IDENTIFYING flND PRIORITIZING
LOCRTIONS FOR THE REmOVflL
OF IN-PLflCE POLLUTflNTS
1976
U.S. ENVIRONmENTRL PROTECTION RGENCY
OFFICE OF WfiTER PLflNNING RND STflNDRRDS
WRSHINGTON, D.C. 2O46O
-------
IDENTIFYING flND PRIORITIZING LOCflTIONS
FOR THE
REfTlOVfiL OF IN-PLflCE POLLUTflNTS
BY
EDWARD E. JOHANSON
AND
JARET C. JOHNSON
PROJECT OFFICER
VICTOR T. fTkCAULEY
CONTRflCT NO. 68-O1-292O
PREPARED FOR
U.S. ENVIRONmETAL PROTECTION flGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER PLANNING AND STANDARDS
WASHINGTON, D. C. 2O46O
mflY 1976
-------
CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
I INTRODUCTION 1
II CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions 5
Recommendations 8
III DEVELOPMENT OF A SEDIMENT
CHEMISTRY DATA BASE
Data Collection 11
Data Reduction 12
Discussion of the Data 19
IV DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION
OF THE PRIORITY SYSTEM
General Considerations 23
Initial Screening 25
Sediment Chemistry and Toxic ity 25
Criteria for Grouping Pollutants 31
Pollution Index Concept 32
Application of Initial Screening Methodology 3}
Semifinal Screening 43
Discussion of Descriptors 43
Application of Descriptors' 49
V METHODS OF REMOVAL OR INACTIVATION
OF IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS
Dredging Considerations 59
Alternatives to Dredging 68
Treatment of Dredged Materials 77
VI REFERENCES 85
APPENDIX A: DETAILED INFORMATION ON
PRIORITY LOCATIONS 89
iii
-------
FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1 Mercury Histogram for all Locations Reporting
Sediment Mercury Concentrations 16
A-l Selected Sediment Sampling Stations, Seattle
Harbor 95
A-2 Reported PCB Concentrations in Seattle Harbor 97
A-3 Average Pollution Indices in Seattle Harbor 99
A-4 Selected Sediment Sampling Stations, Baltimore
Harbor, Maryland 104
A-5 Average Pollution Indices in Baltimore Harbor 105
A-6 Selected Sediment Sampling Stations with Some
Average Pollution Indices and Mercury Concen-
trations, Detroit River 109
A-7 Selected Sediment Sampling Stations with Average
Pollution Indices, San Francisco 114
A-8 Sediment Sampling Stations With Average
Pollution Indices, Indiana Harbor 117
A-9 Sediment Sampling Locations with Average Pollution
Indices, Michigan City 120
A-10 Selected Sediment Sampling Stations, Corpus Christi 125
A-11 Average Pollution Indices in Corpus Christi Harbor 12o
A-12 Selected Sediment Sampling Stations with Average
Pollution Indices, Bridgeport 128
A-13 Selected Sediment Sampling Stations, with Average
Pollution Indices. New Bedford 133
-------
TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 Statistical Measurements of All Divisions in
the United States 15
2 U.S. Regional Medians from Selected High Value
Sediment Analyses 17
3 Number of Data Sets From the Regions Defined by-
Corps of Engineers Division Boundaries 20
4 National Academy of Science Numberical
Recommendations for Water Quality Criteria of
Toxic Substances 33
5 Adopted Toxicity Categories for this Study 35
6 Median Values Calculated From Task 1 High Data
File 38
7 Comparisons Using the Pollution Index Concept 39
8 Summary of Pollution Index Levels for All Locations 41
9 Locations Selected for Detailed Investigation on
Task 2 42
10 Ranking of Locations in Terms of Potential for
Confined Disposal of Sediments 45
11 Data and Rankings for 23 Locations, Using the
Selected Criteria 51
12 Rank Ordering of Locations Considering Chemical
Pollutants 53
13 The 9 Most Polluted Locations, Rank-Ordered by
Average Pollution Index for Spacially Composited
Analyses (Method 4) 54
14 Ranking of the Top Ten Locations by Multiple
Criteria 56
15 Recommended Semifinal List for Section 115
Consideration 58
A-l Selected Sediment Analyses for the Duwamish
Waterway 92
A-2 Selected Sediment Analyses for Baltimore Harbor 103
A-3 Selected Sediment Analyses for the Detroit Harbor 108
A-4 Selected Sediment Analyses in San Francisco Harbor 113
A-5 Selected Sediment Analyses in Indiana Harbor 116
A-6 Sediment Analyses for Michigan City Harbor 119
vii
-------
TABLES (cert.)
TABLE PAGE
A-7 Selected Sediment Analyses in Corpus Christ! 123
A-8 Selected Sediment Analyses, Bridgeport 127
A-9 Selected Sediment Analyses, New Bedford 130
Vlll
-------
NOTICE
This document is a preliminary draft.
It has not been formally released by
EPA and should not at this stage be
construed to represent Agency policy.
It is being circulated for comment on
its technical accuracy and policy
implications.
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Over the years, pollutants have been building up in the sediments of
the ports, harbors, and waterways of the United States. These pollu-
tants have come from many sources, including wastewater outfalls,
non-point sources, accidental spills, and dredge material disposal.
Since many of the pollutants naturally adsorb and chemisorb to the
fine sediment particles (clay, silt) the pollutants often are transported
considerable distances by the water, before settling out. When such
particles eventually settle, the result can be a system of in-place
pollutants, distributed over large areas, or an accumulation of "hot
spots" where the level of pollution is considerably higher than in
adjacent areas.
Recognizing the problems of in-place pollutants in natural water
systems, Congress enacted Title I, Section 115 of the Federal Water
-------
Pollution Control Act of 1972, PL 92-500, requiring the following
action of the Environmental Protection Agency:
IN-PLACE TOXIC POLLUTANTS
Sec. 115. The Administrator is directed to identify the
location of in-place pollutants with emphasis on toxic
pollutants in harbors and navigable waterways and is
authorized, acting through the Secretary of the Army,
to make contracts for the removal and appropriate dis-
posal of such materials from critical port and harbor
areas. There is authorized to be appropriated
$15, 000, 000 to carry out the provisions of this section,
which sum shall be available until expended.
This report presents the results of a national study of in-place pollutants
in harbors and navigable waterways of the United States. Its purposes
are to document the rationale used and to present the priority devised
for selecting locations for further consideration under Sec. 115. The
priority system was used to arrive at a list of locations that may be
considered semifinalists. A final list awaits the results of definitive
measurement programs in the harbors selected via this priority
system.
Two overall tasks have been conducted to achieve the purposes of this
study. Task 1 included a survey of available existing data on sediment
chemistry in the United States in waters of interest to Sec. 115. This
survey had collected 652 sets of analyses as of December 2, 1974. In
a Task 1 report dated September 28, 1974, analyses of 623 sets of data
received to that time were presented. The function of Task 1 was to
reduce the data to a form amenable to easy screening. With the data
in this form, the bulk of relatively unpolluted areas could be eliminated
quickly.
Task 2, in order to produce the semifinal priority list, included the
development of criteria, the gathering of detailed information on 23
locations, and the comparison of those locations based on the developed
criteria and the gathered information.
-------
Subsequent chapters present the processes by which criteria were
selected and the numerical values chosen for use with each criterion.
For criteria related to pollution or sediment chemistry, the project
heeded two principal guides;
1) The stipulation in Section 115 that there be "emphasis
on toxic pollutants";
2) The need for a means of quickly scanning large amounts
of data.
To follow the second guide, a method was developed with computer
reduction of data to a form which could be scanned quickly by an
investigator. This method used the concept of a Pollution Index,
developed later in the report. The Pollution Index is uniquely valid
and applicable to the specific task of setting priorities.
To supplement the criterion of relative degree of pollution, other
criteria were developed. These include overall environmental con-
ditions, so that the likely effects of the removal of in-place pollutants
on the surrounding human and natural environments could be assessed.
Finally, physical criteria lead ultimately to cost estimates for each of
the final locations, so that the Section 115 funds can be spent in the
optimum manner. These cost estimates await the input of additional
data not available at this time.
Using the priority system, the list of potential harbors has been
reduced and detailed information has been compiled and analyzed for
the 23 locations resulting from the initial screening. Using the criteria
developed in this report, comparisons of these critical harbors and
waterways have been made, leading to a proposed priority list of areas
which merit further detailed investigation.
It should be stressed that the available data are not of sufficient
quantity or quality to make final assessments as to how to utilize the
Section 115 funds most effectively. However, the existing data can be
used to establish which harbors warrant further investigation.
-------
All recommendations and results documented in this report are based
upon available field data. While it may be difficult to make decisions
based upon existing data, it is impossible to make decisions based upon
no data. Thus, the possibility exists that other "hot spots" may be
found, but these cannot be considered at this time. The priority
system developed, however, is general enough so that additional data
can be compared to all other harbors very quickly, allowing changes
in the semifinal list of harbors, as required.
-------
SECTION II
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
1. The data currently available on sediment quality in United States
harbors and navigable waterways are not adequate to set final
priorities for removal or inactivation of in-place pollutants in
response to Section 115. However, they are adequate to establish
a list of harbors and waterways from which the final locations may
be selected after additional sampling and analysis. Data inade-
quacies have two distinct results:
a) There may be hot spots which have not been sampled;
b) Inadequate intensity of sampling permits only priority
groupings, rather than firm rankings of locations.
2. Screening methods based upon relative pollution may be adequate
to arrive at a semifinal list of locations, but all of the locations
on this list have areas so badly polluted that other considerations
must be used in making the final determination.
3. The quantity of the available sediment chemistry data varies
substantially from region to region. The use of national statistics
presented in this report for inferring regional differences, must
be done with caution. Results of samples taken close together
often varied from laboratory to laboratory and a variety of ana-
lytical techniques were used. Moreover, some of the data are
more than five years old, and conditions may have changed.
4. In most cases the pollutant form, or nature of its complexing with
other elements, is not discernable from the data. Other factors
such as redox potential, pH, alkalinity, and salinity have often not
been included in data sets. Since these variables can significantly
affect the mobility and toxicity of a given chemical, it is difficult
to predict the effect on the ecosystem of any given hot spot.
-------
5. Very little information exists on chlorinated hydrocarbon concen-
trations in sediments. The same is true of free sulfides, which
are very important due to their toxicity and interactions with heavy
metals.
6. Since the levels of pollution in the locations on the semifinal list
are so high, it is not important to be concerned about fine
distinctions in the toxicity of one constituent relative to another,
at these initial screening stages of the Section 115 investigation.
7. Dredging and disposal in acceptable disposal areas appears to be
the only realistic form of rehabilitation at this time. Covering of
in-place sediments is impractical in cases where a navigation
channel must be maintained, undesirable from a long-term point
of view, temporary in cases where erosion and resuspension due
to current and storms exist, and very expensive in any case.
Treatment is feasible under some conditions but tends to be very
expensive.
8. Histograms of pollutant concentrations reveal that most hot spots
have concentrations far in excess of the values used by EPA as
criteria for determining pollution status of dredged material. On
a national level, the median appears to be a more realistic des-
criptor than the arithmetic mean, and the national median values
agree closely with those levels promulgated earlier by EPA as
criteria for polluted sediments.
9. Extensive data exists demonstrating the existence of hot spots.
However, in most cases the data was not taken in such a quantity
or manner that the area or volume of a hot spot can be defined.
Thus it is not possible at this time to estimate the volume and area
affected, hence the cost for disposal cannot be established. Deter-
mination of these highly important considerations awaits the results
of additional sampling.
-------
10. Some regions of the country appear to be more highly polluted than
others, as would be expected. However, some areas such as New
England and the Great Lakes had far more extensive data available
than other regions arid it is not known how much bias is introduced
to regional comparisons by the differing magnitudes of available
data.
11. The magnitude of sediment pollution in the United States is such
that the Section 115 funds cannot begin to have a significant effect
unless they are very carefully expended. Perhaps the most rea-
sonable method of spending the funds is to select a single harbor,
or two harbors, in which a major rehabilitation is possible with
the existing funds. Areas already scheduled for routine dredging
should be excluded from Section 115 and the funds used in areas
where other federal or state funds will not be available.
12. Final selection of harbors, and areas within harbors, should not
be attempted until a definitive sampling and analysis program is
conducted in the locations of interest. Based upon the priority
system developed on this contract, we recommend the following
priority list of locations.
Priority 1 Detroit River, MI
Baltimore Harbor, MD
Indiana Harbor, IN
Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, WA
Michigan City Harbor, IN
San Francisco Harbor, CA
Priority 2 Bridgeport Harbor, CT
New Bedford Harbor, MA
Corpus Christ! Harbor, TX
Priority 3 Providence River and Harbor, RI
New Haven Harbor, CT
Eastchester Creek, NY
Newark Bay, NJ
Sampit River, Georgetown, SC
Monongahela River above Pittsburg, PA
Mississippi River below St. Louis, MO
Cleveland Harbor and Cuyahoga River, OH
-------
Priority 3 (cont. ) Milwaukee Harbor, WI
Neches Waterway, Beaumont, TX
Richmond Harbor, CA
Oakland Harbor, CA
Los Angeles Harbor, CA
San Diego Harbor, CA
Recommendations
1. Priority 1 list of locations should be published in the Federal
Register, or circulated to each EPA and Corps of Engineers
Regional Office. EPA and Corps of Engineers comments were
actively solicited on the 23 locations resulting from initial
screening, but new information may have become available to
regional and district offices. Comments should be solicited on
the locations selected and if other locations are recommended,
these should be considered using the same priority system that
generated the Priority 1 list. If regional offices feel that other
locations are worse than the proposed list, preliminary sampling
should be done to verify this. Until such time as data becomes
available indicating otherwise, the Priority 1 list should be the
basis of future Section 115 investigations.
2. A pilot study should be conducted on one of the Priority 1 locations
to establish the following, and to be used to guide investigations in
the other 5 areas:
. analytical procedures for lab analysis
. sampling methods
sample handling methods
. 3 dimensional distribution of pollutants
. chemical form of pollutants
. exchange rate between sediment and water column
(pollutant mobility)
. toxicity of existing form of pollutants to local
organisms
. original source of pollutants and whether these sources
are still active
-------
3. After conducting the pilot study, the other 5 locations should
undergo the same type of study. Based upon the results of these
6 studies, a final determination as to the most effective way to
distribute the Section 115 funds amongst one or more of the
locations should be established.
4. If the local studies and the results of rehabilitation actions prove
that significant and cost-effective benefits can be realized, other
funds should be sought to expand the work of removing in-place
pollutants which was begun by Section 115.
-------
SECTION in
DEVELOPMENT OF A SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY DATA BASE
Data Collection
Section 115 addresses ". . . harbors and navigable waterways ..."
and charges EPA with identifying in-place pollutants and subsequently
seeing that they are removed "... from critical port and harbor
areas. " Since the key word critical has not been defined and harbors
and navigable waterways has a broad context, data were collected on a
broader scope than perhaps necessary, realizing that the data from
sites subsequently not of interest could be ignored.
Data on in-place pollutants are available from many sources. Agencies
and organizations involved in dredging operations are the best source of
this information since they are directly involved in this area. Data are
also available from numerous other sources. Much of the available
data was not originally collected with dredging in mind and thus has to
be interpreted for the requirements of this study.
The following sources were used to collect sediment chemistry data:
1. JBF Scientific data bank, compiled during previous,
more limited surveys
2. Army Corps of Engineers, District and Division Offices
and Waterways Experiment Station
3. Environmental Protection Agency, Regional and Field
Offices
4. Other Federal Agencies and Commissions
5. State Water Pollution Control Agencies
6. Port Authorities
7. Universities and Colleges
8. Marine Research Institutes
9. Professions! papers and reports
11
-------
As each individual sediment analysis data set was received, the data
were screened for applicability. If acceptable, an ascending biblio-
graphic reference number was assigned to each set. Occasionally
more than one data set was obtained for the same geographic location.
In many cases, several data sets were obtained which represented
various portions of a given bay or harbor. Regardless, individual
bibliographic numbers were assigned for each data set received for
cataloging purposes. ' Similarly, where several data sets were obtained
for various reaches of a river, each set was given a different reference
number.
At the time of this writing, 652 reference numbers have been assigned
representing that number of acceptable data sets. A data set consists
of the results of up to 33 sediment chemical analyses performed for any
number of sediment samples, collected in a finite area within a com-
monly named hydrographic unit (e. g., Boston Harbor). The term
"location" is used to refer to such hydrographic units.
The above description implies that the 652 data sets do not necessarily
represent 652 different locations. For instance, the data set for refer-
ence number 419 provides the results of analyses of sediment samples
collected at various sites in an area referred to by the investigators
reporting the data as Savannah Harbor. Another data set, reference
number 457, provides data from samples'collected at various sites in
an area referred to as Savannah Estuary. Hence, there are fewer than
652 locations to be considered.
Data Reduction
Data were collected under Task 1 for the sole purpose of providing inputs
to a priority system for guiding the performance of Section 115. Since
the quantity of data collected was extremely large, and the objective
highly specific, several simplifying techniques were adopted to reduce
the data tabulation, reduction, and analysis tasks to a manageable size.
12
-------
Hot Spot Screening
The primary goals of the data handling task were to provide a method of
locating those harbors and navigable waterways that contained hot spots
and some means of rank ordering the locations so that the relatively
unpolluted ones could be quickly eliminated from further consideration.
The following rationale was adopted:
1) Data on sediment chemistry must be available or else a
location is not to be considered.
Z) For purposes of initial screening, it is only necessary to
record the highest value for each pollutant in any location.
The first point is necessary since many locations were suggested as
being "polluted" but no data existed for these locations. While there
may be locations more polluted than those in the data bank, there is no
alternative but to require that data exist before a location is given
consideration.
An examination of data reveals that the hot spots of the semifinal list
are so grossly polluted that they would meet any rational criteria as
polluted. To avoid confusion, it should be pointed out that the selection
of the semifinal list, and ultimately fhe final list, has no relationship to
EPA criteria for polluted dredged material, other than exceeding those
criteria (criteria listed in Table 6).
The hot spots identified are thus highly polluted and the objective is to
rank order the locations, relative to each-other, rather than with regard
to previously published criteria.
Based upon (2), high values from each location were put into a data
base. The data base is a tool that can be used to call attention to those
locations that have at least one set of measurements defining a hot spot.
For a location to qualify under Section 115, it is necessary that it have
at least one hot spot; thus the method adopted identifies those locations
of interest while enormously reducing the data handling problem. In
13
-------
this report, the data used for analysis and selection of the semifinal
list are taken from the data file generated by using only the highest
value for each pollutant in each location. This will be referred to as
the high-value data file.
A computer program was written to operate upon the high-value data
file to obtain the minimum, maximum, mean, median, and standard
deviation of each sediment chemical parameter in each of the eleven
Army Corps Divisions. The results of the calculations on the file
were presented in the Task 1 interim report and a summary of the
levels is presented in Table 1.
A scan of the standard deviations listed in Table 1 reveals that the
arithmetic mean is not a good indicator of central tendency for the
data. Figure 1 is a histogram displaying 441 sediment mercury con-
centrations in the high-value data file.
The shape of the mercury histogram demonstrates why the arithmetic
mean is a poor indicator and suggests that the median would be more
appropriate. Note that the interval size on the histogram was chosen
so that the data could be grouped in 20 intervals.
The mean for mercury given in Table 1 is 6. 09 mg/kg, a value clearly
biased by a few, exceptional high values as can be observed from the
histogram. The median for mercury given in Table 1 is 0. 5 mg/kg,
a value which does more closely reflect the central tendency of the
data.
Histograms were prepared for many of the chemical sediment para-
meters of Table 1 using the data from 623 locations. Comparison of
these histograms with the statistic data of Table 1 repeatedly demon-
strated that the median was clearly the best singular indicator of
central tendency for the data.
Median values calculated for each Corps Division are summarized in
Table 2. The table provides a quick reference bv region for each
14
-------
TABLE 1
Statistical Measurements of All Divisions in the United States
DIV=RLL
STRTE=RLL CITV=RLL
NRME
VOL SLDS
CDD
TKN
DIL&GRSE
MERCURY
LERD
ZINC
RLUMINUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMRTE
MRNGNESE
I RDM
NICKEL
COPPER
RRSENIC
CRDMIUM
NITRITE
NITRflTE
TOT PHDS
OTH PHOS
SDL PHOS
H^f~m
u--^-
SULFIDE
FECRL CO
TOT COL I
TOC
BOD
PESTICDE
PCB
MOISTURE
ion
PHENOL
CYRNIDE
MGxKG
MGxKG
MGxKG
MGxKG
MGxKG
MGxKG
MS/KG
MGxKG
MGxKG
MGxKG
MGxKG
MG---K6
MGxKG
MG--KG
MGxKG
MGxKG
MGXKG
MGxKG
MGxKG
Mb/Kb
MGxKG
MGxKG
MGxKG
MGxKG
MGxKG
UGXK.G
UGxKG
; DRY
MGxKG
MGxKG
MGxKG
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
WT
DW
DW
DW
NO. SMP MIN
559
536
487
463
441
454
446"
17.
197
1
S3
aio
193
259
141
841
19
44
£36
4
£5
o
19
3
C1
96
36
£3
£1
1
4
.53
1£
£31.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
10.
0.
40.
3.
160.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
0.
10.
1.
400.
5.
0.
0.
48.
9£.
0.
0.
66
0
0
0
0
01
09
00
0£
00
30
0 0
40
00
0 0
0
06
31
36
46
77
0 0
£8
00
00
0 0
43
00
0 0
0 0
0 0
££
03
DIS=RLL
PLRCE=RLL TYP=RLL
MRX
975838.
910000.
855374.
9 03 0 0 0 .
96£.
13890.
10897.
30000.
5745.
40.
4800.
£90000.
6070.
31 £940.
9660.
7490.
£50.
£50.
31490.
ISO.
£780.
100.
594000,
1£384.
100.
14SOOO.
301600.
y
r .
15.
48.
675.
35000.
35.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0 0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
50
10
00
00
00
00
MEDIRN
78000.00
59000. 00
1600. 00
1400. 00
0.50
42. 00
100. 00
8560. 00
65. 00
40.00
510. 00
19890. 00
3 £.00
6£. 00
3 . 0 0
3 . 1 0
0.£4
3.60
9 0 0 . 0 0
0 . 6 1
3.19
6 . 0 0
930.00
5863. 00
1. 00
£7000. 00
3930. 00
0 . 0 0
0 . 04
48. 00
116. 00
95. 00
0 . ££
MERN
99218.
945 1 1 .
5083.
7114.
6.
133.
349.
10305.
1 99 .
40.
696.
£95£ 1 .
95.
£390.
77.
47.
3 0 .
£5.
£££7.
3£.
£57.
53.
58170.
6085.
50.
36014.
19010.
0.
0.
48.
335.
16£9.
5.
87
75
7£
£8
09
.-, .-,
It -_'
69
84
04
00
38
96
35
15
35
£5
£4
£4
33
45
37
00
58
66
50
16
5£
63
oo
00
75
6£
1£
sn
101825.37
110530.31
40137. 8£
43886.95
57. 5£
959.79
1011.62
9370. £0
569. 00
0. 0
704.43
36911.53
447. 08
£43£3. 17
31 £.97
486. £5
64 . £9
53.36
6420.65
53.49
620. 83
66.47
150329. 19
6190. 00
70. 00
32155. 17
5 £680. 07
1.87
3.27
0. 0
£8 1 . 3 0
5611. 07
1 0 . 4 0
-------
MERCURY HISTDGRfilt
FREQUENCY 0163 71 48 51 13 12 9 85 6 12 0 7 4 4 2 1 1 24
EflCH » EQUflLS 6 POINTS
162' *
156 *
150 *
144 *
138 »
132 *
126 *
120 *
114 *
103 *
IDS *
96 *
90 *
34 *
73 +
72 *
66 * *
60 * *
54 * *
48 * * * *
42 * + * *
36 * + * *
30 * * * *
24 * * * * *
18 -**** »
12 + + + * + + » *
6 + + « + + + + + *« * +
INTERVAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 19 £0
< 0.0 INTERVAL SIZE= 0.250mg/kg > 5.0
Figure 1. Mercury Histogram for all Locations Reporting
Sediment Mercury Concentrations
-------
U.S. Regional
TABLE 2
Medians from Selected High Value Sediment Analyses (mg/kg dry weight)
Parameter
Mercury
Lead
Cadmium
Arsenic
Zinc
Nickel
Copper
Chromium
Volatile Solids
COD
TKN
Oil & Grease
Nitrite
Nitrate
Total Phos
BOD
Aluminum
Manganese
Fecal Co
Total Coli
TOG
Pesticide
PCB
Missouri
River
Division' '
607
0.09
0.02
231.66
28.00
0. 59
15.00
1.00
1.00
0.36
6.43
5863.00
Mississippi
Valley
Division
0. 10
9.00
39.00
28500.00
23000.00
700.00
500.00
764.40(2)
North
Atlantic
Division
0. 79
100. 00
10.00
536. 00
59. 00
60. 00
574. 00
45200. 00
34600. 00
1059. 00
11700.00
552. 00
812. 00
New
England
Division
0.55
105.00
4.20
19.20
193.50
42.20
93. 10
74.00
89800.00
123200.00
3140.00
2880.00
110.00
5860.00
10.00
100.00
18900.00
0. 13
Ohio
River
Division
0.30
40.00
1.00
0. 50
126. 00
5. 20
10.90
93. 00
82000. 00
65800.00
2300.00
1800. 00
0. 31
1200. 00
9000. 00
1. 00
South
West
Division
0. 16
19.20
0.81
2. 27
65. 00
18. 00
10. 00
19. 00
57000. 00
23300. 00
1040. 00
480. 00
598. 22
320. 00
Sulfide
160.00
Oth Phos
IOD 31006.00
Iron
C yanide
?2)The Regions listed comprise the eleven U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Division
^^One sample only.
