.5 (Appendix C, NO. 9).
KEPONE BIOAVAILABILITY FROM SEDIMENT
Two benthief burrowing species, lugworms (Arenicola cristata) and
fiddler crabs (Oca pugilator), were exposed to James River estuarine
sediments containing Kepone at approximately 0.25 ug/g (ppm). Both
species had attained whole-body residues of 0.25-0.3 ug/g (ppm) within
10 days of exposure. No lugworms remained alive after 21 days
exposure to the James River sediments. Depuration of Kepone from
fiddler crabs placed on uncontaminated sediments was minimal after 35
days (Banner, et al., in preparation).
COMPARATIVE ROUTES OF UPTAKE
Comparisons of Kepone residues in various animals to determine the
probable modes of entry of Kepone into organisms have been made
(Appendix C, No. 9). Kepone accumulation can be attained via water,
sediment, or food as indicated by Exhibit VI-3. In most cases, uptake
from water directly impacts each animal, but uptake from food and
sediment can be of great importance when effects on the entire James
River estuary are considered. Specifically, blue crabs gain most of
their Kepone by eating animal tissues, rather than uptake from water.
VI-11
-------
Exhibit VI-3
Comparison of Kepone-residues 1ir eight species of estuarine
organisms exposed to low concentration of Kepone in water, food, and
sediments in flow-through experiments (Gulf Breeze,1977)
Species
Oyster
Polychaete
worms
Mysids
Grass
Shrimp:.
Fiddler
crab
Blue crab
Sheepshead
mi nnow
Spot
Probable Mode
of Uptake
Water
Sediment
& food
Food
Sediment
& Food
Food
Water,
food
Food
VI-12
-------
while benthic organisms accumulate considerable quantities of Kepone
from sediment ingestion and supply these amounts to their predators
for food-chain transfer.
Indirect Impacts on Fisheries
Stomachs of flounders from Chesapeake Bay contained an average of
twenty mysids (Stickney, et al., 1974), while mysids comprised up to
14 percent of the diet of striped bass from the York and Rappahannock
Rivers. Mysids were conspicuously absent in the gut analyses of James
River striped bass, indicating this particular food chain has been
severely altered. A partial food web for selected James River species
is shown in Exhibit VI-4. However, no evidence is available to
directly link Kepone as the causative agent in this situation.
The uptake and slow depuration of Kepone by blue crabs may explain
why relatively high Kepone residues are found in crabs from the James
River, Virginia. Bender, et al., (1977) reported that average Kepone
concentrations in estuarine vertebrates and invertebrates ranged from
0.09 to 2.0 ug/g (ppm) in the James River. Many, if not all of these
species, are included in the diet of the blue crab. It is reasonable
to conclude that Kepone residues will remain in the blue crab tissues
as long as detectable concentrations remain in the crab's food
(Appendix C, No. 14).
VI-13
-------
FINFISII
PIAHKHVI
111 limits
Aloslils
(Stud. Blueing Herri 113, Mc-xlfe)
Mhlle CatUth
Channel dills!)
Djown OuJIJicad
T
Seillments
Silt
jJetrltus
Exhibit VI-4
Purclul Food Web for Selected James River Spec4.es
-------
The James River, which has supported several major commercial
fisheries in the past, has witnessed the sharp decline in some of
those fisheries during the early 1970«s including blue crab, striped
bass, white perch, and alewives. While some of these declines, such
as the white perch, may represent fish kills, changes in fishing
effort, etc., these populations generally have not recovered to
previously established levels. Repone may be a contributary substance
which has been adversely affecting species and subsequently the food
chains of the James River, thus creating conditions which are not
condusive to the maintenance of viable fish and blue crab populations.
KEPONE MITIGATION OZRN-OP INDICES
During 1976, ongoing studies at the Gulf Breeze Environmental
Research Laboratory, and research studies supported by them, provided
information on the organism effects of Kepone and processes which
caused crabs, oysters, and fish to concentrate Kepone in their tissues
at or above FDA Action Levels, making them unsafe for human
consumption. This required a complete study of the effects of Kepone
on representative species under laboratory conditions, and a
correlation of these studies with information gathered from monitoring
and field experiments. The results of this information were used to
develop saltwater dean-tip-
-------
occurrence, and human health duplications. However, the following indices con-
sider only protection of aquatic life and uses of aquatic life. Also, these
clean-up indices are based on the species most sensitive to Kepone, so that
protection is afforded to the greatest number of species in the James River.
Future determinations may show that such a comprehensive level of protection
is not necessary to prevent Kepone uptake to Action Levels by a majority of
the species. The unique situation in the James River estuary is that the
major source of Kepone is recycled Kepone from the estuarine sediments. Ihis
required a modified approach with the developnent of separate values for aquatic
food organisms and for sediment.
Derivation of Saltwater CLean-op. Kfrftr^q for Kepene
The estuarine fish, spot CLeiostomus xanthurus) is particularly
sensitive to Kepone; the Final Fish Acute Value calculated from this
species is 6.6 ug Kepone/1 (ppb) of water. The Final Invertebrate
Acute Value is 0.60 ug Kepone/1 (ppb) of water. Consequently, the
lower of the two, 0.60 ug Kepone/1 (ppb) of water, becomes the Final
Acute Value.
Chronic studies have been conducted on sheepshead minnows
(Cyprinodon varigatus) and marine mysids. The Final Fish Chronic
Value is <0.01 ug Kepone/1 (ppb) of water; the Final Invertebrate
Chronic Value is 0.008 ug Kepone/1 (ppb) of water. Therefore, the
Final Chronic Value is SO.008 ug Kepone/1 (ppb) of water.
VI-16
-------
The marine alga, Chlorococcum sp., is the most sensitive plant
species to Kepone; the Final Plant Value is <350 ug Kepone/1 (ppb) of
water.
The Residue Limited Toxicant Concentration (RLTC) is based on: (1)
a study in which blue crab survival or molting was adversely affected
after being fed a diet of oysters which contained 0.15 mg
Kepone/kg (ppm) in tissue; and (2) an average bioconcentration factor
of 7688. This RLTC is <0.019 ug Kepone/1 (ppb) of water. As an.-.
index, the 24-hour average concentration should never exceed
0.008 ug of Kepone/1 (ppb) of water.
It is important to emphasize that the data on the chronic effects
of Kepone in fish, and the feeding studies on blue crabs provide "less
than" values. Results of laboratory tests with crabs, shrimp, fish,
and shellfish exposed only to Kepone in seawater underestimate the
residues of Kepone measured in similar animals exposed to similar
measured concentrations in the James River estuary. Therefore, the
index is considered conservative.
Derivation of Food Clean-up Index for Repone
Acute exposure of blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) to Kepone in
sea water in the Gulf Breeze Laboratory (Appendix C, No. 5) indicated
relatively low toxicity and low bioconcentration. In contrast.
VI-17
-------
monitoring data from the James River estuary indicated that blue crabs
accumulated significant concentrations of Kepone. Gulf Breeze
scientists found that the major route of Kepone entry was through
contaminated food and not via water. Therefore, estimates of an
Index for contaminated food were developed.
Effects of Kepone on growth and survival of blue crabs fed oysters
contaminated with Kepone are the only laboratory data demonstrating
adverse effects of this pesticide in food on an aquatic organism
(Appendix C, No. 14). Concentrations of 0.15 mg Kepone/kg (ppm) of
oyster meat fed to blue crabs diminished survival or molting.
However, because the data did not provide Gulf Breeze with a no-effect
concentration, they applied a safety factor of 0.1 to this
concentration to provide a clean-up index, of 0.015 mg Kepone/kg (ppm)
of tissue, which should be protective of consumer species.
A clean-up index of .015 mg Kepone/kg (ppn) in food organisms is far
less than monitoring data revealed in animals from the James River
estuary. An analysis of the monitoring data indicated that the
average concentration of Kepone in fishes and invertebrates from the
James River, which could be eaten by other organisms, ranged from 0.09
to 2.0 mg Kepone/kg of tissue. Gulf Breeze data on the effects of
Kepone in oysters fed to blue crabs support the hypothesis that
undesirable impacts on survival and molting of blue crabs are
occurring in the James River.
VI-18
-------
Derivation of Sediment
fog Kepone
The studies by VIMS, the State of Virginia, and
Battelle clearly demonstrate that most of the discharged Kepone now
resides in the sediments of the James River . The main sink
for Kepone is in the turbidity maximum zone where suspended sediments
are deposited. The concentrations of Kepone are orders of magnitude
greater in the bed sediments than dissolved in river water. Gulf
Breeze, VIMS (Appendix C, No. 12 and 16), and Battelle (Appendix A)
have shown that partition equilibria for Kepone between sediment and
water are directly affected by the sediment quality. Therefore,
mitigation must first address Kepone in the sediments.
Clean-up indices for acceptable acncentraticos of Kepone in seddsents
have been derived by examining how Kepone partitions among water,
sediments, and benthic biota. Experiments have shown that benthic
organisms (lugworms, Arenicola cristata, and fiddler crabs. Oca
puqilator) , which in jested James River sediments with 0.250 mg
Kepone/kg (ppm) of sediment, attained whole-body residues of 0. 250 to
0.300 mg Kepone/kg (ppm) of tissue within 21 days. Lugworms did not
survive exposure to these sediments after 21 days, and Kepone did not
depurate from lugworms and fiddler crabs over a period of a few weeks
in clean water (Banner, et al., in preparation). Concentrations as
low as 2. 8 ug Kepone/1 (ppb) seawater caused a reduction in the normal
soil reworking activity of the lugworm and 29.5 ug Kepone/1 (ppb)
VI-19
-------
seawater was acutely toxic within 144 hours to lugworms burrowing in
sediments (Appendix C, No. 13). Since benthic organisms attained
Kepone concentrations similar to the amount in sediments, and the food
clean-up index is 0.015 mg Kepone/kg (ppm) of tissue, Kepone
concentrations in sediment should not exceed 0.015 mg Kepone/kg (ppm)
of sediment to insure that Kepone concentrations are less than the
food clean-up index.
An alternate method of establishment of an acceptable
concentration of Kepone in sediments can be based upon the premise
that an equilibrium exists for Kepone between the sediment and water
[Kp = (ug/kg sediment) / (ug/1 water) ]. An examination of laboratory
Kp-values indicates numbers ranging from 2.5 to 1700 (Appendix A;
Appendix C, No. 12 and 17). If pure reference clays and sand are
ignored (Kp = 2.5-50), the range is between 100 to 1700 and is related
to the quality and quantity of organic material in the sediment.
Using these values to derive acceptable sediment concentrations, with
the previously derived Kepone water clean-up index of £ 0.008 ug
Kepone/1 (ppb) of water yields a range of 0.0008 to 0.014 mg
Kepone/kg (ppm) in sediment. (The average concentration of Kepone in
James River sediments from December 1976 through July 1977 was
0.150 mg Kepone/kg (ppm) of sediment).
If a Kepone partition between water and James River sediment of
Kp=1000 is utilized, concentrations of 0.008 mg Kepone/kg (ppm) of
vr-20
-------
sediment would result in equilibrium concentrations equal to the water
clean-up index of 0.008 ug Kepone/1 (ppb) of water. Since the food
clean-up index is 0.015 mg Kepone/kg (ppm) of tissue, the
concentration of Kepone in sediment must not exceed 0.015 mg Kepone/kg
(ppm) of sediment. With the lower limit of analytical detection for
Kepone in sediments usually placed at 0.02 mg Kepone/kg (ppm) of
sediment, both of the derived concentrations are below analytical
detection. Therefore, if Kepone is present in measurable quantities,
it is hazardous to aquatic life.
VI-21
-------
VII. KEPONE PROBLEM PROJECTIONS
A full assessment of the Kepone contamination problem in the
Hopewell/James River area must consider the immediate and long-range
impacts on persons and on the environment. Previous chapters have
focused primarily on the nature of the current Kepone contamination
problem. This chapter describes the predicted movement of
contaminated sediments and water in the James River and the
implications of Kepone's continued presence.
KEPONE TRANSPORT PROJECTIONS
The (FETFA) computer model, discussed in Chapter IV, was employed
in combination with the EXPLORE hydrodynamic code to predict the
transport of Kepone in the tidal James River. The model was applied
to an 86-kilometer reach between City Point (river kilometer 123) and
Burwell Bay (river kilometer 37). Burwell Bay, rather than the river
mouth, was designated as the lower boundary because of limitatons in
the field data and hydrodynamic code. The percentage, if any, of
Kepone migrating past Burwell Bay which would settle out or sorb onto
bottom sediments between Burwell Bay and the mouth of the James River
is unknown. Therefore, projections of Kepone transport past Burwell
Bay represent an upper limit to the predicted amount of Kepone
subsequently passing into Chesapeake Bay.
VII-1
-------
Three flow discharge cases measured at City Point were simulated:
(1) a freshwater, discharge of 58.3 mVsec (2,050 cf s) ; (2) a
freshwater discharge of 217 mVsec (8,700 cfs) ; and (3) a freshwater
discharge of 681 mVsec (24,000 cfs). The freshwater input discharge
of 58.3 mVsec at City Point corresponds to that of approximately the
10 percentile discharge (i.e., 10 percent of the time of the year the
freshwater input discharge is 58.3 mVsec or less). The second
discharge of 217 mVsec roughly corresponds to the average annual
discharge, and the third discharge of 681 m3/sec corresponds to
approximately the 90 percentile discharge.
The major results from the model are presented in Exhibits Vll-1
through VII-5. Exhibit VII-1 shows the predicted daily migration of
Kepone under the different flow regimes past Burwell Bay in the lower
James estuary. During average flow conditions, an estimated 170 grams
per day of Kepone are transported past Burwell Bay. Model output
shows that roughly 80 percent of this Kepone exists in the dissolved
state, with the other 20 percent attached to mobile sediments. During
high flow this total increases to 548 grams/day, with a slight
increase in the percentage attached to sediment.
Exhibit VII-2 displays the results of combirdng these daily flow esti-
mates into different runoff years. Calculations show that between 52 kg
(114.4 Ib.) and 126 kg (277.2 Ib.) of Kepone are being transported past
Burwell Bay in each year, with an average range of 71 kg (156.2 Ib.) to
89 kg (195.8 Ib.) per year.
VII-2
-------
Condition
Low Flow
Average Flow
High Flow
EXHIBIT VII-1
Daily Kepone Transport Projections
Average Daily
Flow Rate
2,050 cfs
(58.3 m /sec)
8,700 cfs
(247 m /sec)
24,000 cfs
(681 m /sec)
Kepone Transport
Past Burwell Bay
38 grams/day
170 grams/day
548 grams/day
EXHIBIT VII-2
Annual Kepone Transport Projections
Percentage of Days Per Year James River
Flow Averages:
Condition
Low Flow Year
Average Flow Year
Average Flow Year
High Flow Year
Kepone Transport
2,050 cfs
50%
10%
30%
10%
8,700 cfs
40*
80%
40%
40%
24,000 cfs
10%
10%
30%
50%
Past Burwell Bay
52
71
89
126
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
VII-3
-------
Also, since Kepone is concentrated in migratory biota, it
physically moves in the water system along with the host. The
magnitude of the amount of Kepone transported by migratory fish was
determined. Catch-per-unit-effort information was supplied by VIMS
for summer and winter surveys. The application of these data to
estimating the Kepone transport required the following assumptions:
(1) all of the migratory fish populations that were present during the
survey leave the system, and (2) these fish are in the James River
long enough to accumulate equilibrium levels of Kepone where
depuration just cancels further uptake. The estimates of Kepone
transported annually in the major species is an average of 72 kg
(158 Ib) and a maximum of 225 kg (U94 Ib).
Exhibits VTI-3 through VII-5 show the predicted concentrations of
Kepone existing in James River water between City Point and Burwell
Bay under the three flow regimes. Values are expressed in micrograms
of Kepone per liter of water (ppb) and are averaged over a full tidal
cycle. Under average flow conditions (Exhibit VII-1) Kepone levels
in the water are seen to peak near the Jamestown area where slightly
more of the mobile Kepone is attached to suspended sediments than is
dissolved. However, the amount of Kepone transported in sediments
drops sharply down river resulting in a large majority of Kepone
exiting Burwell Bay in the dissolved state.
VII-4
-------
.020
r~\
_J
*X
^ .018
i—»
§ .016
I- -4
I—
0= .014
\—
2:
O
LJ
liJ
en
.010
Q- .008
LU
S •006
LD
01
£ .004
.002
or
o
r~ o.ooo
TOTAL KEPONE
DISSOLVED
PAUTICULATE KEPONE
31/1.
Pbchibit VII-3
'JO.
50.
60.
70.
80.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
Longitudinal DJsLrlhtitJniis of Tidal Averaged Total, Dissolved and Pnrtictilate
Kcpone Concentrations for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 mVsec
-------
.020
.018
.016
O
i—i
I—
en
tJ -012
•2TL
O
.010
IU
2T
O
.000
.OOR
cs
E5
01
a
.002
TOTAL KKI'ONU
IHSSOI.VEI) KEI'ONIi
PAKTiCULATIi KEI'ONE
30. 40. 50. CO. 70. 60. 90.
RIVER KILOMETERS
100.
110.
120.
130.
Exhibit VII-U Longitudinal Distributions of Tidal Averaged Total, Dissolved and I'artJculate
Kcpouc Concentrations for the Fresh-water Discharge of 247 m^/sec
-------
o
I—I
I
UJ
(_)
z
o
ILJ
o
LLJ
a
C.D
re
nc
en
.0219
.010
.016
.014
.012
.010
.006
.004
.002
cn
a
£ 0.000
TOTAL Klil'ONIi
DISSOLVED KEI'OHIi
1'AKTICULATK
LL
ill
i_L
Jj
3(9.
'10.
50. 60. 70. 60. 90. 100.
RIVER KILOMETERS
110.
120.
Exhibit VII-5
l.ongltiulJnaL Distributions of Tldnl Averaged Tola], Dissolved and
rarUculnle Kepone Concentrations for the Fresh-water Discharge of
681 m3/see
130.
-------
In the following sections, the calibration and verification of the
model are presented. Results of sensitivity analyses can be found in
Chapter VII of the Battelle report (Appendix A) , as well as additional
model output, including predicted levels of suspended sediment in the
tidal James River and scour/deposition rates under the different flow
regimes.
