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

-------