Two samples only.
-------
oo
TABLE 2 (cont.)
U.S. Regional Medians from Selected High Value Sediment Analyses (mg/kg dry weight)
Parameter
Mercury
Lead
Cadmium
Arsenic
Zinc
Nickel
C opper
Chromium
Volatile Solids
COD
TKN
Oil 8t Grease
Jitrite
Jitrate
'otal Phos
JOD
iluminum
/langaneee
'ecal Co
?otal Coli
:oc
'esticide
>CB
'henol
iulfide
I?S
)th Phos
OD
ron
J yanide
'T'Vi^ "&£*rrlf\ria
North
Pacific
Division
0.42
42.00
10. 00
90.00
20. 00
40. 00
10. 00
72000.00
43000. 00
1000. 00
1520. 00
547. 00
10520.00
1.0.0
520. 00
100. 00
120. 00
1160000. 00
160. 00^ '
1 1 e4"**r"I ^* rsrvTiTfil c
South
Atlantic
Division
0.70
37.00
2.00
1.00
124.00
34.00
49.00
53.00
108800.00
82800.00
1497.00
1600.00
1550.00
111.000.00
1020.00
30700.00
0.46
20000.00
3 *a f-Vio olotrl^n
Pacific
Division' '
0.73
52.00
1. 10
7.80
120.00
470.00
69.00
198.00
160000.00
67970.00
43.69
70.00
0.27
80.30
57000.00
Tl S Ai-i-ntr f.
Sough
Pacific
Division
0.60
54.00
2.08
2. 10
160.00
37.81
67.00
83.00
77000.00
50000.00
1600.00
1400.00
50.00
50.00
452.00
715.00
31900.00
0.23
0. 14
930.00
92.00
25938.00
0.20
/"\t"r"» C rtf TT* i-» rri i
North
Central
Division
0.91
61.00
10.30
4.00
99.40
44.00
78.00
65.00
94000.00
98700.00
2620.00
2957. 00
0. 12
8.40
910.00
3075.00
12800.00
510. 00
62.20
119500. 00
6.00
0/61
18380.00
0.44
n«k & i* o "Pit
-------
sediment pollutant reported. A comparison of the divisional medians
in Table 2 with the national medians in Table 1 provides some insight
into the relative levels of each parameter in each division, but this
table must be used with caution since it reflects the intensity of the
sampling program as well as the levels of the pollutants found. Finally,
some of the statistics were drawn from a small sample size as Table 1
indicates.
Discussion of the Data
The national comparisons made in this report suffer from the fact that
the data bases in some regions of the country are far more comprehen-
sive than in others. Some variation exists in geographical coverage,
but the more significant differences are in the number of chemical
analyses routinely performed. For example, the data from the New
England and South Pacific Divisions of the Corps of Engineers cover a
wide range of metals, chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides, and poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCB). In contrast, other sections of the country
have focused on very few analyses: typically, organic parameters, oil
and grease, mercury, lead, and zinc. Given these variations, it is not
possible to compare locations fairly on a national basis and the output
of the data file could lead one to believe that one section of the country
is more polluted than another when it is possible that one simply did not
undergo as comprehensive a sampling program as the other.
Table 3 indicates the regional variations in analyses for some heavy
metals.
19
-------
TABLE 3
Number of Data Sets From the Regions Defined by
Corps of Engineers Division Boundaries
Number of Locations with Data for:
Region Cadmium Arsenic Nickel
New England 36 29 34
North Atlantic 10 0 9
South Atlantic 51 28 29
Ohio River 532
North Central 56 25 51
Mississippi Valley 000
Missouri River 000
Southwest 28 27 27
North Pacific 406
Pacific Ocean 5 2 5
South Pacific 46 28 30
Significant regional variations exist also in the number of separate
data sources which responded to inquiries. In New England, the Corps
of Engineers and state agencies have compiled extensive sediment data.
Further south on the Atlantic Coast, much of the sampling and analysis
has been done by EPA. In the Great Lakes and along the Gulf Coast,
most of the data has been provided by EPA, state agencies, and
universities. Very little information was found in the Mississippi River
Valley and in the Mountain States. On the Pacific Coast, local Port or
Harbor Authorities have provided useful data, supplemented by the Corps
of Engineers and EPA.
As indicated in the rationale, the task of setting priorities must be based
on exisiting data. Suggestions have been made by local and regional
officials that certain harbors and waterways which have not been sampled
may have high concentrations of in-place pollutants. In the absence of
data, such locations cannot be considered. Similarly, where a small
amount of data exists for a location, no extrapolations or interpolations
have been made to estimate areas or volumes of polluted sediments.
20
-------
A problem that was identified during the data collection phase was
inaccuracy, or errors, in the analyses provided. Verification of the
accuracy of analytical results has not been made and is beyond the scope
of this study. In at least two instances in the San Francisco Bay area,
checks of analyses by the data originators showed initial results to be
incorrect by a wide margin. The original inaccuracies arose in differ-
ent laboratories, and there is no reason to assume that similar problems
do not exist elsewhere.
Accordingly, when existing data are being supplemented in any area,
spot checks should be made at the old sampling sites to confirm the
accuracy of the sediment quality data used in this report.
Another concern is that the concentrations measured are highly
dependent on sampling location and depth within the sediment. A large
amount of data is therefore required before any large area can be
characterized effectively.
Several locations, such as Houston, and much of New York Harbor,
have been shown by the data to have widespread contaminated sediments,
with no one sample site qualifying as a hot spot. Such locations may _ e
eliminated by the priority system used for this study. The possibility
remains that sampling in these areas has failed to include the most
polluted sites. This study, with its scope limited to the existing data
base, must ignore that possibility for the time being.
Task 1 provided data, a high-value data file, and a computer program
for using the file, so that locations with hot spots could be identified
and printed out in a manner that would allow application of additional
criteria in Task 2.
Zl
-------
SECTION IV
DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION
OF THE PRIORITY SYSTEM
General Considerations
The statement of work directs the contractor to develop a system for
prioritizing the locations for removal or inactivation of in-place
pollutants using the available funds, considering factors such as
present and potential toxicity, threat to human and other uses of the
water and substrate, critical use of the waterway for navigation and
commerce, and any feasible alternatives to dredging and disposal.
While these are all worthy factors to consider, quantifying them and
applying them to the hundreds of potential locations within the United
States is a formidable, and in some cases, impossible task. For
instance, is the salmon resource in the Pacific Northwest more import-
ant than the striped bass resource in the Northeast, or the shrimp
resource in the Gulf of Mexico? Is the level of 30 mg/kg mercury
worse in river A than a comparable level of cadmium in river B?
Another difficult question is the present and potential toxicity of any
given deposit since almost nothing is known about the exchange rate for
pollutants between the sediment and the water column, and most bio-
assay data are for the water column.
A common approach that is used to make decisions involving many
parameters is to assign weighting functions to each parameter, or
groups of parameters. This approach is highly subjective unless
unique weighting functions can be found.
The priority system selected consists of two parts. An initial screen-
ing was made to reduce the number of locations to about 23 and then a
second level of more detailed screening was used to arrive at the semi-
final list.
23
-------
The initial screening was done using a unique approach involving the
high-value file that was generated on Task 1. The first step was to
classify the pollutants in several groups, related to their toxicity.
Since quantitative knowledge of the effects of in-place pollutants on
biota is presently rudimentary, the use of groups of pollutants which
are similar in their toxic concentrations is an appropriate interim
technique for simplifying the information processing in this study. All
pollutant values in the data file were then subjected to a normalizing
process to determine their concentration relative to other areas in the
country. This normalization was achieved by defining a Pollution Index
(PI) as:
_, Concentration of Pollutant Present
National Median of that Pollutant
Once this was done, the PI value (multiples of the national median
present in the sample of interest) for all pollutants within a group could
be added to allow comparisons of pollution levels, in different locations.
The second, or semifinal, screening method involves a detailed look at
each location. To achieve this detail, in a reasonable amount of time, the
number of locations was reduced by the initial screening phase.
Three types of descriptors were identified along with the types of inputs
that could be used for screening candidate sites, as follows:
Physical Descriptors
location
area affected
volume
depth of water
water current
waves (storms)
character of material (probably silt & clay)
availability of disposal sites
cost/yard for disposal
cost to clean uo
24
-------
Chemical Descriptors
type of pollutant
level of pollutant (high, low, mean)
number of samples
toxic ity
water quality
Effect on Man and Ecosystem Descriptors
area usage (i. e. , recreational)
access
property values
commerce
potential improvement
population
commercial value of port
Our approach was to attempt to collect these data for the semifinal list
of locations and then a rank ordering could be made in a number of ways.
For instance, the areas could be rank ordered in terms of
. estimated volume to be dredged
. estimated cost of removal and disposal
. relative level of contamination (Pollution Index)
. access, or population
. area usage
. property values
A third, or final, rank ordering which involves determining how to
optimize the use of Section 115 funds, will require an additional study
involving an intensive sampling program.
Initial Screening
Sediment Chemistry and Toxicity
One major area which must be dealt with in this study involves the
effects of a particular sediment mass. In addressing this area,
questions arise regarding the hazardous levels of constituents, the
mobility of constituents, and the biological availability of various
chemical forms of each constituent.
-------
Mobility
Addressing the problem of in-place pollutants, and estimating the
benefits likely to be achieved by removing those pollutants, requires
an understanding of the factors associated with mobility. Several
inter-related water and sediment chemistry parameters can enhance
or retard the release of pollutants from sediment. Because the inter-
relations of these parameters are complex, and because a number of
locations must be considered in this report, the following discussion
is general. Detailed consideration of the factors identified in this
section must await further studies in the locations selected for final
consideration under Section 115.
Many researchers have dealt with the fate of heavy metals in sedi-
ments. Pratt and O'Connor^ ' have reviewed the recent work of several
investigators on the mobility of heavy metals in anoxic marine sediments
They have found that attempts to predict the concentration of metals in
sea water or interstitial water from equilibrium models based on the
solubility of the least soluble compound have resulted in values much
lower than are actually found. Formation of complexes, sorption re-
actions, and biological processes all affect mobility of metal ions in
.ways difficult to predict. For example, apparently conflicting results
are cited for the mobilization of copper, chromium, zinc, and
mercury. The primary factors related to mobility appear to be organic
content, redox potential, presence or absence of sulfides, and pH.
Even with knowledge of these conditions for most metals no general
conclusions can be reached concerning metal mobility. Each sediment
must be considered individually.
The factors governing mobility are often quite different within the inter-
stitial, or pore water of the sediment, from conditions in the overlying
water. Generally, these factors (reducing conditions, high organic
content) result in high concentrations of dissolved contaminants in the
interstitial water. Interstitial water may therefore be toxic to bottom
fauna and this condition may be more important in a given system than
contaminants which are leached into the overlying water.
26
-------
Much evidence concerning mercury mobilization has been presented
by JernelSv and co-workers ' ' ' whose investigations of aquatic
mercury problems in Sweden have contributed to that country's
expertise in mercury chemistry. The nature of mercury compounds,
and the physical and chemical properties of natural waters, normally
combine to bind most aquatic mercury in the sediment. Observed
partition coefficients result in a relative distribution in fresh or
(4)
estuarine waters within the following orders of magnitude :
Total Mercury Methyl Mercury
Sediment 90-99 1-10
Water 1-10 1
Biota 1 90-99
Hence, at any one point in time, most of the mercury in an aquatic
system is found in the sediment. The question of most importance to
this study is whether the net flux of mercury (and other toxic materials)
is into or out of the sediments; that is, whether sediments should be
considered a sink or a reservoir for pollutants.
Jernelov has also reported on lakes into which mercury discharges
ceased between 1925 and 1940. One lake, oligotrophic and with a low
rate of sedimentation (covering of the bottom by new, clean material)
still shows high levels of mercury in the biota. Other, eutrophic lakes.,
where the contaminated bottom has been covered by natural sedimentation,
are found to contain organisms with low mercury concentrations. This
evidence supports the position that sediment acts as a reservoir for
(7\
continued release of pollutants. Other investigators have observed a
similar trend in mercury levels of fish in eutrophic and oligotrophic lakes,
Their interpretation was that the enrichment of organic and suspended
material in the eutrophic lake tend to remove mercury availability by
f 7)
complexation and adsorption mechanisms , rather than by simple
covering.
27
-------
The partitioning of aquatic mercury in the above table also implies the
biological concentration of methyl mercury, since the biota contain so
much more than the sediment or water. This concentration, or magni-
fication, must be considered when evaluating the effects of mercury in
sediments. Although sediments are capable of tying up large influxes
to\
of mercury, acting as an environmental "shock absorber" , the slow
release of small quantities through biological methylation can result
/4\
in long-term contamination of the biota* '.
The literature does not yield firm conclusions regarding mercury
(9)
mobility, however. A Canadian study using crayfish found more
mercury uptake by benthic animals in a clean sediment-contaminated
water system than in a contaminated sediment-clean water system.
Conflicting data on the adsorption and desorption of pesticides are also
(2)
to be found. Lee and Plumb review several studies on this topic and
conclude that more research is needed to determine the conditions
under which the net flux of pesticides is into, or out of, bottom sedi-
ments.
One proven means for mobilization of pollutants from sediments is
uptake by benthic organisms. In a study of Escambia River and Bay
sediments near Pensacola, Florida, Nimmo and co-workers found
up to 61 ppm polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) near an industrial outfall.
Pink, white and brown shrimp which were exposed to these s-ediments
in PCB-free laboratory water developed up to 14 ppm PCB in whole
body residues . The authors did not discuss the mechanism by
which the shrimp obtained PCB, but did conclude that its presence in
the animals was evidence that PCB in sediments is available to the
food web.
Lee and Plumb, in a comprehensive literature review , summarize
other studies which have failed to detect uptake of contaminants from
sediment by oligochaetes, polychaetes, and tubificid worms. Varia-
tion is to be expected among organisms, locations, and contaminants.
28
-------
The same authors cite a study by Seger^ in which metals were shown
to be transferred from sediment to the water column by plants, through
root uptake and subsequent release from the plant.
Perhaps the least understood mechanism by which heavy metals may
be released from sediments is the formation of complexes with organic
or inorganic ligands. Organic complexes are often invoked qualitative-
ly in the literature to explain the presence of metal ions at higher con-
centrations that are predicted by solubility calculations. Chelation has
also been suggested as the means by which aquatic organisms may make
available to themselves useful trace metals or suppress levels of toxic
aquo metals ions. Analytical problems, however, make these theories
difficult to prove or disprove* '.
Several workers have investigated the potential for nitrilotriacetic acid
(NTA) a strong complex former, to solubilize metals in sediments.
f 12)
Positive results have been noted for lead as well as other heavy
metals. NTA, ethylenediamine tetraacetate (EDTA), and other natural
and man-introduced ligands generally coordinate with the heavy, more
toxic metals such as mercury, cadmium, and copper, in preference to
less harmful cations such as calcium and sodium . This tendency
suggests that the more toxic metals are likely to be released from
sediments. On the other hand, complexed forms are generally thought
to be less toxic than aquo metal ions.
A review of work done in assessing the mobility of toxic materials in
sediments thus provides ample evidence that these contaminants can
be released to the biota and to the water. Unfortunately, little research
has been done which can support general statements regarding the
relative mobility of various contaminants. There clearly is too much
variability between water bodies in such factors as sulfides, pH, redox
potential, presence of chelating agents, alkalinity, and salinity to
support general conclusions. Hence, no attempt is made here to rank-
order contaminants by relative mobility and availability. Conclusions
regarding this question must be based on intensive studies of each
29
-------
location involving the collection of new field data beyond the scope of
this study.
Hazardous levels: toxicity. Considerable difficulty is encountered when
one attempts to relate the literature on toxicity and bioassays in aquatic
systems to the presence of a given constituent in a sediment mass.
Very little quantitative information is available on the toxic or sub-lethal
effects of known levels of sediment contaminants on a surrounding eco-
system. A further complicating factor is the chemical form in which
toxic materials exists. For example, heavy metals may be less toxic to
fish when complexed with organic ligands than when simply coordinated
with water as aquo metal ions. Bioassay tests at the University of
California Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory indicate that the
effluent from activated sludge treatment of municipal wastewater rray be
less toxic to fish than the effluent from physical-chemical treatment of
wastewater from the same source. One mechanism hypothesized for
the lesser toxicity of activated sludge effluent is the provision of
"organic compounds to sequester heavy metal ions, " or chelation.
Unfortunately, very few analyses for heavy metals were performed
during the reported study; the results presented do not indicate any
conclusive difference in metal removal between the biological and non-
/14)
biological treatment processes
Lee and Plumb discuss the toxicity of different forms of copper (II)
in solution. Although the aquo metal ion is highly toxic to many forms
of aquatic life, copper complexed with EDTA shows little or no toxicity.
The copper (II)- citrate complex, however, does exhibit toxicity. Little
other evidence is available in the literature regarding toxicity as a
function of chemical form. Chemical form is important to this study
since it also governs mobility of contaminants from bottom sediments.
The dearth of information available prevents this report from detailed
consideration of chemical species, as they affect toxicity as well as
mobility.
30
-------
The effects of polluted sediments on organisms are not well understood.
Gannon and Beeton performed laboratory aquarium tests in which
the burrowing amphipod, Pontoporeia affinis, was exposed to sediments
from several Great Lakes locations. Sediments were collected from
relatively unpolluted areas as well as from harbors with a long history
of receiving inadequately treated municipal and industrial wastewaters.
Clean laboratory water was used over the sediments in all aquaria. In
selectivity tests, the amphipods avoided sediments from polluted areas.
From viability tests, it was concluded that "in general, sediments from
the river sections of badly polluted harbors were more toxic than those
from the outer harbors"^ . No chemical analyses of sediments were
presented.
Another Gannon and Beeton bioassay project attempted to correlate
toxicity with chemical analyses, but found no direct correlation1
Hence, it appears from the literature that polluted sediments can be
harmful to organisms, but the relative hazard from each pollutant is
unknown.
Criteria for Grouping of Pollutants
It is clear from the preceeding sections that it is not possible at this
time to directly relate the data on pollutants in the sediments of the
harbors and navigable waters to toxicity effects on the biological
species present in those waters.
The approach that was adopted for this study was to utilize the ample
data available on aquatic bioassays, rather than to attempt to directly
relate levels in the sediment to effects on aquatic life. Prior dis-
cussions have established several routes by which pollutants in the
sediments may be mobilized. For the screening process it will be
assumed that for a given pollutant a higher level in sediment A than
in sediment B implies a larger threat to the waters and aquatic life in
the volume around sediment A. A final verification of this assumption
awaits detailed investigations of the mobility, chemical form, and
specific biological life in each location of interest.
31
-------
A comprehensive study by the National Academy of Sciences has
reviewed the literature on aquatic bioassays and has summarized its
findings in a proposed set of water quality criteria defining "safe" and
"hazardous" levels of a wide variety of water constituents. A tabular
summary of that study's findings for the materials included in the data
sets collected for this study is given in Table 4.
Based on the National Academy of Sciences concentrations that con-
stitute a "hazard in the marine environment" , the pollutants of
interest to this study have been classified for relative toxicity into
three groups. They are shown in Table 5. The groupings were
checked by the criteria of "minimum risk in the marine environment"
and by the fresh water recommendations in the NAS report '. These
reviews produced no conflicts with the grouping scheme shown, with the
exception of the minimum risk for nickel. This value (0. 002 mg/1)
would put nickel in Group I, but since it is based on very limited data,
nickel has been left in Group II.
Pesticide toxicity varies widely from one formulation to another, and
is related to biodegradation, accumulation, effects on reproduction of
fish eating birds, and synergistic effects. There are so many formu-
lations of organochlorine and organophosphate insecticides and herbi-
cides that one cannot generalize quantitatively with respect to toxicity
of pesticides. Because so many pesticides are highly toxic, and
because of the accumulation and synergistic effects mentioned above,
these materials as a class have been placed in Group I. Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB) are chemically similar to the organochlorine insecti-
cides, and the high toxicity of PCB's causes their ranking in Group I.
Pollution Index Concept
The gathered and cataloged data consisted of up to 33 chemical para-
meters from 652 data sets. The size of this data bank, and the different
levels of each parameter that might be considered harmful, combined to
create a massive screening problem. For example, a sediment with an
oil and grease content of 200 mg/kg dry weight is relatively free of petro-
32
-------
TABLE 4
National Academy of Science Numerical Recommendations
for Water Quality Criteria of Toxic Substances
Marine Systems
(17)
Hazard
Substance Fresh Water Recommendation Level
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium 0. 03 mg/1 Peak, where
1.5 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
Min. Risk
Level
0. 2 mg/1
<0. 01 mg/1
<0. 2 yug/l
Remarks
Concentrate s
Concentrate s
in food chain
in food chain
hardness >10-0 mg/1
0. 004 mg/1 Peak, where
hardness <100 mg/1
Chromium 0. 05 mg/1 Peak
Copper
(a)
C yanide s
Iron
Lead
Manganese
(a)
0. 03 mg/1 Peak
0. 1 mg/1 0.05 mg/1
0.05 mg/1 0.01 mg/1
0.01 mg/1 0.005 mg/1
0.3 mg/1 0.05 mg/1
0.05 mg/1 0. 01 mg/1
0. 1 mg/1 0. 02 mg/1
(almost no excretion),
synergistic effects with other
metals, especially copper
and zinc
Most data on freshwater
organisms. Toxicity may
vary with oxidation state.
Synergistic effects with zinc,
cadmium, mercury. Poly-
chaetes can adapt to copper,
concentrate it, and develop
amounts toxic to their
predators.
No data on marine bioassays
Normally oxidized. Pre-
cipitate solids cf more
concern than direct toxicity
of dissolved species.
Less toxic in hard water.
FeW data on sublethal effects.
Apparent antagonistic effects
with nickel. Few data on
sublethal effects.
-------
Substance
Mercury-
Nickel
Pesticides
PCB
(H2S, HS
Zinc
TABLE 4 (cont. )
Marine Systems
Fresh Water Recommendation
Hazard Min. Risk
Level Level
0. Z f^g/1 Peak i total 0. 1 fig/I
0.05 fig/I Average l(unfiltered)
(a)
Specific to each formulation.
Range: 0. 002-0. 04 pg/l for
organochlorine,
0.0004-0.4 ,ug/l for
or ganophosphate
compounds
0.002 ^g/1 Peak
Sulfides 0. 002 mg/1 H?S Peak
(a)
0. 1 mg/1 0. 002 mg/1
(a)
0.01 mg/1 0. 005 mg/1
0. 1 mg/1 0. 02 mg/1
Remarks
Minimum risk probably
exceeded by any input other
than natural weathering.
Few data on marine toxicity.
Levels not harmful to
exposed fish can accumulate
in eggs an
-------
TABLE 5
Adopted Toxicity Categories for this Study
Hazard Level
in Marine Environment
Category Substance (mg/1) (17)
Group I, Highly Toxic Mercury 0.0001
Cadmium 0. 01
Sulfides 0.01
Cyanides 0.01
Lead 0.05
Arsenic 0. 05
Copper 0.05
Pesticides, PCB . . .
Group II, Toxic Zinc 0. 1
Chromium 0. 1
Manganese 0. 1
Nickel 0. 1
Iron 0. 3
Aluminum 1. 5
Group III, Other Oil and. Grease
Organics
Bio stimulants
chemical pollution, while a sediment mercury content of 20 mg/kg is one
of the highest in the country and is likely to be hazardous to the surround-
ing ecosystem. Hence, a. review of data would require simultaneous con-
sciousness of some threshold value for each of 33 parameters. A com-
puter program could be written to perform this task on its own, but it
is preferable that the investigator be able to participate actively in the
screening process. In this way, unexpected trends or unique local
conditions that could not be anticipated in programming could be noted.
As indicated earlier in the report, it is extremely difficult, if not
impossible, to determine rationally and objectively whether a mercury
problem in harbor A is more critical than a cadmium problem in lake
B without developing quantitative criteria. In this study, such criteria
were developed so that a single number representing a mercury pollu-
tion index for harbor A can be directly compared to another number
representing a cadmium pollution index in lake B. It is important to
recognize that sediments surviving to the semifinal screening process
35
-------
will be grossly polluted and fine distinctions between the toxicity for
different pollutants is of secondary interest. What is needed is a coarse
index to allow initial decisions with regard to screening.