Calibration of the Model
Calibration of a mathematical model is one of the most important
aspects of the simulation process. Calibration is usually performed
by "tuning" a model to reproduce a known condition by adjusting some
model parameters. As shown in Exhibit VII-6, in the present study
most of the parameters (such as Kepone distribution coefficients,
turbulent diffusion coefficient, sediment sizes, sediment fall
veloci-y, etc.) were fixed not only by adjusting them to match
computer results with field data, but also, they were determined by
theoretical and experimental analyses and field conditions, prior to
the model simulation. Hence, the only parameters which can be changed
to fit simulation results to the measured data are a dispersion
coefficient and three parameters which calculate deposition and
erosion rates of sediment. Thus, the major calibration effort was
directed to reproducing sediment distribution patterns similar to the
actual longitudinal distribution of sediment concentrations for the
VII-8
-------
Exhibit VII-6 TEST CONDITIONS FOR KEPONE SIMULATION
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Fresh-wacer Discharge (o^/sec)
River Sediment Size
Cohesive sediment
Organic matter
Sand
(mm)
Longitudinal Dispersion Coefficients
for all Sediment and Kepone (m^/sec)
Longitudinal Diffusion Coefficients
for all Sediment and Kepone (m2/sec)
Kepone Becay Rate (1/hr)
Kepone Distribution Coefficients (cm3/g)
Associated vith cohesive sediment
Associated with organic matter
Associated with sand
Kepone Mass Transfer Rate (1/hr)
Initial Bed Sediment Constituents (Z)
Cohesive sediaent
Organic Matter
Sand
Boundary Conditions During Ebb Tide
Sediment Concentrations at City
Point (mg/i)
Cohesive sediment
Organic matter
Sand
Kepone Concentrations at City Point
Dissolved (ug/Z)
Particulate (ug/g) associated vith
Cohesive sediment
Organic Matter
Sand
Boundary Conditions During Flood Tide
Sediment Concentrations at Burwell
Bay (mg/i)
Cohesive sediment
Organic matter
Sand
Kepone Concentrations at Burwell Bay
Dissolved (ug/i)
Particulate (ug/g) associated with
Cohesive sediment
Organic matter
Sand
58.3
0.030
0.100
0.150
14
0.14
0
247
681
10,000
20,000
1,000
80
15
5
24
4.5
1.5
0.007
045
090
0.0045
24
4.5
1.5
0.007
0.032
0.064
0.0032
0.030
0.100
0.150
14
0.14
0
10,000
20,000
1,000
80
15
5
32
6
2
0.007
0.045
0.090
0.0045
32
6
2
0.007
0.032
0.064
0.0032
0.030
0.100
0.150
14
0.14
0
10,000
20,000
1,000
80
15
5
52
9.8
3.2
0.007
0.045
0.090
0.0045
52
9.8
0.007
0.032
0.064
0.0032
vrr-9
-------
86-km study reach measured by Battelle during the June 1977, James
River sampling effort.
As a result of numerous trial runs after adjusting the parameters,
data were obtained for final calibration for the freshwarer discharge
of 58.3 mVsec as shown in Exhibit VII-7 - VII-9. These figures show
computed longitudinal variation of total sediment concentrations (sum
of cohesive sediment, organic matter and sand being transported as
suspended and bed loads) at maximum ebb, slack tide and maximum flood,
together with measured data obtained by Battelle for the same
freshwater discharge. Comparison of the computer results with the
measured data indicate excellent agreement. Although it is possible
to improve the model prediction with more fine tuning, it was judged
that the model was calibrated successfully.
Verification of the Model
Model verification was undertaken through a comparison of model
results at a given flow rate with previously acquired field data at
similar flow rates.
verification of the sediment transport part of the model was
conducted for Case 2 (freshwater discharge of 247 mVsec) . Model
results are shown in Exhibits VII-10 and VTI-11, together with field
data. These figures include sediment concentrations of each type of
VII-10
-------
120.
110.
^ 100.
_l
\
(.D 90.
-^ 80.
70.
60.
50.
'10.
o
CC.
LlJ
CJ
Z
O
LLl ^^
3:: 30.
t-->
a
LlJ
10.
0.
FIKI.I) HATA (HATTlil.l.li)
30.
'10.
50.
G0.
70.
80.
90.
100.
110.
120.
130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
Exhibit VII-7 Longitudinal Dlstr Unit Ions of Total Sediment Concentration at the Maximum Ebb
Tide for the fresh-water DJscharge of 58.3 in3/sec, together, with Field Data
-------
120.
110.
r^ 100-
_J
CD 90.
21
i__»
-^ 60.
CD
en
cc
CD
\
CD
70.
60.
50.
40.
30.
10.
I'l KM) DATA (HATTlil.LI-)
. I . . . . I . .
I .... I .... I .... I
30. '10. 50. 60. 70. 60. 90.
RIVER KILOMETERS
100.
110.
120.
130.
Exhibit VII-0 Longitudinal Distributions of Total Sediment Concentration at the Slack Tide
for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 mVsec, together with Field Data
-------
120.
110.
^ 100.
_J
\
CD 90.
s:
«__>
-^ 80.
or
oc
UJ
o
I—
0
70.
60.
50.
40.
30.
10.
IMII:U) DATA
. i .... i .... i .... i .... i
. i
i .
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 80. 90. 100.
RIVER KILOMETERS
110.
120.
130.
ExhlbitVII-9 Longitudinal DJstrJbutIons of Total Sediment Concentration at the Maximum
Flood Tide for the Frcsh-wntcr Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec, together with
Field Data
-------
120.
110.
^ 100.
_J
CD 90.
O
or
oc
o
CJ
|—
U.I
Q
UJ
CO
60.
70.
60.
50.
'10.
30.
10.
0.
TOTAL SI-IMMI-NT
COIIIiSrVK SlilllHKNT
OUfiANTC MATTliK
— • — SAND
• FIELD DATA FOR TOTAL
SEDIMENTS (Nichols,
1972)
. I
30. '1(3. 50. 60. 70. 60. 90. 100.
RIVER KILOMETERS
110.
120.
130.
Exhibit VII-10 Longitudinal Distribution of Sediment Concentration of Each Sediment Type
at Slack Tide for the Fresh-uciter Discharge of 247 m^/sec
-------
_J
X.
LD
s:
> »
z
O
t —«
I—
nc
i—
z
UJ
O
120.
11(9.
100.
90.
610.
70.
60.
S 5D-
Q
UJ
in '10.
o
^ 30-
07
QC -
UJ 20.
or
10.
0.
TOTAL SKDIMKNT
COIIESIVU SEDIMENT
ORCANIC MATTER
O O
O
O FIELD DATA FOR
TOTAL SLD1MKNTS
(Nichols, 1972)
FIELD DATA FOR
TOTAL SLDIHENTS
(Nichols, 1966)
30.
401.
50.
6(9.
70.
BO.
90.
100.
110.
120.
RIVER KILOMETERS
130.
Exhibit VII-11 TJdal Averaged Sediment Concentration of Each Sediment Type for the Fresh-
water Discharge of 247 m^/sec
-------
sediment (cohesive sediment, organic materials or sand) and total
sediment (sum of 'those sediment components) . Measured total sediment
concentrations in these figures were obtained by Nichols (1972) in
March 1965 and March 1960. Field data in 1966 were provided by
Nichols through personal communication. Field data in 1965 were those
associated with a freshwater input discharge of 250 mVsec, while 1966
data were obtained in two days during which the freshwater input
discharge changed from 257 m'/s to 14U mVsec with the two-day average
discharge being 201 mVsec. (The present simulation was conducted for
the discharge of 247 mVsec). comparison of these field data with
computer results at slack tide and tidal average cases (Exhibits VII-
10 and VII-11) indicate excellent agreement among these values. Since
the present model was calibrated for the discharge of 58.3 mVsec and
the model was not readjusted for the 2«7 mVsec case, this excellent
agreement with measured data for the latter case provides additional
confidence in the sediment transport part of the model.
Verification of the Kepone transport part of the model was
conducted by comparing computer results to measured data obtained by
Battelle and VIMS for case 1 (freshwaster discharge of 58.3 m'sec).
As noted previously, Battelle«s data were obtained during June 1977
and VIMS data were collected during August 1977. Since there were no
parameters adjustable to fix the computer results to those field data,
numerical comparison cannot be made. However, the trends of the field
data and computer results are similar. This correlation provides an
VTI-16
-------
additional basis for confidence in the verification. Exhibits VII-12
through VII-14 present predicted particulate Kepone concentrations
associated with each type of sediment and average particulate Kepone
(weighted average of three particulate Kepone values associated with
the three sediment types) per unit weight of sediment, together with
cross-sectionally averaged field data of average particulate Kepone
concentrations. These were obtained by Battelle for ma-H™™ ebb, slack and
fiend tides, respectively.
Exhibits VII-15 and VII-16 present predicted tidally averaged
particulate Kepone concentrations per unit weight of suspended
sediment, and those per unit volume of water, respectively, together
with measured average particulate Kepone concentrations obtained by
Battelle and VIMS in their James River sampling effort.. As noted
above, Battelle's data in these figures are cross-sectionally averaged
values. However, VIMS data are those measured in a main navigation
channel of the river. Except for the maximum flood tide case (Exhibit
VII-14), the agreement between the computer results and the field data
are good. For example, Exhibit VII-16 reveals excellent agreement
except one measured point at river kilometer 111. A suggested
explanation by Battelle of the discrepancy between the predicted and
measured value at river kilometer 111 is as follows: in the uppermost
part of the river, Kepone distribution in suspended sediment across
the river is much less uniform, as compared to distributions in the
lower part of the James River because of the short distance from the
VII-17
-------
00
CD
\
(D
ZL
CC
QC
I—
~^.
UJ
o
o
Q_
LU
LU
I—
0=
_J
CJ
.20
.18
.16
.12
.10
.06
.06
.04
.02
0.00k
AVERAGE PAUTICULATE Klil'ONE
PAUTICULATE KEPONE WITH
COHESIVE SEDIMENT
PARTICIPATE KEPONE WITH
OUCANIC MATTER
PARTICIPATE KEPONE WITH
SAND
FIELD DATA (UATTELLE)
i_L
Jj
30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 60. 90. 100.
RIVER KILOMETERS
110.
120.
130.
Kxhibit VII-12 Longitudinal Distributions of Participate Kepone Concentrations at Maximum
Ebb Tide for Die Fresli-water Discharge toSB.J m^/sec
-------
CD
o
cc
cc
o
Q_
UJ
oc
OI
o.
.10
.16
. I'l
g -12
•ZL
8 -lffl
LU
"*" .08
.06
.02
0.00
30.
\
AVKRACl- PARTICUI.ATK KI'I'ONli
I'AKTICULATr. KKI'ONI- WITH CUIIKSIVK
S El) [Ml'NT
1'ARTICUI.ATK KI^'UNE WITH OKCANIC
HATTKR
I'AUT1CUI.ATI' KlLl'ONK WITH SAND
FIELD DATA FOR AVERAGE
PARTICULATK KEPONU
(HATTELLK)
\
\
40.
50.
60.
70.
80.
90.
100.
110.
120.
RIVER KILOMETERS
130.
Exhibit VII-13 Longitudinal Distributions of Participate Kepone Concentrations at
Slack Tide fur the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec
-------
I
o
LD
\
CD
13.
O
cc
DZ
O
O
Q_
UJ
LU
h-
(C
_J
ID
oz
en
O-
.20
.18
.16
.I'l
.12
.10
.06
.06
.0*1
.02
0.00
r
l\
\
/ \
AVERAGE PARTICIPATE KEPONE
PARTICIPATE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE
SEDIMENT
PARTICIPATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC
MATTER
PARTICIPATE KEPONE WITH SAND
FIELD DATA FOR AVERAGE
PARTICUI.ATE KEPONE
/ \
\
\
v.
/Y
jj
30. '10. 50. 60. 70. 60. 90. 100. 110. 120. 130.
RIVER KILOMETERS
Exhibit VII-lH Longitudinal Distributions of 1'artlculate Kepone Concentrations ut M.-ixlmum
Flood Tide for the Fresli-water Discharge of 58.3 m^/sec
-------
CJ)
\
CD
n.
UJ
2:
o
Q_
UJ
llJ
\-
(C
_J
ID
C_)
t~ •
I—
nc
(n
o_
a
UJ
CD
or
cc
LU
>
en
en
a
.20
.18
.16
.14
.12
.10
.00
.06
.O'l
.02
0.00
30.
\-
AVERAGE PAKTICULATE KEPONE
PAKTICULATli KEPONE WITH COHESIVE
SEDIMENT
PARTICIPATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC
MATTER
— PARTICIPATE KEPONE WITH SAND
• FIELD DATA FOR AVERAGE
PARTICULATE KEPONE (BATTELLE)
O FIELD DATA ^
\OIUCCET, 1978)
\
\
V
no.
50.
60.
70.
00.
90.
100.
110.
120.
RIVER KILOMdfF.RS
190.
Exhibit VI.T-15
Tidal Averaged ('articulate Kepone Concentrations for the Fresh-water
Discharge of 58.3 ra
-------
TOTAL PARTICIPATE KEPONE
PARTICIPATE KEPONE WITH COHESIVE SEDIMENT
PARTICIPATE KEPONE WITH ORGANIC MATTER
— • — PARTICIPATE KEPONE WITH SAND
• FIELD DATA (DATTELLE)
O FIELD DATA (IIUCGET, 1978)
1'Jl/I.
HIVLR KILOMETERS
Exhibit VII-16 LoiigLtiidln.-il Distributions of Tidal Averaged Paniculate Keponu Concentrations
per Unit Volume of Water for the Fresh-water Discharge of 58.3 m
-------
original Kepone discharge source (at Hopewell) . Hence, VIMS data
obtained in a main channel of the river kilometer 111 is expected to
be higher than a cross-sectional average there. However, in the lower
part of the river, the measured data in the main channel may be much
closer to the cross-sectional average. This trend may be reflected in
Exhibit VII-16, when the computed and measured values are compared.
From the comparisons shown in Exhibit VII-12 through VII-16, it is
judged that the particulate Kepone transport part of the model has
been verified with sufficient field data.
Most of the dissolved Kepone concentrations measured in the James
River reach were below the detection limit which is approximately
0.005 to 0.010 ug/1. VIMS also reported from their August 1977 field
sampling that the dissolved Kepone level in the James River is below
the detection limit. Hence in this study, dissolved concentrations at
the head end of the study reach was set to 0.007 ug/1, which is
approximately the highest possible value maintained in the river.
Exhibit VII-3 shows the computed tidal averaged dissolved Kepone con-
centration together with particulate and total (sum of dissolved and
particulate) Kepone concentrations. This exhibit indicates that
dissolved Kepone concentrations vary from approximately
0.0049 to 0.0080 ug/1. As stated above, from the measured particulate
Kepone concentration and the Kd value, expected dissolved Kepone
concentration is somewhat below the detection limit bur is roughly the
same order of magnitude to the detection limit. Hence, the predicted
VII-23
-------
level of dissolved concentration by the FETRA code is the highest
possible value found in the study area but still below the detection
limit. From these considerations, the dissolved Kepone transport part
of the FETRA code was also judged to be reasonably well verified with
available information on dissolved Kepone concentrations in the James
River estuary.
simulation of Alternatives
Two important questions to be asked are:
1. What will happen to the Kepone migration pattern and its
concentration level if a part of Kepone in the river bed is removed by
physical, chemical or biological methods?
2. where is the most optimal location for Kepone removal to
reduce the Kepone level in the river?
In order to answer these questions, mathematical modelling was
conducted for an additional ten cases (Cases A through J) by assuming
that for each case, Kepone in the bed at a certain part of the Tidal
James River was completely removed. For all cases, freshwater input
discharges were assumed to be 247 mVsec. computer results during the
maximum ebb tide after one-month simulation for these cases were then
VII-24
-------
compared with the no-cleanup action case in order to assess
effectiveness of the Kepone cleanup activities.
Locations of Kepone cleanup activities were divided into four
categories: (1) upper part of the tidal James River (Cases A, B, and
C) ; (2) middle part of the river (Cases D through H) ; (3) lower part
of the river (Case I) ; and (U) combination of (2) and (3) (Case J) .
Exact cleanup locations are shown in the lower parts of Exhibits VII-
17 through VII-19, together with simulation results. Total dissolved
and particulate Kepone concentrations for Cases A through J and Case 2
(247 m3/sec) flow rate with no sediment removal, are also shown in
Exhibits VII-17 through VII-19, respectively.
In the cases of removal of contaminated sediment from upper river
areas (Cases A through C) , Case B (cleanup of Bailey Bay and -che upper
half of Tar Bay) and Case C (Bailey and Tar Bays) improve the
situation by reducing the Kepone level in water by approximately 15
percent within the vicinity of the cleanup locations. Case A (cleanup
of Bailey Bay) would remove all Kepone from this source, but it tj-«-M have little
inpact in the short term on the total amount of Kepone leaving Burwell Bay.
For middle river cleanup activities (Cases D through H)/
reductions of up to 55 and 48 percent of Kepone in water were obrained
for cases 0 and E, respectively. Case D cleanup area is an area of
34.5 km between 50.5 and 85.0 River Kilometer, and Case E is a 20-km
VII-25
-------
I
0.020
0.018
0.016
^4
* 0.014
o
< 0.012
g 0.010
o
IU
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
30
-CASBXU
CLEAN UP REGIONS
CASB(J>*
50
60
70 80 90
RIVER KILOMETERS
100
110
120
130
Exhibit VII-17 Cliangeu Jn Total Kepone Concentrations Due to Partial Kepone Cleanup Activities
-------
i
K)
-4
0.009
0.008
0.007
pr 0.006
<
o 0.005
o
o
g 0.004
Qu
UJ
P. 0.003
o
% 0.002
0.001
0
30
•CASE(J>
CLEAN UP REGIONS
J_
1
50
60
70 80 90
RIVER KILOMETERS
100 110
120
Exhibit VII-18
Changes in Dissolved Kepone Concentrations Due to Partial Kepone Cleanup
Activities
-------
to
00
o
o
o
o
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
o 0.05
0-
0.04
CJ
F^
a:
<
Q-
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
30
CLEAN UP REGIONS
«-CASE(J>*.