It would be convenient to define a pollution index, or measure of pollu-
tion, for the sediments in each location and use this as a preliminary
method to screen all locations. A precedent has been established for
estimating the effect of combinations of acutely lethal concentrations
using 'Application Factors'. The Application Factor is the numerical
value of the safe-to-lethal ratio and is generally expressed as follows
A TT - safe concentration
~ 96-hour LC50
For 2 or more toxic materials, a surprisingly large number of com-
binations can be evaluated for toxioity by simply adding their application
(17)
factors. If the sum is 1. 0 or greater, the mixture will be lethal
This suggests the possibility of calculating a sediment pollution index
in a similar additive manner, realizing that all that is desired at this
first filtering, or elimination phase, is a rough measure of the relative
levels of pollution existing in all locations sampled. A finer system
would then be used to establish the final list of the Section 115 locations.
The following system was programmed to use as a guide in eliminating
from further study approximately ninety-five percent of the locations
for which data was collected on Task L
For each location a Pollution Index (PI) was calculated which consid-
t i
ered all chemical parameters measured, and weighted each according
to a predetermined weighting function.
The calculation proceeded as follows:
i
^
Total PI = m ,,- , _
Lb
36
-------
Where C is the highest value for pollutant a reported in the location
3r
of interest and L is the weighting factor. While approaches using
3>
weighting factors generally tend to be subjective this need not be the
case here because two values of weighting factors are readily avail-
able.
In the past, EPA has attempted to define the levels of constituents in
sediments that should be considered polluted. The levels suggested are
shown in Table 6. Also shown are the national median values from the
Task 1 high-value data file. For those parameters for which EPA
criteria are provided the high-value national medians are surprisingly
similar. Thus one could use either the national medians or the EPA
criteria for the weighting functions. The results would be similar
using either approach.
Since EPA criteria do not exist for all the pollutants of interest it was
decided to use the national medians for the weighting functions when
calculating a Pollution Index.
Conceptually, the Pollution Index is a measure of pollution in any
harbor relative to the national median values for those pollutants
present in the harbor. .Table 7 shows a hypothetical case for 2 harbors
being compared using the Pollution Index concept. Harbor A has a PI
of 23. 33 and Harbor B a PI of 5. 49. While this does not mean that
Harbor A is 4 times as polluted as Harbor B, it does mean that
Harbor A should be considered more polluted than Harbor B, and that
is the type of distinction desired for the first screening.
37
-------
TABLE 6
Median Values Calculated From Task 1 High Data File
Parameter
High Value Medians
(mg/kg dry weight)
EPA Sediment
Guidelines
(mg/kg dry weight)
Mercury
Lead
Cadmium
Arsenic
Zinc
Nickel
Copper
Chromium
Volatile Solids
COD
TKN
Oil & Grease
Nitrite
Nitrate
Total Phosphorus
BOD
Aluminum
Manganese
Fecal Coli
TOC
PCB
Phenol
Sulfide
H2S
Oth Phosphate
IOD(4)
Iron
Cyanide
(1) EPA-1971 criteria
0. 5
42
3. 1
3.0
100
32
62
61
78,000
59,000
1,600
1,400
0.24
8.6
900
38,000
8,560
512
5,900(3)
27,000
0.04
95
930
6.0
0.61
460
20,000
0.22
(guidelines) for
^D
( 1 \
50U)
2(2)
5<2>
130<2>
50<2>
50<2>
100<2>
60, 000(1)
50,000(1)
1,000^
1,500(1)
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
op en- water disposal of c
spoil
(2) EPA BegionIX '72-73 proposed criteria for dredge spoil disposal
(3) Count per 100 grams dry weight
(4) Immediate Oxygen Demand
38
-------
TABLE 7
Comparisons Using the Pollution Index Concept
Pollutant
Mercury
Cadmium
Arsenic
Nickel
Pollution Index
National
Median
mg/kg
0. 50
3. 1
3.0
32. 0
Harbor A
mg/kg
10
6.2
1.0
32.0
Ca
L
a
20.0
2.0
0.33
1.0
23.33
Harbor B
mg/kg
2.0
1.6
2.0
10.0
Ca
L
a
4.0
0. 52
0.66
0. 31
5.49
In the previous section, pollutants were grouped, relative to values
recommended by the National Academy of Science. The Pollution
Index concept can now be applied to the field data by grouping those
pollutants of most concern and using their pollution index as a basis
for screening. Finally, a constant, or additional weighting factor,
could be applied to each pollutant, to allow for differences in its
mobility and toxicity, making the Pollution Index concept completely
I
general. Those constants do not exist, nor would their use be war-
ranted for this initial screening.
Application of Intitial Screening Methodology
The initial screening methodology was applied to approximately 10,000
individual sediment analyses collected during Task 1. These data,
which include 33 analytical parameters, represent sediment samples
collected from nearly 700 harbor and waterway locations throughout
the United States. This initial screening was designed to reduce the
number of locations to between 20 and 30.
39
-------
PI values were calculated for every location in the high-value data file.
Table 8 shows a summary of the PI calculations for the first 623 loca-
tions collected in Task 1. The magnitude of the screening task is indi-
cated by the fact that 44 locations had a PI over 100. This means that
the sum of the pollutant concentrations in these harbors, after each
was divided by the national median, is 100 times greater than the sum
of the national medians alone.
A number of arbitrary guidelines were adopted to conduct the initial
screening. Adoption of other guidelines could result in a different list
than the one obtained. The guidelines adopted were:
1. Consider only Group I toxic materials: mercury, cadmium,
free sulfide, lead, arsenic, copper, cyanide, pesticides, and
PCB's.
2. Of the above materials, free sulfide, cyanide, pesticides, and
PCB's all were represented by small amounts of data. Accord-
ingly, the national medians may not be valid reference numbers.
Do not consider PI for these materials, but maintain a less
formal record of any high values for later reference.
3. Take the sum of Pi's for mercury, cadmium, lead, arsenic,
and copper at each location.
4. Try various threshold values for individual and total Pi's.
Consider both individual and total, so that a location with all
five elements analyzed is not given a bias over a location with
fewer analyses. For example, with a total PI threshold of 50
and an individual PI threshold of 10, there remained more than
50 locations.
5. Threshold values which produced the desired number of
between 20 and 30 locations were 60 for total PI and 20 for
individual PI. These criteria are independent; that is, a
location with an individual PI greater than 20 qualifies for
further study although its total PI may be less than 60.
Further, a location whose total PI is greater than 60 qualifies
although none of its individual Pi's are greater than 20.
The results of the initial screening are shown in Table 9, and this list
forms the basis for generating a semifinal list in Task 2.
40
-------
TABLE 8
Summary of Pollution Index Levels For All Locations
Range of Total
Pollution Indices
0 -
11 -
21 -
31 -
41 -
51 -
61 -
71 -
81 -
91 -
over
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
100
Number of
Locations
323
128
66
32
21
12
8
10
4
2
46
Cumulative
Number of
Locations
323
451
517
549
570
582
590
600
604
606
652
Percent
of
Total
Locations
49. 5%
19.6
10. 1
4.9
3.2
1.8
1.2
1.5
0.6
0.3
7. 1
Cumulative
Percent
of
Total
Locations
49. 5%
69.2
79. 3
84. 2
87.4
89. 3
90. 5
92.0
92.6
92.9
100.0
41
-------
TABLE 9
Locations Selected for Detailed Investigation on Task 2*
Location
1. New Bedford, MA
2. Providence, RI
3. New Haven, CT
4. Bridgeport, CT
5. Eastchester Creek, NY
6. Newark Bay, Pas sale River, NJ
7. Baltimore, MD
8. Georgetown, SC
9. Pittsburgh, PA
10. St. Louis, MO
11. Cleveland, OH
12. Detroit, MI
13. Michigan City, IN
14. Indiana Harbor, IN
15. Milwaukee, WI
16. Neches River, TX
17. Corpus Christi, TX
18. Seattle, WA
19- San Francisco, CA
20. Richmond, CA
21. Oakland, CA
22. Los Angeles, CA
23. San Diego, CA
Qualifying Parameter
Total PI = 187
Total PI = 71
Total PI = 60
Total PI = 274
Lead PI= 22
Total PI = 94
Total PI = 613
Lead PI= 26
Lead PI = 31
Arsenic PI = 32
Cadmium PI = 22
Total PI = 204
Total PI = 3,229
Total PI = 2,451
Total PI = 84
Total PI = 80
Total PI = 148
Total PI = 149
Total PI = 186
Mercury PI= 28
Total PI = 67
Total PI = 65
Total PI = 70
*NOTE: 2. additional locations, Royal River, Maine, and Menemsha
Creek, MA. , also qualified but were dropped due to their
small size and isolated locations.
42
-------
Semifinal Screening
Discussion of Descriptors
Early screening was based entirely on the degree of pollution in sedi-
ments. To develop a semifinal priority list, however, additional
criteria were considered. Quantifiable criteria have been sought
wherever possible to make the comparisons among areas as objective
as possible. Three general classes of criteria have been considered
and developed: physical descriptors, chemical descriptors, and
descriptors of sediment's interactions with the human and natural
environment. During the Task 2 data collection phase, it was found
that information does not currently exist to allow use of most of the
descriptors and this will have to be generated.
Physical Descriptors
The principal use of physical criteria is to determine the cost and
overall practicability of removing or otherwise rendering harmless a
contaminated sediment mass. Information in this category includes
location, water depth, physical character of material (silt, clay) and
other factors described below.
Area and Volume of Polluted Sediment. The data available do not
permit estimates of these very important criteria. Sample stations
are generally too few to establish isopleths of pollutant concentrations.
In only a few cases have analyses been reported showing the depth of
pollution in sediments. An intensive sampling program will be
necessary to determine areas and volumes for the locations of
interest. Without this information it will be impossible to define the
size of the rehabilitation task in each area, to predict the amount of
material to be dealt with, to estimate costs for rehabilitation, and to
determine the requirements for disposal sites.
Availability of Disposal Sites. It is unlikely that permits for open-
water disposal of the material from many of the areas in the semifinal
43
-------
priority list would be approved, unless specific sites for highly polluted
sediments are defined. Therefore, if dredging is to be the means of
rehabilitation, diked or upland disposal may be required. In some
areas these disposal methods are already in effect for dredged material,
but in other areas, there would be great difficulty in arranging diked or
upland disposal. This difficulty can be expected in the form of public
opposition or simply because extensive shoreline development has
eliminated possible sites in the area, resulting in excessive costs for
transporting the material inland.
Diked areas of themselves are not a panacea for disposal of dredged
material. The liquid effluent must be monitored and, if necessary,
treated. Effluent from a diked disposal area near Corpus Christi,
Texas, has damaged oyster beds to the extent that other disposal sites
are being sought. Since the material from locations on the semifinal
list will be highly polluted, and since .acceptable open-water disposal
sites do not appear to be available within a realistic distance, the
availability of diked area disposal is a critical consideration in this
study. Table 10 shows the initial screening list of 23 locations and
comments on the availability of confined disposal areas.
Unit Cost for Dredging, Disposal, or Other Alternatives. Dredging
costs are influenced by the type of equipment used; equipment choices
in turn depend on equipment availabilityand the physical features of
each location. For example, many inner harbors are not accessible
by large, economical hopper dredges. Until areas and volumes are
known, equipment cannot be specified.
Costs of disposal depend on distance to the disposal site and whether
the disposal area must be constructed solely for receiving the material
dredged for rehabilitation. The existence of a diked or upland disposal
area for dredgings related to navigation will reduce the cost of dispos-
ing material dredged pursuant to Section 115, but the lack of current
knowledge of'volumes of hot spots and plans for future disposal pre-
cludes any detailed ranking by physical and cost factors at this time.
44
-------
TABLE 10
Ranking of Locations in Terms of Potential
for Confined Disposal of Sediments
Location
Cleveland
Indiana Harbor
Milwaukee
Rank Explanation
Diked area exists adjacent
1 t (t = tie) to waterway-
Seattle
San Diego
4 t (tied for Diked area planned or
fourth since feasible adjacent to
there are waterway
three locations
in first place)
Neches River
Detroit
Michigan City
6 t
Diked area exists within
50 kilometers
Baltimore
Corpus Christi
9 t
Diked areas under serious
study, appear likely, but
timing and location of
diked area uncertain
Newark Bay
Eastchester Creek
Los Angeles
11 t
Possible landfill for new
port facility contruction
in the area
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
Georgetown
14 t
Insufficient local awareness
of a problem to evaluate
diked area potential
New Bedford
Providence
New Haven
Bridgeport
Richmond
San Francisco
Oakland
17 t
Diked area politically and
economically difficult to
implement
45
-------
Chemical Descriptors
Early screening used chemical descriptors (Total Pollution Index) as
the sole criterion. For developing the semifinal list of harbors and
waterways, these chemical descriptors have been used in a more
comprehensive way.
Maps are presented later in this report which indicate the locations of
hot spots and which provide some information concerning areal extents
of pollution for the locations recommended for further study. In addi-
tion, several techniques were used to rank-order locations according
to degrees of contamination. Each of these methods is described below.
Method 1: Total PI, Single Sample
All samples for each of the 23 locations were examined and the sample
having the highest PI was selected. This method identifies the highest
value of pollutants, in any one sample, for each of the areas of interest. In
those cases where analyses were run for different depths from a single core
sample, the highest value for each pollutant was used to represent the sample.
Method 2; Average PI, Single Sample
The PI values from Method 1 were each divided by the number of
pollutants present in each sample. This generated an average PI per
constituent in the sample and helps to avoid biases against those loca-
tions where only a few pollutants were analyzed.
Method 3: Total PI, Maxima from All Samples
All samples from each location which included analyses for Group 1
pollutants were examined. A spacial composite sample was developed,
including the highest Value for each Group 1 pollutant found irr the harbor
or waterway. For example, if mercury was high in one sample, and
lead was high in another taken several hundred yards away, the two
extreme values would be included in this composite. The effect of this
method is to de-emphasize those locations where all the highest values
46
-------
of all pollutants were detected in a single sample. Once the spacially
composited sample was tabulated for each location, the total PI was
then calculated.
Method 4; Average PI, Composite Sample
This method takes the Method 3 composite sample, and as in Method 2,
an average PI is established by dividing by the number of pollutants in
the composite sample.
Method 5: Sum of Ranks from Methods 1 through 4
To reduce conflicting ranks from Methods 1 through 4 to a single index,
rankings can be added and the sums can then be ranked. For example,
it is logical that the following simple hypothetical system of locations,
criteria, and ranks can be reduced by summing the ranks for each
location:
RANKINGS
Overall
Location Criterion I Criterion II Criterion III Sum Rank
A
B
C
1
z
3
1
3
2
2
3
1
5
8
7
1
3
2
A further scan of the data was also made to identify sites of the follow-
ing materials in high concentration:
Group II Contaminants; Zinc, nickel, chromium, manganese,
iron, aluminum
Group I Contaminants with Few Reported Analyses: Free sulfides,
cyanide,
pesticide, PCB
47
-------
Oil and Grease: These materials have fractions which are not
biodegradable. They haye been implicated with
mortality in bioassays' ', and have a great
capacity to concentrate chlorinated hydrocarbons
and other harmful, nonpolar compounds'^°'.
Descriptors of Sediment's Interactions with the Environment
Several criteria have been considered for evaluating the sediment's
effects on human and ecological values at each location. To be useful,
these criteria should be definable in terms of effects before and after
rehabilitation of the waterway. Unfortunately, such factors are not
easily set into objective criteria.
Recreation. Most of the locations under study are in regions of
abundant water resources (i.e., the oceans and the Great Lakes), thus
so many alternative recreation areas are normally nearby that confident
prediction of future use of a rehabilitated harbor or waterway is not
practical.
Property Values. No national index of property values exists, so
comparisons between areas are difficult. Furthermore, the value of
waterfront property after removal of polluted sediment cannot be
predicted.
Ecological Values. Knowledge of the effects of polluted sediments on
ecosystems is lacking in most areas. The return of desirable species
to a rehabilitated waterway is difficult to predict. Further, each aquatic
ecosystem has its own unique features which should not be considered
more or less valuable than those of other locations.
Subsequent Pollution Likelihood. If the sources of sediment contamin-
ants are known, then the status of abatement of those sources must be
considered. Little benefit is to be gained if in-place pollutants can be
expected to re-appear. Locations cannot be rank-ordered objectively
by this criterion, since the reliability of wastewater treatment systems
and spill control techniques is uncertain.
48
-------
Shipping. Cargo statistics are used as a measure of waterfront activity-
occurring at each location. Where multiple use potential exists for a
waterway, shipping has the potential to enhance other uses. For
example, the opportunity to view the harbor activities of maritime
commerce from waterfront parks or from recreational boats can have
significant value as an amenity.
Population. City and area populations are used to rank-order locations.
Although predictions are not ventured regarding the numbers who will
directly benefit from a more desirable waterway, population gives an
objective index of potential beneficiaries.
By "area" is meant the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as
defined by the Bureau of the Census. The Census definition of a SMSA
is quite detailed; a greatly simplified definition could describe a SMSA
as any region, with at least one urban center of over 50, 000 population,
within which region there are demonstrable economic and social inter-
dependencies. These interdependencies are mainly defined in terms of
geographical patterns of non-farm employment, Most SMSA's encom-
pass two to six counties.
Summary
The considerations discussed above have led to selection of the follow-
ing objective, numerical descriptors by which the 23 locations can be
ranked.
Chemical: Total PI, Single Sample
Average PI, Single Sample
Total PI, Composite Maximum Values
Average PI, Composite Maximum Values
Sum of the ranks of the above 4 descriptors
Physical: Availability of Confined Disposal Sites
Interactions with Environment: City Population
SMSA Population
Shipping Traffic
49
-------
Column No.
LOCATION
A New Bedford
B Providence
C New Haven
D Bridgeport
E Eastchester
F Newark/Pa ssaic
G Baltimore
H Georgetown
I Pittsburgh
J St. Louis
K Cleveland
L Detroit
M Michigan City
N Indiana Harbor
O Milwaukee
P Neches River
Q Corpus Christ!
R Seattle
S San Francisco
T Richmond
U Oakland
V Los Angeles
W San Diego
(1)
Total PI
1 Sample
Value Rank
142
71
42
190
35
75
361
27
32
32
36
172
3229
2449
56
80
129
142
171
37
67
63
63
7t
12
17
4
20
11
3
23
21t
21t
19
5
1
2
16
10
9
7t
6
18
13
14t
14t
(2)
Average PI
1 Sample
Value Rank
28
14
21
38
7
15
90
9
16
32
12
172
1076
816
19
20
42
71
43
9
17
13
21
10
18
lit
8
23
17
4
21t
16
9
20
3
1
2
14
13
7
5
6
21t
15
19
lit
(3)
Total PI
Composite
of Entire
Location
Value Rank
187
71
60
274
35
94
613
41
32
46
43
204
3229
2451
84
80
148
149
186
41
67
65
70
6
13
17
4
22
10
3
20t
23
18
19
5
1
2
11
12
9
8
7
20t
15
16
14
(4)
Average PI
Composite
of Entire
Location
Value Rank
37
14
20
55
7
19
153
14
16
11
14
41
1076
817
21
20
30
37
46
8
17
13
14
7t
I6t
lit
4
23
13
3
I6t
15
21
I6t
6
1
2
10
lit
9
7t
5
22
14
20
I6t
(5)
Sum
of Ranks
Columns
1 thru 4
Value Rank
30
59
56
20
88
51
1.3
80
75
69
74
19
4
8
51
46
34
27
24
81
57
69
55
8
16
14
5
23
lit
3
21
20
17t
19
4
1
2
lit
10
9
7
6
22
15
17t
13
a. Population of Bronx County
b. Population of Gary + Hammond + East Chicago
c. Population of Beaumont
d. Total cargo traffic on Monongahela River above Pittsburgh
e. " " " on Mississippi River for 70 miles above
Ohio River confluence
f. Total cargo traffic to and through Detroit on Detroit River
g. t = tie
50
-------
TABLE li
Data and Rankings for 23 Locations, Using the Selected Criteria
(6)
Other
Pollution
Criteria
(all entries in
this column
highest in the
national data
bank)
1,
Cr 5745 mg/kg
CN 35 mg/kg
1,
Oil & Grease 1
170,000 f
Ni 6070 mg/kgj
Zn 11,000 mg/kg
PCB 1, 170 mg/
kg
Pesticides!- 2,
1.4 mg/kg]
(7)
City
Population
1970
Value Rank
101,777
262,907
137,707
156,542
471,701a
382,417
905,759
10, 449
520,117
622,236
750,903
511,482
40, 135
330, 187b
717,099
115,919°
204, 525
530,831
715,674
112,389
361,561
816,061
693,931
21
15
18
17
3
12
4
23
11
9
5
2
22
14
6
19
16
10
7
20
13
1
8
(8)
SMSA
Population
1970
Value
152,642
910,781
355,538
389,153
11,571,899
1,856,556
2,070,670
_
2,401,245
2,363,017
2,064,194
4,199,931
_
633,367
1,403,688
315,943
284,832
1,421,869
3, 109,519
3,109,519
3,109,519
7,032,075
1,357,854
Rank
21
15
18
17
1
11
9
22t
7
8
10
3
22t
16
13
19
20
12
4t
4t
4t
2
14
(9) (10)
Cargo Confined
T"5i **oo^*^l
Tonnage ,-,.
fio) Feasibility
1973im (Table 10)
Value
411,075
10, 236,062
13,709,265
3, 553,980
1,974,777
21,999,547
53,786,715
1,485,731
37, 592, 584d
18,319, 148e
24,828, 323
131,676, 382f
167
17,897, 777
5,635, 524
34,490,769
27, 171, 559
17,000. 178
4,485,745
18,259,836
7,414,679
25,977,491
2, 063, 356
Rank
22
14
13
18
20
8
2
21
3
9
7
1
23
11
16
4
5
12
17
10
15
6
19
Rank
17t
I7t
17t
17t
lit
lit
9t
I4t
14t
14t
It
6t
6t
It
It
6t
9t
4t
17t
17t
I7t
lit
4t
51
-------
Data are provided in the following sections on all selected descriptors,
allowing objective rank ordering. It is most difficult to judge how each
descriptor should be weighed against the others. To arrive at the semi-
final list, the chemical descriptors have been used to select the 9 most
polluted locations. The number was reduced to 6 by considering city
population and disposal site availability. Use of the other factors,
which appear less important to the execution of Section 115, is left to
the discretion of the reader.
Application of Descriptors
The available data for criteria and descriptors selected in the previous
section for the 23 remaining locations are presented in Table 11. The
ranking of each location under each category is also given. An inspec-
tion of the rankings in Table 11 shows the difficulty of setting priorities.
Only one location (Baltimore, Maryland) has ranks in all categories
higher than 10. Hence, some systematic way of evaluating the many
criteria is necessary.
Several methods of evaluation have been considered. The following
discussion describes two possible decision sequences in setting
priorities for Section 115. The processes are of necessity subjective,
and other, equally "good", processes would yield different priority lists.
With the data presented and the description of the prioritization processes
which follows, other rank orderings can be achieved, if desired.
Pollution Emphasis Approach
Table 12 presents a rank ordering of the 23 locations with regard to the
4 chemical descriptors defined earlier, plus a fifth descriptor estab-
lished by summing the rank of each location in the first four columns.
The resultant ranking by sums represents an overall evaluation of
relative sediment pollution which should mask the biases inherent in
each of the individual chemical criteria.
An.examination of Table 12 reveals tla t the top 9 locations are the same1
(although the rankings within the top 9 vary) for all five criteria. The one
52
-------
TABLE 12
Bank Ordering of Locations
Considering Chemical Pollutants
Order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Total
PI
1
Sample
M
N
G
D
L
S
A,R
A,R
Q
P
F
B
U
v,w
v,w
o
c
T
K
E
I,J
I,J
H
Average
PI
1
Sample
M
N
L
G
R
S
Q
D
J
A
C,W
C,W
P
O
U
I
F
B
V
K
H, T
H, T
E
Total PI
Composite
M
N
G
D
L
A
S
R
Q
F
0
P
B
W
U
V
C
J
K
H, T
H, T
E
I
Average
PI
Composite
M
N
G
D
S
L
A,R
A,R
Q
O
C,P
C,P
F
U
I
B, H, K, W
B,H, K, W
B, H, K, W
B, H, K, W
V
J
T
E
Summation
of
Chemical
Ranks
M
N
G
L
D
S
R
A
Q
P
F, 0
F, 0
W
C
U
B
J, V
J, v
K
I
H
T
E
53
-------
TABLE 13
The 9 Most Polluted Locations,
Rank-Ordered by Average Pollution Index
for Spacially Composited Analyses (Method 4}
Order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Location
M
N
G
D
S
L
A
R
Q
Michigan City
Indiana Harbor
Baltimore
Bridgeport
San Francisco
Detroit
New Bedford
Seattle
Corpus Christi
Average
PI
Composite
1076
817
153
55
46
41
37
37
30
54
-------
exception to this statement is in the "Average PI 1 Sample" column at
order 9. These 9 worst locations from the chemical viewpoint are listed
in Table 13, where they are ranked by the composite pollution index for
the entire location averaged for the number of pollutants analyzed (Method 4^
This type of pollution index, since it is a composite from many samples
and since it is averaged for the. number of parameters analyzed, is a very
good descriptor for comparing locations.
Since it was calculated for only the worst (Group 11 pollutants, the fact that
Michigan City's composite is 1076 times the national median values, is very
persuasive evidence that it belongs on the list. When considering additional
candidates for addition to the worst 9, the next, or tenth, location had a
composite average PI of 21. Considering the limited funds available
for Section 115, it appears that the list should be reduced rather than
expanded. For this reason, among others, we feel that the chemical
descriptor is not sufficient and additional criteria must be applied.
Multiple Criteria Approach
Certainly the criterion of relative pollution is very important to this
study, but it is conceivable, given the extreme conditions within the
23 locations, that relative pollution may have had its most valid use
in the initial screening phase. Given the lack of knowledge regarding
effects of polluted sediments, it may be reasonable to assume that any
location in the top 23 is in a condition where relative pollution has little
further meaning, since all 23 sites show such high sediment pollution levels.
Extending this rationale, a selection system can be devised giving city
population and disposal criteria an equal weight with pollution after the
initial screening has revealed the worst locations. These three criteria
may be considered as related to relative pollution, potential social
benefits, and probable relative costs of rehabilitation. Table 14 shows
the rankings of the top 10 locations by the sum of the ranks for each of
these three criteria, as determined from Table 11.
55
-------
TABLE 14
Ranking of the Top Ten Locations by Multiple Criteria
Sum of Three Criteria
(Chemistry, Population, Disposal Feasibility,
Order Location Columns 5, 1, and 10 of Table 11)
1 Detroit 12
2 Baltimore 16
3 Indiana Harbor 17
4 Milwaukee 18
5 Seattle 21
6 San Diego 25
Cleveland 25
8 Michigan City 29
Los Angeles 29
10 San Francisco 30
56
-------
Considering the previously mentioned desire to reduce the number
of locations below nine, one can compare the lists of Tables 13
and 14 for common locations. These are 6 such locations common to both
lists: Indiana Harbor, Seattle, Michigan City, and San Francisco.
As another check on this priority list of 6, a review of the national
data for extremely high concentrations of pollutants not included in the
numerical criteria has been made. Pollutants considered are chromium,
cyanide, nickel, zinc, PCB, pesticides, and oil and grease. The high-
est value for each of these materials in the data bank often appears in
locations which have been selected already for the priority list of 6 locations,
but exceptions exist. Corpus Christi Inner Harbor's maximum
reported sediment zinc value is 11, 000 mg/kg dry weight. Cleveland
Harbor's cyanide value of 35 mg/kg is the national maximum, as is
the pesticide value of 1.4 mg/kg in Los Angeles. Because of their
relatively low rankings by other criteria discussed above, these loca-
tions are not included in the priority group of 6 locations. It is likely,
however, that other possible prioritization schemes might select these
two locations.
Table 15 shows our recommended locations for further consideration
under Section 115. The 6 shown in Priority 1 are the prime candidates.
If for any reason locations are dropped from Priority 1, we recommend
that these be replaced from Priority 2. Priority 3 shows the remaining
locations from the Z3 surviving the initial screening.
Clearlv. the foregoing selection processes are but two of many possible
approaches. Borderline locations in these approaches, such as New Haven,
Neches River, Milwaukee, and San Diego, can be expected to be quite sensi-
tive to the specific selection process used. Other locations such as Baltimore
would probably be selected by any approach. Locations such as Georgetown
and Richmond are likely to be eliminated by motet approaches
Descriptions of each of the selected harbors are given in Appendix A as a
data summary and guide for future work. Somewhat briefer descriptions
arc.' also given for the locations which are not included in the above priority
list of 6,
57
-------
TABLE 15
Recommended Semifinal List for Section 115 Consideration
Priority 1 Locations
Detroit
Baltimor e
Indiana Harbor
Seattle
Michigan City
San Francisco
Priority 2 Locations
Bridgeport
New Bedford
Corpus Christi
Priority 3 Locations
Providence
New Haven
Eastchester
Newark
Georgetown
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
Cleveland
Milwaukee
Beaumont
Richmond
Oakland
Los Angeles
San Diego
58
-------
SECTION V
METHODS OF REMOVAL OR
INACTIVATION OF IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS
The methods to be considered for rehabilitation of polluted sediments
are dredging, covering and treatment. Within each of these broad areas
are several sub-topics. The dredging alternative requires consideration
of pollution control at the dredging site, and at the disposal site. The
covering and treatment options each have many possible variations in
process selection which strongly affect cost and efficiency of inactivation
of pollutants. Finally, treatment still implies a need for disposal sites
but the options for selection of a site are greater after treatment.
Dredging Considerations
Present dredging practices and disposal methods have been reviewed
for their applicability to safe and economical removal and disposal of
in-place pollutants.
Dredges. Dredges may be broadly classified as either mechanical or
hydraulic. Mechanical dredges include the clamshell and bucket type,
and hydraulic dredges include the hopper and pipeline dredge.
Mechanical dredges are sometimes further classified into grab, dipper
and ladder dredges and the dredged material is usually placed in a con-
tainer and transported to a disposal site. The material excavated re-
mains at approximately the original water content throughout the
dredging process.
Hydraulic dredges can be divided into two catagories - hopper dredges
and pipeline dredges. They share one common mode of operation in
that a centrifugal pump causes material to be removed from the
dredging location and be discharged either into the hoppers of the
dredge itself, into barges, or back into the water at some distance
away.
59
-------
In the United States, the only hopper dredges are owned and operated
by the Corps of Engineers. Intakes are either of the plain suction type
or equipped with a draghead.
Some hopper dredges have the capability of sidecasting, or pumping
the dredged material directly back into the water, but in most cases
when loaded, the hopper dredge moves to open water and discharges
the dredged material by bottom dumping. On. occasion, the discharge
is made behind a levee or dike. Hopper dredges are frequently used
in open areas, bays, large river mouths, etc. as typified by the mouth
of the Mississippi River and have storage volumes between 380 and
6100 cubic meters (500 and 8000 cu yds).
Hauling and Dumping Equipment. Mechanical dredges normally are
used in conjunction with bottom dumping scows or barges. The scow
is filled and then towed to a dump site, where it is bottom dumped,
usually in open water, but occasionally in a diked area. Dump scows
presently used for open water dumping of dredged materials are of
several basic types employing different dump actuating mechanisms
and configurations. Older and smaller scows generally contain 6 or 8
pockets, each of which contain double, gravity dump, bottom doors
held closed by cables and a ratchet and pawl type mechanism. Release
of the pawl for dumping is provided by hydraulic jacks operated by
control valves located within the sccw bridge; the scowman manually
controls operation of the valves for each pocket mechanism.
Some of the dump scows or barges are of the hinge type configuration.
The barge is comprised of a port and a starboard section which are
hinged topside (fore and aft); the two sections rotate about the hinges
during dump operation. Large diameter hydraulic pistons located
beneath the fore and aft hinges cause the two sections to separate below,
thus allowing the dredge material to be dumped into the water.
Dumping is normally actuated with hydraulic control valves by a scow-
man, although it can be remotely controlled. Dump time is on the order
of several minutes. Scows and barges range in size from 765 to 3060
cubic meters (1000 to 4000 cu yd) capacity, and may be self-contained
or remotely powered and controlled.
60
-------
The problems of dumping from a hopper dredge are similar to those
of a scow, or barge, except that the vessels are self contained, and
therefore do not have problems of remotely controlling the dump.
The navigation equipment on the hopper dredges may be generally
superior to that on tugs. Furthermore, the transit speed to and from
the dump site is faster than the typical tug-barge combination. Finally,
the hopper dredge may have adequate power to supply the needs of
treating and/or pumping the material from the dredge into the water.
Pipeline dredges also utilize a centrifugal pump to move the dredged
material but they do not have onboard storage. A barge provides the
flotation, energy, and workspace, from which a ladder and cutterhead
are suspended into the area to be dredged, Dredged material is then
pumped via a pipeline to the disposal site.
Since a pump is used, the dredged material must be slurried with over-
lying water. Solids content of these slurries may range from a few
percent up to perhaps 30 or 40 percent depending on the nature of the
solids. Hydraulic pipeline dredges are rated by the diameter of the
discharge line with the largest being about 30 inches and a typical value
of about 24 inches. The following table indicates typical flow rates.
Hydraulic Pipeline Discharge Rate (gpm)
Discharge Discharge Pipe Diameter
Velocity
ft./sec. 8" 18" 24" 30"
10
15
20
25
1, 620
2,420
3,230
4, 040
7, 500
11,240
14,990
18,740
13,520
20,280
27,040
33,800
21, 120
31,690
42, 250
52,810
Discharge from the pipe is typically into open water or land disposal
areas, either diked or undiked. The length of the discharge pipe varies,
usually from a few hundred to a few thousand meters. One notable
installation was 12, 000 meters long, required several booster pumps,
and discharged into the Craney Island (Norfolk, Va. ) land disposal site.
61
-------
Disposal of polluted dredge material is often performed in diked areas.
Pipeline discharge to the diked area is preferable for retention of
pollutants, because the alternative of barging material into the diked
area requires a large gap in the dike for passage of the barges.
Disposal Considerations
Criteria for Disposal of Dredged Material
Until recent years the method of disposal of sediments dredged during
construction and maintenance of channels and harbors was governed
primarily by the cost of the disposal operation. In most cases the
disposal method deposited the materials back into the waterway at a
short distance from the dredging site. In the last few years an increase
in environmental awareness has prompted numerous studies on the
effects of dredging. Legislation has been passed which promises to
put strict limits on how dredged material disposal may be accomplished.
The Environmental Protection Agency has been charged under the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act and the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 with promulgating
regulations and procedures to ensure that degradation of the waters of
the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, and the oceans will not occur
as a result of dredging operations. At this time the criteria for ocean
dumping have been published, and the criteria for disposal on inland
waters are still being developed.
Criteria for the disposal of dredged material in the ocean have under-
gone an evolution from the original interim criteria published in the
Federal Register on May 16, 1973 and the interim regulations of
April 5, 1973, to the Ocean Dumping Final Regulations and Criteria
of October 15, 1973. In 1971 the Corps of Engineers published
EC 1165-2-97 presenting 7 guidelines, covering volatile solids, COD,
total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, oil and grease, mercury, lead, and zinc. It
was on the basis of these early guidelines that many of the Corps
Districts began their sampling programs. These early guidelines were
based \ipon EPA bottom sediment criteria (the "Jenaen GuideUm<,B").
62
-------
The October 15, 1973 final criteria cover Ocean Dumping, under the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, PL 92-532
and section 403(c) (Ocean Discharge Criteria) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, PL, 92-500. Inland or
navigable waters are covered by PL 92-500, section 404(b), for which
EPA is currently preparing criteria.
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 covers
both the dumping of industrial wastes and dredged materials. Permits
for dumping industrial wastes are issued by EPA with the permit decision
based on allowable levels of pollutants in the waste material.
Permits for dumping dredged materials are issued by the Corps with
the permit decision based upon the effect that the material may have on
the disposal site. This approach considers both the nature of the material
to be disposed of and the nature of the site into which it will be placed.
The criteria define two conditions of dredged material: unpolluted and
polluted. Unpolluted material may be dumped in approved dump sites.
Polluted material may be dumped subject to a number of restrictions.
All dredgings to be disposed of under Section 115 will be polluted, unions
treated before dumping.
Disposal Options
Open Water Disposal. Open water disposal of dredged materials has been
practiced in the United States for a number of years and, as land disposal
sites become harder to find, this alternative method of disposal has
become of increasing importance. In some parts of the United States
(e.g. New England) dredge material is almost exclusively disposed of
in open water.
Open water disposal involves many factors including problems of precise
navigation to the dump site, particularly under adverse weather conditions
and at night; dispersion of the material in the dump site following dump-
ing; obtaining a positive indication that the dump actually took place at
63
-------
the proper station; and possible treatment of the dredged material to
decrease its dispersion or to limit the availability of toxic materials
to the environment.
The dump site factor which presently has the greatest degree of uncer-
tainty associated with it is dispersion following dumping. Dispersion
affects the disposal activity in a number of ways. Since the intent usually
is to have all of the dredged material end up in the site, any influence that
causes the material to miss the site, or end up in a part of the site not
intended, should be examined and provision made to compensate for
these factors.
Until recently very little study has been done on dispersion of dredged
materials. Johnson (20) recently completed a study of dispersion models
for the Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station and has published
a report on the subject. He identified, and examined several math models
for predicting the dispersion and settling of barged wastes in the ocean,
but found no models for estuarine or riverine environments. He points
out that Schroeder and his associates at Oregon State University are
currently involved in developing a model for tracing dredged material
released by a pipeline, Johnson states that in the ocean environment,
sensitivity analyses and field verification are needed for models such
as the Koh-Chang model; that model development is necessary for
predicting the short term fate of dredged material in the estuarine
environment; and that model development-for riverine environments
should await developments of Schroeder1 s work.
A very sophisticated and general model for dispersion of dredged
materials in open water has been developed by Koh and Chang (21).
Their model has the capability of handling the three cases of: instantan-
eously releasing the material from a bottom dumping barge (or hopper
dredge), pumping the material through a pipe under the barge while
the barge is moving, or releasing the material in the barge wake.
64
-------
Edge (22) has developed a model for barge dumping into the ocean
environment. It is composed of a combination of jet theory and
sedimentation theory. The first part of the model assumes a nega-
tively-buoyant jet discharged downward into a stratified environment
and then sedimentation theory is used to provide a description of the
transport of material from the end of the jet to the floor of the ocean.
Clark, et al (23) developed a similar approach in which they present
a technique for analyzing disposal from a hopper barge.
If the wastes follow a jet pattern, they will ultimately come to rest on
the ocean floor since they are negatively buoyant. If sufficiently diluted
with entrained fluid, they may become neutrally buoyant and stabilize
at some intermediate depth. At this point the material is affected by
local currents, flocculation, gravitational attraction, and possibly wave
action. The material then settles toward the bottom while being moved
about by currents and turbulence.
A dispersion model has recently been presented by Christodoulou, et al.
(24) which predicts the quasi-steady state sediment concentration as a
function of space and tidal time and the disposition pattern in the region
surrounding a continuous vertical line source. In addition to sediment
settling velocities, net drift, and dispersion coefficients which are also
required by the other models, an off-shore sinusoidal tidal velocity is
input. Effects of wave action and vertical stratification are not considered.
The assumption of no vertical stratification would probably be valid in
.many instances, particularly in relatively shallow ocean dump sites.
Recent studies have been funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
at a dump site in Long Island Sound. Gordon (25) made measurements
of turbidity in the water surrounding scows discharging non-cohesive
dredge material, high in silt content, at the New Haven dumping grounds.
The observations show that 99% of the material is quickly transported to
the bottom in a high speed, density current. Impact with the bottom
produces an outward spreading, turbid cloud. The residual turbidity in
the water column, which drifts in the tidal stream, contains less than
1% of the material discharged.
65
-------
Gordon has obtained quantitative data and from these data he postulates
the following qualitative model for dumping at this site. Dredge material
dumped in the ocean will quickly fall to the bottom as a density current
which theh spreads laterally, depending upon the spreading velocity,
topography, and local currents. A small residual cloud of material will
stay in suspension and be acted upon by local currents and density
gradients. This material will eventually settle to the bottom, but perhaps
well removed from the original dump site. In most cases, this latter
material represents a very small fraction of the total dumped volume.
Dumping Methods. While one part of the open water dumping problem is
location of the vessel at the dump site, and another is dispersion of the
material which will lead to choices on where to release, a third consider-
ation is that some control on dispersion, and therefore placement, may
be obtained by control of the dumping method.
Researchers in the development of dispersion models have recognized
that the method of release will have a significant effect on the dispersion
process. In general, three methods of release are employed:
Instantaneous bottom dumping in which a large mass of
material is suddenly released such as from a scow hopper.
The initial downward velocity (convective descent) may
carry the material to such a depth that the bottom is
encountered or the pycnocline is passed before longer
term dispersion effects become significant.
Jet discharge in which the material is released through
a pipe under the barge either by pumping or by gravity
dump. In this case the .material behaves as a buoyant jet.
Wake discharge in which the material undergoes an initial
mixing phase when turbulent mixing dominates over
buoyancy effects. Although industrial wastes are sometimes
discharged in this manner, dredged materials are not.
66
-------
Consideration of several dumping methods may lead to an optimum
method of placement within a dump site. In situations where current
is primarily the problem, the dump point above the site may be
selected to optimize the placement of materials in the site. However,
Gordon's results (25) in Long Island Sound indicated that less than 1%
of the material remained in the cloud above the dump site. While the
details of this finding must be carefully checked, the implications are
that, under some circumstances, most of the material will quickly
reach the bottom almost directly under the dump point.
If a vertical density gradient exists, there is considerable evidence
showing that some of the fine-grained material may be intercepted in
its vertical descent and possibly transported horizontally for some
distance before ultimately settling to the bottom. One way of avoiding
this problem is to dump the material below the pycnocline so that settling
will predominate rather than long term diffusion. Among the ways to
do this are shrouds, pipes, and curtains that would keep the material
together, as a .mass, until it was below the pycnocline. This approach
could present an enormous technical and logistic problem, to say nothing
of the increased cost.
Another approach to dumping, in the presence of a density layer and
high currents involves making modifications to the material itself.
Nalwalk (26), Saila (27) and Gordon (25) all found that the dispersion
was significantly reduced if the water content of the dredged material
was reduced during.the dredging operation. The pressure exerted on
the material by the bucket dredge, and the barge itself, reduced the
water content and made the material remain relatively intact all the way
to the bottom. In fact, individual bucket-formed balls of material were
observed on the bottom at the dump site. These effects were very
evident if clay was present.
TMs suggests the possibility of processing the dredged material, in
one of a number of ways, to maintain a high average density of the
material, so that it will successfully pass through the density layer,
67
-------
minimizing dispersion. One way of doing this would be to either modify
the bucket, or the barge, so that the material could be compressed,
reducing the water content. This would be more difficult in a hopper
dredge but is still possible. It will probably only be effective on
cohesive material.
Another possibility is the addition of a .material, like clay, that would
aid the dredged material in retaining a higher density as it passes
through the water column. Chemicals could also be added to assist in
this process. Formation of a gel, or grout, might also be effective.
Another method of dumping which could be employed to minimize disper-
sion is encapsulation. When the quantity of material is small and the
material is highly toxic, containers such as 55-gallon steel drums could
be used. Another possibility might be the application of a surface layer
to the material prior to dumping so that entrainment of ambient water
and dispersion during the descent phase would be minimized and the
substantial negative buoyancy of the dredged material mass can be
utilized. All of these alternatives would substantially increase the cost
of disposal.
Land Disposal. In general, land disposal of dredged materials includes
both unconfined and confined disposal. Unconfined disposal has been done on
marshlands, islands and bars in river channels, On beaches for beach
nourishment, and on upland areas. Since the needs of this study are
related to the disposal of highly toxic in-place pollutants, the application
of unconfined disposal methods appears doubtful in "that, first, little
control is normally available over the long term location of these
materials, and second, the unconfined disposal sites are generally more
sensitive to such factors as toxicity and aesthetics. Thus, land disposal
of toxic dredged materials will probably be limited to confined disposal.
Confined land disposal sites vary widely in design, construction, and
utilization. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Technical Report H-72-8
(28) indicates that there are presently about 200 active dredging projects
that rely in whole or in part on confined disposal of the dredged material.
68
-------
The relative number of confined sites is increasing due to concern for
the effects of dredged material pollutants on water quality. Since
pollutants are often associated with fine grained material and also
since disposal of fine grained material is more difficult to control in
open water or unconfined areas, a disproportionately large amount of
the fine-grained material is confined on land. Also the relative amoxint
of fine-grained and/or polluted material being confined on land will
increase over the coming years.
Alternatives to Conventional Dredging and Disposal
General Considerations
Alternatives to conventional dredging consist of dredging and treating
the material prior to ultimate disposal or leaving the material in place
and sealing it with a cover to prevent migration of the polluted material
or penetration by benthic organisms.
An evaluation of techniques for covering of pollutants requires examin-
ation of a number of aspects including the nature and mobility of the
pollutants, the type of cover and its effectiveness as a chemical or
physical barrier, the effect on the barrier of benthic organisms, and
the technical, economic, and operational feasibility of covering the
area.
Covering of In-Place Pollutants
One possible alternative, which is primarily applicable outside of
navigation channels, is to apply a cover over the site. The reasons
for doing this would be to reduce the availability of the pollutants to
the surrounding environment and to protect the site from erosion and
subsequent redistribution of pollutants such as may occur during a
storm.
-------
Early work on the effectiveness of covers was conducted in Sweden.
Jernel8v (29) found that in a system without macro-organisms, formation
and release of methyl mercury occurs almost entirely in the upper
centimeter of the sediment. Thus, in this situation natural sedimentation
must be an important factor for turnover of mercury deposits in the
sediment. Addition of Tubificidae in very high amounts change the
situation somewhat, but it still is mercury deposits in the upper 2. 5 cm
of the sediment that give the dominating contribution to the formation and
release of methyl mercury. When Anodonta (mussels) are present -
with a very high population density - the depth at which deposits of
inorganic mercury contribute is expanded to about 9 cm (29).
The fact that both Tubificidae and Anodonta tend to expand the active
depth of the sediment according to their length and to the depth in the
sediment they reach and mix supports the idea that they influence the
process of methylation and release of methyl mercury from the sedi-
ment mainly through physical activity - mixing sediment and increas-
ing the through-flow of water. This makes the population density an
important factor. In many lakes stratifications in the sediment within
centimeters are regarded to represent different periods of time. Tux.
implies that mixing of sediment layers through activity of organisms is
not very important.
It appears to be possible to "lock in" the mercury in the sediment by a
covering layer of 3 cm if there were no macro-organisms or only
Tubificidae present. But if Anodonta is present a covering layer of
10 cm would be required.
Landner (30) investigated ways to restore polluted lakes in Sweden,
especially with regard to heavy metals pollution, and concluded that
several approaches are possible. These include:
70
-------
introduction of oxygen consuming substances in order
to create constant anaerobic conditions in the bottom
sediments.
introducing inorganic materials with strong adsorption
characteristics to fix the mercury in non-methylable
form.
covering with an inorganic material.
He used a 0. 5 to 1 mrn thick cover of lime to cover fiberous sediments
polluted with phenyl mercury and found this reduced the available mercury
by a factor of 5. A similar experiment was conducted using silicate
minerals as a cover and he found a significant reduction in the available
methyl mercury. Less effectiveness was attained in the case of phenyl
mercury.
Landner also conducted tests in lakes, where freshly ground quartz
mineral was spread over the bottom to attempt to seal in-place methyl
mercury. The results obtained were inconclusive because of the diffi-
culties associated with obtaining a uniform layer on the bottom. Due to
a shortage of funds, the quartz was barged to the site and then spread
by hand, using shovels. Large patches of the bottom remained exposeu,
using this .method.
EPA has funded a number of projects to evaluate the effectiveness of
bottom covers and, while these have also been directed toward heavy
metals problems, the results are of interest to the in-place pollutants
program,
Feick, Johanson, and Yeaple (31) conducted aquarium studies with
organic and inorganic mercury and evaluated the effectiveness of several
covering materials (sand, kaolin clay, silica, zinc sulphide, milled
pyrite, Zn S-FeS, thiols, polyethylene). Tests were also conducted on
combinations of these (i. e., a chemical complexing agent below a sand
barrier). They found that oxidizing of the polluted sediments resulted
in increased availability to the ecosystem, hence the desirability of a
"blanket" or cover to keep the sediment anaerobic. Plastic films
71
-------
(polyethylene) did not appear to be an effective barrier for sealing against
methyl mercury. In dredging simulation, they found that about 99% of
the mercury present remained bound to particulate matter. This implies
that, for heavy metals, dispersion and resuspension should be avoided to
control the spread of the pollutant.
Bongers and Khattak (32) investigated the effectiveness of sand and gravel
as a cover for mercury-contaminated sediments. The release of toxic
mercurials by .mercury-enriched river sediments was examined in the
laboratory. These tests indicated that about 1 p g of methyl mercury
o
was released per m'' per day. The release of such toxic mercurials
could be prevented by a layer of sand, 6 cm in thickness, applied over
the mercury-enriched sediments. Layers of fine or coarse gravel
(6 cm deep) were as effective as sand. Thinner layers of sand, 1. 5
and 3 cm in thickness, appeared to be unsatisfactory. The cost of
applying 3-inch layers of sand or gravel over contaminated river
sediments is estimated to be about $3000 to $4000 per acre.