50
60
70 80 90
RIVER KILOMETERS
100
110
120
130
Exhibit VII-19 Changes in I'artlculate Kepone Concentrations Due to Partial Kepone Cleanup
Activities
-------
reach between 56.0 and 78.0 River Kilometer. Cleanup efforts in Cases
6 and H also demonstrate some reduction (up to approximate 13 per-
cent) , however. Case F does not show any improvement. For these five
simulation cases there was significant reduction of Kepone levels in
water near Burwell Bay.
For the case of lower river cleanup activity (Case I), there is no
measurable reduction in the Kepone concentration. Consequently,
computer results of Case J (combination of Cases G and I) are the same
as those of Case G.
Among these ten cases, Cases D and E reveal significant localized
reduction on both dissolved and particulate Kepone concentrations.
Although Case D (up to 55 percent reduction of Kepone concentration)
is slightly better than Case E (up to U8 percent reduction),
comparison of cleanup area sizes for these two cases (34.5 and 22.0 km
reaches for Cases D and £, respectively) leads to the conclusion that
Case E is more efficient to reduce the Kepone concentration in the
river per unit area of cleanup activities.
VII-29
-------
SUMMARY OF IMPLICATIONS OF KEPONE'S CONTINUED PRESENCE
Hopewell
Certain land areas around the City of Hopewell have contamination
from Kepone remaining since closure of Kepone production operations in
1975. These sectors are Nitrogen Park, the Life Science Products
site, Station Street neighborhood. Pebbled Ammonium Nitrate plant
site, Hopewell sewer system, Hopewell landfill, and the Kepone/sludge
lagoon.
Ambient air monitoring in the Hopewell area has shown Kepone to be
at a nondetectable level. However, the Kepone on surface soils may be
available to the population from windblown particulates and by direct
contact.
It is estimated that from 2 to 30 grams of Kepone per day will
continue to migrate into the James River in runoff from the general
Hopewell area. This incremental increase of residuals to the river
system has an insignificant environmental impact relative to the
amount of Kepone currently in the river.
VII-30
-------
James River
The James River represents a much more diffuse source of Kepone
than the terrestrial area of Hopewell. There is general Kepone
contamination along much of the length from Hopewell to Newport News,
with elevated levels in certain sectors. In particular, these are at
Bailey Bay and the middle reach of the tidal James known as the
"turbidity maximum". The turbidity maximum, or null zone, is the area
where saltwater wedge interfaces with freshwater. In the James River
it generally occurs from 10 to 50 km above Burwell Bay, depending upon
runoff conditions.
Since James River benthic and aquatic species can bioconcentrate
Kepone many thousands of times above the ambient water levels, fish,
shellfish, and other organisms will be affected by Kepone even with
residual concentrations at very low levels. These organisms will
accumulate and bioconcentrate Kepone as long as it is available from
sediments, suspended sediments, water, or food. As a consequence, the
no-action alternative implies that James River fishery products will
have excessive Kepone levels for years. Bald eagles, osprey, and
other James River birds of prey will continue to be exposed to Kepone
from the contaminated fish they eat.
-------
Human contact with Kepone in the James River will probably remain
minimal as long as closure orders by the State of Virginia are in
effect and obeyed.
Chesapeake Bay
Evidence to'date indicates that the no-action alternative under
normal conditions would not threaten the viability of the Chesapeake
Bay fishing industry. This is supported by historical trends, current
sampling data, and transport projections indicating low levels of
Kepone contamination entering the Bay.
As early as 1967, oysters taken from the James River contained
Kepone residuals. Also in that year, sediment samples were
contaminated above detectable levels more than 30 miles downriver from
Kopewell (Nichols 6 Trotman, VIMS, 1977).
Battelie's simulation results indicate that under average flow
conditions despite the large amount of Kepone residing in the James
River - only 170 grams/day are transported past Burwell Bay of which
80 percent is in the dissolved state and 20 percent is attached to
mobile sediments. This amount would be expected to reach the Bay.
Sediment samples collected from twelve stations in the lower
Chesapeake Bay in September 1977 contained no detectable levels of
VII-32
-------
Kepone above 0.01 ug/g (ppm) (Nichols 6 Trotman, VIMS, 1977).
Analysis of fish tissues reveals Kepone in some of the Bay's species,
although not exceeding the FDA Action Levels.
Based on these facts the question must be addressed as to why
Kepone discharges from 1966 to mid-1975 have not resulted in
significant Chesapeake Bay contamination as well.
The tremendous dilution and dispersion capacity of the Chesapeake
Bay probably accounts for the minimal impact of the small amount of
Kepone entering the Bay. In addition the majority of Kepone residuals
released from the Hopewell area have probably remained in the James
River system due to two natural forces; first, the propensity of
Kepone to adhere to sediment rather than remain dissolved in water;
and second, the natural sediment trap effect of the null zone or
turbidity maximum in estuarine systems.
The impact of the null zone in retaining Kepone in the James River
has been well demonstrated, VIMS (Appendix C) . "Most Kepone
concentrations are located in and above the null zone and they persist
with time, both over the short term (eight months of sampling) and
over the long term as demonstrated from the distribution at depth with
cores." (Nichols 6 Trotman, VIMS, 1977, p. 18). Results from
extensive James River sediment sampling by the Virginia state water
Control Board exhibit a similar pattern of distribution (Chigges,
VU-33
-------
1977), and the transport model projections from Battelle substantiate
the conclusion of long-term persistence in the null zone (Appendix A).
Although the effectiveness of the null zone decreases under extreme
flow conditions, the floods of 1969 and 1972 show no evidence of
having contributed significant Repone contamination to the Chesapeake
Bay. Rather than net scour, the flooding associated with hurricane
Agnes (one of the largest in recorded history) resulted in an increase
in the depth of bottom sediment in the tidal James River (Nichols,
1972). However, the situation of the Chesapeake Bay could change, if
the FDA Action Levels were made more stringent or a large east coast
storm resuspended and transported the Kepone from the turbidity
maximum zone.
Although under normal conditions Kepone contamination does not appear
to threaten the Chesapeake Bay, utilizing existing data to project
long-term trends is always subject to some degree of error.
Therefore, continuous monitoring will be required to ensure that
should any unsuspected movement of Kepone occur, it will be defected
and mitigation efforts implemented before creating a problem in the
Chesapeake Bay. In addition to monitoring, the potential of a large
east coast storm transporting Kepone into the Chesapeake Bay should be
assessed.
VII-34
-------
.
•" x :'* •'-?* ,.? * x--^ / -- - ^ •'
viii. NONCONVENTIONAL'MITIGATION METHODS
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories examined nonconventional
removal, neutralization, and isolation techniques for mitigating the
Kepone contamination problem (Appendix A}. This phase of work focused
on evaluating alternatives to dredging, as well as treatment and/or
fixation processes complementary to dredging for application to
Kepone-contaminated sediments in the James River System. Three types
of alternatives were studied by Battelle: (1) those which could be
used to fix dredged spoils for disposal; (2) those which could be
employed to treat elutriate or spoil slurries; and (3) those which
could be applied in, situ as substitutes to dredging. In addition to
the work performed by Battelle for the Kepone Mitigation Feasibility
Project, the project team investigated other promising areas and
continued working with companies whose development efforts have
progressed beyond Battelie's initial evaluations. Accordingly, the
material presented in this Chapter is wider in scope than that covered
in Appendix A and the assessments differ.
DREDGE SPOIL FIXATION
Dredge spoil fixation techniques are designed to prevent water or
air pollution by using stabilizing agents capable of solidifying
wastes and immobilizing contaminants. Battelle's candidate materials
included asphalt, tar polyolefins, epoxy resins, silicates, and
elemental sulfur. The desirability of any one fixation agent is based
VIII-1
-------
on the characteristics of the contaminant to be bound, the stresses to
which the fixed mass may be exposed (e.g. pressure, thermal changes,
etc), the environmental consequences of its application, the state of
development, and potential costs. The initial evaluations described
here concentrate on the agent's ability to isolate the contaminant and
to maintain its physical integrity.
Each fixation agent evaluated was subjected to two types of
standardized tests: (1) a short-term elutriate test; and (2) a longer-
term leach test. All fixation work was performed on a "standard"
sediment prepared from a homogenized Bailey Bay sediment sample. The
Kepone concentration in the test samples was measured at 1.17 ug/g
(ppm). Only commercially available fixation agents were employed and
An effort to include all companies currently marketing fixation
processes was made. Many of the agents employed are proprietary in
nature and, therefore, their compositions are not described.
Silicate Base Fixation Agents
Data obtained on all samples for both elutriate and leach tests
are presented in Exhibit VIII-1. The first samples are from fixation
tests performed by Ontario Liquid waste Disposal Ltd. Their process
involved the addition of an acidic agent followed by an amending agent
with dosing controlled through observation of pH levels. All samples
VIII-2
-------
Exhibit VII1-1
Kepone Concentrations in Elutriate and Leachate Solutions (ug/i-ppb)
Tin* In HOUI-I
Fli.tlon Tn>
Sllient Hn
Onurlo llwld OlMOHl Da. 2
Onuna klwtd ainoul la. 1
Ojitirta liquid Oiipoul-'icil* LtoiM
flucm Coloring Da. 2
NnciM Calond* da. )
nxcan Color** M. 4
•menu Calenaa *a. S
OMBfii CT-n-a
OUBfll 1-4
T«. Inc. 101
TJS. Inc. 102
:«. Inc. »l
7JK. Inc. 301
TJt. Inc. 102
Tumal Mailings a
Tumi nal«1*ti 41
OuniHe ttu
tar «t Uair Cra»
toMll N179
Sulfur »4i«
mitt* Sulfur
Sulfutt
5»«iu« toll
tar KK
Bl«»t lo. 1
iliilt •* I
f
3.12
i.r
1.91
1.31
0.12
0.012
0.078
0.3SS
O.OH
0.017
LOSS
1.29
0.24
<0.07
29.1
0.14
Urn nmnd
9.042
I
0.07
O.OS
4.10
1.04
1.14
1.11
0.19
1.90
1 S2
0.09S
0.088
0.21
0.1S
0.12
0.11
0.040
0.042
O.OH
0.011
0.1
0.52
•O.OM
0.117
i
0.08
O.OS
4.04
0.99
2.H
1.81
O.S4
1.10
2.44
0.0*8
o.on
0.24
0.11
0.1S
0.4S
9.383
0.075
0.044
0.012
0.22
0.47
•fl.OM
0.04
0.094
0.111
LSS
1.01
0.90
1.11
1.00
2.27
1.62
O.OS9
0.088
0.21
0.071
0.14
S4.S
0.068
0.021
0.018
0.017
0.09S
O.S2
0.076
0.104
• 6d
0.16*
0.1S7
1.7S
1.81
1.10
1.42
l.U
2.91
1.64
0.1S
0.14
0.16
0.085
0.079
0.41
0.67
0.051
0.010
0.20
0.91
9.0S8
0.081
-i"_
O.S24
0.106
1.S6
1.74
l.U
1.04
i.r
LSI
2.10
-------
showed leachate Kepone concentrations in excess of those for untreated
sediment.
The second set of samples was prepared by Manchek-Colorado, inc.
They employ an oxidizing agent, a fixative agent, and an amendment
using temperature changes for process control. Leachate from these
four samples generally contained ten times the concentration of Kepone
than did leachate from the untreated sediment.
Two mixtures of the Chem Technics patented fixative called
"Chemfix" were evaluated. These samples, labeled 1-4 and CT-77-2A,
never had a leachate within an order of magnitude of the blank
leachate. It is assumed that Kepone was dissolved and was released
from the sediment because of the high pE occurring during the mixing
and curing steps of fixation. During the leach tests, the free Kepone
readily migrated to the leachate water.
Five samples were obtained from TJK, Inc., the U.S. representative
of Takenaka. Each is a variation of a basic silicate-based fixation
agent developed by Takenaka of Japan. Three of the formulations
displayed higher leachate concentrations than standard sediments much
like the other silicate-based fixation agents examined. Two of the
formulations produced leachate Kepone levels roughly equivalent or
slightly lower than those from standard sediments for specific
-------
sampling times, but all cumulative leachate levels exceeded Repone
•sncentrations for the sediment leachate levels. -
However, the operational application of fixation techniques to
dredge spoil is considerably advanced in Japan over the United States.
Accordingly, the Kepone project team has continued to work closely
with Takenaka on improvements of their methods as applied to Kepone.
Representatives from TJK indicate that they are currently
improving their fixation agents so that their process is amendable for
treatment of Kepone contaminated wastes. One approach involves the
addition of an appropriate fixative agent to their silicate base which
would isolate the Kepone molecules and offset the high pH influence
that the base would have on the solubilization of Kepone. Results of
.he latest fixation efforts on Bailey Bay sediment samples showed
leachate Kepone concentrations of only 0.08 ug/1 (ppb), and Takenaka
believes that they can reach a level of 0.01 ug/1 (ppb) to 0.03 ug/1
(ppb). The Takenaka technology offers advantage over most fixation
processes in that fixation can be performed in-place. Most processes
necessitate removal, treatment and then replacement of the fixed
material, thus adding considerably to the costs of the process. In
addition, the TJK technology has had widespread operational use in
Japan under a range of conditions. Large scale projects have been
ongoing for several years in contaminated harbors and rivers in Japan,
and involve fixation of contaminated industrial sludge, contaminated
dredge spoil, and in situ fixation operations on contaminated bottom
..ediments. Details of the process and applications are covered in
Appendix B.
VIIJ-5
-------
Two samples of silicate-based agents were obtained from Tunnel
Holdings Ltd., Inc., of the United Kingdom. Both displayed leachate
Kepone levels in excess of those produced by the sediments alone.
In general, most silicate-based agents rely on high pH conditions
to set the stabilized material. Kepone is solubilized under these
conditions and if the fixation additive does not isolate the Kepone,
it will occur in leachate at equivalent or higher levels than is found
with natural sediments.
Organic Base Fixation Agents
For Rok and For Rok Epoxy Sealant are both grout materials
manufactured by Hallemete Division, Sterling Drug Company. For Rok is
a gypsum base material and, consequently, will not retain structural
integrity when immersed in water. It decomposed during the elutriate
evaluations. When comparing the leach results with those of the
natural sediment, there was generally ten times the Kepone leached
from the fixed sediment than from the blank. The For Rok Epoxy
Sealant is a synthetic epoxy material which is mixed with a coarse
aggregate material and is used as a grout or surface sealant. It
produced Kepone leachate concentrations, an order of magnitude lower
than those of standard sediments. This stabilization agent shows
promise as a means of reducing Kepone releases from spoils. However,
widespread use of this material may be limited by production
VTII-6
-------
limitations. Furthermore, breakage of the surface sealant would
expose the contaminated material to washing and leaching, if the
material is used solely for surface treatment.
Dowell M179 is a soil sealant material. It is primarily comprised
of a polyacrylamide polymer which resists water percolation. Its
action is dependent upon formation of a film-like coating. The
crushing employed in the elutriate test, therefore, compromised the
integrity of the agent. In order to maintain uniformity in testing
procedures, the batch test was retained. The poor response to the
elutriate test reflected the breaking of the surface film and
subsequent leaching from exposed surfaces. Short-term leaching on the
other hand (1 to 4 hours) yielded Kepone levels similar to those from
•intreated sediments. After 24 hours of exposure the M179 leacnate had
a concentration of 0.018 ug/1 (ppb), or approximately 1/10th of the
concentration found in the blank. Subsequent leachate samples
revealed a similar pattern. Consequently, the Dowell agent appears
well suited for its intended use as a surface seal and percolation
control agent. However, long-term immersion and physical stress could
lead to rupture of the film and release of the contaminants.
VIII-7
-------
Sulfur Base Fixation Agents
Two sulfur based approaches were evaluated. The "sulfur sludge"
combination involves the mixing of spoils with molten elemental
sulfur. The two are rapidly mixed upon contact and allowed to set.
The Sulfaset is a proprietary agent distributed by Randustrial Corp.,
and appears to include both sulfur and cement in the formulation. As
is evident from Exhibit VIII-1, the molten sulfur or "sulfur sludge"
approach offered one order of magnitude reduction while the Sulfaset
was less effective. However, the practicality of molten sulfur for a
large scale application to Kepone contaminants would require further
evaluation and the environmental consequences are as yet unknown. The
Sulfaset produced leachate intermediate between pure silicate based
agents and molten sulfur. The Sulfaset sustained a high pH in
leachate which is capable of solubilizing Kepone as was the case with
the silicate agents.
Asphalt Base Fixation Agents
A preliminary evaluation of asphalt binders was made, but these
could not be easily mixed with wet sediments unless heated. The
mixing problems with asphalt binders would constitute excessive costs
and equipment requirements for the volumes of sediments involved.
-------
A discussion of costs and merits of these fixation agents is
included in the appraisal section of this Chapter.
ELUTRIATE/SLURRY TREATMENT
If dredging of the type discussed in Chapter IX were employed to
restore the James River System, there may be a need for the capability
to treat elutriate, leachate, and/or the entire dredge spoil slurry to
prevent subsequent escape and movement of contamination. The
applicability of various elutriate treatment approaches depends on the
physical-chemical properties of the Kepone, as well as the nature of
the liquid stream and/or dredge spoil slurry to be treated.
Photochemical Degradation
The simplest option classified as physical-chemical destruction is
photodegradation with sunlight. No data were found on the effect of
electromagnetic radiation on Kepone degradation. A set of sample
exposure tests, designed to investigate the photolysis of Kepone in
sediments exposed to sunlight, confirmed the persistency of Kepone in
soils and sediments, and cast doubt on the efficacy of photochemical
degradation using incident sunlight.
-------
\mine Photosensitization
In the presence of ultraviolet light and an aliphatic amine,
Kepone levels showed marked reductions. Of the solutions tested,
ethylenediamine demonstrated a marked trend toward degradation. A
solution of ethylenediamine sprayed on dry sediments containing
0.95 ug/g (ppm) Kepone was allowed to stand in the direct sun in an
open beaker. After 10 days, the sediment was found to contain only
0.21 ug/g (ppm) of Kepone. This constitutes 78 percent destruction.