The formation of methyl mercury occurred in sediments with low and
high organic content, in sediments with low and high cation exchange
capacity, and in aerobic and anaerobic sediments.
A convenient indicator of the potential toxicity of a contaminated sedi-
ment is the presence of metallic mercury. The slow release of metal-
lic mercury occurred in aerobic sediments, but the release was much
faster in anaerobic sediments. Using ascorbate as an artificial electron
donor, metallic mercury could be released at high rates from aerobic
sediments as well. Ascorbate appeared to be a helpful indicator of the
presence of divalent biologically accessible mercury.
Although the laboratory investigations proved the soundness of the sand
blanket approach, its practical and economic feasibility must be deter-
mined in a combined field and laboratory analysis program.
72
-------
Widman and Epstein (33) evaluated polymer film overlays for mercury
contaminated sites, under contract to EPA. This work was based upon
previous studies for the U.S. Navy with regard to using covers to
reduce turbidity during diver salvage operations in the ocean.
Concepts for dispensing of polymer films underwater and over mercury
contaminated sludges were generated. The candidate systems examined
were based on coagulable materials, hot melt polymer compounds, and
preformed films. A large number of laboratory blends of the candidate
materials in the first two categories were made and qualitatively eval-
uated to identify promising formulations. Experimental equipment
appropriate to each concept was designed and experiments were conduc-
ted in an 18 foot long test tank to establish the feasibility of the material-
equipment systems.
The results of these experiments suggested that commercially available
preformed films could be successfully dispensed from a roll and applied
as an overlay on the mercury contaminated sludge.
Dialysis experiments were conducted to determine the permeability of
the candidate materials to organic and inorganic mercury compounds.
Preformed nylon and high-density polyethelene performed best in all
categories. Microbiological and biological experiments showed that
the preformed films and hot melt polymers were most promising.
A cost analysis showed that a preformed film overlay can probably be
deployed for 1. 5 cents to 3. 3 cents per square foot, hot melt films
for about 2. 5 cents per square foot, and a coagulable nylon film for
about 4 cents per square foot.
The logistics associated with covering of in-place pollutants with a
plastic film appear quite restrictive, but further evaluation is warranted
for any location where more conventional rehabilitation methods are not
feasible. One potential hindrance is that the U.S. Coast Guard is current-
ly considering the recommendation of an international ban on the dumping
of plastics in the ocean.
73
-------
Saila (27) has investigated the effectiveness of covers for material in
Rhode Island Sound, including stability associated with material that
is in a mound. Gordon (25) indicates that stability can be enhanced in
some cases by actively cultivating a biological population, such as tube
dwelling polychaetes.
Pratt and O'Connor (1) have considered the problem of providing a cover
over polluted dredge materials in a dump site. They felt that the cover
need not be totally sealed, at least in the case of the moderately contamin-
ated sediments of their study. In that case they stated that a cover
should be judged successful if it reduces the exposed surface area by
90 to 95 percent and provides a blanket thick enough to keep the dominant
benthic species from contact with the contaminated material. A practical
consideration was that only unconsolidated sediments can be spread
evenly enough to cover a large area, so that although clay material would
be desirable in a cover due to its adsorptive capacity, spreading of a
cover containing significant amounts of clay may not be practicable.
To investigate the effectiveness of covers Pratt and O'Connor developed
a mathematical model of a sand cover which allowed the heavy metals
to migrate through the cover and followed the total heavy metal load
as a function of depth and time. The model is essentially a one dinio. -
sional diffusion model with linear (Langmuir) adsorption. It was con-
cluded that migration of metal ions would occur at a rate proportional to
the size of the particles in the cover. If the cover particles are only
slightly larger than those in the polluted material, then the covering
material would only become marginally polluted.
Another class of pollutants, pesticides and hydrocarbons, also require
consideration of covering. These materials, like heavy metals, are
sparingly soluble and tend to concentrate in sediments. Desorption
from sediments has been observed, however, by Rowe et al. who
concluded that the effect of adsorption and desorption would
be to increase organisms' exposure time and to decrease initial
concentration levels (34).
74
-------
Covering Methods. Most of the work that has been done on covering
technology is related to the effectiveness of the cover once it is in
place, with little thought as to how to obtain an effective cover from
an operational point of view. Except from the work by Landner, where
material was spread manually from a surface barge> little has been done.
The basic problem is one of finding a way to spread material on the
surface of a dispersive medium, in such a manner that it will provide a
reasonably complete cover over the site that may be a number of fathoms
below the surface of the water. The cover need only be total if the
material is very polluted and/or if the current and wave action are such
that resuspension becomes a problem.
Spreading of material manually (i. e. shoveling) can be ruled out as
ineffective and expensive. Thus, more automated .means are required.
It is possible to conceive of dump scows or hopper dredges criss-
crossing the area dumping clean sand to obtain a cover. If the water is
not too deep, a way to consider would be to pump cover from the area
immediately adjacent to the site and direct this over the polluted area
using a grid pattern and precise navigation.
Perhaps the most feasible way to obtain a good cover would be to
utilize technology that was investigated by the Army Corps of Engineers
for a totally different environmental problem - oil pollution.
Tobias (35) has reported on a study that involved a modified hopper
dredge to spray specially treated sand on the surface of an oil spill,
causing it to sink to the bottom. It was later established that this method
is unacceptable, for oil spills, from an environmental point of view.
However, it appears to have potential value with regard to obtaining a
cover for in-place pollutants.
The study examined the feasibility of taking a hopper dredge to an
adjacent sand bank, filing the dredge with sand, transiting to the site
of the oil spill, and then pumping the sand onto the spill to cause it to
sink. The sand was released through special arms that deploy on
75
-------
either side of the dredge, giving it a large sweep width. In addition,
chemicals were mixed with the sand so that it became hydrophobic and
oleophilic, in the case of covering pollutants in the sediment, other
chemicals would be employed (such as sulfur, thiols, iron scrap)
depending on the chemistry of the site and the pollutant which are to
be immobilized.
Tobias investigated the possibility of modifying a dredge like the Corps
of Engineers' GOETHALS. Alterations consist of the addition of spray
booms (port and starboard) with associated rigging and a chemical
storage and dispensing system. Preliminary cost estimates for modify-
ing this dredge come to about $125, 000 for the first system. The equip-
ment would be portable, could be installed in about 2 days, and the
equipment could either be transported to the various areas as needed,
or several systems could be used to cover the East, Gulf, West Coasts
and the Great Lakes.
It is possible to consider installing a system like this on a barge but
the hopper dredge is particularly appealing because it can acquire its
own sand and has most of the equipment needed to achieve the desired
goal.
Another interesting problem involves the determination of how well the
site has been covered. This goal probably can be accomplished using
the correct fathometer, since the reflective strength of a fine grained
bottom is significantly different from that of a sand bottom. Thus a
high resolution fathometer, of the appropriate frequency, will give an
excellent account of the integrity of the cover, while perhaps lacking
in vertical definition as to the thickness of the cover. This latter
parameter may be .measurable using coring techniques.
76
-------
Treatment of Dredged Materials
In previous sections consideration has been given to dredging equipment
and methods, dredged material disposal methods, and techniques which
might be employed to seal the pollutants in place as an alternative to
dredging. In this section the possibility of treating the dredged material
is addressed.
The type of treatment that might be utilized in any particular situation
would depend on many factors such as the nature and concentration of
the pollutant, the sensitivity of the environment near the dredging and
disposal sites, the method and location of ultimate disposal, and the type
of dredge used, rate of dredging, and the cost. In addition, since treat-
ment is relatively expensive when compared to the dredging operation,
the availability of funds will have an influence on the overall dredging and
disposal system.
For a number of reasons the concept of treating polluted material as
it is being dredged is appealing. The treatment possibilities are
quite limited, however, due to the rate at which the material is dredged
and the types of treatment which are effective in altering dredged
material characteristics.
There are two very important disadvantages of at-dredge treatment.
First, dredge production rates are very high. If no buffer capacity is
available, treatment must occur at the same rate as production. The
result would be a treatment process of far larger capacity than would
be required for treatment at a longer term average rate. Second,
dredge output is highly variable even from moment to moment. Most
treatment processes are adversely affected by fluctuations in either
flow rate or composition. Some processes may not function adequately
under varying input conditions, or at the least a more conservative,
and therefore more expensive, design would be required.
77
-------
One of the most promising approaches to the treatment of polluted
dredged materials is on-land treatment where buffer capacity can be
provided by storage areas. Among the advantages are: smaller
treatment facilities since treatment could occur at a long term average
rate, relative freedom from the dredging operation, and ability of a
single facility to serve many dredging operations. The principal
disadvantage is the need for transportation of the dredged material to
the treatment site.
There are two fundamentally different categories of land treatment
facilities: rehandling areas and permanent dumps. In a rehandling
area the dredged material is processed in some manner and then
deposited in another site, either land or water based. In a permanent
dump the material may still be treated, but ultimate disposal is in the
same site.
Rehandling facilities are an interesting concept. Polluted materials
would be transported to the facility for processing, but ultimate dis-
posal would be at other locations. A typical rehandling facility might
include the following operations:
Separation of water from solids
Destruction of organics
Treatment of the separated water to enable discharge
Separation of Water from Solids. The most easily operated, and
probably the least expensive dewatering process would be settling ponds.
When dredged materials are allowed to settle for a period of several
days, almost all solids will settle out. The supernatant water can be
drained off, perhaps treated, and discharged to the waterway. Techniques
can then be employed to further dewater the solids by air drying and
drainage with the result being a dry .material which can be excavated and
used as land fill, dumped in an open water disposal area or incinerated.
The method of ultimate disposal would determine the optimum degree
of dewatering.
78
-------
The area requirements for a rehandling facility would be determined by
the rate of dredging, weather conditions, the nature of the material, the
dryness required, and the method of mechanical agitation to encourage
drying. The time required to achieve the optimum, water content would
probably be between ten days and several months.
The operating cost of the drying process, including mechanical agitation
to speed the process, would be about $1. 00 per cu yd. The capital
cost for the underdrain system would be about $1000 per acre. Other
systems involving mechanical dewatering devices would also be effective,
but would be far more expensive.
Destruction of Organics. When high concentrations of organic matter
are present in the polluted dredgings incineration can be employed to
destroy the organics and thus greatly reduce the concentration of
volatile solids, oil and grease, organohalogens, and oxygen demanding
material.
Incinerators are likely to be an effective and economical method for
altering the chemical characteristics of dredged materials. Assuming
that the solids content of the dredged material was 45 percent of whiei.
20 percent were volatile, then the capital cost of a multiple hearth
furnace incineration system with a capacity of 100, 000 cu yd/hr would
be about $1. 1 million including installed equipment, buildings, and all
other equipment for an operational facility. The operating and .mainten-
ance cost would be about $135, 000/yr. With a ten year writeoff on
mechanical equipment, the cost per cu yd. of solids processed would
be $2.74. The incinerator ash would be 80 percent of the original
solids content, but it would be sterile and not contain any organic
pollutants, so that open water disposal may be acceptable means of
ultimate disposal. If heavy metals which remain in the ash were found
to be a problem, landfill of the material is also a possibility. The total
79
-------
cost for a system including a rehandling-drying area ($1. OO/ cu yd. )
would be about $4.75/cu yd. While this represents a large percentage
increase over present disposal costs, in cases where highly polluted
materials are encountered, an incineration system may be the only
practical means for disposal of these materials.
It should be emphasized that, in general, incineration cost estimates
are very sensitive to the type of material being considered since one
of the most important cost factors is the need for auxiliary fuel. The
water content of the material to be incinerated should be consistent
with self-sustaining combustion.
Treatment of the Separated Water. Quiescent settling of dredged
materials for several days will produce a supernatant water with only
a very small fraction of the initial suspended solids content. However,
the residual suspended solids and dissolved materials may exceed limits
set for discharge into the waterway adjacent to the land disposal site.
Examples of potential problems are coliform bacteria, suspended solids,
heavy metals, and phosphorus. A method which would be effective in
removing these contaminants is precipitation with inorganic salts air-1
polymers in combination. The most economical method for treatment
would require only a small tank for mixing of chemicals, a somewhat
larger tank for flocculation, and a diked settling pond. Inorganic salts
such as lime, alum, and iron salts are capable of precipitating dissolved
metals and the plant nutrient phosphorus. When applied in conjunction
with polymers a rapidly and completely settling floe will be produced and
will result in treated water which should meet water quality standards
for discharge. If bacterial pollution is present, such as from municipal
sewage outfalls, disinfection with either chlorine or ozone would be
effective.
80
-------
Treatment Facilities' Use and Costs. Any scheme to treat dredged
materials in response to Section 115 must consider the long-term
local problems in disposing of dredgings. If in place polluted sediment
is not likely to be replaced by continuing pollution or spills, then
facilities are not likely to be justifiable for the one-time treatment
operation. Local sewage treatment plants should be considered in such
cases* especially if they are new and have the excess capacity typical
of new plants. Adequate grit removal facilities are especially important.
If, on the other hand, polluted sediments can be expected to reappear,
perhaps the Section 115 funding may be combined with conventional
dredging funds for the construction and operation of long-term
dredged material treatment facilities.
An important factor in deciding on solutions to the problem of in-place
pollutants will be the costs of the dredging, treatment, and disposal
operations. In some cases such as hopper dredging and hydraulic pipe-
line dredging, disposal is closely associated with the dredging. In
others, particularly where land disposal or treatment is involved,
the disposal operation should be considered separately.
It is difficult to specify precisely the cost of dredging, since it varies
depending upon geographical location, type of material to be dredged,
and the disposal method employed. In addition, inflation and shortage
of materials and supplies are causing wide fluctuations in the present
market costs. Cost estimates and recent bid abstracts received from
the Corps of Engineers confirm that costs should not be generalized.
Unique local conditions cause wide ranges in estimates.
Recent bid abstracts for dredging in Texas, received from the Galveston
District of the Corps of Engineers, show a range of bids to be $0. 15
to $2.47 per cubic yard. One contract received bids for levees and
spillways in a disposal area ranging from $65, 000 to $118, 000. Other
investigations have found that costs for bucket dredging and open water
81
-------
disposal in New England are approximately $2 to $3 per cubic yard (36).
The Detroit District of the Corps of Engineers reports costs of
maintenance dredging as $0. 34 and $0. 87 per cubic yard for the Detroit
and Rouge Rivers respectively. These costs assume open water disposal,
and would be increased to $4.41 and $5.75 per cubic yard if the planned
diked area at Pointe Mouillee were implemented (37). Johanson and
Bowen (36) have estimated that additional costs of approximately $0. 50
to $4. 00 per cubic yard would result if feasible treatment schemes were
combined with dredging and disposal operations.
Pollutant Control at the Dredging Site. Turbidity control is being used
in the field with silt curtains, or turbidity barriers. Pervious and
impervious barriers have both been tried. Pervious barriers allow
the water to flow through, trapping the silt particles. In most cases,
the pervious barriers rapidly become impervious due to clogging of
the material pores. This often results in increased weight and drag,
and the barrier either sinks or is distorted and/or destroyed due to
drag forces if there is appreciable current.
Impervious barriers can control turbidity around dredging and disposal
areas,. Some state governments have set requirements on the maximum
allowable turbidity increase due to a dredging operation. Barriers may
protect an area by enclosing it, or more commonly, by containing the
turbid water until it has had time to clarify.
Barrier technology is in an early stage of development and decisions with
regard to deployment methodology are largely empirical. The barriers
are designed similarly to oil pollution containment booms with a flexible
plastic skirt held vertical by flotation at the top and weights along the bottom.
A major difference between the oil booms and turbidity barriers is that the
latter must be available in many sizes since they must extend from the water
surface almost to the bottom.
Morneault (38) utilized silt curtains at a dredge site, both around the
hydraulic dredge and in conjunction with mosquito control ditches.
He found that the value of the curtain (extending only 5 feet below the
surface) was not demostrated at the point of dredging operations but
was effective in the mosqiito ditches to redice releases into Tampa Bay.
82
-------
Silt curtains may have very limited use around hydraulic and hopper
dredges, because the intense suction exerted at the point of sediment
disturbance minimizes turbidity created at the dredging site. Mechanical
dredges create a much more significant plume-
Roberts (39) has experimented with barriers and developed a method of
determining a recommended deployment configuration based upon fall-
out patterns of the material to be dredged. Manufacturers of the
barriers claim reductions of turbidity of 30:1 from inside the barrier
to outside. They also claim "efficiencies" of 77 to 85% for reduction of
turbidity. It has been estimated that the barriers can operate in currents
as high as 3 knots, but they must be placed on an angle in the current.
Summary
Covering of polluted sediments with a clean sand is a possible alternative
to dredging but the technology of applying the cover has not been developed.
Permanence of the cover would also have to be established on an location-
by-location basis. Treatment of polluted dredge material appears to bo
feasible in land disposal, areas but not on the dredge. This implies
rehandling if the ultimate disposal is to be in open water. Treatment
costs, for the simplest of treatment systems are the same order of
magnitude as the present cost of dredging,thus treatment would double
or triple the cost of dredging.
83
-------
SECTION VI
REFERENCES
1. Pratt, S. D. , and O'Connor, T. P., "Burial of Dredge Spoil in
Long Island Sound, " Univ. of R.I. Marine Experiment Station for
Normandeau Associates, Manchester, N. H., March 1973.
2. Lee, G. F. , and Plumb, R.H., "Literature Review on Research
Study for the Development of Dredged Material Disposal Criteria, "
Contract Report D-74-1, Office of Dredged Material Research,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi, June 1974.
3. Jerneld'v, A. , "Factors in the Transformation of Mercury to
Methylmercury, " in Environmental Mercury Contamination
(R. Hartung and B. Dinman, eds. ), Ann Arbor Science Publishers,
1972.
4. Jernelov, A., and Lann, H. , "Studies in Sweden on Feasibility of
Some Methods for Restoration of Mercury-Contaminated Bodies of
Water, " Environmental Science and Technology, 1_, 8, 712-718,
August 1973.
5. Fagerstrom, T. , and Jernelov, A., "Formation of Methyl
Mercury from Pure Mercuric Sulphide in Aerobic Organic
Sediment, " Water Research. 5, 1, 121-122, January 1971,
6. , "Some Aspects of the Quantitative Ecology of Mercury, "
Water Research, 6, 10, 1193-1202, October 1972.
7. D'ltri, F.M., Annett, C. S., and Fast, A.W., "Comparison of
Mercury Levels in an Oligotrophic and Eutrophic Lake, " Marine
Technology Society Journal, j>, 6, 10-14, November-December
1971.
8. Spooner, C.M., et al. , "Radioisotopic Determination of Uptake
of Toxic Metals in Organic-Rich Bottom Sediment, " Institute of
Water Research, Michigan State University, August 1974.
9. Armstrong, F.A. J. , and Hamilton, A. L., "Pathways of Mercury
in a Polluted Northwestern Ontario Lake, " in Trace Metals and
Metal-Organic Interactions in Natural Waters (P. C. Singer, ed. ),
Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1973.
10. Nimmo, D.R., et al., "Polychlorinated Biphenyl Adsorbed from
Sediments by Fiddler Crabs and Pink Shrimp, " Nature, 231,
50-52, 1971.
85
-------
11. Stumm, W., Morgan, J. J. , Aquatic Chemistry. New York, Wiley-
Interscience, 1970.
12. Gregor, C. D., "Solubilization of Lead in Lake and Reservoir
Sediments by NTA, " Environmental Science and Technology, 6^,
3, 278-279, March 1972.
13. Lee, L. A., and Davis, H. J., "Removal of Heavy Metal Pollutants
from Natural Waters, " in Trace Metals and Metal-Organic Inter-
actions in Natural Waters (P.C. Singer, ed. ), Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, 1973.
14. Esvelt, L. A. , Kaufman, W. J. , and Selleck, R.E., "Toxicity
Removal from Municipal Wastewaters, " SERL Report No. 71-7,
Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, University of Calif.,
Berkeley, October 1971.
15. Gannon, J. E., and Beeton, A.M., "Procedures for Determining
the Effects of Dredged Sediments on Biota-Benthos Viability and
Sediment Selectivity Tests, " Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, 4_3, 3, 392-398, March 1971, Part 1.
16. , "Studies on the Effects of Dredged Materials from Selected
Great Lakes Harbors on Plankton and Benthos, " University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Center for Great Lakes, Special Report
No. 8, 1969.
17. National Academy of Science, "Water Quality Criteria, 1972,"
EPA Report R2-73-033, 1973.
18. Hartung, R., and Klingler, G. W., "Concentration of DDT by
Sedimented Polluting Oils, " Environmental Science and Technology,
4, 5, 407-410, May 1970.
19. U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, "Waterborne Commerce of the
United States," Calendar Year 1973, Washington, D. C.
20. Johnson, B. H. , "Investigation of Mathematical Models for the
Physical Fate Prediction of Dredged Material and Guidelines for
Future Research, " U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, November 1973.
21. Koh, R.C.Y. , and Chang, Y. C., "Mathematical Model for Barged
Ocean Disposal of Wastes, " EPA Project No. 16070 FBY,
December 1973.
22. Edge, B. L., "Hydrodynamic Analysis of Sludge Dumped in Coastal
Waters, '.' Proceedings of the Thirteenth Coastal Engineering
Conference, ASCE, July 10-14, 1972.
86
-------
23. Clark, B. D., et al. , "The Barged Ocean Disposal of Wastes: A
Review of Current Practice and Methods of Evaluation, " Pacific
Northwest Water Laboratory, EPA, July 1971.
24. Christodoulou, G. C. , et al. , "Mathematical Models of the
Massachusetts Bay, Part III, A Mathematical Model for the
Dispersion of Suspended Sediments in Coastal Waters, " R.M.
Parsons Laboratory, MIT, Report No. 179, January 1974.
25. Gordon, R. B. , "Dispersion of Dredge Spoil Dumped in a Tidal
Stream: Observations at the New Haven Dump Site, " Dept. of
Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, December 1973.
26, Nalwalk, A., personal correspondence, University of Connecticut,
Avery Point, Groton, Connecticut.
27. Saila, S. B., and Pratt, S.D., "Dredge Spoil Disposal in Rhode
Island Sound, " Rhode Island University Marine Technical Report
No. 2, Kingston, 1972.
28. Boyd, M. B., et al. , "Disposal of Dredge Spoil, " Technical Report
H-72-8, U.S. Army Engineer Corps, Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, Nov. 1972.
29. Jernelov, A., "Release of Methylmercury from Sediments with
Deposits of Inorganic Mercury at Different Depths, " pre-publication
correspondence with JBF Scientific Corporation.
30. Landner, L., "Restoration of Mercury Contaminated Lakes ana
Rivers, " Swedish Water and Air Pollution Research Laboratory,
Stockholm, Sweden, August 1970.
31. Feick, G., Johanson, E. , and Yeaple, D. S. , "Control of Mercury
Contamination in Freshwater Sediments, " EPA Report R2-72-077,
October 1972.
32. Bongers, L.H. , and Khattak , M. H. , "Sand and Gravel Overlay for
Control of Mercury in Sediments, " EPA Report on Contract No.
68-01-0089, January 1972.
33. Widman, U., and Epstein, M. , "Polymer Film Overlay System
for Mercury Contaminated Sludge - Phase I, " EPA Report on
Contract No. 68-01-0088, May 1972.
34. Rowe, D. R., Canter, L. W. , and Mason, J. W., "Contamination of
Oysters by Pesticides, " Journal of the Sanitary Engineering
Division, ASCE, jl6, SA5, 1221-1234, October 1970.
35. Tobias, L. , "Feasibility Study of the Sand/Oil Sink Method of Corn-
batting a Major Oil Spill in the Ocean Environment, " U.S. Coast
Guard Project No. 724110.1/1.2, Final Report, December 1 971.
87
-------
36. Johanson, E. E. , and Bowen, S.P. , "Research Study for the
Assessment of Chemical, Physical, and Biological Processes
for the Treatment of Dredged Materials, " U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
(to be published).
37. U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit, Michigan, "Confined
Disposal Facility at Pointe Mouillee for Detroit and Rouge Rivers,
Final Environmental Statement, March 1974.
38. Morneault, A.W., "Bartow Maintenance Dredging and Water
Quality, " Proceedings of the Fifth Dredging Seminar, Texas A&M
University Report TAMU-SG-73-102, June 1973, Austin, Texas.
39. Roberts, W.S. , "Florida's Big Diaper - Its Use and Results, "
Report to the Highway Engineer, State of Florida, Department
of Transportation.
88
-------
APPENDIX A
DETAILED INFORMATION ON PRIORITY LOCATIONS
General
After the initial screening phase of this study, attempts at further
screening were made based upon intensive data gathering on the 23
candidate locations. Information was collected relating to all des-
criptors which were considered. Based on this information, and upon
consideration of how each descriptor related to Section 115, the
selection of which descriptors to use was made. This Appendix
presents relevant information on locations, whether or not such
information was included in the decision processes discussed in the
body of the report.
Means of developing information were:
Visits to locations
Telephone discussions
Letters requesting data and general information
Literature reviews
Written requests for review of the 23 locations
and suggested additions or deletions with
supporting data
Agencies and facilities used included:
EPA Regional Offices
EPA Field Offices
Corps of Engineers Division Offices
Corps of Engineers District Offices
Port Authorities and Harbor Commissions
State Water Pollution Control and
Public Health Agencies
Universities (both personal contact and use of
university libraries)
Oceanographic Research Institutions
Geological Survey Offices
National Marine Fisheries Service
JBF Scientific Corporation Library
89
-------
The same level of effort was attempted for each location's detailed
information-gathering. The level of each investigatiop, however, was
unavoidably governed by the availability of information. For example,
a few contacts in Baltimore and Seattle produced a wealth of informa-
tion and further references, while strong efforts in Pittsburgh and
Michigan City uncovered relatively little information on sediment
data or local water-oriented activities.
The following discussions present the sediment chemistry data and
other information which was obtained. Greatest detail is devoted to
the six Priority 1 locations. The three Priority 2 locations are dis-
cussed in detail regarding sediment data, but briefly in other aspects;
the Priority 3 locations are given the least detailed attention.
The figures accompanying the Priority 1 and 2 location discussions
show the range of data which was available. For Baltimore, a fairly
complete picture of sediment conditions is possible. For locations
such as Michigan City and Indiana Harbor, however, only a sketchy
outline of conditions can be inferred.
Priority 1 Locations
Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, Washington
Background
Seattle, the port city served by the Duwamish Waterway, has strong
ties to its shoreline environment for commercial, industrial, and
recreational purposes. Opportunities for water-based recreation
abound, and salmon and trout runs up the Duwamish make this indus-
trialized waterway the site of a sport fishery. An upstream state
hatchery for chinook and coho salmon, together with natural spawning
grounds for these and other anadromous fishes, make the Duwamish
a vital resource for both commercial and sport fishing interests.
Although Seattle's climate, as measured by mean annual temperature
and time of sunshine, appears to minimize outdoor recreation potential,
90
-------
it has been referred to as the "recreational boating capital of the
world" . Local water bodies include Lake Washington, Elliott Bay
(in Puget Sound), and the Duwamish Waterway, which is maintained
for commercial navigation to 8 kilometers upstream from the mouth
of Elliott Bay.
Like most cities which are industrialized and which depend heavily on
waterborne commerce, Seattle has some problems with water quality.
Among these problems are low dissolved oxygen levels in the
Duwamish, and spills of toxic materials.
Sediment Chemistry
Analyses of sediment samples in the Duwamish Waterway have been
received from six independent sources, and represent eleven separate
sampling expeditions. Some of these sampling cruises were primarily
interested in synthetic organics: Chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides
such as DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). The sediments in
the Seattle area contain very high amounts of these materials, as the
following data (Table A-l) indicate. Figure A-l locates sampling
stations, and Figures A-2 and A-3 present the geographic trends ir>
the data.
The data for PCB represented schematically in Figure A-2, show the
extremely high levels remaining near Slip No. 1 after attempts to
clean up the 265 gallons spilled in September, 1974. Even before that
spill, however, PCB levels in Duwamish sediments were among the
highest in the country.
Concentrations of other pollutants at all locations in the Duwamish
Waterway are low relative to the other locations considered for the
semifinal priority list, except for one small mercury hot spot.
Mercury levels are quite high in the vicinity of Terminal 128, which
is currently under construction. Dredging in connection with the
development of a barge terminal at that site has probably removed
polluted sediments from within the slip area, and further dredging
91
-------
ro
Table A- 1
Selected Sediment Analyses (mg/kg dry weight, unless otherwise noted) for the Duw amis h Waterway
Station No.
Hg
Cd Pb
As
Cu
Zn
Cr
Ni
Oil &
Grease
M-Z
B-4
B-5
1.8
1.0
3.
Reference 2; Sampling
5 89.7 156
Reference 3; Sampling,
340 87
35 27
Nov. 26,
1, 580 70
1971-72:
270 67
73 20
Reference 4; Sampling October, 1973;
P-2
P-4
P-5
1
68
10
0
60
230
50
Reference 5; Sampling June
E-l
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-7
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
60
70
60
50
40
50
70
180
540
240
5, 1973:
180
190
160
170
180
160
230
Pesticides PCB
dry wt; ppb dry wt.
60
25
9.6
2.7
1600
1500
500
1600
3500
2100
1200
1000
1600
4100
527
70. 1
6000
1600
1000
200
1000
1900
3000
1400
1600
1100
1800
-------
Table A-l (cont. )
Oil & Pesticides PCB
Station No. Hg Cd Pb As Cu Zn Cr Ni Grease ppb dry wt. ppb dry wt.
Reference 5: Sampling June 5, 1973 (Cont. )
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-12
E-13
E-14
E-15
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0. 5
0.7
0. 1
1. 5
5
10
5
4
8
3
1
3
170
300
200
150
350
250
110
280
6700
810
250
220
600
460
210
660
3400
6100
3200
19400
16300
7400
300
9200
1800
1600
1800
3600
400
1200
100
4200
Reference 6; Sampling November, 1974(after PCB spill and cleanup)
Slip No. 1
1, 170, 000
Reference 7; Sampling 1972-1973:
W-6
W-ll
W-12
W-13
W-18
W-19
W-20
W-DR8
W-DR9
W-DR10
3. 5
Trace
Trace
Trace
20.4
76.0
10.0
8. 1
220
170
2280
2500
500
330
2440
1297
610
333
-------
W-T9
w-n
EAST WATERWAY
ELLIOTT
BAY
B-4
W-20
W-DR-8
E-n
E-9
94
-------
W-DR-10
DUWAMISH WATERWAY
0
Scale-- L
IKm
I
2Km
I
Figure A-l. Selected Sediment Sampling Stations, Seattle Harbor
-------
1297 ppb
3600 ppb
1800 ppb-
96
-------
Scale-
200 ppb
100-1000 ppb
1000-2000 ppb
2000-6000 ppb
.September 13, 1974 Spill: Sediment concentrations in
part-per-thousand range ( >1,000, 000 ppb)
Blank Area: insufficient or inconsistent data
Figure A-2. Reported PCB concentrations (ppb dry weight)
in Seattle Harbor
97
-------
4.4
98
-------
-Match Line
0
Scale-- i_
11
IKm
i
2Km
i
LEGEND: 0$) Ave. PI < 2
Blank Areas: Insufficient or Inconsistent
Data
Figure A-3. Average Pollution Indices in Seattle Harbor.
99
-------
planned in the waterway will probably remove the most polluted
materials. All disposal of these materials has been and will be in
diked areas. In the waterway at this site, mercury pollution in the
sediments persists to a great depth. A value of 68 mg/kg was
recorded at the sediment surface, and a depth of 5.8 meters into the
4
sediment in the same core, 20 mg/kg mercury was found . Hence,
it is quite likely that portions of this hot spot will remain after the
Terminal 128 project has been completed.
Sources of Pollutants
Several municipal and industrial outfalls, as well as spills and storm-
water runoff from industrial areas, have contributed materials to the
Duwamish sediments. There is also a sanitary landfill/garbage dump
upstream of the navigable waterway with over 800 meters of shore
frontage. There appears to be no single source of pollutants whose
continuance or abatement will affect plans for removing polluted sedi-
ment.
Harbor Dredging and Construction
The upper reaches of the Duwamish Waterway, approximately from
mile 4. 5 to the head of navigation, were scheduled for maintenance
dredging by the Corps of Engineers for January, 1975. Open water
disposal of the sediments which will be dredged has been approved by
EPA. An amount of material approximately equal to that scheduled
for removal will be left in place for the time being, until an appropri-
ate disposal site is found; this material violates EPA criteria for open
water disposal.
The Port of Seattle and the Corps of Engineers are jointly planning a
major project to widen and deepen the Duwamish Waterway. Con-
struction is expected to begin in 1978. Approximately 1.3 billion
cubic meters are expected to be dredged. This project, if completed,
would probably remove all sediments contaminated with PCB, as well
100
-------
as those less severely polluted with other materials. Close coordin-
ation between the EPA, the Port of Seattle, and the Corps of Engineers
can assure proper removal and disposal of these in-place pollutants.
Disposal Alternatives
Early awareness of the ecological risks of dumping polluted sediments
in Puget Sound, together with a local need for fill material, have com-
bined to present several land and shore disposal options for dredged
material. These sites have been enumerated in a report by Green
o
Engineering Associates to the Army Corps of Engineers . Most of
these locations are adjacent to the Waterway, so there appear to be
few physical or economic constraints to environmentally safe disposal
of dredged material. Care must be taken, however, to assure that the
return flows from dewatering sites do not re-introduce pollutants to
the waterway. Site selection from among the options available is also
critical. For example, there is some interest in increased landfill
at Kellogg Island, but this choice may conflict with the value of this
island as a habitat for waterfowl .
Baltimore Harbor, Maryland
Background
Baltimore is one of the most important harbors and industrial centers
in the Northeastern corridor between Boston and Washington. One
factor contributing to its importance as a port is the land transporta-
tion network serving the city. Excellent rail service to the Midwest
brings much cargo to and from the port facilities of Baltimore.
Baltimore Harbor branches off Chesapeake Bay and, since the harbor
is heavily industrialized, much of the water-based recreation in the
area is in the Bay rather than the Harbor. A long history of water
pollution, especially in the Inner Harbor areas, has resulted in
absence of most of the desirable aquatic species normally found in
Q
the Chesapeake Bay area .
101
-------
Sediment Chemistry
Analyses of sediment quality in Baltimore Harbor have been received
from many sources. Most of these sources were not original, how-
ever, and relied on the data compiled in a comprehensive survey by
the Environmental Protection Agency's Annapolis Field Office . This
survey included far more sampling stations than any other data set
examined in this study for any other location in the country. Unfortun-
ately, however, the data collected for Baltimore Harbor do not include
arsenic, cyanide, pesticides, or PCB. Arsenic and cyanide are known
to have been discharged in large quantities by industries bordering the
harbor
Table A-2 presents selected data from the EPA report. Smaller
amounts of data were also received from the Maryland Port Admin-
istration and Maryland Department of Natural Resources. The loca-
tion of each sampling station listed in Table A-2 is shown on Figure
A-4. Many more sampling stations than listed were used in the EPA
survey; the data from all of these was used in preparing Figure A-5,
which shows average pollution indices throughout Baltimore Harbor.
The sampling sites not explicitly listed in Table A-2 are generally the
less polluted locations.
The data presentation shows that in-place pollutants are widespread in
Baltimore Harbor. The worst conditions are generally on the northern
shore of the harbor. The entrances to the Northwest Branch, Colgate
Creek, and Bear Creek are heavily polluted with heavy metals. Old
Road Bay and the inner reaches of the above three tributaries are also
problem areas.
Sources of Pollutants
Most of the shoreline of Baltimore Harbor, excepting some areas of
the south shore and parts of some of the tributaries, is devoted to
industrial and commercial land use. All of the hot spots are adjacent
to heavily industrialized areas.
102
-------
Sediment Chemistry
Analyses of sediment quality in Baltimore Harbor have been received
from many sources. Most of these sources were not original, how-
ever, and relied on the data compiled in a comprehensive survey by
the Environmental Protection Agency's Annapolis Field Office . This
survey included far more sampling stations than any other data set
examined in this study for any other location in the country. Unfortun-
ately, however, the data collected for Baltimore Harbor do not include
arsenic, cyanide, pesticides, or PCB. Arsenic and cyanide are known
to have been discharged in large quantities by industries bordering the
harbor
Table A-2 presents selected data from the EPA report. Smaller
amounts of data were also received from the Maryland Port Admin-
istration and Maryland Department of Natural Resources. The loca-
tion of each sampling station listed in Table A-2 is shown on Figure
A-4. Many more sampling stations than listed were used in the EPA
survey; the data from all of these was used in preparing Figure A-5,
which shows average pollution indices throughout Baltimore Harbor.
The sampling sites not explicitly listed in Table A-2 are generally the
less polluted locations.
The data presentation shows that in-place pollutants are widespread in
Baltimore Harbor. The worst conditions are generally on the northern
shore of the harbor. The entrances to the Northwest Branch, Colgate
Creek, and Bear Creek are heavily polluted with heavy metals. Old
Road Bay and the inner reaches of the above three tributaries are also
problem areas.
Sources of Pollutants
Most of the shoreline of Baltimore Harbor, excepting some areas of
the south shore and parts of some of the tributaries, is devoted to
industrial and commercial land use. All of the hot spots are adjacent
to heavily industrialized areas.
102
-------
LL3
Middle
Branch
Northwest
Branch
2Km
N
Old Road
Bay
Figure A-4. Selected Sediment Sampling Station*, lialtirnoru
Harbor, Maryland
104
-------
Average PI < 2
Average PI = 2 to 10
Average PI = 10 to 20
A Average PI > 20
Blank areas = insufficient data
rY~/v^l ' ..V- ':; %Vj
i , \ ' * *.'. / ,
j - '.,.*-.. ~
r » 1 - !', .*.'.
S *." '..'. ':> '; ;
/ '.«'o. ..« .;,'
/ .'/ . ,- ;*-'..H
^ ' . '. '.'.'.' '.
'
» *
\ t
*.'
-fl
/
/
X
/-
^^
-
^*
////
ft F
s
Figure A-5. Average Pollution Indices in Baltimore Harbor
105
-------
Water sampling at and near industrial outfalls has revealed the sources
of many toxic pollutants . A study conducted for the Maryland En-
vironmental Service found several instances of inadequate safeguards
against spills of hazardous and toxic materials. That study mentioned
known spills of such materials as creosote, paint, dyestuffs, plating
12
solutions, and pickle liquors
Harbor Dredging and Construction
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for maintenance dredging the
main channels of Baltimore Harbor. Lack of an approved disposal
site has prevented dredging since 1971. The normal maintence dredg-
ing requirement is approximately 380, 000 cubic meters per year.
Recent expansion of container berth facilities and channels at the
Dundalk Marine Terminal by the Maryland Port Administration may
have affected the hot spot at the mouth of Colgate Creek. Other pro-
posed harbor work includes deepening of channels to 15. 2 meters
(50 ft), new berths at the South Locust Marine Terminal, and develop-
ment of port facilities at Hawkins Point . Of these projects, only
Locust Point is ab\r a severe hot spot, at the entrance to the North-
west Branch. Construction of the proposed Fort McHenry Crossing
of Interstate Houte 95, a harbor tunnel, would also have an impact on
Q
this area .
Disposal Alternatives
Open water disposal of polluted dredge materials in the past has been
conducted in the Poole's Island Deep, approximately 16 km (10 mi) north-
east of North Point, which is at the entrance to Baltimore Harbor.
The many proposed harbor dredging and construction projects have
resulted in several studies of alternatives to open water disposal.
The most ambitious of these proposals is the Hart and Miller Island
Project, which would involve creation of an artificial island from a
diked spoil disposal area. After filling with 76, 000, 000 cubic meters
(approximately 100, 000, 000 cubic yards) of dredged materials and
106
-------
Q
dewatering, the island would be used for recreational purposes . In
addition, many inland and shoreline disposal sites have been identified
89 11
as reasonable alternatives by agencies proposing to dredge ' '
Detroit River, Detroit, Michigan
Background
All shipping from Lake Erie to Lake Huron and the western Great
Lakes ports passes through the Detroit River. Many heavy industries
line the river, and pollution from these sources and municipal waste-
water treatment plants has minimized the river's value for recreation
and as an amenity. At the southern end of the river, where it dis-
charges to Lake Erie, there are some beaches whose use has also
been lessened by pollution. Public access to waterways in the area
14
is poor, except for those with boats
In Detroit, the Rouge River empties into the Detroit River. Near the
northeastern section of Detroit, the Detroit River begins at the outlet
from Lake St. Clair. Both of these nearby tributaries have been
identified as hot spots, although the data did not place them in the 23
locations selected by initial screening. Because of their proximity to
the Detroit River's areas of concern, these locations should be con-
sidered for further sampling together with the Detroit River.
Sediment Chemistry
As a result of the discovery of high mercury levels in food fish of the
Great Lakes in 1970, an intensive study was conducted by the (then)
15
Federal Water Quality Administration to determine the degree of
mercury pollution in the sediments, water, and biota of selected areas
in the Great Lakes. That study developed much information on the
distribution of mercury, and showed extremely high values in sediments of the
Detroit River, Trenton Channel/Wyandotte area, near the Michigan
shoreline. Table A-3 and Figure A-6 present detailed data on con-
centrations and locations. In addition to these data, it should be
107
-------
Table A- 3
Selected Sediment Analyses (mg/kg dry weight) for the Detroit River
Station No. Hg Cd Ni Pb Cr Cu Zn
Reference 15; Sampling March through May, 1970:
19747 1.4 <30 20 59 30 36 150
19748 2.9 <30 100 160 190 140 600
19755 <1. 0 <30 230 900 540 290 1300
19756 4.4 <30 170 160 170 130 440
19757 6.0 <30 80 110 99 79 430
19758 <1.0 <30 30 54 26 41 110
19759 <1.0 <30 10 22 9 9 35
River Mile 13.4 21
13.2 16
13.1 86
13.0 16
12.9 27
12.8 20
12.6 14
12.4 8
12.0 14
6.7 26
3.9 il
Reference 16; Sampling April and July, 1973:
River Mile 12.2 1.1 13 17 12 13 53
8.9 5.3 89 100 120 76 430
4.4 1.1 11 11 11 11 35
108
-------
MICHIGAN
Conners Cr.-
ONTARIO
WINDSOR
19758(1.0)
19757(5.3)
19755(13.1)
LAKE
ST. GLAIR
19759 (0.3)
TV
Trenton Channel Mile
Pts. 12.0-13.4, Hg up
to 86 mg/kg *
Scale
23 4Km
i,F,GEND: Station No. Ave. PI
L-19759(0.3)'
M.P. 3.4
4.4 (0.2)
19747(1.6)
LAKE ERIE
^-19748(4.0)
Figure A-6. Selected Sediment Sampling Stations With Some Average
Pollution Indices and Mercury Concentrations,
Detroit River
109
-------
pointed out that mercury concentrations of 9. 2 mg/kg have been
detected in the Lake St. Clair shipping channel . In the Rouge River,
sediment samples have been collected with 2700 mg/kg of zinc,
690 mg/kg of lead, 28 mg/kg of cadmium, and 73, 000 mg/kg of oil
j 16
and grease
Sources of Pollutants
Major outfalls to the Detroit and Rouge Rivers include nine municipal
wastewater treatment plants and over forty industrial outfalls. The
industries which have discharged mercury have significantly reduced
their discharges; most are mercury cell operations which produce
caustic soda and chlorine. Other major industrial dischargers {not
necessarily of mercury) include several steel mills, chemical
companies, and brass mills.
A program to reduce stormwater overflows from the Detroit municipal
sewerage system has significantly reduced pollution from this'source.
High flows are allowed to back up and be stored within the system,
later to be routed through treatment facilities.
Harbor Dredging and Construction
Most maintenance dredging in the Detroit River is performed in the
East Outer Channel and Lower Livingstone Channel. These channels
are in the area of the Detroit River entrance to Lake Erie, where
water velocity decreases and sedimentation is to be expected. The
average total annual dredging amounts to about 600, 000 cubic meters
in the Detroit River and 200, 000 cubic meters in the Rouge River.
Disposal Alternatives
A 2.8 million square meter {700 acre) diked area is planned in shallow
water at Pointe Mouillee, on the western shore of Lake Erie near the
mouth of the Detroit River. This area would be expected to contain
the dredgings of ten years' operation in the Detroit and Rouge Rivers,
or 13.76 million cubic meters (18,000, 000 cubic yards) (including
110
-------
14
permit dredging by private contractors)
Another diked area, at Dickinson Island in Lake St. Clair, is planned
for thtt materials dredged from the I^ake St. Clair shipping channe1.
These areas were selected by the Corps of Engineers after study of
several alternatives, including land disposal in Ontario. Use as mine
fill and for fill to create land in other, smaller diked areas has also
g
been mentioned .
San Francisco Harbor, California
Background
The San Francisco Bay has long been the center of commercial
activity, and especially of waterborne commerce, for Northern
California. The City of San Francisco, although a terminal for only
about 10% of the tonnage which passes through the Golden Gate at the
entrance to the Bay, has the largest population in the Bay Area and is
the home of many of the service industries and cultural resources in
the region. San Francisco is bounded by water on three sides, and its
shoreline and waLTfront areas attract both residents and tourists. The
The ocean beach on the west, the recreational boating facilities and
restaurants on the north, and the commercial port facilities on the
east side of the city all have attractions for visitors. Plans are being
made to enhance the port facilities with small public areas for resting
and viewing the activity of the waterfront: docking, loading, and
unloading the ships that call at San Francisco.
The San Francisco District of the Corps of Engineers is conducting &
three-year study of the environmental aspects of dredging and disposal
considered important to its activities in serving navigation. The draft
report of this work should be available in the second half of 1975. The
results of this comprehensive study should provide a wealth of infor-
mation to help guide future decisions regarding the implementation of
Section 115 in the Bay Area. In considering the San Francisco Harbor
as a priority area, future study should include Oakland and Richmond,
111
-------
other Bay Area harbors among the 23 selected by initial screening.
The proximity of these locations presents the opportunity to investi-
gate all three for slightly more effort and cost than is required to
consider only one.
Sediment Chemistry
A great deal of data on sediment chemistry has been collected from
the Port of San Francisco and from the San Francisco District, Corps
of Engineers. The majority of these data indicates that sediments
near the port facilities are relatively free of pollution. Absence of
hot spots is to be expected because the strong currents near the piers
(over 3 knots) tend to resuspend and redistribute sediments. The
analyses which cause San Francisco Harbor to be included in the final
priority list are in the area of Islais Creek, a harbor channel which
cuts into the city and is relatively stagnant. Data are presented in
Table A-4 and Figure A-7. Further sampling is especially important
at Islais Creek. The proximity of sample sites for which analyses
differ markedly indicates either a very small and intense hot spot,
differences caused by sampling before and after dredging, or analytic
error. The existing Jata show that one result for cadmium of 500 mg/
kg in Islais Creek channel qualifies San Francisco for Priority 1
classification.
Sources of Pollutants
Several industries discharge wastewater to Islais Creek. The South-
east Water Pollution Control Plant formerly discharged in this area,
but a deepwater outfall into the Bay has been built. Effluent from
storm sewers has been identified as a problem, and diversion to a
deepwater outfall is planned for this water.
EPA Region IX and the San Francisco District of the Corps of
Engineers have indicated that little is known regarding the sources and
transport mechanisms of pollutants found in sediments in the Bay
Area, and that this knowledge would be very helpful to their water
quality and dredging programs.
112
-------
Table A-4
Selected Sediment Analyses (mg/kg dry weight) in
San Francisco Harbor
Station No.
As
Cd Pb Cu Cr
Oil ik
Zn PCB Grease
Reference 17; Sampling date unknown report dated March 1972:
8 23 93 60 700
1-72
2-72
3-72
4-72
0. 13
0. 6
0. 5
0. 5
6.7
0. 15
0.22
46
700
37
100
200
127
0.09
0.28
0.3 7700
45S
27S
32
SON
Reference 18;
Sampling January, 1974:
2. 5 30 130
5.0 38 145
15 40 160
7. 5 60 443
160
360
300
380
Reference 19; Sampling March, 1972:
Fisherman's
Wharf 0.74
28N 0.9
48N C. 51
50 Approach 1.8*
80 7.8
Islais Creek
Channel 0.51
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
44
46
37
41
41
12.
7.
7.
52
10
9
1
1
64.7
45
103
37
63
85.
98.
95.
129
93.
3
6
4
4
460
350
780
1970
290
500
100 40C
Reference 20; Sampling June, 1971:
1-71
2-71
3-71
4-71
0.9
1.44
0.89
0.73
21
20
26
27
1000
700
113
-------
Fisherman's
Wharf
28 N
SAN
FRANCISCO
BAY
BRIDGE
Scale:
Legend: Station No. Ave. PI
1-2-71(1.7) 1
Islais Greek Channel
(57.3)
4-72(0.8)-
3-72(4.1)-
1-71 (1.2)-
Figure A-7. Selected Sediment Sampling Stations with
Average Pollution Indices, San Francisco.
50 Approach
[PI of all samples
North of Pier 80,
less than 2.0]
r SON (0.8)
4-71 (1.1)
3-71(1.2)
2-71(1.7)
2-72(0.7)
1-72(0.9)
114
-------
Harbor Dredging and Construction
New dredging work is proposed at the entrance of Islais Creek Channel
to make navigation safer, especially for large vessels. This new work
would amount to an estimated 330, 000 cubic meters of material.
Future average annual maintenance dredging in this area is estimated
at 15, 000 cubic meters
Major expansions of port facilities are planned, or underway, in a
21
314-acre area between Piers 80 and 98 ; this program includes the
Islais Creek Channel, which1 is adjacent to Pier 80.