Due to the reliance on photolytic action, this approach is limited
to action at or very near the surface of the sediment. It, therefore,
may have little use on the large volumes of contaminated spoils
associated with any dredging activity. Continual tilling could
circumvent some of these difficulties foreseen, but land area
requirements would still be massive. On the other hand, if costs
permit and action were warranted, the approach may be quite
appropriate for use in the Hopewell area where soil has been
contaminated by atmospheric deposition of windblown particulates
containing Kepone. Eowever, before any application of this technique
is attempted, further research would be required to determine the
impact or possible toxicity of decomposition by-products.
VIII-10
-------
Chlorine Dioxide
Chlorine dioxide, a known powerful oxidizing agent capable of
reacting with many organic compounds, was tested on Kepone. Results
showed a nonspecific oxidizing action which was too limited to warrant
further study at this time.
Ozonation
Ozone, like chlorine dioxide, is noted for its ability to oxidize
materials and ozone itself leaves no noxious residues. Ozone, by
itself, provided no reduction in Kepone residues. However, research
on combined ozonation and ultra-violet irradiation by westgate
Research Corporation exhibited better than 80 percent Kepone removal
from the effluent of Hopewell's primary treatment plant when samples
were subjected to exposure periods of one hour.
It is concluded that the Westgate process is effective in reducing
Kepone levels in aqueous media and could be an effective means of
treatment for elutriate, wastewater, and contaminated natural waters.
Ultraviolet irradiation processes are limited in that degradation can
occur only at exposed surfaces receiving direct irradiation. However,
Westgate*s continued research on Kepone in turbid samples provided
additional promising results. Sediment slurry samples taken from
Moody's Creek, a tributary of Bailey Creek which drains the Pebbled
YIII-11
-------
Ammonium Nitrate (PAN) site/ were subjected to UV-ozone treatment. As
shown in Exhibit VIII-2, there was a significant loss of Kepone,
63.8 percent, in the sediment during the first 30 minutes of reaction
time. It is believed that Kepone is being destroyed in the water
phase, and that the partition coefficient permits continuous release
of Kepone from the sediment to the water. This could explain the
relatively constant values obtained in the supernatant analyses. The
sediment, about 20 percent by volume, was held in suspension in the
"Ultrox" reactor by the ozone spargings (Westgate, 1978). This
ability to handle high solid content slurries also holds promise for
the direct treatment of dredged slurries.
Use of this process on Kepone should be limited until the extent
of Kepone degradation is determined and the toxicity of the by-
products is assessed. It appears that degradation occurs by the
removal of chlorines from the Kepone molecule forming monohydrokepone.
From these very preliminary but encouraging results, it is
estimated that an optimum large-scale portable treatment system could
treat 20 to 50 percent solids slurry for 10 to 20 cents per cubic
yard, not including - equipment amortization. To further define
approximate operating parameters and costs for various slurry
concentrations further testing is needed. A concurrent chemical
analysis should be performed to determine the degree of Kepone
-------
EXHIBIT VIII-2
Kepone Analyses of Heatgate Sediment Samples (Cone, in ug/kg) from Moody'a Creek
Mixed Samples
Supernate Only
Monohydro-
Sample kepone Kepone
Moody 'a Creek —
Feed
Effluent — 30 mln
effluent — 60 min
1-4 Effluent — 90 mln
1 Effluent — 120 min
VjJ
0.12 2.29
0.52 1.62
0.59 1.82
1.44 1.81
1.00 1.73
Moody 'a Creek — Peed
Effluent— 30
Effluent--60
Effluent— 90
min
min
mln
Effluent— 120 min
let Extraction
Monohydro-
kepone Kepone
3.89 95.69
1.95 38.61
1.27 26.44
1.24 25.73
1.20 22.29
Summation of Mixed
Monohydrokepone
7.36
3.51
2.64
3.12
2.66
2nd Extraction 3rd Extraction
Monohydro-
kepone
0.77
1.04
0.78
0.44
0.38
Sample
Kepone
226.14
81.81
59.74
56.01
40.90
Monohydro-
Kepone kepone Kepone
31.03 1.54 51.44
26.51 — 11.00
21.34 — 7.54
21.01 — 5.68
13.35 0.08 2.93
% Kepone Destroyed
0.0
63.8
73.6
75.2
81.9
4th Extraction
Monohydro-
kepone Kepone
1.04 45.69
4.07
2.60
1.78
0.60
-------
iegradation needed to negate its toxicity. This would be an important
factor in defining treatment costs.
Cost projections for large treatment plants, developed by Westgate
Research, indicate a capital cost of $125,000 to 5140,000 per MGD
capacity and operation and maintenance costs, including amortization,
of $0.11 to $0.12 per 1,000 gallons treated.
If a small capacity elutriate treatment plant were constructed,
unit costs would increase considerably. For a 3 MGD plant, the
capital costs are $1,300,000 ($433,000 per MGD treated) and the
operating costs are $0.23 per 1,000 gallons, including $0.13 per
1,000 gal amortization, and $0.05 per 1,000 gal maintenance.
Radiation
Oxidation can be achieved through direct bombardment with
radiation. Given a sufficient dose, virtually all organic materials
can be carbonized. The specific action results from excitation of
molecular bonds to a point where the bonds break. As a physical
destruction methology, no toxic residues are produced when
carbonization is carried to completion.
While effective removal can be obtained, (54.7 and 144 megarads of
gamma radiation provided 87 percent and 97 percent removal,
-------
•espectively), large doses are required, and gas chromatographs
revealed the presence of a large peak representing degradation
products. The latter appear to be partially dechlorinated Kepone, but
positive identification has not yet been made.
As an initial appraisal, it appears that degradation efficiencies
are a function of radiation penetration. If the optimal penetration
distance can be determined, the degradation efficiency can improve.
At the present time, there are insufficient data available to pursue
radiation as an immediate treatment process. Further evaluation of
penetration distances and dose levels may result in an effective unit
operation for Kepone amelioration.
Belated work has been performed by the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology using electron beam radiation.* While this work largely
focused on disinfection of municipal sludges, some analytical work was
performed to determine the effects of the electron beam bombardment on
toxic constituents. High-pressure liquid chromatography revealed that
3, 4, 2' PCS, monochloro PCS, and Monuron at saturation levels in
water are totally destroyed when irradiated at dose levels as low as
10 Kilorads. PCS in a solution with 0.5 percent soap was virtually
eliminated by a dose of 400 Kilorads. This suggests that positive
results may also be obtained with more highly chlorinated organics
*Trumpf J.G., "Disinfection of Municipal Sludge by High Energy
flections", NSF-RANN grant AEN 74-13016A01.
VIII-15
-------
•uch as Kepone. However, no inves-tigations on Kepone degradation with
an electron beam source have been conducted to date. Consequently, no
appraisal of effectiveness on Kepone can be made at this time.
Catalytic Reduction
A suggested means of destroying chlorinated hydrocarbons is the
use of catalysts to facilitate reduction of the chlorine functional
groups to free ionic chloride in solution, thereby leaving behind a
bare organic skeleton less toxic and more amenable to biochemical
attack. Investigation of an approach used by Envirogenics involving a
copper-iron catalyst in a reductive column with sand as the working
substrate, provided negative findings. Consequently, the approach was
abandoned from further consideration.
Carbon Adsorption
During the decontamination efforts in early 1976, the EPA mobile
spill treatment unit was brought to Hopewell to help decontaminate
washwaters and liquid wastes. At that time, it was noted that carbon
adsorption was effective in removing Kepone from solution. Because of
this work, no specific laboratory studies were conducted on activated
carbon applications to elutriate waters. However, adsorption
isotherms produced during evaluation of sorbents for in situ appli-
cation confirm the efficacy of this approach. Therefore, this option
IfTTT 1 £.
-------
!.s considered viable if elutriate treatment facilities are
constructed.
Several of the engineering options for Bailey Bay developed by the
Corps of Engineers propose the use of a treatment facility to remove
Kepone from contaminated runoff, if determined necessary. The size of
such a facility would depend on the size of the holding reservoir and
the desired drawdown time.
Field studies have revealed that the bulk of all Kepone in Bailey
Creek is associated with particulate matter. Consequently, sufficient
treatment may be achieved by construction of coagulation facilities to
remove solids with no subsequent carbon adsorption. If this approach
is taken, costs are reduced substantially, cost comparisons on a 50-
MGD standard activated carbon plant show that capital costs and
operation and maintenance costs (06M) for an activated carbon facility
are $50.4 million and $262,924 per year, respectively, while costs on
a coagulation plant are $10.1 million and $551,650 per year,
respectively.
The Calgon Corporation has developed a filtration/adsorption
wastewater treatment system which shows promise in treating dredge
slurry water containing Kepone. In their conceptual design, the
dredged slurry would be pumped from the dredge to an impoundment basin
where the spoils would settle from the water. This basin should be
-------
Designed to provide adequate settling to remove suspended materials to
a concentration of less than 25 mg/1. From the impoundment basin the
water would flow to a gravity slow sand filter. The filter would be
constructed in a lined earthen basin and would contain about 5 feet of
filter sand over 4 feet of gravel. A plastic pipe underdrain would be
provided to collect the filtered water and direct it to the adsorption
basin. Uniform distribution over the filter would be achieved by
flooding the bed with a minimum of U feet of untreated water. A
surface loading of 0.5 to 1.0 gallons per minute (gpm) per square foot
should be maintained.
From the sand filter the water would flow by gravity to an
adsorption basin and be directed upflow through a bed containing 4
feet of gravel under 3 feet of 8x40 mesh Filtrasorb activated carbon.
A perforated plastic pipe distribution system will insure uniform
application of the filtered water to the adsorption bed. This bed
will also be operated in a flooded condition to prevent the
possibility of channeling. From the flooded section of the bed, the
treated water will overflow to a spill way from which it will be
returned to the river. The adsorption bed should operate at a surface
loading rate of 1 to 2 gpm per square foot of surface.
As suspended solids accumulate en the slow sand filter,
periodically the top several inches of sand will need to be removed
VIII-18
-------
•>nd replaced. This procedure will prevent excessive pressure drops
which would cause the basin to overflow.
At the 2 gpm per square foot of loading on the activated carbon
bed, about 10 minutes of contact time will be provided. Assuming an
average weight loading of 1 percent on the carbon and a concentration
of Kepone of 100 ppb in the dredged water, a total of about 1 million
gallons could be treated by each square foot of carbon bed. This
would provide a bed life in excess of three hundred days. This
represents only a gross estimate and testing should be initiated to
confirm loadings and concentrations to be used for design.
At the conclusion of the dredging, the entire sand and carbon beds
jould be incapsulated and backfilled to .prevent future leachate
contamination.
Exhibit VIII-3 provides the design criteria on which the capital
cost of $3.06 million was estimated. It is noted that the estimate
does not include costs for pumping or piping as required to deliver or
dispose of the water. Additionally, no costs were included for the
impoundment basin required ahead of the treatment system (Calgon,
1978) .
VIII-19
-------
Exhibit VIII-3.
Design Criteria for a 50 MGD Temporary
Filtration/Adsorption Wastewater Treatment System for
Treatment of Kepone Contaminated Dredging Slurry Water
Flow - 25 to 50 mgd
Sand Filter Loading - 0.5 to 1 gpm/sf
Area of Sand Filter - 40,000 sf
Carbon Bed Loading - 1 to 2 gpm/sf
Area of Carbon Bed - 20,000 sf
Superficial Contact Time - 10 to 20 minutes
CAPITAL ESTIMATE
Site Preparation - 25,000
Excavation - 150,000
Liner - 315,000
Underdrains 5 Spill Way- 320,000
Gravel - 350,000
Sand - 300,000
Carbon - 900,000
2.360,000
Engineering 300,000
Contingency 400,000
Total Capital $ 3,060,000
viir-20
-------
IN SITU PROCESSES
In situ processes as a category are the newest of the approaches
to removal/mitigation of in-place toxic materials. As such, some are
less fully developed than other approaches, several of the more
promising new options were selected for testing in the laboratory.
Since biological approaches appear to offer,little with respect to the
removal of Kepone from the James River system, Battelle's work focused
on two types of approaches: use of sorbents and use of polymer films.
In addition to these approaches, the Japanese Takenaka fixation
process previously described under "DREDGE SPOIL FIXATION" might be
used for in situ mitigation of contaminants. However, indications are
that the top few centimeters at the sediment/water interface may be
iifficult to fix. Consequently, such an application for Kepone, with
the present state of knowledge, is far less desirable than removal of
the contaminated sediments and fixation in carefully contained dredge
spoil sites.
Sorbents
Natural sorbents (such as activated carbon) and synthetic sorbents
(such as the macroreticular resins) have been shown to be effective in
concentrating organics similar to Kepone. In application, sorbents
act much as natural sediments do in maintaining levels of Kepone much
higher than those in adjacent waters. Sorbents capable of lower
VTTT_51
-------
partition values (concentration in water/concentration in substrate)
than those exhibited in natural sediments will reduce the levels of
dissolved Kepone in the water if introduced to the system. A three-
phase equilibrium is established with the highest concentrations of
Kepone on the new material, a lower concentration on the sediment, and
the lowest concentration in the water.
Based on initial screening results presented in Exhibit VIII-4,
sorbents ES863, XAD-4, XAD-2, and Filtrasorb 300 were selected for
further study. The three proprietary products are macroreticular
synthetic sorbents produced commercially. The Filtrasorb 300 is a
commercial activated carbon. In addition to these, a specialty carbon
product formed around iron particles became available in time for
subsequent evaluations. Allied Chemical had also performed work on
anthracite coal.
Based on Allied Chemical's promising initial results with coal,
batch adsorption tests were initiated in the Battelle laboratory on a
variety of coals. Results indicated that coals tested had less
affinity for Kepone than Bailey Bay sediments. Consequently, these
could not offer any mitigation promise to the Bailey Bay sediments.
However, Bailey Bay sediments are high in organic content and testing
on more representative James River sediments should be done before
final determinations are made on the applicability of coal.
VTTT_99
-------
Exhibit YIll-4
Kffer.tlvtineus of Sorbents In Accumulating
Keponc from Ualley Day Sediments
Kupono Concentration in Sediments. |ie/6~Pi'm
Sorbent
XAD-2(a)
XAl)-4(a)
863<")
FII.TRASORB(C)
Magnetic Carbon
Blank
Magnetic 863
Ulank
2 wk
0.80
1.18
0.89
1.21
1.56
1.56
0.77
0.92
4 wk
0.53
1.06
0.72
1.06
1.23
1.56
8 wk 12 wk
1.19
0.99
1.21
1.00 1.33
1.24 1.04(d)
1.16
0.82
1.18
Maximum
Removal Z
65
32
54
32
21
—
31
— —
Maximum
Theoretical
Removal, Z
60
67
72
67
—
—
25
—
Percent of Maximum
Theoretical Removal
Achieved, Z
100 1-
48
75
48
—
—
1001
—
(a) Product of Rohm and Maua
(b) Product of Diamond Shamrock
(c) Product of Calgon
(d) Ana Lysis of the spent curbou revealed 1.07 MS/K Kcpone
-------
Although sorbents applied to sediments in situ are capable of
reducing the availability of a material to the water column, they do
not destroy or remove the contaminant. Removal can be achieved,
however, if media are made to be retrievable. Laboratory work at
Battelle indicates that this is possible through the inclusion of
magnetite or iron particles in the sorbent matrix which will render
the media particles susceptible to magnetic fields. However, the
practical application is unevaluated. The magnetic sorbents would
have to be mixed into the river sediments and then recovered, strong
magnetic fields may be required and dispersion of contaminants
avoided.
It was noted previously that activated carbon had been
successfully applied to remove Kepone from solution. The same is true
for any of the sorbents found to be effective for in situ evaluations
such as XAD-2 and ES863. Consequently, sorbents, if developed for
operational application, should be considered as candidates for both
elutriate and in situ application. In in situ use, activated carbon
might be considered for application directly to the river without
retrieval. This would be done in the same manner as an application of
coal, but activated carbon offers a higher degree of adsorption.
However, availability of the resultant contaminated carbon to the
biota has not been evaluated.
VIII-24
-------
The engineering feasibility and operational utility of the sorbent
methods investigated by Battelle have not been evaluated.
Accordingly, cost estimates are speculative. However, for comparison
purposes, application costs excluding capital costs have been
estimated.
In situ Application of Retrievable Media:
Dose Rate - 1.2 Ib resins/ft? sediment
Number of Applications - 2 (potential removal of 90% in highly
contaminated sediments, greater in others)
Resin Loss Rate - 25* of resin
Cost of Resin - J120/ft3
Unit Resin Loss Costs - $0.51/ft3 sediment
Application and Retrieval Cost - J0.10/ft3 sediment
Regeneration Costs - $0.25/ft3 sediment
Disposal of Repone Residuals - J0.05/ft' sediment
Total Unit Cost - $0.90/ft3 sediment
In situ Application of Coal:
Dose Rate - 1.2 lb/ft3 sediment (this will reduce Kepone levels
in water up to SOX)
Cost of Coal - $20/ton
Unit Cost of Coal Applied - $0.012/ft3 sediment
Dnit Cost of Application - S0.02/ft3 sediment
Total Unit Cost - $0.032/ft3 sediment
In situ Application of Activated Carbon:
Dose Rate - 1 lb/ft3 sediment
-------
Cost of Carbon - $0.50/lb
Unit Cost of Carbon Applied - SO.SO/ft* sediment
Unit Cost of Application - S0.02/ft' sediment
Total Unit Cost - SO.52/ft' sediment
Polymer Films
Battelle conducted an evaluation of the utility of polymer films
to seal Kepone-contaminated sediments in Bailey Bay. However, such
films at best would keep the sediments from continually supplying
dissolved Kepone to the water column until natural sedimentation might
seal in the Kepone deposits. Furthermore, with the need to perforate
the sheeting for gas release, the film's sealing integrity is lost and
in upward flux of water through the sediments could continually bring
Kepone contamination from beneath the film. Thus, the value of
applying a polymer film to local areas such as Bailey Bay is
questionable.
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
In exploring nonconventional removal approaches, biological
treatment options were explored in the literature and in limited
laboratory studies. Uptake and bioconcentration were investigated for
their potential of extracting Kepone from the environment. A summary
of the possible biologic approaches that might be further studied for
application to the Kepone contamination is given in Exhibit vili-5.
VIII-26
-------
Exhibit VIII-5
Possibilities of Biological Amelioration of Kepone
QraaniM
In Situ
Secondary Treatment
Htgner plants e.g.
nyeclntn)
Fungi
Sactarta
Algae
rtier
(1) leaf surfaces nay
accunilata Xepene
Hovever. Oils Is
not i practical
alternative
(2) Not kraut to neta-
bollzo Xepone
(1) Because of low
Moon* cancentra-
tlon In >etor tne
UM «f possible
aerobic fungi
•nlcn degrade
Kegone ti not
feasible
(1) Roots not knoM to
tceuniUu similar
(Roou
lly fret
floating)
(2) HOC kflOMI tO J»ti6-
•llze
(1) T7w ttdliiwiu 9f
Bailey Say »n1cn
ir« manly inaaro-
BIC tnd reducing
•111 not panrit
tM froHtn o'f tlM
majority of fungi
«i1cn tra Mroolc
(2) Aniorotats «n not
litely ta be af
any value
(1) Because of lev (1)
(•cone concentra-
tion effective
degradation or
accuMlatlen nay not
to possible «n poss1b!1t1es of amlorlatlon.
VIII-27
-------
Kepone attached to plant roots might be isolated, harvested and
destroyed by incineration with the plant or organism. However,
Battalia's studies conducted on barley showed no uptake of Kepone by
this plant. Other rooted plants might concentrate Kepone in a form
which subsequently could be harvested and the Kepone destroyed.
However, most Kepone resides in deeper river sediments where many
rooted plants will not grow, this method is of limited value.
Algal bioconcentration has been demonstrated (Appendix C, No. 4).
However, algal uptake and harvesting is also not a useful mechanism
for removing Kepone, because uptake would be from the water and not
from the sediments where the bulk of the Kepone resides.
Studies with other chlorinated hydrocarbons have shown that they
are taken up by plants and that uptake increases with water
solubility. However, as indicated, studies to date imply that plant
uptake and bioconcentration are not effective mechanisms for
mitigating Kepone in the environment.
Biodegradation is the most desirable approach to eliminating
Kepone. Due to the persistence of Kepone and its stability as a
VIII-28
-------
compound, biodegradation efforts to date have not shown much promise.
EPA Gulf Breeze scientists have demonstrated that Kepone does not
degrade (Appendix C, No. 12). Fungal species have been shown to be
capable of Kepone degradation by Atlantic Research Corporation, but
the fungi would not compete well with natural biota. This
application, if practical, would be restricted to a controlled
environment such as a Kepone treatment facility.
In general, no biological approaches show sufficient promise for
in situ amelioration and only fungal systems have shown promise for
application to Kepone waste treatment.
APPRAISAL
In general, most non-conventional alternatives were found to be
ineffective or inappropriate for use in Bailey Bay and the James
River. The more potentially promising candidates are mentioned in
Exhibit VIII-6 and the more readily viable options are discussed
below.
Molten sulfur may be a good alternative for stabilizing dredged
spoils. However, it is recognized that there could be severe
environmental impacts associated with this dredged spoil fixation
V1II-29
-------
EXHIBIT VIII-6
More Promising Honconventional Treatment Alternatives Investigated
Approach
Alternative
Results
Costs
Common I s
Spoil Fixation
Silicate
Dases
High pll Bolubillzes Keponc
i
u>
o
Ulutriate Treat-
man L
Organic Dases Yields 10-fold reduction
in Kepono levels
Resist leacliliigt poor
response to elutriate test
Sulfur Bases Yields 10-fold reduction
in Kopone leachate levels
Diological Promising strains of fungi
Degradation and mold
Estimated $10-
-15/yd3
$12.S3/ftJ fixed
Not determined
$1.30/ft fixed
Not determined
. '•" 'l-il''i Hi"1 .!.!)• UK-:.i- Mini,
|Vi»ln Hflr |
-------
EXHIBIT VIII-6, CONTINUED
Approach
Alternative
Results
Costa
Comioonta
Amlna photo- Degradation occurs at
sensitization exposed surfaces
UV and Ozone Good decomposition
Gamma radia- Dechlorlnatea, by-products
tion unidentified
Electron Beam Can infer from PCB work
Radiation only
Adsorption Carbon and synthetic resins
Temporary filtration/
carbon adsorption system
$.B05/lb for
ethylenediamine
plus $500/acre
application costs
yield treatment
at $4,000/acre in
treating top i inoh
of soil
$433,000/MGD
treated on small
plant-(capital
cost) ($.23/1,000
Gal treated-
(O « M coats/yr)
(For 50 MGD plant,
capital coats are
$7.9 million and
O * M costs are
2.2 nlllion/yr)
$. 10-.20/yd^(pre-
liminary)
Mot determined
Mot Determined
$50.4 million-
capital
$262,924 O C M/yr
Baaed on a 50 MGD
plant
$3.06x10' for 50
MGD system (capi-
tal cost)
Inappropriate on dredge
spoils, but potential for
use on surface soils.
Illtrox (Heatgate)-effective for
solutions. Doesn't include clari-
fication if needed.
Based on 20-50% solids slurries and
does not include equipment amortization.
Requires further testing.
Requires direct testing.
Effective, does not destroy
Kspone just concentrates and
holds it.
Calgon system does not include coats
for piping or pumping as required to
deliver or dispose of waters, or
the cost of the settling impound-
ment. Final disposal would include
incapsulatlon and backfilling over
the entire sand and carbon beds
to prevent future leachate contami-
nation.
-------
EXHIBIT VI11-6 CONTINUED
Approach
Alternative
Results
Costs
Cuuini:iits
In SIIn Processes
i
CJ
ro
Coagulation
Retrievable Sor-
bents
Coal
Polymer HI PIS
Activated Caibon
Removes partlculate
Kepone
Specific sorbents
capable of reinval
Initial data suggests
no advantages
lloldliuj action only
needed perforation
may render Ineffective
Intermediate betMeen
coal and retrievable
sorbents
tlO.I inllllon-
capl la 1,1551.650
O&H/yr; Based
on a 50 HGO plant
l.90/ft2
t.032/ft2
$.M4/ftZ
Effective for bulk reduction
Does not destroy Kcpnne
Effective but requires Incineration
and re<|pni;r.itlon pruductlun of media
not currently COIHIH.TC tally
available
requires fuither study
Effectiveness ipicstloned due to venting
requirements. Applicable only to
eiuhaynienls.
Effcctlve--wlll retard aval lability
but not remove Kepone.
In all In situ piucessea, environmental
Impacts require serious consideration
-------
process because elemental sulfur, while stable in water, readily
changes to soluble and potentially toxic forms when mixed with
reducing as well as oxidizing sediments. Molecular compounds of
concern include carbon disulfide, hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide,
and these should be handled carefully. Accordingly, the molten sulfur
technique will require additional investigation and evaluation.
Epoxy grout fixation looked promising, but extremely high costs of
$12.50 per cubic foot and limited availability eliminated this option
from consideration.
The Japanese fixation process is a proven large scale operational
in-place fixation technology. This fixation process generally costs
$10 to $15 a cubic yard, and eliminates removal costs. However, any
in-place fixation technique would have major impacts on the benthic
communities.
Based on the study investigations, the UV-ozone process and the
temporary filtration/carbon adsorbtion scheme are deemed best suited
for elutriate treatment. Coagulation processes will remove only
Kepone associated with particulate matter. Both coagulation and
activated carbon must be associated with regeneration processes and
Kepone destruction or isolation processes since these processes
accumulate the Kepone but do not destroy it like UV-ozone treatment.
VIII-33
-------
However, before UV-ozone treatment is utilized, further investigations
are needed to determine the extent of Kepone degradation occurring and
the relative toxicity of the degradation by-products.
From the studies on turbid samples, the UV-ozone treatment process
may provide a means of removing Kepone contamination from sediment, if
the sediments are put in slurries of 20 percent to 50 percent solids.
These slurry concentrations are the amounts attainable when the Oozer
pump is used for dredging. This is discussed further in Chapter IX.
No major environmental impacts are anticipated with the
application of the UV-ozone treatment process other than those
associated with construction of the facilities and the increased
demand for power. However/ as indicated, by-products and/or
deleterious residues have not been studied.
Of the in situ approaches considered, all show some degree of
effectiveness. The potential of using coal is still not resolved.
Based on laboratory comparisons, activated carbon is more appropriate
than coal as an in situ additive. Any in situ use of activated carbon
or coal, if it proves to be operationally effective, would be limited
in application to areas contaminated at less than 1 ug/g (ppm). In
areas where Kepone concentrations were greater than or equal to 1 ug/g
(ppm), retrievable media or fixation techniques should be given
further consideration. The latter exception is made to reflect the
VIII-34
-------
fact that at high Kepone concentrations in sediments, the potential
reduction in Kepone availability with coal or activated carbon would
still allow unacceptable levels of Kepone in the water. For these
areas/ retrievable media and fixation/ if effective, would be costly.
Environmental impacts associated with in situ treatment are not
well understood, but in situ treatment will pose many physical,
biological and chemical impacts and implications.
There are several aspects of in situ treatment which need further
analyses. The most important of these is the effect that the
hydrodynamics of the James River and its features will have on the
stability, integrity, and behavior of emplaced materials. These
aspects will affect the method and location of treatment application.
7111-35
-------
IX. CONVENTIONAL MITIGATION METHODS
SCOPE and APPROACH
Under its support agreement for the project, the Norfolk District
Corps of Engineers: (1) evaluated all potential dredging technology on
the world market as well as methods to control resuspensions and
concomitant secondary pollution; (2) investigated conventional means
for checking Kepone inflows from the Hopewe11 area into the James
River; and (3) made preliminary estimates for removing Kepone from the
lower James River via dredging including examination of potential
dredge spoil sites. Plans for checking Kepone flows from the Hopewell
area involved development and evaluation of 18 engineering
alternatives for capturing, stabilizing or removing Kepone in Bailey
Bay, Bailey Creek and Gravelly Run. In coordination with the D.S.
ish and Wildlife Service, a qualitative assessment was also made of
the environmental impacts which would be associated with a
construction or dredging project in the Hopewell area. This chapter
summarizes the findings of the Corps of Engineers in accomplishment of
the above tasks together with findings of the joint EPA/COE on-site
survey of Japanese technology. More detailed information can be found
in Appendix B.
IX-1
-------
POTENTIAL DREDGING TECHNOLOGY
Dredges in use today can be generally divided into three
categories: mechanical, hydraulic, and pneumatic. Mechanical dredges
normally lift the dredged material above the waterline by means of
buckets or scoops of various designs and deposit it in a barge or
similar conveyance for transport and disposal. Hydraulic dredges
generally move bottom material via a centrifugal pump and pipeline
directly toward a disposal area. Pneumatic dredges transport removed
bottom material by compressed air. Mechanical dredges can remove
bottom material at near inplace density. Hydraulic and pneumatic
dredges need dilution water to form the dredged material slurry.
Pneumatic dredges need considerably less water than hydraulic dredges,
In the Dhited states today there are basically two categories of
dredges: the scoop or bucket action type and the hydraulic suction
type, often considerable turbidity is created at the dredge site
during operation of these types of dredges. Bucket action or scoop
dredges used in the U.S. include the dragline, the dipper, the grab
bucket or clamshell, and the endless chain dredge. The hydraulic
suction dredge can be fitted with various mechanisms at the suction
pipe inlet which facilitate sediment removal. These mechanisms
include rotary cutters or cutterheads, auger—type cutterheads, or
high-pressure water jets. Mud shields or dustpans are used on some
hydraulic dredges in conjunction with the water jets to reduce
1X-2
-------
secondary suspension at the suction inlet. However, these dredges
collect only 10 to 30 percent solids, cause considerable sediment
agitation when mechanical cutterheads are used, and induce secondary
pollution at the receiving site due to high water content in the
dredged material. Consequently, without the use of sediment control
measures such as silt curtains, turbidity barriers or "diapers",
conventional dredges may pose a serious threat for aggravating an
existing, but possibly dormant, in-place pollution problem. Some
types of hydraulic dredges in the U.S. include the cutterhead, the
plain suction, the dustpan, the hopper, the sidecaster, and the Mud
cat. The Hud cat dredge is comparable to the cutterhead, except that
in lieu of a rotating cutter there is an auger-type horizontal
cutterhead. This dislodges the material, and the auger moves it
toward the suction pipe. A mud shield surrounds the auger and thereby
linimizes mixing of the disturbed bottom sediments with the
surrounding water.
Dredging technology in some foreign countries surpasses that of
the U.S. This is the case in Japan, where serious problems with in-
place toxic substances prompted the development of dredges which are
designed to remove contaminants rather than to simply excavate river
channels. A significant advancement in dredging technology for
removing contaminants was the improve me. nt of a pneumatic dredge. The
pneumatic or "Pneuma" dredge, originally developed in Italy, uses
hydrostatic head pressure and compressed air to remove contaminated
1X-3
-------
sediments. By applying a vacuum to a pneumatic dredge, the Japanese
ere able to utilize the dredge in shallow water/ thereby eliminating
the constraint of needing high hydrostatic head pressure. This dredge
is called the Oozer dredge.
Specific advantages for using pneumatic dredge systems especially
for contaminant removal include:
1. Continuous and uniform flow;
2. Practically no wear, since there are no mechanisms in
contact with the abrasive mixture except for the self-
acting spherical rubber valves;
3. Removes up to 60 to 80 percent solids by volume, thus
reducing costs and hazards in contaminated dredge spoil
disposal;
4. Particularly suited for dredging polluted material,
since it causes little disturbance while dredging and,
therefore, limits secondary pollution; and
5. Can be readily dismantled for transport over highways.
The following are examples of the pneumatic*type dredges: Pneuma
(Italy), Pressair Sand—Pump (Germany), and the Oozer (Japan).
A pneumatic pump is not effective in areas involving considerable
debris. Since there is no mechanical cutterhead, large debris would
tend to clog the intake. However, depending on the type of debris and
IX Jv
-------
sediments/ the mechanical cutterhead can also have equal or more
•erious difficulties.
In addition to the Oozer dredge previously described, the Japanese
have also advanced other aspects of dredging technology through the
development of a "Clean Up" hydraulic dredge, an antiturbidity system
for hopper dredges and the watertight grab bucket.
IHC Holland has designed a series of small dredging units which
operate under wet or marshy site conditions. They include three
dredging techniques—clamshell grab dredging, backhoe dredging, and
cutter suction dredging.
SITE EVALUATION OF JAPANESE TECHNOLOGY
In the review of foreign technology, it was evident that the
Japanese were the most advanced in handling in-place toxic substances.
A seven-member team consisting of three EPA members and four COE
members visited Japan in March, 1978 with the specific purpose of
evaluating what potential the Japanese technology offered for
mitigating the Kepone problem in the James River. Based on
preliminary findings, it was decided to give particular emphasis to
the spoil fixation techniques developed by Takenaka Komuten Co., Ltd.
and the Oozer dredges developed by Toyo Construetion Co., Ltd.
IX-5
-------
The Takenaka fixation techniques encompass three utilitarian
pproaches: (1) spoil removal/ fixation and then redistribution on
land; (2) in situ fixation of surface or near-surface spoil deposits
or layers down to 3.5 meters; and (3) fixation of spoil or sediment
layers at depths of about 40 meters.
Increased spoil site life/ improved secondary uses of inactive
spoil sites/ foundation stabilization/ and fixation of in-place
pollutants is possible with these processes. To date/ the fixation
processes have been used effectively on sludge contaminated by
mercury, copper/ zinc/ cadmium/ lead, chromium/ and PCB's. Laboratory
tests have shown the processes to be effective on arsenic as well.
Recent reported tests showed Kepone leachate of only 0.08 ug/1 (ppb)
from treated Bailey Bay sediment samples and Takenaka believes they
-ran reach a level of 0.01 ug/1 (ppb) to 0.03 ug/1 (ppb).
Visual inspection of large and small Oozer dredges/ owned by Toyo
Construction Company, and operating at Yokkaichi Fort and the Shibaura
Canal/ showed no evidence of secondary pollution. At the Shibaura
Canal/ the small Oozer was dredging oily bottom sediments with no
visible secondary pollution. However/ passing boats generated
considerable turbidity and resuspension of sediments. Operation of
the large Oozer "Taian Maru" was observed at Yokkaichi Port. The
monitoring closed circuit TV camera mounted on the head of the large
Oozer dredge showed little sediment resuspension, and minimal effect
on pelagic marine life.
IX-6
-------
At Yokkaichi Port, the investigating team was also able to observe
he "Clean Up No. 3" dredge operated by the Toa Harbor Works Co., Ltd.
Comparisons between the Oozer and "Clean Up" dredges were facilitated
by the use of both types of dredges at Yokkaichi Port. Both dredges
were selected based on their capabilities for dredging high
concentrations of solids while causing minimal turbidity. The Clean
Up dredge was not operating at the time of the survey and a crew
member was working on the cutterhead. Discussions indicated that the
"Clean Up No. 3" has had considerable operational difficulties and
that modifications to eliminate the operational difficulties
significantly reduced the functional capability of the dredge.
Earlier comparisons of the Oozer and the Clean Up dredge appeared in
the report on Tokyo Takahama Canal Sludge Dredging Project, 1975.
""his report notes that the turbidities immediately above the suction
inlets of the "Oozer No. 1" dredge and the "Clean Up No. 5" dredge
were compared with the following results:
Turbidities Immediately Above the Suction Inlets
Dredge Avg.(ppm) Max.(ppm) Min.(ppm)
Oozer No. 1 10.55 16.0 8.0
Clean Up No. 5 16.34 17.7 15.4
IX-7
-------
It is recognized that even the above comparisons do not reflect
rigorously controlled conditions and it would be advantageous to
simultaneously and thoroughly test the Japanese Oozer's operating,
production and secondary pollution abatement efficiencies against all
other dredges. Unfortunately, a survey of the literature and
discussions indicate that conclusive complete one-to-one comparisons
have not been made. Furthermore, it is highly doubtful that a large
scale comparison under sufficient ranges of conditions will be
accomplished in the forseeable future. Certainly a direct operational
comparison of world-wide dredging in the James River is less than
probable. Accordingly, it is incumbent on the Kepone project to make
recommendations on the most promising dredging scheme applicable to
he Kepone contamination problem in the James River.