Disposal Alternatives
Much of San Francisco Bay has been filled in the past, reducing its
area from 680 to 400 square miles. Further landfill proposals usually
encounter strong local resistance. Not unexpectedly, then, most
disposal of dredged material from the San Francisco area is in open
water. If the material is classed as "not polluted" by EPA criteria,
disposal is allowed at one of five sites in the Bay. If "polluted with
organic matter, " material is allowed for dumping only at a site near
Alcatraz. If "polluted with heavy metals, " the material is usually
dumped in 100 fathoms of water, approximately 30 miles at sea
Several proposals and feasibility studies have identified potential sites
8 23
for shoreline fill and upland disposal ' . Those closest to Islais
Creek are proposed fill areas for new marine terminals.
Indiana Harbor, East Chicago, Indiana
Background
Indiana Harbor and the Indiana Harbor Canal serve the industrial
complex of northwestern Indiana. The principal cities in the immediate
area are Gary, Hammond, Whiting, and East Chicago, in which
Indiana Harbor is located.
115
-------
Downtown Chicago is 35 km (22 miles) to the northwest of Indiana
Harbor. The shoreline of Lake Michigan between Chicago and the
Indiana border is mostly parkland, with some heavy industry at
Calumet Harbor. The Indiana shoreline from the Illinois border to
the west limit of Marquette Park in Gary, including Indiana Harbor, is
heavily industrialized, with many facilities sited on landfills. Indiana
Harbor has been shaped by two of these industrial landfills which
extend into Lake Michigan. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, on
the western shore, is sited on 750 acres of fill; Inland Steel Company,
on the east, occupies a somewhat larger filled area.
Indiana Harbor and Canal are lined with heavy industries. Petroleum
products and steel are the goods produced by most of the industries.
More than 70% of East Chicago's area is committed to industry.
Sediment Chemistry
Only one data set has been located for the Indiana Harbor Canal. This
information, presented in Table A-5 and Figure A-8, was developed
in 1967.
Table A- 5
Selected Sediment Analyses (mg/kg dry weight) in
Indiana Harbor
Oil &
Station No. Cd Pb Cu Zn Ni Cr CN Grease
Reference 16; Sampling June 14, 1967
1 498 934 144 624 506 121 0.56 128,800
2 1058 175 7790 217 72 0.71 170,200
3 250 27 1258 40 40 0.72 55,400
4 360 49 2560 153 61 N. F. 37,100
5 314 1000 92 1930 321 0.40 114,000
6 227 307 24 1440 242 11 0.34 40,100
7 863 997 100 5560 690 117 0.52 129,700
8 1240 1168 104 4520 1120 173 N. p. 111,300
9 4150 1279 53 2355 3100 135 N. F. 111,500
10 7490 1365 36 1980 6070 68 N. F. 80,200
11 1652 741 4010580 1890 48 N. F. 37,600
N. F. - Not Found
116
-------
Lake George Branch
LAKE MICHIGAN
(76) (32) (2> («)
7 § 3
9 642
10 (342) (20) (2) (7)
(612)
Calumet River Branch
L Indiana Harbor
Canal
SPOIL
DISPOSAL
DIKED
AREA
Figure A-8. Sediment Sampling Stations With
Average Pollution Indices,
Indiana Harbor
0.5Km
LEGEND: 5 Station No.
(32) Average PI
Km
SCALE
-------
The data indicate the extremely high concentrations of heavy metals,
expecially in the Calumet River Branch of the canal. More up-to-date
data are needed, as well as sampling over a wider area.
Sources of Pollutants
Industrial waste discharges and stormwater runoff from the industrial
land in the area have degraded water and sediment quality in Indiana
Harbor. This location is unique in that it is the only one reported to
receive enough solids from industrial sources so that they are a cause
24
of shoaling, requiring dredging . These discharges are reported to
have been reduced significantly in recent years.
Harbor Dredging and Construction
Annual maintenance dredging has averaged approximately 76, 500 cubic
j
meters (100,000 cubic yards). The primary construction activity in
the waterfront area is continued filling for new industrial land.
Disposal Alternatives
Inland Steel Company is developing a 3. 16 million m (780 acre) diked
area, for slag disposal and land development. An agreement between
3
the Corps of Engineers and Inland permits disposal of 764, 500 m
(1, 000, 000 cubic yards) of dredged material. This represents approx-
imately ten years' dredging in Indiana Harbor and the Harbor Canal.
No other disposal method available appears so economically and
environmentally desirable, according to conclusions reached by the
24
Chicago District, Corps of Engineers
Michigan City Harbor, Indiana
Background
East of the Gary-East Chicago area on the Indiana shore of Lake
Michigan, the principal population and industrial centers are at Burns
Harbor and Michigan City. Burns Harbor is approximately 29 km
118
-------
(18 miles) east of Indiana Harbor, and Michigan City is approximately
22 km (14 miles) further east, 7.4 km (4.6 miles) from the Michigan
state line. Between the Burns Harbor industrial complex and the
Michigan border, the Lake Michigan shore consists primarily of d : ss
and beaches. A landfill west of Michigan City and the breakwaters
around the harbor are the only interruptions to the natural shoreline
in this area.
Trail Creek enters Lake Michigan at Michigan City, and the wide
mouth of this stream forms Michigan City Karbor. Salmon runs on
Trail Creek have been reported in recent years.
Very Httle information of use to this study was found for Michigan
City. One reason for this paucity of information is the lack of com-
mercial harbor activity; much of the information from other areas
was developed by studies related to harbor dredging.
Sediment Chemistry
One data set from a sampling effort in 1970 was available, The data,
presented in TaVe A-6 and Figure A-9, show the extreme concentra-
tions of heavy metals, especially in the area of the sharp eastward
bend into Trail Creek. Arsenic and zinc are the elements of most
concern; the arsenic values appear to quaufy Michigan City as perhaps
the most intense hot spot in the nation.
Table A-6
Sediment Analyses (mg/kg dry weight) for
Michigan City Harbor
Reference 16; Sampling 1970:
Station No. Hg As Pb Zn Oil and Grease
70-2
70-3
70-4
70-5
70-7
0.06 350 13
0.02 400 21
0.06 500 11
0.20 2,200 33
1.8 9,660 244
16
20
17
925
10,397
391
172
217
1,354
16,870
119
-------
70-2(39)
70-3(45)
70-4(56)
NO. INDIANA
PUBLIC SERVICE
CO.
SCALE'
0
i
0,25
i
O.SOKm
LEGEND: Station No. Ave. PI
L-70-2 (39)^
Figure A-9. Sediment Sampling Locations with Average
Pollution Indices, Michigan City
1ZO
-------
Sources of Pollutants
The sources of arsenic and zinc are not known. The Michigan City
Sewage; Treatment Plant discharges to Trail Creek approximately
2.4 kilometers upstream of the eastward bend into Trail Creek.
Harbor Dredging and Construction
Little commercial shipping takes place at Michigan City, and little
effort is therefore expended for navigation improvements. The only
commercial cargo recorded by the Corps of Engineers for 1973 was
,. ,25
fish
Disposal Alternatives
Polluted sediments could possibly be barged to the Inland Steel diked
area at Indiana Harbor, approximately 48 km (30 miles) to the west,
if the necessary agreements were made. Another possibility could be
a confined fill area adjacent to Bethlehem Steel Company property at
Burns Harbor, 22 km (14 miles) to the west.
Priority 2
Corpus Christi Inner Harbor, Texas
The South Texas coastal area of which Corpus Christi is the business center
center has developed an important tourist industry based largely on
sport fishing and conventions. The city's shoreline on Corpus Christi
Bay, a short walk from the business district, features public beaches,
a large marina, a convention center, and hotels. Another factor in
Corpus Christi 's economic growth has been the development of its
harbor as a commercial transportation center for South Texas.
The Inner Harbor, a narrow extension of the Ship Channel with very
little fresh water inflow, is the location of many docking and industrial
facilities. Serious pollution appears confined to the Inner Harbor, but
the close proximity of this area to the public shoreline area poses a
threat to the value of that public shore.
121
-------
Sediment analyses in this area have been received from the Texas
Water Quality Board, the Galveston District of the Corps of Engineers,
the U.S. Geological Survey, and Texas A&M University. These data
indicate cadmium values up to 130 mg/kg and zinc values up to 11, 000
mg/kg in the vicinity of kilometer 8 (mile 5) in the Tule Lake Channel.
Table A-7 and Figures A-10 and A-11 give details of the data received.
Pilot tests have been made by the Corps of Engineers of a diked disposal
area near the Inner Harbor, but the effluent from the area damaged
oyster beds. Preliminary studies are beginning an attempt to locate
upland sites for disposal of polluted dredge material.
Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut
Bridgeport is an industrial city 32 km (20 miles) southwest of New
Haven and 80 km (50 miles) northeast of New York City. The inner
harbor area and Pequonnock River are committed to industrial and
commercial facilities. Public beaches and parks are situated on both
sides of the harbor entrance. These face seaward primarily, but
extend into the harbor for a few hundred meters of shoreline as well.
The sediment chemistry data for Bridgeport and Black Rock Harbors,
presented in Table A-8 and Figure A-12, show all harbor branches in
Bridgeport to contain high concentrations ^f heavy metals. Conditions
appear worst in the upper reaches of each branch. Lead, copper,
zinc, and chromium are high in all branches: Pequonnock River,
Yellow Mill Channel, Johnson's Creek, and Black Rock Harbor.
Industrial wastes are discharged from a steel mill, a brass mill, and
several metal plating facilities. There are also several industries in_
Bridgeport which perform metal working and plating operations as
intermediate steps in the production of assemblies such as guns and
aircraft components. The wastewater from some of these sources is
discharged directly to harbor tributaries and from others it passes
i
through municipal treatment facilities.
122
-------
Table A-7
Selected Sediment Analyses (mg/kg dry weight) in
Corpus Christi
Station No.
Cd
. Pb As
Cu Zn
Ci-
OU &
Ni Grease
Reference 26; Sampling January 1972 to July 1973:
Mile 0. 5
1
2
3
3. 5
4
4. 5
5
6
7
8
0
2
2
9
8
5
>35
38
9
3
0
*
*
*
52
9
8
6
4
0
0
5
33
32
45
1.
9.
11.
30.
25.
11.
29.
88.
43.
35.
4.
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
37
123
176
142
204
176
670
534
413
196
42
6.
5.
2.
15.
12.
10.
19.
>25.
>25.
11.
3.
1
0
8
5
0
0
3
0
0
5
2
13
28
27
40
62
27
283
195
149
45
12
252
967
1300
7750
6930
1320
7320
7700
6480
4970
800
44
102
100
101
158
100
69
109
83
65
19
18
18
8
11
8
9
19
17
12
16
12
Reference 27; Sampling September 1972 and January 1973:
km 0
0.5
1.8
2.7
4
4.8
8
9.5
11
13
2*
3
o
10
17
25
130*
26
12
24
235*
500
1000
1100
2500
3800
11, 000*
3800
2500
3300
*A11 data except those marked are not exact, having been read as points
from a graph.
Reference 28; Sampling February 5, 1974:
988+00 (SOON) 2.4
1023+50 (0) 1.6
89
130
73
190
880
1100
123
-------
Table A-7 (Cont. )
Selected Sediment Analyses (mg/kg dry weight) in
Corpus Christ!
Oil &c
Station No. Hg Cd Pb As Cu Zn Cr Ni Grease
Reference 29; Sampling February 21, 1974:
Viola Turning
Basin 0.3 10 1300 40
Avery Turning
Basin 0.7 9.7 1200 20
Navigation Blvd.
Drawbridge 3.6 46 4200 410
124
-------
Viola
Turning
Basin,
to
CORPUS
CHRISTI
BAY
Corpus Christ!
Ship Channel
3Km
SCALE
Figure A-10. Selected Sediment Sampling Stations, Corpus Christi
-------
Corpus Christi Ship Channel
CORPUS
CHRISTI
BAY
3.5
Figure A-11. Average Pollution Indices in Corpus Christi Harbor.
-------
Table A-8
Selected Sediment Analyses (ing/kg dry weight) Bridgeport.
Station No.
Hg _Cd_ Pb
As
Cu
Zn
Reference 30; Samp
KE-9
KE-10
KE-11
KE-12
KE-13
KE-14
KE-15
KE-16
KE-17
PE-18
EE-19
PE-20
PE-21
PE-1
PE-2
PE-3
PE-4
PE-5
GE-6
GE-7
GE-8
0.58
0.79
0.85
0. 26
0.64
4.3
0.82
2. 1
0.85
1.8
1.0
1.3
2.5
11.0
4.4
0.8
1. 1
2.5
0. 13
0. 56
0.01
3.7
4.2
3.8
2.4
6.8
141
9.2
77
11
3.6
9.4
12
43
39
32
10
44
18
4.7
5.9
1.8
119
116
118
45
302
881
265
297
400
90
273
230
505
1636
678
265
769
1000
300
470
65
31
9.6
11
6. 1
20
19
32
20
9
7
7.8
11
39
51
25
12
28
15
5.2
7.8
8.8
326
383
412
1238
581
2287
768
1466
670
398
1192
2049
1860
2115
1915
506
1161
9300
237
1544
145
316
410
117
415
2986
622
741
563
319
1293
1067
1460
1429
943
545
2118
2016
379
611
155
Cr
280
330
353
756
425
3162
494
875
571
268
1020
2134
1772
894
1152
394
871
3528
70
618
31
Ni
96
116
92
71
113
415
165
119
150
134
127
231
266
292
268
93
290
189
63
81
39
1559
Reference 31; Sampling August 27, 1974:
<10 40 50 20 <10
DDT PCS
0.05 0.08
1.16 2.01
0. 17 1. 05
Oil &c
Grease
3520
3030
4590
1160
4620
43300
7180
6060
4290
4060
6320
7680
12900
23400
15800
6110
11700
31200
5970
24100
810
-------
Scale-
0
i
2Km
LEGEND: Station No. ; Ave. PI
L-GE-6(2.9)J
BRIDGEPORT
00
PE-19(7.4)
BLACK ROCK HARBOR
>'
/ PE-18(3.1)
PE-5(37.9)
GE-7(8.3)
GE
KE
KE
GE-6(2.9)
PEQUONNOCK RIVER
'E-1(E4.9)
-YELLOW MILL CHANNEL
JOHNSON'S
CREEK
PE-4(12.6)
1559 (0.65)
West
Breakwater
KE-12(4.9)
Breakwater
"-BRIDGEPORT HARBOR
KE-11(3.2)
LEWIS GUT
Figure A-12. Selected Sediment Sampling Stations with Average Pollution Indices, Bridgeport
-------
The Eaton's Neck dump site in Long Island Sound has been designated
by the Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station as one of
four areas in the nation where intensive studies of open-water dumping
of dredged material should significantly advance knowledge of the effects
of such dumping. This site is approximately 28 km southwest of
Bridgeport Harbor, and the studied dumping of material from mainten-
ance dredging projects or from Section 115 action may yield v??uable
information regarding the fate of pollutants.
New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts
New Bedford's past and present are intimately tied to the sea. It was
a major whaling port, and a whaling museum near the waterfront is a
strong tourist attraction. Summer ferry service to Martha's Vineyard
and Nantucket Islands brings many passengers through New Bedford
Harbor. Commercial fishing fleets operating out of New Bedford are
important to the local economy.
Heavy metals concentrations in New Bedford Harbor sediments have
been found to be quite high in two sampling expeditions (Table A-9 and
Figure A-13). Conner and brass production, and plating facilities are
likely sources of many of the. pollutants found. Some industries dis-
charge directly to the Harbor and its tributaries, while others are
connected to the municipal sewerage system. The outfall from this
system is near station NB3, where high values of metals are in
evidence. The municipal treatment facilities are in the process of
being upgraded.
A small area on the east side of the Harbor, off Fairhaven, has been
proposed for deepening. In searching for a disposal site, no feasible
shore or upland areas were located by the New England Division of
the Corps of Engineers. A study by the New England Aquarium
33
Research Department , aimed at selection of the least harmful open
water disposal site, selected a location 18 km southeast of New
Bedford Harbor.
129
-------
Station No,
Table A-9
Selected Sediment Analyses (rag/kg dry weight), New Bedford
Cd
Pb
As
Cu
Zn
Cr
Ni
Reference 30; Sampling October
KE-1
KE-2
KE-3
KE-4
KE-5
KE-6
KE-7
KE-8
KE-9
KE-11
KE-12
ICE -13
KE-14
KE-15
0.
1.
1.
2.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
96
09
56
25
62
63
08
44
63
30
50
70
85
99
3.4
5.3
12.5
16.9
5.0
1.4
4.3
4.8
18.4
3.0
3.0
3.3
4.7
1. 1
135.
92.
199.
261.
143.
75.
118.
75.
492.
79.
130.
119.
156.
15.
1
7
8
7
5
0
6
9
4
8
4
4
1
8
11.9
13.3
10.8
28. 1
21.4
8.2
1.3
11.0
44.6
23.8
45.0
48.0
50.4
11.7
447.
467.
1036.
1401.
357.
211.
352.
483.
2026.
167.
226.
282.
375.
21.
1972:
5
7
2
1
5
4
7
3
9
5
7
2
8
6
278.6
238.3
461.9
631.3
256.3
185.7
226.5
207. 1
790.2
177.5
190.6
209.5
278.0
18.4
145.2
229.4
536.8
692.8
218.8
46.4
178.0
207. 1
744.3
101.7
120.4
180.2
222.9
5.2
23.6
29.1
43.7
53.9
35.0
17.9
23.7
22. 1
68.7
19.9
25.0
26. 1
30.8
4.7
DDT
PCB
0. 1
124.9
Oil &
Grease
6010
5800
12590
16960
7530
540
4310
3040
16090
1350
3490
4710
6140
90
-------
Table A-9
Selected Sediment Analyses (mg/kg dry weight), New Bedford
DDT
Station No.
Hg
Cd
Reference 32;
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
7E
7M
7W
8E
8M
8W
IE
1M
1W
2
3
5
6
1.
3.
3.
1.
3.
2.
0.
1.
1.
0.
7.
0.
0.
90
1
3
7
8
7
9
7
7
75
7
85
21
76.
53
0.
40
40
24
1.
0.
18
0.
43
0.
0.
0
9
9
7
4
1
9
Pb.
As
Sampling 197
320
310
560
320
290
310
410
11
150
31
51Q
3.4
20
5.2
5.2
5.2
3.2
9.2
14.0
0.8
0. 0
5.2
0. 6
3.2
0.0
0. 6
Cu
1:
1920
1620
2540
2520
1680
7250
1930
36
610
32
760
5
59
Zn
1700
1040
2300
1070
600
1200
95
35
430
410
1170
5.
50
Cr
960
920
1380
1280
1210
3200
110
21
310
18
250
5 5. 1
27
Ni
100
72
180
110
81
550
6.8
3.6
39.0
37
36
'1. 5
4. 5
PCB
Oil &
Grease
-------
tv>
AR7W02.6)
AR7M(11.7)
-AR7E(13.7)
AR8M(11.5)
AR8W(28.4)
KE-9(13.7)
NEW
BEDFORD
KE-3(6.4)
KE-2(3.6)
KE-1(3.5)
ACUSHNET RIVER
N
i k
Scale-- \
. 0 O.5 IKm
LEGEND: Station No. ; Average PI
KE-1(3.5)j
NB5(0.4)
r
Match Line
-------
Match Line
NB1E(8.7)
NB1M(0.9)
KE-6 (1.9)
NB2(0.6)
KE-14(6.0)
BUZZARDS BAY
NB3(11.3)
Figure A-13. Selected Sediment Sampling Stations, with Average Pollution Indices, New Bedford
KE-11(2.8}
-------
Priority 3 Locations
Monongahela River, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Pittsburgh is well known as the headquarters and major production site
of many large steel companies. The traffic on the Monongahela River
is primarily devoted to serving steel mills and coal mines in Penn-
sylvania and West Virginia. Project depth on the river is nine feet
and barges are used for waterborne commerce.
Only one set of data was received for sediments in the Pittsburgh area.
These analyses were of material in the vicinity of River Mile 11 on the
Monongahela and indicated a maximum lead content of 1300 mg/kg.
The Ohio River Division of the Corps of Engineers in Cincinnati pro-
vided these results. Checks with EPA offices in Philadelphia and
Wheeling, West Virginia, with Corps offices in Cincinnati and
Pittsburgh, and with the Pittsburgh office of the Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources revealed no further knowledge of
sediment quality data for the Pittsburgh area. The Corps of Engineers
Pittsburgh District is performing a study of the Beaver River Basin
near Pittsburgh v.-hich will include sediment sampling.
River Mile 11 is immediately downstream of Lock and Dam No. 2, and
approximately 10 miles upstream of dowm^wn Pittsburgh. In the
communities of West Mifflin, Duquesne, Clairton, North Braddock,
McKeesport, and Glassport, the Monongahela River banks are heavily
developed with a number of steel mills and railroad freight yards.
These communities and mills use the river for water supply, waste
disposal, and barge traffic.
Mississippi River, St. Louis, Missouri
During the I960 's, St. Louis' downtown riverfront was revitalized by
the construction of the national memorial to westward expansion
featuring the Gateway Arch. The river also is used for recreation
through party boats, modifications of old river steamers, which dock
134
-------
near the downtown area. This and other recreational uses of the river
are hindered by floating fecal material, oil, and packing house wastes
in the St. Louis area. The downstream fishery has also been curtailed.
Major water-using industries in metropolitan St. Louis include mea<~
packing, dairies, textile and paper mills, chemical and metals pro-
ducers, and breweries
The investigation for St. Louis revealed limited data; one data set was
received, containing high values of one toxic pollutant, and no other
data were found after contacting several agencies in the area. The
data for the Mississippi River in St. Louis "were contained in a Federal
34
Water Quality Administration report . Arsenic was found by that
study lo r?ach a value of 96.4 mg/kg in the river sediments at Mile
166. 0, approximately 13 miles downstream of the Gateway Arch in
downtown St. Louis. Other data in that report for the St. Louis area
away from the arsenic hot spot, showed sediments to be far less
polluted than the other locations selected by initial screening. An
arsenic value of 44. 2 mg/kg was recorded four miles upstream of the
hot spot, and lead values of 435 and 441 mg/kg were found in the Ghain
of Rocks Canal, north of St. Louis near Granite City,Illinois. The
referenced report presented data which indicated that the arsenic
source was probably a single large industrial outfall.
Eastchester Creek (Hutchinson River), New York
Eastchester Creek is a small estuary off the northern side of the East
River in the Bronx. The term, Eastchester Creek, is used by the
Corps of Engineers to denote the navigation project including East-
chester Bay and the Hutchinson River. One data set, resulting from
a pre-dredge survey by the New York District of the Corps of Engineers
shows lead values in the navigation channel of 879 and 921 mg/kg dry
weight. Other high values include copper, 286 mg/kg, and zinc, 652
mg/kg. These high concentrations were all found between Mile 3 and
Mile 535.
135
-------
A great deal of recreational boating occurs in this area, close to Long
Island Sound. A large number of people live within a mile of East-
chester Creek, at Co-op City, a high rise residential area developed
by the State of New York during the past several years. Open spac^
and recreational land is at a premium for the residents of this area,
which is crossed by a number of major highways and rail lines.
Maintenance dredging of approximately 65, 000 cubic meters (85, 000
cubic yards) is performed about once in 8 years . Disposal of
material from an impending maintenance operation is planned in the
New York Bight off Sandy Hook, NJ, at an open water disposal site
which receives dredged material from many operations in the New
York area. Some options to open water disposal of dredged material
are being explored for the New York area. Among these are use as
fill for land at Caven Point, NJ, and creation of a large diked area
in lower New York Bay offshore of Staten Island.
Cleveland Harbor, Cuyahoga River, Ohio
The Cuyahoga River and Cleveland Harbor into which it flows have
experienced the abuses of most urban, industrialized waterways.
Cleveland's industries depend heavily on Lake Erie shipping. One
factor of importance is the ore boat traffic which supplies iron ore to
the large steel mills adjacent to the navigable reaches of the Cuyahoga
River. Much of the outer harbor, which.is made possible by break--
waters, and the Cuyahoga River are committed to port facilities and
other industrial and commercial land uses. Steep bluffs surround the
Cuyahoga River industrial area and have generally restricted industrial
development. Residential and commercial land uses prevail at the
higher elevations. Beaches and recreational boating facilities on Lake
Erie spread to the east and west of Cleveland.
Sediment chemistry data for Cleveland have resulted from analyses
performed by personnel of the Environmental Protection Agency's
Region V ' . The most significant hot spot is at Mile 5. 4 on the
Cuyahoga River, where a cadmium value of 67 mg/kg has been reported.
136
-------
Other high values include, in the same sample, 560 mg/kg lead,
2387 mg/kg zinc, 542 mg/kg chromium, and 35 mg/kg cyanide. Else-
where in the Cxiyahoga River, sediment concentrations were generally-
less than half the levels found at Mile 5.4. The highest levels found in
the outer harbor were 250 mg/kg lead, 1222 mg/kg zinc, 14 mg/kg
cadmium, and 83 mg/kg chromium.