On the basis of the available data, observations and discussions,
it was concluded that the Oozer pump dredge would be the most
practical for the Kepone contaminated sediment conditions existing in
the James River. At a minimum, testing of the small Oozer dredge in
the James River would provide operating parameters for evaluating
potential competing systems. Additionally, the Toyo Oozer has been
used effectively with Takenaka's fixation techniques. By pumping
slurries with high solids content, the Oozer provides a promising
operational combination with the fixation processes.
IX-8
-------
DREDGE-TYPE APPROACHES FOR EAILEY CREEK, GRAVELLY RUN, AND BAILEY BAY
The following section addresses only the engineering aspects of
dredging these locations. The issue of the desirability of dredging
and other mitigation approaches is discussed in the section describing
the appraisal of the Bailey Bay, Bailey Creek and Gravelly Run
alternatives.
The substantially-sized trees in the flood plain of Bailey Creek
would require removal of trees, stumps and major roots with a
dragline. Under these conditions, a short-based dragline is practical
for excavation of the material in Bailey Creek. Due to the
inaccuracies of the dragline operation, the minimum depth of
excavation would have to be about three feet. The Japanese watertight
rab bucket would be ineffective, since debris would be caught in the
jaws, rendering its design ineffective. The ZBC amphidredge equipped
with a grab bucket might be a less environmentally damaging option in
Bailey Creek, since it could crawl along the wetlands, thereby
reducing clearing and grubbing requirements. Gravelly Run would
present more removal complications than Bailey Creek, because numerous
bridges and other crossways are within the area to be excavated
upstream to the five-foot m.s.l. crossing.
. /
The shallowness and quiescent nature of Bailey Bay suggests use of
the Mud Cat dredge in conjunction with silt curtains as practical for
IX-9
-------
dredging there. However, if the Oozer dredge can be transported to
"-.he U.S. and placed in operation on a shallow water barge, it is
advantageous to use the Oozer for dredging the Bay, since the Oozer
minimizes resuspension and removes high percentages of solids. The
high solids content of the spoil would reduce elutriate treatment
costs and requirements and, also, reduce the potential for secondary
pollution from the disposal site.
ELUTRIATE AND RUNOFF TREATMENT AND CEEDGE SPOIL STABILIZATION
In considering dredging activity for removing of Kepone-con-
taminated material, it was important to address the method of
conveyance, the type of disposal area, the treatment of the elutriate,
and the stabilization of the dredged material. Also, these components
-/ere considered as an integrated system and not as separate
components. With the presence of continuing Kepone inflows from the
Hopewell area, a determination concerning what treatment, if any, was
necessary for the watertorne Kepone being carried to the James River.
Elutriate Treatment
Elutriate treatment and spoil stabilization should be applied if
Kepone return to the system from disposal areas causes the ambient
Kepone levels in the sediment and water of the James River to rise
above the 0.015 ug/g (ppm) and the 0.008 ug/1 (ppb) levels recommended
EC-10
-------
by the Gulf Breeze Laboratory. Full engineering studies would be
necessary to determine, conclusively, whether the safe levels would be
exceeded as a result of dredging mitigation activity. For the purpose
of comparison, cost estimates were based en an "assumed" need for
mitigation, fixation and elutriate treatment and a theoretical slurry
composition.
As discussed in, Chapter VIZI, both the UV—ozone treatment system,
proposed by westgate Research corporation, and the temporary
filtration/carbon adsorption wastewater treatment system proposed by
Calgon Corporation are recommended for further evaluation for
elutriate treatment. The UV-ozone option seems to destroy Kepone, but
the degradation products and their relative toxicity still need to be
determined. The use of the temporary filtration/carbon adsorption
ption may still pose disposal problems if future leachate
contamination is to be prevented. At this time, costs for UV-ozone
treatment average $433,000 per mgd for small plant capital costs and
about $.23/1,000 gallons for operations and maintenance costs.
On a comparative basis for a 50 mgd plant, it would cost over five
times more to treat elutriate with conventional activated carbon
systems than with UV-ozone, but less than half of what UV-ozone costs
with the temporary filtration/carbon adsorption system. Estimates on
the temporary filtration/carbon adsorption system exclude pumping and
piping costs as required to deliver or dispose of the water from the
1X-11
-------
carbon unit, any impoundment measures needed, and any leachate
contamination preventive measures.
Further, preliminary findings indicate that a large-scale UV-ozone
portable treatment system would treat 20 to 50 percent solids slurry
for 10 to 20 cents per cubic yard, not including equipment
amortization (Westgate, 1978). Hence, the additional costs for using
the UV-ozone system may not be significant if the settling impoundment
needed for the temporary filtration/adsorbtion scheme incorporates
significant additional costs or if high spoil fixation costs can be
eliminated by treating Repone contaminated dredge spoil in the slurry
form.
Incineration of dredged spoil was discounted because the lack of
ombustible material in the spoil would make fuel costs alone
prohibitive.
Dredge Spoil Stabilization
Based on laboratory studies, two of the dredge spoil stabilization
processes discussed in Chapter VIII offer potential to date, molten
sulfur and epoxy grout. Molten sulfur stabilization yielded tenfold
reductions in Kepone leaching, but the .methodology has not been
proven, and environmental impacts could be severe in light of the
sulfur by-products. Fixation costs for molten sulfur are estimated at
EC-1?
-------
S1.30 per cubic foot. However, the Japanese process developed by
Takenaka does not pose the cost and environmental problems that using
molten sulfur would.Results to date, discussed in Chapter VIII, are
extremely encouraging concerning the Takenaka fixation process.
Efforts to "fix1* Kepone are currently underway to further refine their
process for this application. Typical fixation cost estimates are $10
to $15 per cubic yard. However, these costs may be larger when the
fixation agent for Repone is further refined.
For Rok Epoxy sealant provided similar results to the molten
sulfur, but at a cost of $12.53 per cubic fcot for fixation. High
costs, limited availability, and questions of maintaining sealant
integrity made this option unattractive.
Since elutriate and stabilization costs are high, the Oozer dredge
has added advantages. It would significantly reduce the volume of
elutriate and water content in the spoils, and thus reduce treatment
costs. The Oozer is capable of attaining 60 to 80 percent solids in
its slurry or spoil. Assuming a low value for the Oozer dredge of
50 percent solids concentration and another 0.5 factor for
interstitial water in the spoils, the theoretical volume of water to
be removed and treated from the dredged spoils is 1.5 times the volume
of spoil dredged. For the purposes of .preliminary cost
determinations, molten sulfur was used for estimating stabilization or
fixation costs and DV-ozone was used to estimate elutriate treatment
EC-13
-------
costs. Ose of molten sulfur and UV—ozone processes for determining
treatment costs does not indicate a preference for either treatment
scheme at this point.
ALTERNATIVES FOR BAILEY BAY, BAILEY CREEK, AND GRAVELLY RUN
The Corps of Engineers evaluated alternatives for checking Kepone
input to the James River from Bailey Bay, Bailey Creek and Gravelly
Run. The alternatives were limited to structural solutions such as
dredging; various types of levee, dam and wall construction; channel
improvement or modification; covering or sealing; and other
combinations of structural solutions. The analysis included an
investigation and evaluation of the engineering feasibility,
implications, and costs for removing the Kepone-contaminated sediments
rom Bailey Bay and Bailey Creek areas. Based on model simulations
and biological implications, implementation of these alternatives may
be considered viable only if cleanup of the James River were
contemplated. However, two of the alternatives offer potential
utility and benefits as dredge spoil sites for currently contemplated
maintenance dredging. The Corps alternatives for Bailey Bay, Bailey
Creek and Gravelly Run are indicated in Exhibit IX-1. Treatment of
elutriate from the spoil disposal sites and fixation costs are
included in Exhibit IX-1 primarily for .those options which merited
further evaluation and which would be associated with treatment.
IX-lU
-------
EXHIBIT IX-I Proposed Alternatives for Conventional Mitigation Measures
to the Kc|Mine Contamination In Bailey Creek,
Bailey Bay and Gravelly Run
Alternative 1'ronosed
Number Acllun
Areas
Required (acres)
Costs Excluding Elutriate Treatment* Fixation
Treatment Costs Costs
Total Comnents/
Costs Recouinendatlons
Dani and possible treatment 12 $1.3 million
plant at mouth of Gravelly
linn; treat flows up to and
Including tlie 100 year
flood level
Uiui eioutli of Gravelly Run 59 $1.6 Billion
exclude spillway and divert
flow to Bailey Creek for
treatment
Seal Contaminated flood 30 covered $1.5 million
plain areas of Gravelly 19.6 cleared
Hun; elevate stream channel,
rip rap creek bed. construct
control structure at moulli
Kolocate existing channel In * +
(iidvclly Run Into a concrete
clidiincl or closed conduit;
cover contaminated flood
plain with 3 ft. minimum
Impervious cover
not recninicnded
not recouinended
not recommended
Increased costs
no benefits over
tlioke of alter-
3 -not recom-
mended
* Excluding capital cusls or logistics costs for portable unit.
HA Not Applicable.
» Eliminated fiom consideration, no further determinations made.
-------
EXHIBIT IX-1. COH1INUED
Allurnatlve Proposed
(lumber Action
Areas
Required (acres
Costs Excluding
Treatment
Elutriate Treatment*
Costs
Fixation lotal Coumoiits/
Costs Costs Recuninentlatlons
Uretlije new channel adjacent
to existing channel of
Gravelly Run; seal side
slopes of new one and
cover contaminated flood
plain. Place flow control
structure at nioulh
Dredije all contaminated
outerlal In Gravelly Run
and place spoil In disposal
site 14 In Ualley Bay
Ddiu and passible treatment
plant at nnuth of Bailey
lieek; treat flows up to and
IucluilIng the 100 year flood
level
Seal contaminated flood plain
of Bailey Creek with 1 ft.
minimum layer of native cohesive
material; flow structure down-
stream to prevent seepage
llelucate existing channel In
Da I ley Creek Into concrete
conduit; cover and seal con-
taminated flood plaln-3 ft.
minimum of Impervious cover
30
20 cleared
1.060
$1.0 nllllon
$9.? million
NA
NA
464 covered
410 cleared
$20.8 million
NA
NA
IIA
NA
$20.8
mil-
lion
• Excluding capital costs or logistics costs for portable unit.
NA Not Applicable.
• fl (initiated from consideration, no further deteimlnatlons Made.
Increased coslsj
no benefits over
alternative 3 -
not reconniendcd
Includes costs
for developing
disposal sites-
mi t recommended
not reconiiiended
as proposed,
since treatment
of llopcwell's
runoff Is not
necessary
consider
Increased
cos ts i no
benefits over
alt. 8; not
recniiinended
-------
EXHIBIT IX-I. CONTINUED
Alternative Proposed
Number Action
Areas Costs Exclildlny
Requlre«l(acred) Treatment
Elutriate Trealwent* Fixation Intal
Costs Costs Costs
Comments/
Recwuncndatlons
10
II
12
Dredge new channel In Da I ley
Creek adjacent to existing
did line I; seal side slopes of
new one and cover contaminated
flood plain. Place flow con-
tiul structure at uoutli.
Dredge all contaminated
material In Bailey Creek and
place spoil In disposal site
14 In Bailey Day
Itaduce flows and treatment
needs via Impounding and
diversion of upstream flows,
up to 100 year flow level In
Bailey Creek, above old
sewaye treatment plant; diver-
sion via overland pressure
conduit to Cha|i|iell Creek or
yiavlly conduit to the Janies
River, llils alternative
would lie combined with another
to solve the Keuone problem In
polluted stream portion below
old treatment plant.
NA
MA
513
435 cleared
$16 ml 11 Ion
$ 180,900
189 nil- $105.2
I ton million
405-gravlty £22.1 nil I Ion-gravity
420-pressure f 34.8 nil IIon-pressure
NA
NA
$22.1 mill.
(gravity)
$34.fl will.
(piessure)
* Excluding capital costs or logistics costs for portable unit.
HA Nut Applicable
» Eliminated from consideration, no further determinations made.
Increased costs;
no benefits over
those of alt. 3.
not reconinended
Includes costs fur
developing disposal
s I tcs i not recom-
mended
costs do not
reflect down-
si ream treatment
needs. gravity pre-
ferred over pressure
due to costs;
not recoumended
-------
EXHIBIT IX-1, CONTINUED
Alternative
Number
13
Proposed
Ac I luii
Orcd
-------
EXIIIOIT IJM. CONTINUED
AIlerna 11vc Pi ojios ed
(lumber Action
Areas Costs Excluding
Required (acres) Treatment
Elutriate Treatment* Fixation Total
Costs Costs Costs
Coiiments/
Rccouineinlatlons
16
17
IB
Construct levee from I mile
east of City Point across
UaI ley Day to Jordan Polnti
use confined area for naln-
lenance dredging of Janes
River; treat effluent from
disposal area
Construct levee from Jordan
Point to east side of Bailey
Creek; use confined area for
disposal; dredge remainder
of ilalley Day. Ualley Creek
and (iidvelly Runs proposed
spoil site Ir number 14,
Judged to be the best.
Cover all contaminated
areas of Hal ley Bay.
Da I ley Creek and Gravelly
Run with Impervious
Illanket; allow natural
drainage patterns to
develop
NA
30-Gravelly
SU-Ualley
Creek
20-cleaned
Gravelly
OS-cleaned
Bailey Creek
$ 20.6 million
$tll9nmton
$95oil- $123.8
lion oil 11 Ion
• Excluding capital costs or logistics costs for portable unit.
HA Hot Applicable
• Eliminated from consideration, no further determinations made
Alt. 14 could
provide same
function as alt
16; there fore,
not reconinended
Alt. 17 without
Gravelly Run
same as alt. II
but mitigates
Kepone In Bailey
Bay also —
Consider
no known
methods to fill
area without
diking; erosion
problems and
sealing diffi-
culties; there-
fore not recom-
mended
-------
In all alternatives for dredging in Bailey Bay, it was assumed
*hat sediments with Kepone concentrations greater than 0.1 ug/g (pom)
would be removed. This was based on the ambient levels in the James
River outside the Bailey Bay study area. However, subsequent evidence
(Appendix C) indicates that fish and other organisms in the lower
James, where sediment concentrations are orders of magnitude lower,
accumulate Kepone concentrations above the FDA Action Levels. Hence,
actual removal or mitigation efforts may have to be aimed at
concentrations less than 0.1 ug/g (ppm), necessitating higher costs
than anticipated. As noted in Chapter VI, it is recommended that
Kepone concentrations in sediments should be reduced below a limit of
0.015 ug/g (ppm).
Appraisal for Bailey Bay, Bailey Creek and Gravelly Run Alternatives
Time constraints on the project dictated that the development of
the 18 alternatives be undertaken simultaneously with sampling studies
of Kepone concentrations in the area. Accordingly, the assessment of
the alternatives reflects engineering and cost considerations, as well
as the later derived data on the importance of the alternative in
mitigation of critical Kepone contamination.
After investigating Kepone concentrations,in Gravelly Run, Bailey
Creek and Bailey Bay, it was determined that the concentrations in
Gravelly Run were low, and therefore. Gravelly Run would not be
IX-20
-------
considered for mitigation measures at this time, thereby eliminating
alternatives 1 through 6 from further consideration.
Assuming a low flow condition in the James River of 21.2 cubic
meters per second measured at Richmond, a Bailey Creek flow of
0.57 cubic meters per second, and a high Kepone concentration of
0.3 ug/1 (ppb) discharging from Bailey Creek, the Kepone concentration
contributed by runoff from the Hopeviell area after dilution in the
James River, would only be on the order of 0.003 to 0.004 ug/1 (ppb)
or 3 to ft ng/1 (ppt). This dilution determination does not account
for the dilution water being added to the James River below Richmond
by other rivers such as the Appomattox. Eased on these assumptions,
the resultant soluble concentration, under these low flow conditions,
is below the 0.008 ug/1 (ppb) "safe" limit recommended by Gulf Breeze.
Jherefore, runoff from the Hopewell area will not require treatment
and alternative 7 was eliminated from further consideration.
Alternative 8 involving sealing Bailey Creek flood plain would
cost S20.8 million. Alternatives 9 and 10 have increased costs over
alternative 8, but offer no additional benefits. Therefore,
alternatives 9 and 10 were eliminated from consideration and
alternative 8 was retained for further consideration.
Alternative 11 would require fixation costs. Using, for example,
molten sulfur, the fixation cost would be $89 million. Elutriate
IX-21
-------
treatment costs utilizing UV-ozone, as an example, would be
0.18 million excluding clarification costs, capital costs or logistic
costs for a portable unit. Elutriate cost estimates may be high,
since use of a dragline does not generate as much elutriate water as
estimated. However, costs will be incurred by the necessity to
control turbidity from the dragline operations. Later considerations
of alternative 17 showed that it offered more benefits. Thus,
alternative 11 was eliminated from further consideration.
Alternative 12 does not propose treatment of contaminated areas,
but offers flow-reduction schemes aimed at reducing subsequent
treatment requirements and costs downstream. Since alternative 7, as
a result of not needing to treat Hopewell runoff, is eliminated from
-onsideration and Kepone sediments can be captured by alternative 8 at
a cheaper cost, alternative 12 was also eliminated from further
consideration.
A number of confined upland and overboard disposal sites had been
considered for disposal of dredged material from Bailey Bay. After
evaluating all sites, the Corps of Engineers determined that selection
of the optimum overboard contained disposal site was the most feasible
disposal approach. Specifically, a site in Bailey Bay, site 14,
(Appendix B) was the most reasonable area since the contaminated
material would remain in the same relative environment. Selection of
site 14 would reduce the amount of dredging required in Bailey Bay by
IX-22
-------
approximately 500,000 cubic yards and would minimize the required
pumping distance. Since the Bailey Eay site was selected for
disposal, it was not necessary to dredge the entire Bay. This
eliminated alternative 13 from further consideration.
Alternative 14, consisting of a levee across Bailey Bay, could be
used for maintenance dredging of the James River. Since it was
proposed that no treatment of runoff from the Bailey Creek and
Gravelly Run watersheds was necessary, alternative 14 has one of the
lowest capital costs of any alternative proposed by the Corps. If the
James River were dredged specifically to remove the Kepone-
contaminated sediments, then elutriate treatment and spoil fixation
would probably be required and would add significant costs to this
option. Thus, alternative 14 was retained for further consideration.
By eliminating the need for the alternatives concerning Gravelly
Run and utilizing the Bailey Bay disposal area, alternative 15 has the
same benefits as had alternative 7 and also was eliminated from
further consideration.
Alternative 14 can provide the same function as alternative 16.
Therefore, alternative 16 is eliminated from further consideration.
Alternative 17 consists of a levee from Jordan Point to the east
side of Bailey Creek. Without addressing Gravelly Run, it would
13-23
-------
provide the same and more benefits than alternative 11. Fixation
costs using molten sulfur would cost about $95 million and elutriate
costs using UV-ozone treatment would be $.19 million, excluding
clarification costs, capital costs or logistic costs if a portable
unit was used. Thus, alternative 17 was retained for further
consideration.
Alternative 18 presented major engineering problems in that there
are no known methods to fill the area with impervious material unless
the area is diked to control sedimentation. Furthermore, there would
be a severe problem with erosion and seepage along the outer edges of
the fill area. Thus, alternative 18 did not receive further
cons ideration.
Based on the above evaluation, alternatives 8, 14, and 17 were the
only options recommended for final consideration in Bailey Bay. Since
alternative 8 only addresses Bailey Creek, it has low priority.
However, alternatives 14 and 17 involve mitigation on Bailey Bay and
Bailey Creek. Alternative 8, as indicated, would have a final cost of
$20.8 million since there is no treatment associated with it.
Biological study implications indicate that actions taken for
mitigation in the James may be relatively ineffective in the short
term, if they do not address the entire river. Consequently, the
total costs in alternative 17, S123.8 million, are excessive if
IX-2U
-------
efforts are limited only to Bailey Bay and Bailey Creek. If action is
taken on the entire James River, alternative 17 may be desired over
alternative 14 for aesthetic reasons.
Alternative 14, with a final cost of $6.8 million, poses the least
costly option of the three recommended for consideration. If
elutriate and fixation treatment are required for dredge spoils placed
behind the levee, then costs will rise. As previously indicated,
unless action is taken to remove Kepone from the James River entirely,
localized concerted efforts would be relatively ineffective in the
short term. However, the costs for alternative 14 are such that it
bears further consideration. When dredging the James River for
navigational purposes resumes, especially in the zones of heavy Kepone
contamination, such as the turbidity maximum zone, consideration
hould be given for contaminated spoil placement in an acceptable
disposal area designed to minimize Repone reentry to the system.
Using the Bailey Bay alternative 14 as a spoil disposal site should be
considered because the added spoil would cover and contain much of the
more highly contaminated sediments in Bailey Bay. Ose of protective
diking could serve to isolate the contaminated sediments and prevent
their re-entry to the river. The spoil area could be designed to
minimize the flow impacts of the entering Bailey Creek and Gravelly
Run. Thus, alternative 14 is desirable, independent of any action
proposed for the James River.
DC-25
-------
JAMES FIVER ALTERNATIVES
The Corpsof Engineers has completed preliminary estimates for
removing Repone-contaminated sediments from the James River.
Parameters used in the estimates are:
1. Excavation be limited to the James River from Hopewe11 to the
James River Bridge; no dredging was considered in tributaries
on the James.
2. Excavation depth be limited to 15 inches.
3. Disposal be limited to adjacent sites.
1. Sand for disposal area construction is assumed to be within
an economical pumping distance of each site.
5. It was assumed that the Oozer dredge is available to dredge a
depth of 15 inches.*
6. Approximately 25 percent excess material will be removed due
to over-dredging.
7. The Oozer pipeline will pump material 5,000 feet.
Exhibits IX—2 and IX—3 show the disposal areas proposed for
confinement of Kepone-contaminated spoil. Preference was given to
sites contiguous to the shore and care was taken to select locations
that would have minimal impact on adjacent drainage patterns. Some
filling of interior low areas was anticipated, Design levels were
*The Oozer dredge was considered here based on the considerations
discussed previously in this Chapter.
EC-26
-------
a
JAMES HI will V*
KCPONE SIUIW
UISrilj»< »Ht«l NO I IKI1
it
-------
I 'V' • Ml
»/ ,\V I ;
I 4-v •*''.'"• i1' f
V '
r;V« »*HlAl
Hto&'f
JSr
toc«iiOM M»r
SCALE IN MILES
o
JAMES Illvlll tfA
KEPONE STUOV
IIISI'IIS«I «lll >S HUM! tllllt
I«N ••!•
i V|||f" •" 1
-------
based on 100-year flood level and dictated an elevation of 10 feet
above sea level datum. Areas not utilized to capacity will be used
for future maintenance dredgings. The dredging areas are coded in
order to correlate the disposal sites and the dredging area.
Exhibit IX-4 indicates the total costs, dredged quantities, and
acreage requirements for mitigating Kepone in the James River. These
costs do not reflect any elutriate or stabilization costs which might
be necessary to prevent recontamination of the James River. It should
be noted that the elevation in Area 1 reflects deposition of material
removed from Gravelly Run and Bailey Creek. The selection of Area 1
could supercede the area selected in alternative 14 for Bailey Bay,
Bailey Creek and Gravelly Run if total mitigation is proposed for the
James River.
It is estimated that it would take cne Oozer dredge 120 years to
complete the dredging task. Twenty-five Oozer dredges aided by
45 booster pumps could complete the job in about 5 years, with
judicious logistics the amount of equipment could be reduced.
Logistics for the equipment needed to dredge the James River is
estimated to be $7 million, alone. All estimates provided by the
Corps of Engineers contain a 20 percent contingency rate, an
engineering and design rate of 12 percent and an administrative cost
of 8 percent. Based on dredging alone, cost per cubic yard amounts to
E-29
-------
EXHIBIT IX-4
Suuinary for Conventional Kemoval of Kepone Contaminated Sediments In the Janes River
ll,
o
Disposal
Areas
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
TOfALS
Acres
444
560
248
411
276
767
736
907
531
872
1572
1635
725
9766
Elevation of
Slurry nise
10.4
10.3
7.1
8.9
8.4
6.7
5.4
7.4
9.3
7.5
10.4
9.2
8.4
ROUNDED
Dredged Quantity In Cubic Yards
25S
15' depth Excess Included
7,440.000 9.300.000
8.610.000
2.790.000
6.740.000
5.050.000
10.440.000
12.830.000
18.440.000
11.300.000
14.260.000
37.780.000
28.460.000
12.780.000
176.920.000
(177.000.000)
10.762.500
3.487.500
8.425.000
6.312.500
13.050.000
16.037.500
23.050.000
14.125.000
17.825.000
47.225.000
35.575.000
15.975.000
221.150.000
(221.000.000)
ROUNDED
Dredging Costs
at S4.30/cu yd
for 15* death
$31.992.000
37.023.000
11.997.000
28.982.000
21.715.000
44.892.000
55.169.000
79.292.000
48.590.000
61.318.000
162.454.000
122.378.000
54.954.000
$760.756.000
$761.976.000*
(762.000.000)
Disposal Site
Preparation Cost
$ 3.550.000
4.480.000
7.610.000
11.990.000
11.850.000
9.200.000
15.110.000
15.340.000
13.950.000
11.620.000
17.380.000
20.200.000
10.840.000
$153.120.000
$220.490.000*
(220.500.000)
Total Cost for Dredging and Disposal
Including Contingencies Engineering and Design Studies and Administrative Costs
fotaI Project Costs
$902.5 x 10C
$1 billion
Total Ored«jln;i Cost t
$762 x I06 »
Rounded
Total Disposal Cost
$220.5 x 106
(Totnl removal and disposal costs amount to (5.55/cublc yard.)
• Total cost Includes contingencies, engineering and design studies and administrative costs.
-------
$4.30. When disposal costs are included, the total project costs are
estimated to be $5.55 per cubic yard. The disposal sites would be
Craney Island-type enclosures, sealed in the same manner as the sites
considered in the Bailey Bay alternatives. Extrapolating the costs
for the preparation of site 14 in Bailey Bay, estimates of site
preparation for each disposal area are determined in Exhibit IX-U.
The total dredging cost would be about $760 million and the total
disposal cost would be $220,500,000, excluding elutriate treatment or
spoil fixation costs.
The results of this preliminary analysis present the magnitude of
removing 177 million cubic yards of contaminated material from the
James River at a cost of $982,500,000, or close to $1 billion.
Dredging $762,000,000
Disposal 220,500,000
Total project cost $982,500,000
If elutriate treatment and spoil fixation costs are considered,
the total cost of the project ranges from $1 to 7. 2 billion depending
on the treatment chosen. Elutriate treatment costs for DV-ozcne were
figured using a portable UV-ozone unit .and a treatment rate of
SO.23/1,000 gallons, excluding logistics or capital costs or possible
water clarification costs. A summary of a complete treatment cost
-------
estimate for treating the James River sediments with intra—basin
disposal is presented in Exhibit IX-5.
Battelle, in separate efforts, determined costs and some
environmental consequences for other in situ mitigation proposals.
These are also included in Exhibit IX-5.
MITIGATION OF ELEVATED CONTAMINATION AREAS
Certain areas of the James River contain more Kepone than others
as a result of dispersion and other hydrologic parameters. Bailey Bay
and Tar Bay contain significant amounts as a result of their proximity
to the discharge source of Hopewell. Due to the characteristics of
the turbidity maximum significant amounts of Kepone also lie in the
.ediments of the turbidity maximum zone.
It was previously indicated that partial cleanup of the James
River might have little effect in the short term range in mitigating
Kepone impacts. It could, however, reduce the amount of closure time
in the long range perspective. Also, it is imperative that a strategy
be developed for the protection of Chesapeake Bay. As indicated by
the modelling effort, no significant impacts are predicted for the
Chesapeake Bay, but the predictions can change as a result of
increased data inputs and more sampling data.
EC-32
-------
EXHIBIT IX-5
Treatment Cost Estimates For Alternatives On The James River
Without Dredging With Dredging
9
Dredging With Oozer Dredge (COE)* N/R g $ 1.0 x 10 9
Molten Sulfur Stabilization $ 6.2 x 109 $ 7.2xl09
TJK Fixation with Removal $ 1.8-2.6 x 106 $ 2.8-3.6 x 10q
Elutriate Treatment - UV-ozone $ 12.4 x 10 $ 1.01 x 10
Elutriate Treatment - temporary scheme 6 9
filtration/carbon adsorbtion $ 40.3 x 106 $ 1.04 x 10Q
UV-ozone for Sediments $26.6-53.1 x 10 $1.03-1.05 x 10
In Situ (Battelle)* 9
Application of Retrievable Sorbents $ 6.2 x 103 N/R
Application of Coal $ 2.2 x 109 N/R
Application of Activated Carbon $ 3.6 x 10 N/R
N/R - Not required.
*The areas used by the COE for determining dredging alternative costs were
slightly different than those used by Battelle in determining non-conventional
alternative costs. The relative ranking of alternatives due to cost
determinations remains unchanged even with this arenl difference.
-------
In an effort to determine where cleanup activities should begin if
he Chesapeake Bay were threatened or if some mitigation efforts were
undertaken in the James River, the Battelle model was used to answer
the following questions about mitigation:
1. What will happen to the Kepone migration pattern and its
concentration level if a part of the Kepone in the river bed
is removed by physical, chemical or biological methods?
2. Where is the optimal location for Kepone removal to reduce
the Kepone level in the River?
Computer simulations were performed on various reaches of the
-iver. It was assumed that for each case, Kepone in the bed at a
certain part of the tidal James River was completely removed. This
was accomplished by changing boundary conditions to assume no bed
Kepone in the restored reach. For all cases, fresh-water input
discharges were assumed to be 247 cubic meters per second. Computer
results during the maximum ebb tide after 1-month simulation for these
cases were then compared with the no clean-up case, in order to assess
the effectiveness of the Kepone cleanup activities. The resultant
predictions are in terms of percent reductions of Kepone levels in the
associated water columns.
IX-34
-------
Among the cases examined, middle river mitigation efforts are
predicted to be the most beneficial. Based on model simulations,
cleanup of the 34.5 Km reach between Hog Island (Km 50.5} and Brandon
Point (Km 85.0) would remove 55 percent of the Kepone from the
associated water column. Cleanup activities in a smaller segment of
this reach, the 22 Km segment between Black Point on Jamestown Island
(Km 56) and Claremont (Km 78}, would reduce Kepone levels in the
associated water column by 48 percent alone. The entire 34.5 Km reach
is in the zone of the turbidity maximum. The model simulation also
indicated that cleanup of Tar Bay and Bailey Bay would reduce ambient
Kepone levels in the associated water column by approximately
15 percent within the vicinity of the bays, but cleanup of Bailey Bay
and Tar Bay would have little effect on the total amount of Kepone
"".caving Burwell Bay.
Thus, even though the physical removal of Kepone contaminated
sediments in "hot spot" segments of the James River will reduce
significantly the Kepone concentrations, the net effect will only be
evident in the long term. The dynamics of the river such as tidal
fluctuations, bottom scour and salt wedge migration, lessen the
immediate impact of hot spot cleanup.
Estimated treatment costs for cleaning up the 34.5 Km reach, the
22 Km reach and Bailey Bay and Tar Bay are presented in Exhibit IX-6.
Preliminary estimates are based on dredging volumes determined in
IX-35
-------
EXHIBIT IX-6
Preliminary Estimates for Mitigation Of Kepone In Areas Of Elevated Concentrations
Bailey Bay
to Tar Bay
Black Point
to Claremont
Hog Island to
Brandon Point
Numbered Disposal Sites
Involved
Cubic Yards Dredged
Dredging Cost And Disposal
Costs Based On $5.55/yd3 $ 89.1 million $ 231.5 million $ 322.2 million
1.2
16,050,000
6,7,8
41,710,000
5,6,7,8,9
58,060,000
Fixation*
Molten Sulfur at §35/yd $ 561.75 million
$161-241 million
TJK with Removal at
$10-15/yd3
Elutriate Treatment*
UV-Ozone
Temporary Filtration
with Carbon Adsorption
Assume A 50 MGD Plant
Per Spoil Site
UV-Ozone For Sediments*
at §0.10-0.20/yd 3
1.12 million
§ 6.12 million
§2.4-4.8 million
In Situ
Application of Retrievable
Sorbents at $0.90/ft3 §
Application of Coal at
$0.03/ft3 §
Application of Activated
Carbon at $0.52/ft3 $
390 million
13.0 million
225 million
$ 1.46 billion $ 2.03 billion
$ 417-626 million $ 581-871 million
2.91 million
4.06 million
9.18 million $ 15.3 million
§6.3-12.5 million §8.7-17.4 million
1.01 billion § 1.41 billion
33.8 million § 47.0 million
586 million § 815 million
*Without dredging costs added.
-------
Exhibit IX-4. The treatment schemes are only used for estimates and-
pilot efforts should be done to determine the viability of any scheme
before it is used for the purpose of mitigation. Pilot testing would
also permit further refinements of these estimates.
Appraisal for James River Alternatives
It is evident that mitigation efforts on the entire James would
involve enormous costs both environmental and economic. For example,
any in situ fixation, dredging or sorbent application would have large
scale impacts on the benthic life of the River. Before any final
action recommendations are made, comprehensive engineering,
environmental, economic and social studies, including field
demonstrations, should be undertaken to determine the extent of
associated impacts.
From the project findings and observations, the Oozer dredge
appears well suited for removing the Kepone contaminated sediments
with the least amount of hazard and mechanical difficulties. The most
effective means of treating elutriate appear to be the DV-ozone
treatment developed by Westgate Research Corporation and the temporary
filtration/adsorption system developed by Calgon Corporation. A
direct comparison between the two processes is not possible without
further field testing since each process has its benefits and
disbenefits. Fixation processes which showed the most promise for
IX-3 7
-------
Kepone reduction in Battelle's laboratory tests were molten sulfur and
epoxy grout. However, cost and availability limitations and potential
environmental impact make these options less than desirable. Fixation
efforts by the Japanese process are extremely encouraging and require
close examination. If the fixation process can be further refined, it
would be a more attractive option from an economic and environmental
cost standpoint. Further, the Japanese process is the only in-place
fixation technology that is currently available on the market today
for large scale applications.
Based on laboratory experiments, activated carbon application
appears to be a promising in situ mitigation process. However, if
future data demonstrate the effectiveness of coal, its application
should be considered over activated carbon in all areas except those
contaminated at greater than or equal to 1 ug/g (ppm) Kepone, where
retrievable media or fixation techniques should be considered. The
latter exception reflects the fact that at high sediment Kepone
concentrations, coal or activated carbon would still allow
unacceptable levels of Kepone in water.
Although a substantial reduction in Kepone concentrations could be
achieved by dredging in the turbidity maximum, the model simulations
predict that the reduction of Kepone availability would' only be
evident over the long term, while having little impact on the
immediate Kepone problem. A more effective full-scale clean up
IX-38
-------
strategy would involve clean up at the points of inflow, such as
Bailey Bay, and proceeding down the river. Bailey Bay would also
provide an advantageous location for pilot mitigation efforts from a
logistical standpoint.
Due to the significant Kepone contamination of the reach between
River Kilometers 50.5 and 85.0, consideration should be given to
isolating any dredge spoil removed from this area when navigational
dredging is resumed. To facilitate handling, treatment and isolation,
consideration should also be given to using the Oozer dredge since it
can deliver a slurry of 60 percent to 80 percent solids with little
secondary pollution and resuspension.
One further consideration would be the placement of contaminated
dredge spoil, taken during navigational dredging from Hog Island to
Brandon Point, into a spoil site in Bailey Bay and Tar Bay. This
practice would help reduce the Kepone impacts from the contamination
in the bays while at the same time remove some Kepone from the heavier
contaminated river reaches.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE CONVENTIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR BAILEY
CREEK, GRAVELLY RUN, AND BAILEY BAY
An environmental assessment was prepared by the Corps with
cooperation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the 18
IX-3 9
-------
alternatives on Bailey Creek, Bailey Bay, and Gravelly Run. An
environmental assessment covering the entire James River mitigation
effort would be extensive and requires more thorough analysis beyond
the scope of this project. Exhibit IX-7 summarizes the environmental
impacts associated with the initial alternatives for Bailey Bay/
Bailey Creek and Gravelly Run. In view of the disadvantages
associated with alternative 18, it was eliminated from consideration
in the matrix. Cumulative impacts from construction of any
combinations of the alternatives do not appear to be any greater than
the summation of the individual impacts generated by component
alternatives. However, the sequence of component action may reduce
the construction impacts. For example, dredging Bailey Bay last in
any plan would presumably remove the contaminated sediments released
during implementation of any measures in Bailey Creek and Gravelly
Run. Dredging Bailey Bay first would allow recontamination of the
"cleaner" Bay substrate with materials suspended by construction
activities in the Creek and Run.