Steel, chemical, and paint producers are the principal industrial dis-
chargers along the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland. Tank farms for
petroleum products are also present. Oil-coated debris of both natural
and human origin has been ignited, causing damaging fires on the river.
The Cleveland Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant discharges to the
Cuyahoga Liver at Mile 6. 5, above the head of navigation. Another,
larger municipal plant discharges directly to Lake Erie through a sub-
merged outfall.
Normal maintenance dredging of Cleveland's navigation channels
amounts to 386,000 cubic meters (500, 000 cubic yards) per year.
Two forces lowered the amount of maintenance dredging during the
period from 197?. to late 1974: high lake levels and lack of an acceptable
disposal site. Construction of a large diked disposal area known as
"Site 12" in the easterly portion of the outer harbor had advanced to the
extent that dredgings could be deposited in ?t, and maintenance dredging
took place in November and December, 1974. This dredging included
the area of the hot spot at Mile 5.4 on the Cuyahoga. The data on this
spot do not include information on deeper sediments, so the condition
of the remaining material can only be learned through further sampling.
The Buffalo District of the Corps of Engineers has long been active in
seeking solutions to the problem of dredged.material disposal. At
Cleveland, it has built, operated, and monitored pilot facilities for
diked disposal. The results have been used in the design of "Site 12",
a 60-acre diked disposal area on the shoreline of the Outer Harbor near
Burke Lakefront Airport. ( This facility is expected to contain the
/ /
dredgings for 2-1/2 to 3 years of maintenance work. Plans call for
137
-------
additional facilities with a. capacity for 7 to 7-1/2 years. As with
other areas on the Great Lakes, the hope for the Cleveland area is that
after ten years, pollution abatement measures will remove sources of
pollutants so that open lake dumping of dredged materials can be
resumed.
Milwaukee Harbor, Wisconsin
The Milwaukee SMSA produces nearly half of the manufactured products
exported from the state of Wisconsin. Much of the area's industrial
growth has been associated with the growth of shipping on the Great
Lakes in general and through Milwaukee Harbor in particular.
Three rive,rs - the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic - converge
in Milwaukee, and their combined flow forms the passage from the outer
harbor to the river channels within the city. To the north of the harbor
area, the Lake Michigan shoreline consists of beaches, parks, scenic
drives and high-value residences. The shoreline to the south of the
harbor is the site of some industries and electric power plants as well
as parkland. Much recreational boating and fishing takes place in the
area, stimulated bv recently increased populations of trout and salmon
in Lake Michigan.
The navigation channels and outer harbor _rea have been sampled
several times in recent years to evaluate environmental aspects of
dredging projects. Data used in this study include results of three
EPA Region V sampling expeditions (two of which were performed by
37 38 39
EPA's forerunner, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration) ' '
40
and one sample set by Northwestern University
Sediment pollution in Milwaukee is widespread, rather than confined
to a limited hot spot. The most serious problem areas appear to be
the Menomonee River (copper, 1380 mg/kg); central outer harbor
(lead, 431 mg/kg); northern outer harbor (cadmium, 77 mg/kg); and
southern outer harbor (lead, 470 mg/kg).
138
-------
The most obvious point source of pollutants is the Jones Island Sewage
Treatment Plant, which is located adjacent to the passage between the
outer harbor and inner channels. Other sources of both direct dis-
charge and polluted overland runoff include foundries, tanneries, ? -J.
a solid waste incinerator
Maintenance dredging, normally 76, 500 cubic meters (100, 000 cubic
yards) per year, has been suspended since 1969 because of the unavail-
ability of an acceptable disposal site. High levels in Lake Michigan
have lessened the impact of not dredging on waterborne commerce, but
some vessels have been forced to call on the harbor with lighter than
normal loads to avoid contact with shoals. A diked disposal area is
under construction in the southern portion of the outer harbor, and is
expected to be ready for use in early 1975.
The diked area being built will have a capacity of 1.6 million cubic
yards and, when filled, will develop 44 acres of new land. The land
will be turned over to the City of Milwaukee by the Corps of Engineers,
Recreational use is planned for the filled area.
The Chicago District of the Corps of Engineers has designed a unique
filtering system for the liquid effluent from the diked area. Sand and
gravel media contained within four filter cells will remove particulate
matter.
New Haven Harbor, Connecticut
New Haven Harbor, although largely committed to utility, industrial,
and transportation facilities in its inner area, has a large amount of
public shoreline which could be of great value if water pollution were
abated. It is also the site of an important shellfish resource; New
Haven and Norwalk Harbors are the two largest oyster production
areas in Long Island Sound. One of the three most important
commercial ports in New England, New Haven serves all of western
New England, especially as an entry point for petroleum.
139
-------
42 43
Of the three data sources identified in this study, two ' do not
qualify the location as a hot spot under initial screening criteria.
31
However, two samples taken by the State of Connecticut were found
to contain 2500 mg/kg of copper. One of these samples was taken ::; ar
the junction of Lighthouse Point Reach and New Haven Reach; the other
was at the Tomlinson Bridge.
The sources of copper, as well assume high zinc values (up to 1009 rng/
kg), are likely to be brass mills and metal plating shops in New Haven.
Two primary wastewater treatment plants discharge to New Haven
Harbor, and design work for upgrading these is in progress.
Prior to a current maintenance dredging project, dredging was not
done since 1968. The New England Division of the Army Corps of
Engineers is sponsoring several university research projects to
monitor the effects of the New Haven dredging work. Dredging is being
done in the winter months to concide with the period of low levels of
biological activity.
Several disposal alternatives have been evaluated by the Corps for
New Haven dredgm^s. Upland sites have been found to be unavailable,
and creation of a 243,000 m" (60-acre) island, 2.4 meters (8 feet)
above mean low water, was deemed Impractical for esthetic, safety,
and economic reasons. With regard to diked areas on the shoreline,
the Final Environmental Statement concludes, "Adequate areas to
contain present and future required maintenance dredgings from New
Haven Harbor just aren't available. " Accordingly, disposal is being
performed in the New Haven Dump Ground in Long Island Sound. This
operation is also being closely monitored by university researchers.
Newark Bay and Passaic River, New Jersey
Newark Bay is a heavily used commercial harbor at the mouths of the
Passaic and Hackensack Rivers. It has direct access to New York
Harbor via the Kill Van Kull, north of Staten Island. Its shoreline
is heavily developed. The port facilities of Newark and Elizabeth
140
-------
are on the west shore, and Bayonne and Jersey City are on the east.
Municipal and industrial wastes have resulted in poor water quality,
and very few desirable aquatic organisms are to be found in this a»»..
Sediment hot spots inferred from Corps of Engineers data are
several;
Channel north of Shooters Island, south end of Newark
Bay: mercury up to 17.8 mg/kg, cadmium up to 41 mg/kg,
copper up to 1085 mg/kg.
Mouth of Passaic River: mercury up to 6.7 mg/kg, lead
up to 481 mg/kg.
Passaic River at Arlington, near mile point 8: lead up to
1UCO mg/kg.
An impending dredging project proposes to remove a total of 382, 000
cubic meters (500,000 cubic yards) of material from channels on the
west side of the bay and from the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers. A
36 44
major purpose of dredging in the rivers is flood control '
Disposal is planned for the New York Bight, an open water area east
of Sandy Point, 7T°w Jersey, where dumping of wastes has been practiced
for decades. Other alternatives for disposal include proposed diked
areas at Caven Point in Jersey City, 3 nd in Lower New York Bay in
the vicinity of Hoffman and Swinburne Islanus.
Providence River and Harbor, Rhode Island
At the head of Narragansett Bay, Providence has lacked the access to
ocean fishing grounds that Massachusetts and Maine ports have enjoyed.
Its growth has centered about commercial shipping and heavy industries.
Narragansett Bay is heavily used for recreational swimming, boating,
and fishing, but these uses are diminished in the Providence River and
Harbor area because of pollution and lack of public access.
Although many studies of water quality and the aquatic biology of Rhode
Island waters are available, only one set of sediment chemistry data
was located . Pollutant concentrations in the samples taken showed
141
-------
highest values off Fuller Rock Light. In this area, copper values of
1358.4 mg/kg, lead values of 835.9 mg/kg, and arsenic values of
63. 5 mg/kg have been recorded. The many metal working and plating
facilities in the area are likely sources of these materials.
A recent dredging project deepened most of the navigation channel to
40 feet from its former depth of 35 feet. Completion of that project
involves rock removal, and that phase of the project has been delayed
by an extensive search for a disposal site. Many shore and open water
sites have been evaluated, and the final disposition of the material is
currently uncertain. Creation of islands, onshore disposal, container
45
disposal, and various means of open water disposal have been evaluated
Because of the prevailing shoreline land uses in the area, it is highly
unlikely that onshore disposal can be performed.
Sampit River, Georgetown, South Carolina
Georgetown is a small, historic and industrial community in the Low
Country of South Carolina. The Sampit, Pee Dee, and Waccamaw
Rivers merge at Georgetown at the head of Winyah Bay. Nearly half
of the cargo handle-' in the harbor during 1973 was pulpwood and logs,
reflecting the local importance of a large paper company facility. The
balance of cargo was comprised almost entirely of petroleum and iron
ore.
One data set was received from the EPA Region IV Office in Atlanta
The local hot spot is the northern bend of the Sampit River, near the
downtown area. Lead concentrations of 900 and 1100 mg/kg were
recorded in this area.
Maintenance dredging is planned for Georgetown in one or two years.
Disposal in the past has been on local marshes, but available areas
are diminishing. An environmental statement on Georgetown is in
preparation, and should be available in the spring of 1975.
142
-------
Neches River, Beaumont, Texas
Part of a network of navigation channels which includes the Sabine
River, the Neches River is important to the commercial and industrial
activity of the Beaumont-Orange-Port Arthur area. Petroleum and
chemical industries are concentrated in Beaumont, especially in an
area on the east side of the city drained by an industrial canal.
At the mouth of this canal, at mile point 14. 7 in the Neches River, a
47
lead concentration of 2, 960 mg/kg has been noted in one ctudy
Elsewhere in the Neches River, Sabine River, and Sabine Lake, sedi-
ments appear free of pollution relative to other areas selected by
initial screening. The industries which discharge to the industrial
canal would appear to be the causes of the hot spot at the canal's
mouth, because of the extreme peak in lead concentration (as well as
in organic parameters) at this location.
Diked disposal facilities for area dredgings in Sabine Lake have been
used successfully for some time.
Richmond HarLcr, California
Strategically located on San Francisco Bay near the San Pablo Strait,
Richmond Harbor handled more cargo tcn^^ge than San Francisco and
Oakland combined during 1973 . Major marine terminals are located
in the Harbor Channel and Inner Harbor area near downtown, and
Terminal No. 4 is at Pt. San Pablo, approximately 5 km along the
shoreline to the northwest of the main harbor facilities. All municipal
terminals and shipyards have rail connections.
In the northwest section of Richmond, between the Richmond-San Rafael
Toll Bridge and Pt. San Pablo, the land rises steeply from the bay to
an elevation of some 150 meters. Surrounding this high ground at the
water's edge are railroad tracks and a road, with some military and
industrial facilities.
143
-------
Richmond Harbor is not considered by the San Francisco District,
Corps of Engineers, to be an area of polluted sediments. All of that
agency's sampling confirms this statement, and most of the Richmond
Public Works Department data show little pollution. However, one
sample taken near Terminal No. 1 on September 12, 1972, was found
to contain 14. 1 mg/kg mercury in part of the core . It is significant
to note that analyses of other strata from the same core showed much
lower mercury contents. The above analysis was for the 6" to 24"
section. The section from the top 6" was reported with 1.94 mg/kg
and the 24" to 42" deep section was reported with 1.63 mg/kg.
The area of this sample and other channel locations in the Inner Harbor
were planned for maintenance dredging in early 1975. Approximately
190, 000 cubic meters (250, 000 cubic yards) of material are dredged
in this area every 12 months. Disposal in the past has been in an open
49
water site near Alcatraz
Oakland Harbor, California
On the eastern shore of central San Francisco Bay, Oakland is a trans-
portation center lo~ a large area. The many industries in Oakland and
Alameda, and the productive farmland of the Central Valley, rely on
Oakland's port facilities.
Tourism and recreational boating are also important in Oakland, More
than half of the moorings and berths for recreational boats in Alameda
County are in Oakland's Inner Harbor. These berths are concentrated
near Jack London Square and Brooklyn Basin, and scattered along the
Alameda waterfront.
Unpublished data received from the San Francisco District of the Corps
of Engineers do not qualify Oakland Harbor as a hot spot. Some data
from the Inner Harbor, received from Region IX of EPA" , however,
indicate maximum concentrations of lead, 1800 mg/kg; cadmium,
33 nag/kg; and oil and grease, 33, 000 mg/kg.
144
-------
The sources of pollutants are not known, but Oakland and Alameda
industries include heavy- equipment manufacturers, metal fabricators,
primary metal producers, and chemical and paper plants.
Oakland Outer Harbor undergoes maintenance dredging on a 12-month
cycle. The average quantity of material is 230, 000 cubic meters
1,300,000 cubic yards). Portions of the Inner Harbor have been
deepened recently from 30 to 35 feet. The Inner Harbor has also been
maintenance dredged annually, and the annual volume with the 35-foot
depth is expected to be in the 380, 000 cubic meter (500, 000 _-u!ji.~ yard)
range.
Disposal of material deemed polluted with heavy metals is normally
done in the Pacific Ocean, at depths greater than 100 fathoms. Other
materials from Oakland arc normally dumped at the Alcatrav. water
disposal site.
Los Angeles Harbor, California
The large metropolitan complex centered in Los Angeles is favored by
many miles of attractive shoreline. The harbor area of Los Angeles,
near the San Pedro and Wilmington districts, supports intense com-
mercial and recreational use. Recreational activities such as sailing,
sport fishing, and swimming, are most ct~. centrated in the Ca.br ill o
Beach area near the San Pedro Breakwater. The outer harbor area
also supports anchovy spawning and nursery grounds.
The most severe hot spot revealed by the data is the East Turning
Basin, with a mercury concentration of 10.4 ing/kg and a copper value
of 1800 mg/kg. Near this area, at Berth 184, a nickel concentration
of 570 mg/kg has been recorded . All data for Los Angeles were
received from the Port of Los Angeles.
In the area of these samples, industrial wastewaters from food pro-
cessing industries and wastewater carried in by the Dominguess Channel
enter the harbor.
14-5
-------
The Los Angeles Harbor Department has proposed a $60 million super-
tanker and LNG facilities program. Landfills for these facilities would
be created with dredged material from channel deepening projects, and
treatment of dredged material would be performed. Several configur-
ations for the diked landfills will be evaluated with a physical hydraulic
model of the harbor at U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
52
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi
San Diego Harbor, California
San Diego Bay is protected from the Pacific by Point Loma, North
Island, and the Silver Strand, a narrow beach area. Very little fresh
water enters the Bay, but tidal flushing and recent pollution abatement
have produced Bay waters of rather high quality. The Bay is an
important spawning area for ocean fish.
The San Diego Bay is the home base for more than 18% of the Navy's
active fleet. Ocean-going tuna boats are also based in San Diego.
Sport fishing and other recreational activities are supported by good
public arcess to the harbor and by a warm climate with very little
rain.
Many investigations of sediment quality in San Diego Bay have been
made in recent years. These are well summarized in an environmental
53
impact statement on harbor dredging . The primary hot spot revealed
by the six data sets presented in the referenced statement is near the
28th Street Pier, where shipbuilding facilities are located. An arsenic
concentration of 135 mg/kg and a mercury concentration of 8. 5 mg/kg
were noted in this area. Although this material is likely to have been
dredged since samples were taken, nearby sediments may still be
polluted.
One potential source of these toxic heavy metals identified in the
referenced EIS is sand blasting of ships and general deterioration
of paint on hulls. Mercury and arsenic are used in some marine
paints. During the past decade, most industrial wastewater discharges
to the Bay have ceased. Municipal wastewater is diverted from the Ray
by an ocean outfall.
146
-------
Maintenance dredging at San Diego is very infrequent, but a channel
deepening project is underway involving 6. 5 million cubic meters
(8. 5 million cubic yards) of material. Much of this material is to be
used in diked landfill areas to create a boat basin, marinas, and'l:..:i
for restaurants and shops.
147
-------
References: Appendix A
1. McGreevey, Randall, "Seattle Shoreline Environment, " City of
Seattle, Department of Community Development, Washington
Sea Grant Program, 1974.
2. Unpublished data, personal communication, Seattle METRO
Water Quality Department, R. Dalseg, December 12, 1974.
3. Schink, T. D. Westley, R.E. , and Woelke, C. E. , "Pacific
Oyster Embryo Bioassays of Bottom Sediments from Washington
Waters, " State of Washington Department of Fisheries, May 1974.
4. Port of Seattle, "Port of Seattle, Terminal 128 Development, "
Final Environmental Impact Statement, September 1973.
5. Unpublished data, personal communication, Environmental
Protection Agency Region X, Seattle, R. Lee, December 20, 1974.
6. "Region X On-Scene Coordinator Report, Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Spill (PCB), Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, Washington, " Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Region X, Seattle, Washington.
7. Pavlou, S. P. , etal., "R/V Onar Cruises 434, 450, 469, 502.
SYOPS (Synthetic Organics in Puget Sount) Cruise Series 1, 2,
3, 4. Hydrographic, Chemical and Biological Measurements, "
Special Report No. 54, Department of Oceanography, University
of Washinpton, Seattle, December 1973.'
8. Reikenis, R., Eiias, V., and Drabkowski, E. F. , "Regional
Landfill and Construction Material Needs in terms of Dredged
Material Characteristics and A va lability, " Vol. 1, Main Text,
Contract Report D-74-2, U.S. Army ^ngineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, May 1974.
9. Federal Highway Administration, "Interstate Route 95 in Baltimore
City, Maryland from Interchange with Proposed 1-395 in the
Vicinity of Hanover Street to Interchange with Proposed 1-83, "
Draft Environmental Statement, October 1974.
10. Villa, O., and Johnson, P.G., "Distribution of Metals in Baltimore
Harbor Sediments, " Annapolis Field Office Technical Report 59,
Environmental Protection Agency, January 1974.
11. U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore, "Operation and Main-
tenance of Baltimore Harbor and Associated Channels, Maryland
and Virginia, " Final Environmental Statement, October 1974.
12. Goodier, J. L., Schiff, D., and Stevens, J. I., "The Prevention
of Spills of Oils and Chemicals into Baltimore Harbor and Environs, "
Maryland Environmental Service Report C-72919, May 1971.
148
-------
13. "Northern Pacific and North America, " 1974 Dredging Forecast,
World Dredging and Marine Construction, 10, 1, 20-24, January
1974.
14. U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit, "Confined Disposal Facility
at Pointe Mouillee for Detroit and Rouge Rivers, " Final Environ-
mental Statement, March 1974.
L5. Federal Water Quality Administration, "Investigation of Mercury
in the St. Clair River - Lake Erie Systems, " May 1970.
16. Unpublished data, personal communication, Environmental
Protection Agency Region V, Chicago, D. Kraus.
17. Unpublished data, personal communication, "Soil Profile and Test
Results of Materials to be Dredged, Pier 94, " Drawing No. 8307-
94-4, Port of San Francisco, J. Read, March 22, 1972.
18. Unj^ .iblished data, personal communication, "Proposed Maintenance
Dredging for 1974, " Drawing No. 8572-101-6, Port of San Fran-
cisco, J. Read, April 16, 1974.
19. Unpublished data, personal communication, "Sample Locations for
Proposed Maintenance Dredging Program, " Port of San Francisco,
J. Read, February 18, 1972.
20. Unpublished data, personal communication, U.S. Army Engineer
District, San Francisco, January 7, 1975, J. Sustar.
21. "North Arne^'c-', Pacific Ocean, " 1975 Dredging Forecast, World
Dredging and Marine Construction, _1J_, 1, 26-33, January 1975.
22. U.S. Army Engineer District, ;sai ^rancisco, "Plan of Study,
Dredge Disposal Study for San Francisco Bay and Estuary, "
September 1973.
23. U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco, "Land Disposal of
Dredged Material and Economic Comparison of Alternative Dis-
posal Systems, " Dredge Disposal Study, San Francisco Bay and
Estuary, Appendix J, October 1974.
24. U.S. Army Engineer District, Chicago, "Indiana Harbor, Indiana
Maintenance Dredging and Disposal, " Draft Environmental State-
ment, July 1973.
25. U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, "Waterborne Commerce of the
United States, " Calendar Year 1973, Washington, D.C.
26. Slowey, J. F., et al., "Natural Background Levels of Heavy
Metals in Texas Estuarine Sediments, " Texas Water Quality
Board, Contract No. IAC (72-73)-910, August 31, 1973.
149
-------
27. Holmes, C.W., Slade, E.A., and McLerran, C. J. , "Migration
and Redistribution of Zinc and Cadmium in Marine Estuarine
System, " Environmental Science and Technology, 8_, 3, 255-259,
March 1974. ~
28. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Southwestern Division Laboratory,
"Results of Test of Water and Bottom Sediment, Corpus Christi
Ship Channel - Galveston District, " SWDED-FL Report No. 11902-1,
Dallas, Texas, 1974.
29. Unpublished data, personal communication, Texas Water Quality
Board, Austin, L. B. Wyatt, July 31, 1974.
30. Unpublished data, personal communication, New England Division,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waltham, Mass., C. Hard.
31. Unpublished data, personal communication, State of Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, F. S. Banach,
September 12, 1974.
32. Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, "Acushnet River -
New Bedford Harbor, Water Quality Study, 1971, 1972, "Publica-
tion No. 6046, 1972.
33. Gilbert, T., Clay, A., and Barker, A., "Site Selection and Study
of Ecological Effects of Disposal of Dredged Materials in Buzzards
Bay, Massachusetts, " New England Division, Corps of Engineers,
1973.
34. Federal Watt:* Quality Administration, "Report on the Effect of the
St. Louis Metropolitan Area on Water Quality in the Mississippi
River, " National Field Investigation Center, Cincinnati, Ohio,
September 14, 1970.
35. Unpublished data, personal communication, New York District,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, L. Pinata, December 1974.
36. New York District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Public Notice
No. 7840, .October 2, 1974.
37. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, "Report on the
Condition of Bottom Sediments at Milwaukee Harbor in the Area
Scheduled for Deepening to 27 Feet, " Great Lakes Region, Chicago
Program Office, January 1970.
38, , "FinaJ Report on the Degree of
Pollution of Bottom Sediments in Milwaukee Harbor, " Great
Lakes Region, Chicago Program Office, May 1968.
39. Gagler, J. J., "Survey of Bottom Sediment Samples, Milwaukee
Harbor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, " U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Illinois District Office, January 7, 1974.
150
-------
40. Krizek, R. J. , Karadi, G. M., and Hummel, P. L. , "Engineering
Characteristics of Polluted Dredgings, " Technical Report No. 1,
Grants 15070-GCK and R-800948, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, March 1973.
41. U.S. Army Engineer District, Chicago, "Maintenance Dredging at
Milwaukee Harbor, Wisconsin, " Draft Environmental Statement,
July 1973.
42. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, "Main-
tenance Dredging, New Haven Harbor, Ct. , " Final Environmental
Statement, June 1973.
43. Applequist, M. D. , Katz, A., and Turekian, K. K. , "Distribution
of Mercury in the Sediments of New Haven {Conn. ) Harbor, "
Environmental Science and Technology, _6, 13, 1123-1124,
December 1972.
44. U.S. Army Engineer District, New York, "Maintenance of the
Newark Bay, Hackensack and Passaic Rivers Navigation Project, "
Final Environmental Statement, February 9, 1973.
45. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, "Providence
River and Harbor Rock Removal, Rhode Island, " Draft,Supplement
to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, October 1974.
46. Unpublished data, personal communication, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IV Office, Atlanta, J. L. Holdaway,
December 9, 1974.
47. Hann, R.W. Jr., and Slowey, J. F. , "Water Quality Studied on
Texas Gulf Coast, " World Dredging and Marine Construction, ^,
13, 30-34, December 1972.
48. Unpublished data, personal communication, Richmond, Calif.
Public Works Department, K. M. Hunter, July 23, 1974.
49. San Francisco District, Corps of Engineers, Public Notice
74-0-148, July 1, 1974.
50. Unpublished data, personal communication, EPA Region IX,
San Francisco, A. Martini, December 16, 1974.
51 Unpublished data, personal communication, Port of Los Angeles,
L. L. Whiteneck, August 19, 1974.
52. Polgar, A. , "Major Dredging Projects Proposed for Los Angeles,
World Dredging and Marine Construction, 10, 14, 61-63,
December 1974.
53. U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, "San Diego Harbor,
San Diego County, California, " Draft Environmental Statement,
March 1974.
151
------- |