IX-4CT
-------
EXHIBIT IX-7
SUMMARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MATRIX: KEPONE FEASIBILITY STUDY
T»p« of possible
Alternative no.
and description Social
1
1
1
4
t
1
Gravelly MOM
liiu Da*) expected
Gravel If NOD*
tun Da* upacted
w/dlver-
alOB tO
Ball*/ Cr
Cover Mooa
Gravelly expected
Run
bottov
and con-
atruct
epillvajr
and ) not coneldered
Dredge Nona
Gravelly espected
tun to
dlapoaal
•rca|
Treat
affluent
Ball ay Cr| Nona
DaB at expected
BOutb
and
trait
runoff
Land uaa
BOM dla-
luptlon at
Continental
Can durln|
flood lo||
lo||ln|
truck accaaa
•topped
Hone
expected
None
••packed
Hone
expected
Nona
expected
Archaologlcal
Mstorlcsl
(Data Beaded)
Ha known
Upect
Nan*
•apected
Araaa
covered)
exceva-
tion
•till
poeelble
BOB*
{•pact at
dlapoaal
area and
treatment
plant elte
Feasible
iBpect
froai
da* elte
Wetland*
flooded dur-
ln| bl|h
runoff to
11. KB. a. 1.)
kV> tide
•as* •• 1
V«tlande
daatroyed)
roaalbla
to rebuild
aoaa la
run
Watlanda
deetroyed
can be
rebuilt
la place
tidal
Influence
blocked!
Character
of wet-
land*
c hanged |
Tree* Bay
be
flooded
Betuarlna
BO t tOO)
Minor
Inpact
Hlnor
••pact
Minor
Upact
Bottooi
• raa
peraan-
antlf
covered
»»
dlepoaal
area
BottOB
area
decreaeed
Upland
wooded and
•trlcultural
Oaai alt*
•re* lo*t|
Al*o •pill-
way era*
Low value
wood* loat
at daai alt*
and spillway
•nd dlver-
•lon rout*
Ho loa* du*
to con-
•tiuctton
or opera-
tion
Loea du*
to
dredged
•aterlal
liaul
toad
I
DaB lit*
•plllw*y
•nd
treat Bent
plant alta
loat
Upact
tollutant
Boblll»tlOB
•educed by
dea *nd
lre*tBent
work*
Nat re-
duced but
controlled
for other
tieetBent
fiedlBent
iMChlng
•ad BOVB-
•eat con-
trolledi
Bunoff not
affected
BOB*
poaalbl*
fro*
dredging:
Llttl*
froB
treated
dlapoaal
•f fluent
Decreased
to aquatic
•nvlronmentl
Unknown to
upland
environment
Air
qualltT
Minor
effect
during
conetruc-
tlon
Minor
during
con-
struction
Buipandad
partlcu-
lete*
froB
earth
Bovlng
oper*tloa
Minor
lapact
froa
equlp-
B*nt |
oJor|
•OB*
hydrocar-
bon
••laelon*
T*Bpor*ry
(•pact fr
conatruc-
tlon
Bachtnary
Water
Quality'
enhanced
by treat-
Bent
workej
•edlB*n-
tatlon
during
cenet ruc-
tion
Ho change
In HQ
••dbien-
tatlon
during
construc-
tion
Seduction
of leach-
Ing froB
bottOB|
Affected
by *lora-
wBter
runoff
Turbidity
froB
dredging)
Lltll*
pollution
fro*
dlepoeel
•re*
laprove-
B*nt
over
preeeut
•t*t*|
•eduction
of In-
put* to
Bailey
Bay
Bcologlcal
•y*t«B*
Tidal
flooding
•llBluat«d|
Cliaractar
of aiea
changed |
Input to
JaBae loet
Baaa a a
1 plus
additional
runoff to
Bailey Cr
Loaa of
vat lauds |
Clean up-
land
Beaduw
•ay
develop
•aBuval
of eon*
Barah
•nd
•waap*
Wetland*
•ud
BI relict
degradedi
Poealbla
replaca-
Benta
Borrow or
dlepoaal
areaa
Little
Impact du*
to ralatlr*'
ly sBall
••aunt of
•atarlal
<••• •• 1
BedlBeota-
tlon| Loa*
of hablt*t|
Social
lapact du*
to truck
haul
Bile
unapacl-
flad
Minor
Impact du*
to uall
•Bounl of
Baterlal
-------
EXHIBIT IX-7
(continued)
^
10
Alternative no.
• Caver
Bailey Cr
Bod to
»' a.e.l.
•ad con-
etruct
eplllwey
* end 10 not
11 Dredge
Bailey Cc
ta
dlepooel
ereei
Treat
•(fluent
11 Da.
Bailey Cr
upetreaoi
of It.
1J&
brldgej
Dl.crt
runoff
to JHCI
Blver at
••lie/ lay
12A Dlvorelon
to Chappell
Cr (MOVO
Info
noeded on
Chappell
Cr)
Social
MOD*
••pocted
conelderod
Dlepoael
eree *ey
he.e
lB|>ecl|
Dredg-
!•>$
• Inor
l^pacte
Kvecua~
lion of
it
•crucluroi
Bane ••
12 but
• 1.0
• long
pipe-
line
B.O.If.
Land ueo
Bo con-
fllct
Mltb
curieot
plena
Conflict
•ejr ortee
la choice
of borrow
eree
develop-
ment
(e«e ee
II
Areheotoflcol
hletorlcel
(Oite needed)
roeetble
eltee
covered
cen be
eiceveted
Uteri
•Inor
lapecl *t
coaotruc-
tlaa pte
Bltee lost
if preeeat
Ha known
eltee
dletuibed
Beae ••
above
eeeepl
etudy of
B.O.U. aey
be needed
• loo
tvi
letuirloe
Uttlende lotto*
Uetlende Boltoa
deet rayed | ere*
Baae re- decreeeed
hebUltetlaa
•ey ba
poeelble
Hetlende Bottoei
dcetroyeJ eree
decreeeed
tletlead Hone
•reee laeti
•bove Above
bridge tidal
•ey be influence
altered
by
periodic
Inunde-
tlpn
Sane ee S««e ••
above above
uj pf ooMlbU 1
woodai and
earlcultural
Ho lapact
aattclaeted
fr comtruc-
tlon or
operation
Loee due
to dredged
Mterlel
luiul rood
Loee at
dea elte
BOM
additional
lo«e along
•t. 6«6
pipeline
route
\mfttt
folluteot
•obllltetlon
Decreeeed
or etopped
fr creek
bed! Runoff
not
affected
Turbidity
with
attached
pollutente
poeelble
during
dredging)
Little
from
dlepoeel
area
Little
effect
except
to
reduce
loner
creek
eroalon
Beae aa
above
Air
•uelltv
Buependod
pertlcu-
letee fr
earth
•ovlng
operetloa
Odor
paeelblo|
Hydio-
cerboa
cat •• tone
fro.
eedlawata
Bhort-term
affect*
during
conetrue-
tloa
Save a •
•bove
Meter 1
-------
EXHIBIT IX-7
(continued)
Ul
Alternative no.
•n>l Jrncrlptlon
11 Oredg*
•11 of
Bailey
Bay and
piwp Into
• dlepoeal
•re*
14 Oik*
Belloy
Creak
and
treat
runoff
ttom the
Incloeed
are*
11 Da* Bailey
Cr, dredge
bey. end
uee Cr ••
e dlapueei
eree| Dmm
Grevel ly
tun end
divert to
Bailey Cr|
Treat
effluent
16 Included In
II Construct
levee In
Bel ley Bay
a lung east
slnif a
Archeologlcsl
•Uloilcat
•oeUI Una ••• (Det* nead«4}
Fosslbl* Minor Ho known
visual impact sltss
liom disturbed
disposal
•re*
roaalbl* Little Hlnor
*lsusl leipact Upact
Upacte emcept
• long
dike
construc-
tion
corridor
Baa Alternatives 2. t, and 1}
alternative 14
tee Alt Croat Ivee 6. 11. and 1}
T»P* of posslbl*
UpUna
fstuerla*) wooded sn4
Mstlende •attoa *irlcu1tur*l
Little Up to 1 Little
{•pact Batar of Upect
low pro-
ductivity
bottoai
Cleaner
•rea re-
Balne
Cut off Cut off Llltl*
froa froa effect
tldel tides
Influence! and fish
Major and ban-
long- tboa
ten Blgratlon
Upset
Upact
rollutant
Boslliiallan
HlnUUed
by dred,-
Ing Bethod
•nd con-
trol
•ea*ur**|
Minor
lapect
over
present
condition
Leaching
•nd runoff
to JsBa*
Blver
•topped by
treetBsnt
Alt
•u*llt*
Little
Upact
frevt
dredging
operatiooei
gOBe im-
pact fr
levee
construc-
tion
Hlnor
Upoct
during
construc-
tion
Wst.r
aualltr'
leipacta
froB
turbidity!
Little
Upect fr
epoll ere*
due to
treatment
lapounded
water Bay
becoae
eutrophlo
Icoloilcsl
Benlho*
deelroyedi
Polluted
Baterlel
rcaoved!
Polluleot
cycling
leeaaned
Cycling
of pollu-
tant* fr
diked
•rea
will con-
tinue!
Aquatic
eyelea
degraded
lot row or
dltpoaal
ntaaa
Dlapoeel
eree on
weet elde
of bey|
Little
Upact If
pollutant*
stabilised
Dlspossl
o( J«B*«
•Iver
cbsonal
•sdUsnt*
w/treatr
Bent Hill
heve little
added
Upect
-------
REFERENCES
Banner, L.H., R.A. Rigby and L.F. Faas, in preparation. Bioavailability
of Kepone from sediments to several estuarine species, EPA Gulf
Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory.
Battelle, 1978. The feasibility of mitigating Kepone contamination in
the James River Basin. Final report for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., April 1978.
Bender, M.E., 1977. Kepone presentation for January 26, 1977, EPA public
hearing. Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
Bender, M.E., 1977a. Letter of October 18, 1977, to Gary Gardner, EPA
Region III, Philadelphia, PA.
Bender, M.E., J.E. Douglas, Jr., and R.G. Krutchoff, 1977. Supplemental
presentation relating to the establishment of action levels for
Kepone in seafood. U.S. EPA Document Control Number OPP 210006,
February 22, 1977.
Bender, ."I.E., R.J. Huggett and W.J. Hargis, Jr., 1977a. Kepone Residues
in Chesapeake Bay Biota in Proceedings of the Kepone II Seminar
at Easton, MD., September 19-21, 1977.
Bourquin, A.M., L.A. Kiefer, N.H. Berner, S. Crow and D.G. Ahearn, 1975.
Inhibition of estuarine microorganisms by polychlorinated biphenyls.
Dev. Ind. Microbiol. 16:256-261.
Calgon, 1978. Letter of February 24, 1978 from Calgon Corporation to
J.A. Kohler of U.S. EPA.
Cannon, S.B., J.M. Veazey, R.S. Jackson, V.W. Burse, C. Hayes, W.E. Straub,
P.J. Landrigan, and J.A. Liddle, in press. Epidemic Kepone poisoning
in chemical workers. Am. Jour. Epid.
CEQ, 1976. Environmental Quality - 1976: The Seventh Annual Report of
the Council on Environmental Quality, September 1976.
Chigges, J.A., 1977. Memorandum of J.A. Chigges of Virginia State Water
Control Board, July 6, 1977.
Cohn, W.J., J.J. Boylan, R.V. Blanke, M.W. Fariss, J.R. Howell, and
P.S. Guzelian, 1978. Treatment of Chlordecone (Kepone) toxicity
with Cholestyramine. New England Jour, of Medicine, Vol. 298
No. 5:243-248, February 2, 1978.
-------
EPA, 1974. Criteria for dredge spoil disposal. U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Region IX, San Francisco, CA.
EPA, 1975. Preliminary report on Kepone levels found in environmental
samples from the Hopewell, Virginia area. Health Effects Research
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, December 16, 1975.
EPA, 1975a. Kepone. Unpublished report of Office of Pesticide Programs,
Criteria and Evaluation Division, 24 pages.
EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group, 1976. Analysis of Kepone. Report to
E. Johnson, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Pesticide Programs,
July 27, 1976.
FDA, 1977. Compliance program evaluation - FY-77: Kepone and Mirex
contamination. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Federal Register, 1976. Vol. 41, F.R. No. 118, Page 24624, June 17, 1976.
Federal Register, 1977. Vol. 42, F.R. No. 144, Page 38205, July 2 7, 1977.
Ferguson, W.S., 1975. -Letter of September 12, 1975, to R.S. Wassersug,
Enforcement Division, U.S. EPA Region III, Philadelphia, PA.
Flood & Associates, Inc., 1976. Study of biodegradation of Kepone in a
Hopewell, Virginia sludge lagoon. Contract report to the Virginia
Health Department, Richmond, VA, December 20, 1976.
Gulf Breeze, 1977. Executive summary of laboratory results: Kepone
toxicity, accumulation and transfer in estuarine organisms. U.S.
EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, FL, November 1977.
Gulf Breeze, 1978. Biological fate and impact: criteria for protecting
estuarine biota. U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf
Breeze, FL, January 1978.
Keener, R.M., A.E. Lord, and W.M. McCabe, 1976. Acoustic emission moni-
toring to determine earth dam stability and its use at a Kepone
storage site in Hopewell, VA. Letter report to John Brugger, U.S. EPA.
Mount, D.I. and C.E. Stephan, 1967. A method for establishing acceptable
toxicant limits for fish-malathion and the butoxyethanol ester of
2,4-D. Trans. Amer. Fish Soc. 96(2):185-193.
-------
NAS/NAE, 1973. National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of Engin-
eering Water Quality Criteria 1972: A Report of the Committee on
Water Quality Criteria, Washington, D.C. 1972.
NASA, 1977. Remote sensing observations of industrial plumes at Hopewell,
Virginia, by C.H. Whitlock and T.A. Talay. Kepone Seminar II, Easton,
MO, September 19-21, 1977.
National Cancer Institute, 1976. Carcinogenesis bioassay of technical
grade chlordecone (Kepone). National Institutes of Health report,
March 12, 1976.
Nichols, M.M., 1972. Sediments in the James River estuary, Virginia.
Geol. Soc. Amer. Mem. 133:169-212.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1978. Proceedings of a workshop on
evaluation of models used for the environmental assessment of
radionuclide releases, September 6-9, 1977, Gatlinburg, TN.
Onishi, Y., P.A. Johanson, R.G. Baca and E.I. Hilty, 1976. Studies of
Columbia River water quality. Development of mathematical models
for sediment and radionuclide transport analysis. Report of Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories (BNWL-8-452).
Onishi, Y., 1977a. Finite element models for sediment and contaminent
transport in surface waters: Transport of sediments and radio-
nuclides in the Clinch River. Report of Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratories (BNWL-2227).
Onishi, Y., 1977b. Mathematical simulation of sediment and radionuclide
transport in the Columbia River. Report of the Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratories (BNWL-2228).
Onishi, Y., and R.M. Ecker, 1977c. Mathematical simulation of transport
of Kepone and Kepone-laden sediments in the James River estuary.
Kepone II Seminar, Easton, MD, September 19-21, 1977.
Onishi, Y., P.A. Johanson, R.G. Baca and E.L. Hilty, 1976. Studies of
Columbia River water quality-Development of mathematical models for
sediment and radionuclide transport analys-s. Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratories, Rich land, WA. Report B-452.
Oswald, E.O. 1976. Letter to Dr. R.J. Huggett, Virginia Institute of
Marine Science from Dr. E.O. Oswald, U.S. EPA Research Triangle
Park, April 27, 1976.
-------
Pound, P.M., 1976. How to dispose of toxic substances and industrial
wastes. Noyes Data Corp., Park Ridge, N.J., pp. 55-133.
SAPCB, 1977. Virginia Air. Published by the Virginia State Air Pollu-
tion Control Board, Vol. 7(1).
Senate Hearings, 1976. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Agricultural
Research and general legislation of the Committee on Agriculture and
Forestry, United States Senate, January 22-27, 1976.
Sterrett, F.S. and C.A. Boss, 1977. Careless Kepone. In: Environment
19(2):30-36, March 1977.
Stickney, R.R., 6.L. Taylor, and R.W. Heard, III, 1974. Food habits of
Georgia estuarine fishes. In: Four species of flounders (Pleuro-
nectiformes: Bothidae). U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service
Bull. 72:515-525.
Swartz, R.C., W.A. DeBen, and F.A. Cole, 1977. A bioassay for the
toxicity of sediment to the marine macrobenthos. Presented at the
Third U.S./Japan experts meeting on management of bottom sediments
containing toxic substances, Easton, MD, November 15-17, 1977.
SVO, 1973. Bluefish, menhaden and spot fish sampling data on file at
the Virginia State Water Control Board, June 1973.
SWCB, 1976. Kepone Data Bulletin No. 14. Virginia State Water Control
Board, March 24, 1976.
SWCB, 1976a. Kepone Data Bulletin No. 18. Virginia State Water Control
Board, March 30, 1976.
University of Virginia, 1975. Estimates of the populations of Virginia
counties and cities: July 1, 1974 to July 1, 1975. Tayloe Murphy
Institute.
Vind, H.P., 1976. The role of microorganisms in the transport of chlor-
inated insecticides. In: Proceedings of the third international
biodeterioration symposium, J.M. Sharpley and A.M. Kaplan, Eds.
Applied Science Publishers, Ltd., London, Eng. 3:793-797.
Westgate, 1978. Letter of May 4, 1978 from Westgate Research Corporation
to J.A. Kohler of U.S. EPA.
Whitman, B.F., 1977. Legal analysis of the Kepone case. Presented at
the Estuarine Research Federation, Mt. Pocono, PA, October 2-5, 1977.
Williams, R.J., 1977. Kepone bound to James River sediment. Informal
Report 77-1. Allied Chemical, Project 0946.
------- |